birdlike 0 #101 September 29, 2008 Oh, what a devastating rebuttal! I... I just don't know what to say to that! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #102 September 29, 2008 you argue very poorly, NO one said we are CARNIVORES Try some research before you embarrass yourself further. Also here there is a lot more evidence out there in relation to omnivorous homonids Typing a lot of words in Speakers Corner does not make you right. Try leaving the keyboard alone for a while and do some QUALITY readingYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #103 September 29, 2008 Quote Oh, what a devastating rebuttal! Not devastating, but adequate. Claiming you knew you were wrong before you hit post doesn't magically make you right. Quote I... I just don't know what to say to that! Not knowing something doesn't usually shut you up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #104 September 29, 2008 > biologically, meat is meant to be a part of our diet . . . Not really. It's a recent adaptation that allows us to eat it at all, but our bodies are not really designed to handle it. To start with, we don't really have much in the way of a predator's mouth. (Try to eat a raw dead rabbit with just your mouth.) Our teeth and jaw are much closer to an herbivore's than a carnivore's, and our digestive system is a lot better adapted to eating plants than animals. We started out as herbivores, and then as we learned to hunt, we gradually started adapting to be able to eat meat. The problem is that once we started to learn to hunt we started with societies, and society protects its weakest members and slows down evolution. Thus we ended up as herbivores with some omnivorous adaptations, with most of our herbivore equipment still intact. In some ways this is a good thing, since we can eat almost anything, and it's a lot easier for an herbivore to eat meat than the other way around. In some ways this is bad, since our digestive systems are not set up for a diet heavy in meat and fat - that's one reason we have such a problem with obesity and heart disease. It's also a reason it's easy for food to make us sick, since we do not have the incredibly low pH (i.e. acidic) stomachs of carnivores/carrion eaters. There are a lot of other characteristics of humans that put them much farther towards herbivores than carnivores. We can't detoxify vitamin A like carnivores can; that means eating certain body parts (livers) can make us sick. We can break down carbohydrates with enzymes in our saliva; that's a characteristic of herbivores. We have a small stomach and a massive set of intestines/secondary digestive locations (like the duodenum) which is classic herbivore, and we need fiber for normal digestion like an herbivore. What this means in the end is that we evolved as herbivores that could supplement their diets with meat; this was a big advantage over animals that had a fixed diet. Today, a lot of people have medical problems because they basically eat too much meat, and their bodies have a hard time dealing with that. That's not to say meat is deadly, but it's hard for our bodies to handle a lot of it because of their evolutionary history. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #105 September 29, 2008 Quote> What this means in the end is that we evolved as herbivores that could supplement their diets with meat; this was a big advantage over animals that had a fixed diet. . Umm OMNIVORE also is your post personal opinion or would you care to cite some scientific references please. My assertion is that we are designed to allow some meat as a part of our diet, as in my original post, meat is not meant to be the bulk of our diet but a small part. Biologically we are omnivorousYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #106 September 29, 2008 >Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat. All other carnivores have simple jaws. A compound jaw is not very useful for eating "natural" meat. Of course, if you dismember it to get all the hard-to-chew parts out of the way, cook the easy to chew pieces, cut it into small pieces with a knife, and put it in your mouth with a fork, you avoid most of those problems. >Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. "Choking on a piece of meat" is the #1 cause of choking deaths in the world. Carnivores have wide throats to avoid this problem; we have the smaller throat of a herbivore. >How fortunate for your point that you forgot to mention our CANINE TEETH. Our canine teeth cannot be used for the purposes that carnivores use them for - catching and holding prey. They're too small. Indeed, they are used for the same purposes our incisors are used for. (Note how they are basically the same size.) >And since when do you grind your food with your incisors? ?? You don't. You use them to pull food apart into manageable pieces. Like all herbivores, we have flat, spatulate incisors; these help tear up grass and pull apart fruit. Carnivores have pointed incisors that help them catch and hold prey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #107 September 29, 2008 Quote>Oh, right, sorry, that can't possibly be used for eating meat. All other carnivores have simple jaws. A compound jaw is not very useful for eating "natural" meat. Of course, if you dismember it to get all the hard-to-chew parts out of the way, cook the easy to chew pieces, cut it into small pieces with a knife, and put it in your mouth with a fork, you avoid most of those problems. >Um, neither I nor anyone I know is unable to get meat swallowed. "Choking on a piece of meat" is the #1 cause of