Human dietary evolution

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by bhawk, Nov 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Since people keep asserting that humans are frugivores without knowing what they are talking about i believe i would like to post this link, it is an indepth look into the situation and if anyone still believes its wrong please say so and explain?

    p.s it may take some time but read it ALL, otherwise your opinions will be duly ignored by myself :biggrin:
  2. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Given the importance of seafood to our proper brain development (which is basically what defines us as a species) I have no idea where claims of vegetarianism or fruitarianism show up *shrug*
  3. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Funny, I was thinking about starting a thread on this topic. Good timing =P

    Clearly, humans were never meant to eat a lot of meat - fruits, vegetables, and grains should be the bulk of of our consumption.

    However, there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that consuming some meat - particularly seafood and poultry - is nutritionally beneficial, not to mention that it was vital to our development as a species.

    In any case, most of the arguments in favor of vegetarianism and the like tend to deal with the ethical, environmental, and economic ramifications of meat consumption; with respect to red meat especially, it tends to be about health concerns. I for one support such diets if they're predicated on this reasoning, but not on the notion that eating any meat is unnatural.

    (I know there are religious arguments as well, but these tend to be related to ethics as well).
  4. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Usual nonsense.

    Difficult to take seriously when the author compiles a list of adaptations to plant foods, such as our molars being mistaken for the those of pigs, or our sharing certain proteins in our saliva (with other primates) that are said to offer protection against coarse plant materials as 'evidence' of an 'adaptation to omnivory'.

    It seems strange that our 'canines', or 'fangs', as they are often laughably refered to by meat-addicts, despite self-apparently being quite short and blunt, are never 'mistaken' for those of dogs or cats. Nor do we possess carnassials. There is nothing about human dentition that suggests a mixed diet.

    He also embarrasses himself with a list of baseless assertions about the alledged 'inefficiency' of conversion of certain substances within the body, such as beta-carotene to vitamin A, only to then contradict his own unsupported argument with the observation that people on strict plant-based diets do not manifest any deficiency of vitamin A. Clearly the asserted 'inefficiency' exists only within his own imagination.

    He then invokes the discredited argument about heme-iron receptors in the intestine being a sign of an 'evolution' towards omnivorous eating habits when they are actually part of something called the 'Iron Withholding Mechanism', which is itself a means of reabsorbing the heme-iron contained within the cells of the intestine which are shed (including their iron content) on a continual basis. This prevents the iron itself from providing a breeding ground for unhealthy microbial lifeforms; it is part of the host organisms immmunological defence-systems. Also, heme-iron is not subject to the tight regulatory controls that plant-source iron is which can lead to all manner of excess iron-based health problems.

    He then claims that the fact that our small-intestine is longer somehow 'shows' that we have 'adapted' to nutrient-dense foods. In fact, it shows the exact opposite. A shift towards meat-adaptation would result in a shorter, not longer, small-intestine. Increased concentrations of a substance promoting more rapid chemical reactions. The greater volume in the large-intestine of other primate species, such as gorilla's and to a lesser extent, chimps, is for fermentation of leafy matter. We are clearly more acutely predisposed to frugivory than either the gorilla or chimpanzee.

    He uses the tired argument that a growing brain would require more nutrient-dense foods to support its expansion. Not really, the human brain grows for a longer time-period than that of the other ape-species. No increased nutrition is required. Not that there is any evidence that we evolved anyway. All we know is that we are here.

    Why he, or anyone else for that matter, believes that an increase in food would promote an increase in energy is beyond me. People that experiment with different dietary regimes report the opposite. They have increased energy levels when they eat less, providing that they are not experiencing a bout of pronounced detoxification, as the digestive-system has less burden placed upon it, freeing up much more energy to be used elsewhere.

    The human digestive-system is unable to properly break-down, transport and incorporate concentrate proteins into the organism. The proteolytic enzyme, pepsinogen, requires a medium of pH 2 for optimal function. The human stomach has, on average, a pH level of 4 to 5, with food in the stomach. The consumption of concentrate proteins leads to putrefaction in the intestine. The resultant break-down products are absorbed through the intestinal wall and trigger immunological reactions, including the generation of mucus, which is accumulated and periodically discharged, being labelled a 'cold/flu' by common misconception.

    Strangely, just like Wrangham, Tom Billings is a vegetarian! If these people believe that we have 'adapted' to eating meat, and that it is beneficial somehow, then why do they not eat the stuff?
  5. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Interesting rebuttal. But what about the issue of B12, which by humans can only be obtained by from the meat or dairy of an animal (barring, of course, a multivitamin, which for the purpose of this discussion doesn't count). B12 is quite vital to human function and development, and thus seems to suggest that some degree of animal consumption was vital.
  6. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    This is pretty simple:

    Are the meat eaters of the species non-existent or outliers?

