From: Kcal (ip-192-30.sn1.eutelia.it)
Subject: Are humans carnivorous ?
Date: October 21, 2004 at 6:10 pm PST
Can anyone help me disprove the statements of this guy who think science proved humans are carnivorous and not omnivorous
I'd love Cornelius opinion too
__________________
>>>> We have a digestive
>>>> system that is similar to that of most carnivores. Studies of
>>>> hunter-gatherer societies (who lead lifestyles similar to that of
>>>> prehistoric humans) show that they consume a largely meat-based >>>>>diet.
>>>> Fossil evidence, and the wave of extinctions that accompanied
>>>> mankind's spread around the world, show that early humans were
>>>> prolific hunters. We evolved on a largely meat-based diet, and that >>>>>is
>>>> what our bodies are adapted to eat.
>
>>
>>You're completely wrong
>>You surely need to read something by Jared Diamond about wat fossils
>>evidences really show
>>Humans were very very poor hunters
No matter what lies the animal rights propagandists put out, you can't
get around the fact that our digestive tract is adapted for meat
eating, not plant eating. If you don't believe me, try living on a
diet of grass, twigs and leaves for a while. We are completely unable
to digest cellulose, which means that we cannot digest most common
plant materials. The fruits and vegetables which fill our supermarkets
are the product of thousands of years of selective breeding which has
made them easy to digest. They didn't exist when humans first evolved.
Our ability to formulate strategies, to communicate ideas to each
other, to work together in large groups, and to fashion tools and
weapons, means that humans are and have always been very successful
hunters. With the exception of Africa, on every continent colonised by
humans, most or all large, easily hunted animal species have gone
extinct shortly afterwards. This pattern has been repeated again and
again, from wooly mammoths in Siberia to moas in New Zealand. The
African game animals co-evolved with humans, giving them time to adapt
to our presence, which is why so many large animal species have
survived there.
>>Hearly humans were mostly plant eaters as it has been estimated that
>>their very high calcium consumption (300mg daily) could be obtained >>only
>>through massive dark leaves consumption
This is nonsense.
>>They were also mostly nuts eaters, plus cold climated fruits
Edible nuts were rare or nonexistent in most of the places colonised
by early humans, and even where they are abundant, they are highly
seasonal. You need to remember that the fruits and nuts we have today
are farmed produce, the wild plants they were originally bred from are
usually much less appetising.
>>It has been estimated that hearly humans consumed 20% to 25% of their
>>diet as animal foods, and this is lot less than what we eat today >>since
>>nowhere we eat today 80% plant foods in our standard diet
Again, this is nonsense. Studies of a wide range of hunter-gather
societies (who live a lifestyle closest to that of early humans) show
that they typically get around 2/3 of their dietary calories from
animal food sources and 1/3 from plants.
The myth that hunter-gatherers eat a largely vegetarian diet
apparently originated from Richard Lee's 1968 book "Man the Hunter".
Lee claimed that hunter-gatherers got around 35 percent of their
calories from hunted animal foods. Subsequent researchers took this to
mean that they consumed 35 percent animal foods and 65 percent plant
foods. This ratio ended up being cited again and again by more
researchers (each taking it from someone else's earlier paper and
assuming it to be true) until it became widely accepted as fact.
However, it turns out that Lee had classified foods such as fish,
carrion and insects as "gathered" foods, lumping them together with
plant-sourced foods such as tubers and nuts. In other words, his
statistics were worthless for determining the ratio of plant and
animal food sources in the typical hunter-gatherer diet, and should
never have been used for that purpose. Most hunter-gathers get the
bulk of their calories from meat, not from vegetables.
>>Humans evolved through fish and plants basically
>>Plants gave them the material for bones buldings and fish gave them >>the
>>fatty acids they need for their nervous system
>>Meat had not role at all and our digestive system is no way similar to
>>that of carnivorous animals but omnivorous ones
True omnivores (such as the rat) can digest cellulose, which means
that they can live a much wider variety of foodstuffs than us. Rats
like the same sorts of foods that we do, but when push comes to shove
they can eat just about anything, including wood and paper. Because
their digestive system is much better than ours at extracting
nutriment from unpromising food, they can even thrive on human sewage.
Our digestive system is adapted for a largely carnivorous diet, we are
not omnivores.