choking deaths in the world. Carnivores have wide throats to avoid this problem; we have the smaller throat of a herbivore. >How fortunate for your point that you forgot to mention our CANINE TEETH. Our canine teeth cannot be used for the purposes that carnivores use them for - catching and holding prey. They're too small. Indeed, they are used for the same purposes our incisors are used for. (Note how they are basically the same size.) >And since when do you grind your food with your incisors? ?? You don't. You use them to pull food apart into manageable pieces. Like all herbivores, we have flat, spatulate incisors; these help tear up grass and pull apart fruit. Carnivores have pointed incisors that help them catch and hold prey. NO ONE IS SAYING WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CARNIVOROUSYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #108 September 29, 2008 >Umm OMNIVORE An omnivore is well adapted to both meat and plants. We're not. Some examples: Facial muscles. Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape. Omnivore: Greatly reduced. Herbivore: Well developed. Human: Well developed. Jaw Motion. Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion. Omnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion. Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back. Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back. Incisor teeth. Carnivore: Short and pointed. Omnivore: Short and pointed. Herbivore: Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped. Human: Broad, flattened, and spade-shaped. Canine teeth. Carnivore: Long, sharp, and curved. Omnivore: Long, sharp, and curved. Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense) or none. Human: Short and blunted. Molar teeth. Carnivore: Sharp, jagged, and blade-shaped. Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened. Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface. Human: Flattened with nodular cusps. Chewing. Carnivore: None; swallows food whole. Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing. Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary. Human: Extensive chewing necessary. Saliva. Carnivore: No digestive enzymes. Omnivore: No digestive enzymes. Herbivore: Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes. Human: Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes Stomach Acidity. Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach. Omnivore: Less than or equal to pH of 1 with food in stomach. Herbivore: pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach. Human: pH of 4 to 5 with food in stomach. Length of Small Intestine. Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length. Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length. Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length. Human: 10 to 11 times body length. Nails (on land mammals.) Carnivore: Sharp claws. Omnivore: Sharp claws. Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves. Human: Flattened nails. None of this should be taken as "therefore you shouldn't eat meat." But the "we were designed to eat meat!" argument is no more valid than the "we were designed to drink alcohol!" or "we were designed to do cocaine!" argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #109 September 29, 2008 You persist in comparing Herbivores and Carnivores. I have never suggested that we are either. Quote An omnivore is well adapted to both meat and plants and this is also a fallacy Try THIS version An omnivore is SUITABLY adapted to both meat and plants The entire process of evolution is about adaption to survival, Humans and many other hominids adapted to omnivorous lifestyles to better allow survival in their particular environments . So please get off the Herbie/Carny wagon.You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #110 September 29, 2008 I don't think that humans are evolved to be vegetarians, if you do... or if you even believe / don't bielve in evolution, that is your choice. But you shouldn't belittle others opinions just cuz they don't agree with your BELIEFS My personal beliefs Are we, as a population, getting lazy with healthy diet? Yes. Should we examine our current lifestyles and consider areas for change? Of course. Are there benefits to a low fat diet? yes. To we tend to eat too much red meat? yup. But to believe that red meat is what will KILL all of the evil meat eaters is foolish. One of my close friends was a vegetarian.... he died of bladder cancer in his early 50's? Should I blame his diet? Maybe ... but it might be environmental or genetic or just bad luck for a mutation on a single cell. I think you weaken your statements by throwing out the "colon will kill you" card. Are there advantages to the vegetarian diet? ABSOLUTELY! Vegetarian diets: what are the advantages? Are there DISadvantages? ABSOLUTELY! cobalamin deficiency B-vitamin status and concentrations of homocysteine in Austrian omnivores, vegetarians and vegans. - NOTE the well-planned vegan diet comment in that conclusion. Even the enlightened vegetarians can get lazy and be ignorant of what they NEED to survive. I don't think this argument is one that -you will convince others to see your side -others will convince you to see theirs But... better knowing WHY you believe something and being able to defend that belief in an argument will help with convincing others to examine their personal beliefs. -personally. . . . I'm going to keep eating meat. Especially, with donating every 8weeks, I need the red meat to keep from being too anemic. I do the apricots, raisins, red beans... but still can't bring