Do you dispute that cereal grains are a necessary fodder for universal meat consumption(not just the affluent who can hold pasture land), that is for everyone in a given group urban/and farmers to eat meat?
Actually humans are more aptly biologically classified as frugivores. That was the classification I was looking for. That’s how we most appear to be are set up. The diversity of fruit matter in africa where is is commonly agreed we came from seems to support this. It would be the logical staple food.
In modern times the term granivore would fit best, however it doesn’t seem to have been applied or well considered. Grains are the staple for most of the worlds population, followed by tubers. It would be the staple food of modern civilized man. Which is well documented.
Both these terms imply primarily a plant based diet, but do indicate specific parts of plants.
A natural omnivore is designed to catch and kill its prey, and eat it’s raw flesh, usually starting by ripping out and devouring the stomach and soft organs, and eating both the flesh and blood, with it’s naturally designed tools. This is inconsistent with human design.
Okay, so even if you do convince us that we’re naturally herbivores with the occasional meat exception, what does that mean for modern man?
Nothing in our diet today is “natural”. We can’t even eat your beloved plants and fruits straight out of the wild. Look at what happens in a famine: people try to make do with what they can find and get horribly sick as a result.
Everything that goes in our stomachs, plant or animal, is a result of generations of Genetic Modification (albeit on a slower scale than what modern technology is capable of) and, in more developed parts of the world, processed and fortified with nutrients.
Furthermore, we’ve evolved a taste for those things that aren’t good for us. Some of us could stand to learn better self control and do more exercise. So what? Some of us would rather keel over of a heart attack in a face full of Bacon Salt-Sprinkled Ham Wrapped in Bacon. Some of us manage to live to our seventies or eighties on a pack-a-week habit. Some of us live perfect lives, only to get struck by a drunk driver in our prime.
As for me, I love my meat. I won’t try to convince you that the greatest thing in the world is to chow down on a beautifully cooked steak (even though I totally think it is). My ancestors may be frowning upon me in the Great Hereafter, but I’m not living for them.
The only One’s opinion that I care about has said, point blank, that all foods are clean, and that’s good enough for me.
For modern man, it matters not very much at all. I think at least once a post page, I’ve said this is an academic question. Who care’s what we eats now! Changing what anyone eats is not the point of this POST. Nor the original question. Modern man eats an omnivores diet, DUH, indisputable, you’d have to be retarded to say other wise. Moderns cows also eat an omnivore diet. So what?
The point centers around our optimized diet. Taxonomically we’re frugivores. Bottom line. A diet that centers mostly around plants specifically fruits. Modernly we’ve moved towards grainavorism, and carnivorism, with ILL effect, why because we are NOT biologically designed for it. So what, you can eat it with out to much bad effect, unless you overindulge, but we are not designed/have no mechanism to handle an all meat diet for a long period of time, meaning that evolutionarily that NEVER HAPPENED for long enough for it to MATTER.
The whole question is classification based.
Are you really claiming that Australian Aborigines, whose ancestors never employed agriculture, don’t produce just as much amylase as all other human beings?
This statement is total nonsense. Amylase is no more prevalent amongst agriculturalists than HGs.
Of course I dispute it. It’s patent nonsense.
-
Show me even a single town in New Guinea where meat consumption hasn’t been universal for the past 1, 000 years. Just a single town. And there were no cereal grains in New Guinea 1, 00 years ago.
-
Show me one town in Europe where meat consumption wasn’t universal for the past 2, 000 years and where the cattle and rabbits were fed on cereal grains.
-
Show me a single pre-Columbian town in the Americas where meat consumption wasn’t universal, despite the fact that they had no domestic herbivores at all.
Did you even think about this before you wrote it?
Can you name just 5 of these diverse fruits that are available upon the African savannahs, where we came from. I bet you can’t.
Because contrary to your claims of highfruit diversity, the savannahs of Africa where we came from have a dearth of edible fruit. Lots of grains and tubers, but almost no fruits at all.
Can you show us the definition of omnivore that you are using that encompasses this description? Because you seem to be saying that racoons, rats and pigs, for example, aren’t omnivores. That is rather silly isn’t it?
Nonsense.
Taxonomically we are chimpanzees, and all the chimpanzees are actively predatory omnivores.
At a higher taxonomic level we are apes, and the only great ape that isn’t omnivorous is the gorilla, and it is a folivore, not a frugivore.
