My misunderstanding is that nature slowly weeds out dysfunctional traits over time in favor of functional ones. Over a long enough time frame even small things start to matter, a great example would be maybe an ant eaters long tongue, the ant eater can get enough ants to live, but given enough time the ant eater genome that can eat just a tiny bit more because of it’s longer tongue will be selected for.
That’s my flawed understanding of it.
I applied the same logic to human beings, in trying to understand the resulting health effects of meat, and ice mans apparent diet. (The diet which by the way I never disputed might be linked to salt, or modern preparation, or a great many other things.)
I was asked to explain how I arrived at my conclusion. By someone, NOT go through the WHOLE SONG AND DANCE AGAIN.
They hoped to understand how I arrived at my conclusion. It started with Ice man. Really I’m blown away he did not eat crap loads of meat, I did not at all expect that. REPEAT, DID NOT EXPECT THAT.
The issue of whether human beings are (1) omnivores or (2) herbivores who eat a lot of meat is not a paradigmatic issue. It’s merely an observational issue.
Have you given up on sentences? Would you care to complete these thoughts?
Whom are you quoting here? Yourself? In any case, this sentence is complete nonsense. No humans are carnivores and no humans are herbivores. All humans are omnivores. Depending on their environment, they might choose sources of food in different proportions, but it doesn’t change their classification.
Wrong.
It confounds nothing.
Do you read your links? The title of that article is “The Most Human Diet: Just About Anything.” And it includes this assertion:
You have failed to propose any other kind of logic/reasoning.
SDMB: Offers you the commonly understood definitions of granite and obsidian, how those definitions are based on objective standards, and how the rock meets the definitions of obsidian and not of granite.
JZ: Offers a bunch of references that support the argument that it is obsidian. “See, there’s some confusion here.”
SDMB: What are you talking about? You just proved yourself wrong.
JZ: But there’s a problem here because I think people should be making countertops with this rock, and if we call it granite instead of obsidian, then that will strengthen my argument, because people like to make countertops out of granite.
SDMD: That’s not a scientific argument.
JZ: See? There’s a lot of confusion surrounding this issue.
But I still don’t really understand your tenacity with the argument. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen someone lose an argument over such an extended period, and still consider himself the winner.
I don’t. But if someone want’s a particular tangent of my reasoning clarified, I’ll at least give it a shot.
But if you want a better window into how I reason, look up E-prime, as a subset of the english language. You might find some of it interesting. Some people find it valuable, some are highly critical. It deals highly with the “is” statement in the english language.
If you are not familiar with it, I think you may again find it interesting, or at least get a kick out of it.
You haven’t proven there ARE any health effects from eating meat. Of all the cites you posted, I accepted only one- the one on kidney stones. Then, Broomstick posted a cite on how certain kinds of plant matter cause kidney stones.
Well you see I was likening in my metaphor the word “rock” to our term “omnivore”.
Obsidian, would be a theoretical subset of that term, to help identify different types of rocks.
There does appear to be that confusion, yes. Your point doesn’t quite yet grasp what I’m saying.
"I applied the same logic to human beings, in trying to understand the resulting health effects of meat, and ice mans apparent diet. (The(health effects in modern) diet which by the way I never disputed might be linked to salt, or modern preparation, or a great many other things.) "
Several posts back.
Though I would say that the health effects of red meat seem to fall into common knowledge, to the point where the question the OP is based on actually points out that red meat is not good, and bases arguments on that. I’ll let that be my source.
Perhaps, will you point out to me what my point is so I have a better understanding of what I should be arguing.
Or more aptly, you seem to want some sort of admission. A blank “I’m wrong check”. I would need to know exactly what I’m wrong about to write it.
You all seem to be saying human beings are omnivores, I seem to be saying human beings are omnivores.
Beyond that there have been a whole list of independent tangential arguments. Mostly about how I arrived at conclusions, then everyone says "oh no you did not arrive at that conclusion that way." As if that somehow changes the past.
I failed to catch this earlier. In a word, no. Chewing does nothing to help humans digest cellulose, i.e. fiber. Humans are physically incapable of digesting it. Herbivores (i.e. ruminants) are able to digest cellulose, specifically because of the way their guts are built. The adaptation they have that lets them digest cellulose is bacteria in their guts that breaks the cellulose down. Humans can eat cellulose, they can chew it to smithereens, and they can by doing so get access to materials inside the cellulose casings (e.g. corn germ inside the corn nugget), but humans cannot digest the cellulose - it passes through the gut forming that stuff called “fiber” that doctors tell you is good for your colon.