my hemoglobin up to the threshold without red meat or iron supplimentation. Could I space out the donations.... yes, but that wouldn't be helping as many PEOPLE.... I want blood to be in the blood bank when I order it. If that means killing a cow and having a nice delmonico steak.... yum. If some people think that I'm evil for that belief, I can't change that. But... neither will my beliefs be changed by poor logic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #111 September 29, 2008 >An omnivore is SUITABLY adapted to both meat and plants. Ah, OK. Then every animal is an omnivore. (After all, they all have adaptations that would allow them to eat properly prepared meat _or_ vegetables.) >Humans and many other hominids adapted to omnivorous lifestyles to >better allow survival in their particular environments . That's the point. We didn't. By the time we started eating meat, we had societies that protected the weak, and knives (and then fire) to make meat more compatible with a herbivore - and thus evolution largely stopped driving change to our digestive systems. That's why we have the bodies of herbivores, and why heart disease and obesity are such big problems nowadays. To put it another way, we never adapted to eat meat. We adapted meat to us. >So please get off the Herbie/Carny wagon. ?? Not on any "wagon." And there's no need to get upset. You can eat whatever you like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #112 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps you can explain how people live their entire lives as vegans. Physiologial evidence is: - Compound jaw - digestive enzymes not great for breaking down red meat - Small throat diameter, not good for eating meat - Teeth structure, molars and incisors - good for grinding vegetation. . Teeth structure indicates omnivorous, you do not (ok maybe YOU do), have a mouth like a horse or cow, our jaws and dentition are designed to handle both meat and vegetation. We have NEVER been herbivorous, it's a personal choice not a survival stratagem The jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #113 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Did you look at the 2 links that I post? One a scientific paper? and one (like your self wiki)You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SuFantasma 0 #114 September 29, 2008 PETA is pitiful Animals are FOOD, not FRIENDS!Y yo, pa' vivir con miedo, prefiero morir sonriendo, con el recuerdo vivo". - Ruben Blades, "Adan Garcia" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #115 September 29, 2008 I'm quite confused as to how my stating that I do not support PETA as well as the comment about animals and dissection have anything to do with what my position is as to whether or not humans are herbivores, carnivores, etc. Not sure how you can come up with a "kinda have" in relation to that. To be honest...I don't care what humans were originally designed for or have evolved to be. It's not something that matters to me as it will not change my eating habits. Plus, I won't be a doctor of humans so I don't care how they eat. If one's beliefs are that they want to be a vegan, awesome. If they want to be a carnivore, awesome. However, I like to learn why others have their positions/beliefs and what they base them on. I may actually learn something from a person. I may not agree with their position/viewpoint/etc., but I'm always up for learning something new. Do I eat red meat? Yes, back in the states probably once a week. Here on the island, maybe once a semester, if that. Do I eat chicken, turkey, etc.? Yes, about the same about home vs. here. Fish? Yes, more here on the island than back home. On the island, however, I find myself leaning towards a more vegetarian way of eating, and it's not because of some sudden change in views, it's because 1) The fruits and veggies here are spectacular , and 2) I'm not quite sure that I trust how they process meats. While I believe in humane treatment of animals - be they pets, livestock or wildlife, I do not believe in the extremist stances that PETA takes hence I will never support them. And as far as going through each of your individual points and coming up with the counterclaims (which I'd do through PubMed), since Dr. Karen's already pointed out a few, I'm going to spend my time in a little bit more of a satisfactory way...studying for a test in just a couple of hours. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #116 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,108 #117 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3345656#3345656... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #118 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Can i have sex with you and play with your boobies You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #119 September 29, 2008 Quote > biologically, meat is meant to be a part of our diet . . . Not really. It's a recent adaptation that allows us to eat it at all, but our bodies are not really designed to handle it. Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of its implications) and simply switch to "suited"?? Quote To start with, we don't really have much in the way of a predator's mouth. (Try to eat a raw dead rabbit with just your mouth.) Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment with ONLY their mouths--so why does the fact that we'd have trouble eating a raw dead rabbit with only our mouths prove anything? Cats grab their prey with their claws and kick the guts out of them. They don't capture, kill and eat with only their mouths. Nor do dogs. Quote Our teeth and jaw are much closer to an herbivore's than a carnivore's, and our digestive system is a lot better adapted to eating plants than animals. But none of these things lack what we need to enable us to be OMNIvorous! Quote We started out as herbivores, and then as we learned to hunt, we gradually started adapting to be able to eat meat. That's not the way evolution would have worked. The first time a member of a species that had no ability to eat meat killed and ate something out of meat, it's not as though his genes said, "I'd better produce progeny who are better at this." You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Pishposh. Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. Not the less suited for tearing meat.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #120 September 29, 2008 QuoteThe jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Every time you say "herbivore" and pretend like "omnivore" does not exist, you make it appear that you believe we cannot eat other than vegetable matter, when the clear fact is that we can. No one is saying that we're "carnivores," because we're smart enough to realize that we eat other than meat. But you are saying we're "herbivores," implying that our diet is strictly vegetable. You're simply wrong. I proved it last night when I ate that sirloin.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #121 September 29, 2008 Quote>Umm OMNIVORE Nails (on land mammals.) Carnivore: Sharp claws. Omnivore: Sharp claws. Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves. Human: Flattened nails. Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Elephants are herbivores, and they have those awesome tusks and they can indeed use them to harm other animals. (I doubt they'd hunt very well with them, though. Kind of hard for an elephant to sneak up on a critter.) QuoteNone of this should be taken as "therefore you shouldn't eat meat." But the "we were designed to eat meat!" argument is no more valid than the "we were designed to drink alcohol!" or "we were designed to do cocaine!" argument. Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! You can say that it's "no more valid than" but clearly that's wrong. Cocaine does nothing to nourish us, nor does alcohol. On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. So yes, eating meat IS more valid than doing those things. But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. If our niche were to disappear, so would we.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #122 September 29, 2008 Sure. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,078 #123 September 29, 2008 >Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of >its implications) and simply switch to "suited"? OK. Our bodies are best suited to eating plants. >Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment >with ONLY their mouths . . . Fair enough. I'll give you (no tools) and a coyote a dead rabbit and see which one is more successful at eating it. >You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat >animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Not quite. Pure herbivores can eat animals. Mix some blood or some animal fat into a rabbit's chow - they will not die, and indeed, in small quantities, they will be able to use the additional calories. They may prefer carrots, but given a choice between eating it and starvation and they will eat it. (Any more than a small amount and they will have GI problems, of course.) It would be silly to therefore claim that rabbits were omnivorous based on that, though. Likewise, we started out as herbivores. Once we started to catch the easier to catch animals (which was much easier when we were not yet their natural predators) we tried to eat them. Again, not a surprise there; starving animals will try to eat almost anything. Those of us which could get a little nourishment from the animal's blood or fat survived a little longer than those that couldn't or wouldn't. Had we been unintelligent animals at that point, then evolution would have taken over. We'd have gotten sharper teeth, wider throats, lower stomach pH, all the other adaptations that omnivores have to be able to process both animal and plant matter. But we had something better than pure natural selection - we had intelligence. Instead of evolving better teeth, we learned to use knives. Instead of evolving sharper claws, we learned to use arrows. Instead of evolving lower stomach pH, we learned to cook food. Instead of evolving a wider throat, we learned to cut up food with our new knives before eating it. >Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the >LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. That's correct - ALL our teeth were larger, because it took a lot of chewing to break down plants. From Encyclopedia Britannica: =========== In any case, our ancestors were not strictly or even heavily carnivorous. Instead, a diet that relied on tough, abrasive vegetation, including seeds, stems, nuts, fruits, leaves, and tubers, is suggested by primate remains bearing large premolar and molar teeth with thick enamel. =========== >Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss >of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Ding ding! You are correct! And it is that very intelligence that allowed us to eat meat that our bodies are not, by themselves, suited for. >Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or >alcohol?! Yep. Alcohol contains calories, and we clearly have some rudimentary adaptations for it (ADH and ADHD.) We have mouths for drinking it, livers to break it down, and