Your assertion here is completely wrong in every sense.
Nonsense, humans have always been carnivores. 75% of HG diets comes from animal material.
The oldest stone tool known is a 40, 000 year old quorn. So we ave been eating grains for at least 40 millennia. Hardly “modern” is it?
Well as noted, we are classified as chimpanzees and chimpanzees are predatory carnivores. So if it;s classification based then we are predatory omnivores.
uhh…
Natural Food - Fruit and human evolution. (they are not making these fruits up)
"Of course I dispute it. It’s patent nonsense.
-
Show me even a single town in New Guinea where meat consumption hasn’t been universal for the past 1, 000 years. Just a single town. And there were no cereal grains in New Guinea 1, 00 years ago.
-
Show me one town in Europe where meat consumption wasn’t universal for the past 2, 000 years and where the cattle and rabbits were fed on cereal grains.
-
Show me a single pre-Columbian town in the Americas where meat consumption wasn’t universal, despite the fact that they had no domestic herbivores at all.
Did you even think about this before you wrote it?"
Well the thing is, while I cannot show this information, neither can you. If you want to make these kind of odd statements, cite it, show me conclusive information. Lets check the 1000 year census book the kept on what everyone in those areas ate. Because those are handy.
I have no response to this.
What is your point with all this? New Guinea? Do you have the New Guinea info on hand?
“Taxonomically we are chimpanzees”
…case closed…
What is this post a response to? What point do you feel you are making here?
Just not in the way you think.
"Can you name just 5 of these diverse fruits that are available upon the African savannahs, where we came from. I bet you can’t. "
Blake asked me to name something.
No, I presume not. This seems to be an endurant topic. Semantic barriers being what they are.
But if you like we can end the discussion with “human beings are chimpanzees”, for our purposes. There is no need to discern a difference.
A lake is also river, as they both involve water in some way which would be to knit picky to make relevant.
What is your point? That reference says that some agricultural people have more copies of the gene than other agricultural people. So what?
Can you answer my question or not?
WTF? That article says that people ate indigestible fruits out of desperation. That seems rather contrary to your claim that we are set up to to be frugivores doesn’t it?
Well yeah, I can. If you are prepared to admit that you are ignorant of these facts, upon which your case hinges, I will provide them for you. Finding evidence of diet in PNG or Europe is hardly going to be difficult.
Yes. If you admit that you are ignorant of the fact that meat consumption was universal in Europe and PNG I will provide evidence that it is the case. Then we can discount this whole silly argument of yours.
Yes, exactly. Chimpanzees are predatory omnivores, we are chimpanzees, so based on classification we are predatory omnivores.
Yes, I asked you to name these abundant fruit that we are naturally designed to digest.
And you provide an article that says:
“Driven by hunger, our ancestors ate whatever fruit as at hand. Some were acid, or high in tannins. or even mildly toxic until very ripe…There would have been times of year when fruit was either not available at all, or scarce. Vegetative plant parts probably maintained our supply.”
So rather than being designed to eat these fruit, they are actually indigestible and toxic.
And rather than being abundant as you claimed, they are often not available at all.
You do realise that you are demolishing your own argument here? Right?
Translation: I am unable to provide evidence for the outrageous claims that I make.
Dude, you were the one that said that we could ascertain human “natural” diet based on classification. You were informed that 16 out of 17 of our closest relatives are omnivores and the other is not frugivorous. Now you want to pretend that it’s important to discern difference between us and our relatives and not base anything on classification.
Oh and you didn’t answer my question. Are pigs, rats and raccoons natural omnivores, or not?
BLAKE
HERE BETTER SOURCE
Diet & brain evolution: another item on the menu - Scitizen
Second you asked for the names of the eatable fruits. Your right tubers played a more major role.
And I think you just read the first part of the article and leapt to a conclusion. Driven by hunger, yes, that does let us know when to eat…it’s a natural cue to tell us to eat food.
You don’t understand the natural role of fruit, it seems like. Toxic fruit would not “work” for the plants purposes. If you read the rest of the article you would know that. Or if you understood why plants make it.
As for the rest.
You’re suggesting it hinges on those, not me, happy to see them, regarding europe. Least you could do, since you are asking me to back track sources. Particularly, if you can pre and post bubonic plague.
Just for fun.
I shall now await the links proving universal meat eating in europe.
Sorry to butt in here - are you (as appears to be the case) really claiming that there are no fruits which are toxic?