Techically, humans without tools have not existed, because tool use predates our being human (homo sapiens). But that’s a quibble, we have ancestors that did not use tools - somewhere before the split from chimpanzees, it seems. Bottom line, you are correct, we cannot separate humans from tool use because tool use came before humans. Humans are by nature tool users.
Your analogy is faulty. A more correct analogy is that you are dissatisfied with the fact that the Great Lakes are very large bodies of water compared to a lot of other bodies of water that are called lakes. You think they are different enough that they shouldn’t be classified as the same thing, so instead of calling them lakes, you think we should call them little oceans. That will solve all the confusion.
Says the guy who doesn’t even read his own sources, and posts cites that say exactly the opposite of what he is arguing.
You are abusing the definitions of the words to create a use that makes you comfortable. You can factually say “Chimps eat primarily a vegetative diet” or you can list average percentages, but you cannot say they are “primarily herbivores” because they either are or are not herbivores.
You keep saying this without clearly defining any of the terms. How does one measure the “natural diet” of a human being? You keep trying to throw out cooking and tool use as if that is somehow not natural, but fail to accept that without tool use, we wouldn’t be humans. So either you are trying to look at some human predecessor that almost bore a resemblance to humans, if you squint, or else you are trying to imagine some alternate version of humanity that has the body style, brain, digestive tract, etc of humans but for some reason doesn’t use tools. Yeah, that’s natural. :rolleyes:
And what is an herbivore diet? Clearly you really mean something more like “primarily a plant-based diet”, because you seem not to know what “herbivore” means.
You might have a valid point that “omnivore” is a very broad generalization between animals that eat only plant matter and digest cellulose, and animals that exclusively capture prey or carrion, and that it leaves a lot of fuzziness in there. Fine. But it is not helpful to decide to make the other two categories fuzzier so that the one in the middle covers less ground. Calling humans “primarily herbivores” is deciding the existing system is fuzzy, so you’re going to ignore one of the categories and move two a two pole system, where things are either mostly herbivores or mostly carnivores, and nothing in between. How exactly does that clear things up?
If one believes the current system is inadequate, one is invited to suggest a new labeling system, and provide rationale and justification for how the system works, and why it works better. But providing a new system is more than just dropping one of the categories and abusing the existing system descriptions.
It’s not that it might or might not be inappropriate for the thread. The problem is that you do not seem to understand the existing terms or at least are unwilling to use them correctly, you are providing evidence to support your position that refutes it, you obstinately refuse to change your mind about anything or admit gross errors and then somehow seem to think you are winning the debate.
You want us to try debating a position that the evidence doesn’t support and we don’t accept, and you wonder that we wouldn’t do any better? Of course not, it’s a faulty position.
Technology is a heavy factor is us being human. Without out it, we don’t exist, so it’s unfair to omit technology for humans just like it is unfair to omit dam building from beavers or claws for a bear.
That may be how you see it, but it is an inaccurate metaphor. A more accurate metaphor is that someone picks up a rock and you say, “oh, you found a plant”. They go, “No, I found a rock.” And then you try to argue, “It may appear to be a rock, but I think it’s really more like a plant.”
No, he grasps what you are saying, he just disagrees with your metaphor and is providing one of his own.
Well, now you’re saying that, but you’ve spent the better part of this thread trying to say that humans aren’t really omnivores.
There is so much here sorry if I get this out of order.
You make some good points, and by and large do understand my point about the classification system. It’s unlikely that even if I do come up with a great one though, biologists, or dietary evolutionists will rush to adopt it. I lack the credentials to do so.
How about: “techno-omnivoria”
Your right again, I did at times use herbivore in the place of high inclination towards vegetation, where I should not have.
I would like to point out I said you cannot separate humans from their culture(technology) from post one.
You yourself say they are called the “Great lakes”, why do you suppose someone made the distinction of calling them “great”.
I cited ice man as my source. He lived on a primarily plant based diet based on evidence did he not?
Kindly, rather then select bits and pieces from all over these pages and pages, which may be taken out of context, instead why not look at the OP, and see what is actually there.