kidneys to excrete the waste products. Sure, drinking too much of it is bad (as is eating too much meat) but in moderation it can actually be good for you. So we are as "suited" for alcohol as we are for meat. >On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. Small amounts of meat, cocaine and alcohol are not bad for us. Cocaine has no nutritional value, but alcohol surely does, and confers other benefits (pathogens are killed by alcohol, and moderate consumption of alcohol has been linked to longer life.) Do too much of any of the three and you will likely die an early death, of course. >But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. >If our niche were to disappear, so would we. We no longer rely on nature to provide a niche for us; now we create our own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #124 September 29, 2008 QuoteOh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! I guess that is best suited to the herbivores in our midst.. since both of those are plant products... I think some people have been grazing on those mind altering plants again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing × Sign In Sign Up Forums Dropzones Classifieds Gear Indoor Articles Photos Videos Calendar Stolen Fatalities Subscriptions Leaderboard Activity Back Activity All Activity My Activity Streams Unread Content Content I Started
Squeak 17 #113 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Did you look at the 2 links that I post? One a scientific paper? and one (like your self wiki)You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SuFantasma 0 #114 September 29, 2008 PETA is pitiful Animals are FOOD, not FRIENDS!Y yo, pa' vivir con miedo, prefiero morir sonriendo, con el recuerdo vivo". - Ruben Blades, "Adan Garcia" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #115 September 29, 2008 I'm quite confused as to how my stating that I do not support PETA as well as the comment about animals and dissection have anything to do with what my position is as to whether or not humans are herbivores, carnivores, etc. Not sure how you can come up with a "kinda have" in relation to that. To be honest...I don't care what humans were originally designed for or have evolved to be. It's not something that matters to me as it will not change my eating habits. Plus, I won't be a doctor of humans so I don't care how they eat. If one's beliefs are that they want to be a vegan, awesome. If they want to be a carnivore, awesome. However, I like to learn why others have their positions/beliefs and what they base them on. I may actually learn something from a person. I may not agree with their position/viewpoint/etc., but I'm always up for learning something new. Do I eat red meat? Yes, back in the states probably once a week. Here on the island, maybe once a semester, if that. Do I eat chicken, turkey, etc.? Yes, about the same about home vs. here. Fish? Yes, more here on the island than back home. On the island, however, I find myself leaning towards a more vegetarian way of eating, and it's not because of some sudden change in views, it's because 1) The fruits and veggies here are spectacular , and 2) I'm not quite sure that I trust how they process meats. While I believe in humane treatment of animals - be they pets, livestock or wildlife, I do not believe in the extremist stances that PETA takes hence I will never support them. And as far as going through each of your individual points and coming up with the counterclaims (which I'd do through PubMed), since Dr. Karen's already pointed out a few, I'm going to spend my time in a little bit more of a satisfactory way...studying for a test in just a couple of hours. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ladyskydiver 0 #116 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,108 #117 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3345656#3345656... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Squeak 17 #118 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Can i have sex with you and play with your boobies You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #119 September 29, 2008 Quote > biologically, meat is meant to be a part of our diet . . . Not really. It's a recent adaptation that allows us to eat it at all, but our bodies are not really designed to handle it. Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of its implications) and simply switch to "suited"?? Quote To start with, we don't really have much in the way of a predator's mouth. (Try to eat a raw dead rabbit with just your mouth.) Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment with ONLY their mouths--so why does the fact that we'd have trouble eating a raw dead rabbit with only our mouths prove anything? Cats grab their prey with their claws and kick the guts out of them. They don't capture, kill and eat with only their mouths. Nor do dogs. Quote Our teeth and jaw are much closer to an herbivore's than a carnivore's, and our digestive system is a lot better adapted to eating plants than animals. But none of these things lack what we need to enable us to be OMNIvorous! Quote We started out as herbivores, and then as we learned to hunt, we gradually started adapting to be able to eat meat. That's not the way evolution would have worked. The first time a member of a species that had no ability to eat meat killed and ate something out of meat, it's not as though his genes said, "I'd better produce progeny who are better at this." You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Pishposh. Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. Not the less suited for tearing meat.