Admittedly I’m not an expert on b-12. It seems the body needs a very very long time to drain it’s supply 30 years? 1/3 to 1/2 the human lifespan?
This is a very interesting and solid issue though. I’m going to need to check up on how other creatures that don’t obtain this through meat produce or obtain this. As the only way to obtain it in our modern industrial culture seems to be animal based foods. Which is a very solid piece of evidence for your case.
The other-side of the coin is human beings do not produce vitamin C many other animals do. This is indicative of the primarily herbivore diet our sources are agreeing on.
This deficiency happens much in a much faster span then 30 years.
I don’t know where you are getting the ‘fact’ that it takes 30 years for B-12 deficiency to become a problem (ETA, a cite about B12 deficiency), but wherever you are getting it you are quite wrong. As for where other animals get B-12 (that aren’t meat eaters), I found this:
Thats interesting, I found a bit about soil having it, some natural water sources having it(untreated).
Also the rather gross implications about, leavings, it seems we do produce it in a manner, though getting it, let’s just say there isn’t evidence for that kind of behavior.
There is some evidence of it growing on tubers, and roots, but it’s shaky at best. Some, only plant eaters seem fine with out it, some don’t.
I don’t think there is enough study on it to be sure 100%. But for lack of a good study I’ll cede the point.
You seem caught up with an either/or of herbivore/carnivore and are ignoring the intermediate state of omnivore. That need not mean a 50/50 split between meat and plant food, only that a creature is either capable of eating both sorts of food, or needs to have some from each category, but not necessarily a lot from both categories.
Yes, mostly plants - but not exclusively plant foods.
The serious consequences of lacking sufficient B12 - which until the last few decades (not centuries, just decades) was obtainable ONLY through foods of animal origin - should be enough evidence to convince rational people that, although people may not require a LOT of animal-source food, we do need SOME. The fact that a truly vegan diet results in a B12 deficiency that, if uncorrected, can led to IRREVERSIBLE disability, insanity, or even death should demonstrate that a vegan diet is NOT natural!
Of course, the amount of B12 required is minute, and since it does come from just about any animal food, consuming dairy products can make otherwise complete vegetarians immune, as can significant contamination of food by insects or rodent feces or both. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather eat meat than ratshit to stay healthy.
Thus far no one has really addressed the solid evidence shown in the lucy find, or the ice man find, in any satisfactory manner.
There is also the taxonomy claim, which has been addressed somewhat by technological rather then biological adaptation.
I feel attacking the soft evidence has done well to bruise my argument, but doesn’t fully disparage the claim, due to the more solid anthropological evidence.
I don’t know why you think that ‘there is enough study on it to be sure 100%’…100% sure of what?? But if you are willing to move on then so am I. The bottom line is that there is just no way you can twist or turn to deny that humans have been eating meat since before we WERE humans…it’s integral to our development, and we evolved to eat the stuff. There is archeological evidence that our species eats meat going back hundreds of thousands and even millions of years (cut marks on bones and other debris).
So, it’s a silly argument to attempt to make, and one that Vegans the world over always feel compelled to make even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My question would be WHY you are making this argument in the face of that evidence? I mean, ok…today, Vegans can actually manage fairly easily to produce everything they need to survive on a strict vegetarian diet. But it takes a modern society removed from the struggle for survival our ancestors had to undergo in order to make it possible. Why can’t Vegans be content that for them it works, that it’s (relatively) healthy, and leave it at that? It’s almost like a religious urge to convert the heathen, this constant assertion that our species wasn’t meat eaters in some imaginary distant past (though, if you go back far enough I’m sure it would be the case…sadly, ‘far enough’ constitutes literally millions of years).
Again, I’m trying to keep this in the intellectual framework. It’s not about what anyone actually eats or should eat. People do fine with (some)meat, there is no dispute to that what-so ever. The questions are centered around, scientific classification, and biology.
Dairy easily solves the problem, as do eggs, which a tree climber like lucy would easily have access too. Iceman would get his b-12 from the small amount of meat he obviously ate. Or failing that having no social taboos as we today, could have easily eaten his own…as a gorilla.
As the author on a previous cite pointed out, the though cow obviously takes insects as it eats it grass, we don’t move it’s mark to omnivore.
It would seem all mammalians are somewhat functional as omnivores.
So I’m seeing a larger classification problem. Cow 1/99 Chimp 5/95 Human 5-30/95-70 bear 50/50(i did not look up bears) wolf 97/3.(assuming they eat what’s in their preys gut+berries)
The current three definition system does not do well reflect the diversity.
Or more simply, a chimp is primarily a herbivore, lucy was primarily a herbivore, ice man was primarily a herbivore. A cow is basically a herbivore, a wolf is basically a carnivore. Omnivore while generally accurate, does not cover these very important distinctions.