Do you actually believe that is me saying that human beings are not physically omnivorous, or have not been.
You may find this odd, but because others are arguing at me as though my argument is “humans are not omnivores”, that doesn’t make it my point. Nore was it ever the point of the post.
If anything my point was a conclusion on something I said would be "impossible" to actually know.
The only final thing I'll say is I still find it shocking that the Ice Man would be found to eat a mostly vegetation diet, doesn't that seem odd to you too?
You made some great points. Good post, thanks.
In what way is that a useful classification system? What does it tell us? You seem to be focusing on the tool part rather than the diet part. Like I said, for a different classification system to be useful, you must explain what is tells us, what makes it better, and how the pieces fit together. Just saying “humans deserve their own category” is pointless.
What is your point? I’m not arguing that the Great Lakes are in a lot of ways different than smaller lakes. I did not argue that they might deserve a term of their own. What I pointed out is that it is not helpful to exchange one broad categorical term for a different one, especially one that is incorrect. Calling them “Great Lakes” emphasizes that they are largely the same as other fresh water accummulations, but differ in scale to the point of standing out. Calling them “little oceans” would incorrectly classify them with salt water bodies, and suffer from other geographical differences. One is accurate if broad, the other is inaccurate.
Looking at the OP, what I see is you trying to make the claim that somehow humans would naturally eat a vegetarian diet except something intervened and forced us to eat meat, so now we don’t know any better and eat meat instead of our presumed “natural” diet. Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that humans would be better and happier if we returned to this “natural” vegetarian diet. It was in refutation of this position that all the claims about humans being “omnivore” vs “herbivore” or “frugivore” or whatever arose.
Not at all. Until modern times meat was much harder to get most places than it is now; everyone ate less meat not because they didn’t like meat but because they couldn’t get it. The Iceman couldn’t just stroll down to the supermarket and buy meat.
Actually that intervention would be tool use and tradition but that does NOT present facts one way or the other. But yes that would be my theory, or opinion on the matter. If you have the data which I said would be pretty much impossible to obtain, because it depends on a “magical situation” you may show me this “fact” that can shift my “opinion”. But since that data would be impossible to obtain, we are left ONLY with speculation. And you my friend are free to speculate any way you like.
I don’t see anything about “better” or “happier” there.
As for your notations on classifications, It’s really not an exact science. It is done different ways for different reasons to clarify information. Why do you seem to think I should be personally responsible for creating a new system? I find human beings to be exceptional animals in many areas, if you feel diet is not one, again that is your opinion, which you are welcome too. You seem to reject the frugivore, and garinivore classifications as well. Which you are again welcome to do.
Calling iceman omnivoric, fails to communicate as much information about his diet then “primarily plant based”. As a communication tool, in my mind is less effective in conveying what he ate.
You seem to be very interested in the concept, perhaps you would like to come up with a more apt classification system. Classification is in the end is just a tool for communication. It is not something chiseled into stone tablets, that must be adhered to.
You’re right again, calling them little oceans would not account for the salt content would it. So its probably would not be wise to call them little oceans.
Since you are so interested in lakes here is an article on all the different ways they can be classified.
You did specifically argue it would be healthier - so really you’re just quibbling over word choice here.
I have no argument that at some point our ancestors ate a more plant-based diet than most humans do now. There is some scientific interest in studying why they changed diets, because it relates to theories about our brain development and cognitive abilities. But what stands out to me in your posts are comments that indicate you place some sort of value judgement on that dietary change. You seem to think that it was a bad thing that our ancestors changed diets. You seem to be arguing that because some earlier stage of ancestor ate mostly plants (with maybe a bit of scavenging or bug hunting or whatnot) that that dictates what the modern human diet should be. But that’s no different than arguing that because at one time our ancestors fish that we should only eat what fish eat - which is typically other fish.
You are mistaken - I do not think you are required to create a new system, I am merely pointing out that it is you who take issue with the existing system, and are butchering the use of terms to make your case. If you feel so strongly that the current system is not adequate, then it is up to you to make that case, or be assured that people will continue to use the existing system that you feel is inadequate. But nobody is going to accept you abusing the words as they exist because you don’t like them the way they are.
I have no argument with saying “primarily plant based” - that is what the evidence shows according to your cite. Any meaning that can be discerned from the diet of one individual is still debatable, certainly.