    --Yes--> Not a meat eating species
    --No---> Meat eating species ahoy

    Humans don't need strong, long sharp teeth because we eat cooked, tenderized meat that we kill with tools, not bites. Wolves kill animals and eat them raw with just their teeth so ya, they need far more brutal teeth. In humans big scary wolf teeth confer no advantage - in fact they'd be a disadvantage; most people want their mates sans big scary teeth.
  7. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Two problems:

    1) Brain development is very rapid in the first years of life and large amounts of fats (especially omega 3 EFA) are required; omega 3 tends to be found in leaves of plants (which are indigestible to us), and in animals (animals that eat leaves/grass, and fish), and fats in general are far easier to acquire through eating animals.

    2) There's millions of years of archaeological evidence that we did evolve. Don't put anti-scientific crap in your arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

    (I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the remainder of your arguments as I simply don't know and don't care enough to look)

    I also believe we're adapted to eating meat but also don't eat it. The modern world allows proper nutrition to be achieved through many ways - for instance, I get my omega 3 out of canola oil which was invented in the 70s and the plant wouldn't have been especially edible without modern processing, and I get my vitamin B12 through synthetic supplements.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 12, 2010
  8. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    I think we must consider the historical context as well. Ancient humans in many parts of the world did not have access to non-animal sources of protein. Consuming animals (or their dairy) would've been the only source for some time.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2010
  9. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Would you care to explain what you mean by this statement?
  10. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

  11. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Your source does not answer the question.

    How does archeological evidence prove that we evolved?

    Finding bones only proves that the entity the bones belonged to existed. They do not tell us how it came to exist in the first place.
  12. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Have you honestly not heard this? Because there's layered sediments and certain creatures only appear at certain levels and they appear CONSISTENTLY only at certain parts and below. There are creatures that die out, and there are creatures that start appearing consistently at certain levels and above.

    It's irrelevant though, because of this.
  13. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    PLEASE for the love of humanity please say your shitting me!:wallbash::wallbash::wallbash:
  14. zzz

    zzz Well-Known Member

    Jesus answered: "Be it so according to your faith," and he sat down among them, saying:
    "It was said to them of old time, 'Honor thy Heavenly Father and thy Earthly Mother, and do their commandments, that thy days may be long upon the earth.' And next afterward was given this commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man take away. For-I tell you truly, from one Mother proceeds all that lives upon the earth. Therefore, he who kills, kills his brother. And from him will the Earthly Mother turn away, and will pluck from him her quickening breasts. And he will be shunned by her angels, and Satan will have his dwelling in his body. And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will become his own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats of the body of death. For in his blood every drop of their blood turns to poison; in his breath their breath to stink; in his flesh their flesh to boils; in his bones their bones to chalk; in his bowels their bowels t o decay; in his eyes their eyes to scales; in his ears their ears to waxy issue. And their death will become his death. For only in the service of your Heavenly Father are your debts of seven years forgiven in seven clays. But Satan forgives you nothing and you must pay him for all. 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot; burning for burning, wound for wound; life for life, death for death.' For the wages of sin is death. Kill not, neither eat the flesh of your innocent prey, lest you become the slaves of Satan. For that is the path of sufferings, and it leads unto death.
  15. 1izombie

    1izombie Well-Known Member

    Raptor Jesus said: Only those with the freshest, most succulent livers will be saved....Repent, sinners and slow-moving herbivores, for the Velocirapture is upon you!! All vegans shall be smighted by Raptor jesus unless ye repent and make thine more succulent livers....
  16. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    if my hunting and eating animals, the respect i have gained for nature and the pleasure i have had working a large variety of animals means i will go to hell for all eternity, you know what, it will be worth it. we are human and human pleasures are what i live for!
    At least in hell i will have the memories of frosty mornings stood atop the dales with a hawk on my fist, ferrets working the warren and dog on point, the memories of the day drawing to a close in the pub with my animals relaxing, these memories to me are worth more than an eternity of hell!
  17. zzz

    zzz Well-Known Member

    Nice answer bhawk.

    You can’t go to an eternal hell because eternity doesn’t have a beginning.

    Sin is disturbance in the mind. So if you eat meat and it doesn’t trouble you then there is no sin. If you eat meat and it troubles you then you incur sin.

    Nobody punishes us for our sins. A disturbed mind is punishment enough.

    Yes, nature is awesome. I’ve done a lot of cycling. Across Venezuela and down through Colombia is one of my favourite trips. Lightweight racing bike, no luggage. Good memories.
  18. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Eternity doesn't have a beginning? Not always, but it can. In fact you can have an infinity with two absolute boundaries in some cases.

    In the set of natural numbers you have { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4, ... } and that goes on infinitely yet it begins at a definite boundary! Similarly you have the set of Real numbers in which there's an infinite number of elements even between 1 and 2 for example.

    Infinities are interesting but they can be bounded yet still infinite.
  19. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

  20. zzz

    zzz Well-Known Member

    Yes Lovecraft, I was aware of that.

    But an eternal hell there is not.

    Anyone interested in the science and the spiritual might enjoy this highly entertaining video that presents some alternative views. Not that I’m saying he knows what he’s talking about mind you.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.