Not the point, discussion was on biological set up vs learned habit. I’m trying to extrapolate and argument based on PRIMARY diet. Not something a given creature does every now and then, or by opportunism(every creature in nature is opportunistic), im focusing on what they are SET UP TO DO. Key being Primary. A three prong classification system is now getting in the way.
It is a series of distinction that simply shows a continuum, not a fixed difference. Chimps are omnivores that eat mainly plant matter. Same with Lucy (it’s capitalized btw, since it’s proper name). Ice man was certainly an omnivore, since he was a modern human. A cow is not an omnivore at all…it’s a herbivore, due to it’s digestive system and teeth, as well as other adaptions. A wolf is an omnivore that primarily eats meat. One of the big cats (like a lion or tiger) IS a carnivore, since it’s adapted to eat almost exclusively meat.
I don’t understand why this seemingly simple point seems to elude you, but you are attempting to make distinctions that simply aren’t there.
I am measuring a board with my ruler, my ruler is in wholes and halves. The board is neither whole or half. My ruler is faulty so I add another notch. I don’t throw the ruler away, or try to declare the board is half or whole when it is not.
I simply add the notch on my measuring stick so the distinction becomes clear, and can be properly communicated to others applying the same measurement.
The problem with agreeing with an extremist internet nutcase is that in the end you’re agreeing with an extremist internet nutcase. It can’t enhance your credibility, because you’re tainted with everything else said.
Define biological niche. Even your quote states that humans ate meat to survive.
Chimps are not humans. They split from the branch that would eventually lead to humans 6 million years ago. However, if you really want to bring up chimps, then consider this: chimps are known to use tools. And what do chimps use the tools for? To catch insects. Animal protein. Tool users use tools to make animal protein, the best, most concentrated form of protein, more available. Interesting. Humans have been tool users for their entire two million plus years of existence. Tool using = meat eating. Humans, genus Homo, have always eaten meat as a regular part of their diet. Meat-eating is as much a part of being human as using fire.
I assume you mean the link you gave in post #48. National Geographic. The one that starts this way:
This is purely embarrassing. How badly can one person misread an article if they keep referring to it as the “Lucy” article? And here is an even more embarrassing point: Neither Ardi nor Lucy are humans. Humans are genus Homo, a genus that did not appear for nearly a million years after Lucy. You cannot make a claim about modern humans by referencing, even correctly, a genus that is a million years removed from us.
You posted a link while I was writing this, though you hadn’t done so before. All that article states is that his diet was primarily vegetarian. But the contents of his intestines show that his last meal was very different.
Your arguments keep varying. You can’t argue simultaneously that humans are herbivores and omnivores or herbivores who eat meat or omnivores who don’t need meat or whatever your stance might be with your next post. Omnivore has a definition, one that we keep providing and you keep sidestepping.
There are only two schools of thought if you say there a correct school of thought and an incorrect one. That’s obviously not true, either. There are enormous numbers of incorrect schools of thought, and you have given a number of them yourself in your various arguments.
Only if you don’t understand the definitions in the first place. Carnivores and herbivores are extremely distinct types in almost every way. Far more than the arrangement and composition of their digestive tract is at issue. Their entire placement in ecological, biological, and social niches are at extremes because of their diet.
Omnivores are more than just a little of this and a little of that. Their entire conduct as genera occupies different ground. They are fundamentally different from the ground up. As I said earlier, this is an absolutely basic fact that you need to be aware of before you can make any other statements, or else you will unavoidably get everything else wrong.
Cows eat bugs, are they omnivores or herbivores. I’m sure grazing “herbivore” animals have adapted to this concept over the millions of years they have been around. Maybe they even depend on small amounts of insect matter.(No cite just speculation)
Yes the article states the the iceman’s diet is primarily vegetarian. Well he froze to death, I would imagine that area would be a bit short on vegetation? This “primarily vegetarian” would need some sort of apparently unusual food source.
You need to be aware of this before you make statements or you will get everything else wrong?
The natural diet of a human being is primarily a herbivore diet.
I think its more accurate then just saying omnivore. The article the OP is on is 20 years old, and not up to speed with modern thinking on the issue. Applying the three prong classification system is generally correct, but as I’m trying to demonstrate, misleading.
That’s pretty much it. (The resulting debate is also kinda fun, and it’s interesting to see what people come up with)
Exapno, here is your lucy article, you’re correct I did inadvertently post the wrong one. But as you seemed to suggest what our proto-ancestors ate is of little relevance. I tend to disagree though, I think what was it a million years of evolution, might define characteristics, or one thing leads to the next.