Although Unconvinced369 provides an interesting perspective on the inclusion of intelligence as rationale for the history of human diets that have tended to include animal protein, this argument hinges on the fact that it is an opportunistic survival behavior, adapted in the context of need to fulfill food shortage gaps. Intelligence may have very well led to this, but it fails to dismiss the reality of whether or not human diets are DESIGNED to include animal protein. Whether or not we are able to consume animal protein as part of our diet is obviously not the point of this article, human beings obviously continue to do so regardless. It simply points out by comparative analysis that our digestive system etc. has been adapted to a plant based diet more than one based on meat. The inclusion of the term herbivorous does not necessarily preclude any consumption of meat (chimps, gorillas primarily plant based). It does however demarcate meat as a less efficient food source in terms of compatibility with our evolution, and as mentioned by many previous commentators, is a significant contributor to the number one killer in America, Heart Disease

Based on this comparison, one sees that a plant based diet is more aligned with the realities of our anatomical evolution, regardless if humans have learned to incorporate meat into their diet. In this meat is more of a quick fix solution than one that is meant to become our primary nutritional input.

@tmgibs34 What do you mean by traditional societies? Societies untouched by the agricultural revolution? (virtually none) Hunter gatherers? (not salient to your argument of industrialized situations) The agricultural revolution was a convergent human social evolution, which allowed for the production of foodstuffs that allowed animal husbandry to flourish. This was by no means a physical evolutionary adaptation to include meat in the diet. Hunter-gather societies depended chiefly on a fruit, nut, root and herb diet, interspersed with meat (when available). All human consumption of meat today is by choice, habit or convenience in industrialized countries. All meat consumption in non-industrialized countries is a mix of theses along with specialized necessity based on the ecosystem in which they choose to live. We have no authority to argue what should or should not be eaten based on traditional societies, because traditional societies have still been shaped in the context of human social advancements in the last 10,000 years. Oh and biology 101 shows that "essential" nutrients that meat has are a result of the bio-accumulation effect from the animal's diet which includes the oh so tiresome argument brought out by meat-eaters about Omega-3 in meat, especially fish (Omega fatty acids in fish are a bio-accumulated source based on uptake of plankton, phytoplankton and algae either directly by directly or by those lower R-selected species in the food chain). All of the nutrients that come from meat come from plants, but become concentrated in herbivorous animals, which is why simpler food webs show that most carnivores do not make prey of other carnivores ( this is only in complex food webs)

Although Unconvinced369 provides an interesting perspective on the inclusion of intelligence as rationale for the history of human diets that have tended to include animal protein, this argument hinges on the fact that it is an opportunistic survival behavior, adapted in the context of need to fulfill food shortage gaps. Intelligence may have very well led to this, but it fails to dismiss the reality of whether or not human diets are DESIGNED to include animal protein. Whether or not we are able to consume animal protein as part of our diet is obviously not the point of this article, human beings obviously continue to do so regardless. It simply points out by comparative analysis that our digestive system etc. has been adapted to a plant based diet more than one based on meat. The inclusion of the term herbivorous does not necessarily preclude any consumption of meat (chimps, gorillas primarily plant based). It does however demarcate meat as a less efficient food source in terms of compatibility with our evolution, and as mentioned by many previous commentators, is a significant contributor to the number one killer in America, Heart Disease

Based on this comparison, one sees that a plant based diet is more aligned with the realities of our anatomical evolution, regardless if humans have learned to incorporate meat into their diet. In this meat is more of a quick fix solution than one that is meant to become our primary nutritional input.

@tmgibs34 What do you mean by traditional societies? Societies untouched by the agricultural revolution? (virtually none) Hunter gatherers? (not salient to your argument of industrialized situations) The agricultural revolution was a convergent human social evolution, which allowed for the production of foodstuffs that allowed animal husbandry to flourish. This was by no means a physical evolutionary adaptation to include meat in the diet. Hunter-gather societies depended chiefly on a fruit, nut, root and herb diet, interspersed with meat (when available). All human consumption of meat today is by choice, habit or convenience in industrialized countries. All meat consumption in non-industrialized countries is a mix of theses along with specialized necessity based on the ecosystem in which they choose to live. We have no authority to argue what should or should not be eaten based on traditional societies, because traditional societies have still been shaped in the context of human social advancements in the last 10,000 years. Oh and biology 101 shows that "essential" nutrients that meat has are a result of the bio-accumulation effect from the animal's diet which includes the oh so tiresome argument brought out by meat-eaters about Omega-3 in meat, especially fish (Omega fatty acids in fish are a bio-accumulated source based on uptake of plankton, phytoplankton and algae either directly by directly or by those lower R-selected species in the food chain). All of the nutrients that come from meat come from plants, but become concentrated in herbivorous animals, which is why simpler food webs show that most carnivores do not make prey of other carnivores (this is only in complex food webs)

Bonobos have been observed hunting and eating meat (and also other bonobos) in the wild. It is not known how frequently they do this, simply because they have not been studied enough. Marmosets eat a variety of food from both plant and animal sources, and howler monkeys, while they mainly specialise in leaves, have been observed eating eggs. Geladas (which have been included twice in the list) despite being mainly grazers will eat insects if they are available.

While people like to try to classify things tidily into categories, there are not that many species who have evolved to specialise in only animal or plant sources of food, and rather more who fall somewhere between these two extremes. The argument in the original post uses data that doesn't really mean anything in order to impart an appearance of scientific credulity. I've seen the same argument on dog food advertising to claim that dogs and wolves are carnivores (which technically they aren't as they are observed to eat plant material in the wild). The lines dividing them are not that clear.

Hello,
I think your article is excellent and feel it proves via one method of analysis that humans are not carnivores. However, I do not feel it proves we are meant to consume a vegan diet. In other words, it still does not prove we are meant for no animal food at all, just that we are not necessarily meant to consume animal foods in the way carnivores do, and also that much of our animal-related nutrient should come from the types of animals that do no require the anatomical features of say a lion to consume them. My point is this- one would be hard-pressed to find a logical, clinically oriented physician recommending a vegan diet, who does not also recommend a B-12 supplement. Even T. Colin Campbell takes B-12. Why? We need it and can't get it from a vegan diet. Some vegans argue that we would get it all if our food wasn't sterile and still ate the bugs that came along with food when procured in nature. What is a bug? An animal. Does eating a bug require massive temporalis muscles, etc? No. The second part of my argument is that even though we are not designed to eat meat the way a carnivore does, it does not prove we are designed to NOT eat meat, just to NOT eat meat that way. In essence, we are designed to eat bugs and....cooked meat. Humans are adapted to eating cooked food. We do not share exact anatomical features of an omnivore, a carnivore or an herbivore in the wild, we are completely unique. Why? Because we are the ONLY animals on the planet adapted to eating cooked foods. Our need to consume B-12 proves our need to consume foods that contain it, ie animal foods. Our lack of exact correlation to omnivores, carnivores and herbivores proves we are not exactly like any of them. Our closeness in design to omnivores and herbivores proves we are designed for that type of food, but not ONLY that type of food.