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #120 September 29, 2008 QuoteThe jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Every time you say "herbivore" and pretend like "omnivore" does not exist, you make it appear that you believe we cannot eat other than vegetable matter, when the clear fact is that we can. No one is saying that we're "carnivores," because we're smart enough to realize that we eat other than meat. But you are saying we're "herbivores," implying that our diet is strictly vegetable. You're simply wrong. I proved it last night when I ate that sirloin.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites birdlike 0 #121 September 29, 2008 Quote>Umm OMNIVORE Nails (on land mammals.) Carnivore: Sharp claws. Omnivore: Sharp claws. Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves. Human: Flattened nails. Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Elephants are herbivores, and they have those awesome tusks and they can indeed use them to harm other animals. (I doubt they'd hunt very well with them, though. Kind of hard for an elephant to sneak up on a critter.) QuoteNone of this should be taken as "therefore you shouldn't eat meat." But the "we were designed to eat meat!" argument is no more valid than the "we were designed to drink alcohol!" or "we were designed to do cocaine!" argument. Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! You can say that it's "no more valid than" but clearly that's wrong. Cocaine does nothing to nourish us, nor does alcohol. On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. So yes, eating meat IS more valid than doing those things. But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. If our niche were to disappear, so would we.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #122 September 29, 2008 Sure. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,078 #123 September 29, 2008 >Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of >its implications) and simply switch to "suited"? OK. Our bodies are best suited to eating plants. >Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment >with ONLY their mouths . . . Fair enough. I'll give you (no tools) and a coyote a dead rabbit and see which one is more successful at eating it. >You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat >animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Not quite. Pure herbivores can eat animals. Mix some blood or some animal fat into a rabbit's chow - they will not die, and indeed, in small quantities, they will be able to use the additional calories. They may prefer carrots, but given a choice between eating it and starvation and they will eat it. (Any more than a small amount and they will have GI problems, of course.) It would be silly to therefore claim that rabbits were omnivorous based on that, though. Likewise, we started out as herbivores. Once we started to catch the easier to catch animals (which was much easier when we were not yet their natural predators) we tried to eat them. Again, not a surprise there; starving animals will try to eat almost anything. Those of us which could get a little nourishment from the animal's blood or fat survived a little longer than those that couldn't or wouldn't. Had we been unintelligent animals at that point, then evolution would have taken over. We'd have gotten sharper teeth, wider throats, lower stomach pH, all the other adaptations that omnivores have to be able to process both animal and plant matter. But we had something better than pure natural selection - we had intelligence. Instead of evolving better teeth, we learned to use knives. Instead of evolving sharper claws, we learned to use arrows. Instead of evolving lower stomach pH, we learned to cook food. Instead of evolving a wider throat, we learned to cut up food with our new knives before eating it. >Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the >LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. That's correct - ALL our teeth were larger, because it took a lot of chewing to break down plants. From Encyclopedia Britannica: =========== In any case, our ancestors were not strictly or even heavily carnivorous. Instead, a diet that relied on tough, abrasive vegetation, including seeds, stems, nuts, fruits, leaves, and tubers, is suggested by primate remains bearing large premolar and molar teeth with thick enamel. =========== >Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss >of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Ding ding! You are correct! And it is that very intelligence that allowed us to eat meat that our bodies are not, by themselves, suited for. >Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or >alcohol?! Yep. Alcohol contains calories, and we clearly have some rudimentary adaptations for it (ADH and ADHD.) We have mouths for drinking it, livers to break it down, and kidneys to excrete the waste products. Sure, drinking too much of it is bad (as is eating too much meat) but in moderation it can actually be good for you. So we are as "suited" for alcohol as we are for meat. >On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. Small amounts of meat, cocaine and alcohol are not bad for us. Cocaine has no nutritional value, but alcohol surely does, and confers other benefits (pathogens are killed by alcohol, and moderate consumption of alcohol has been linked to longer life.) Do too much of any of the three and you will likely die an early death, of course. >But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. >If our niche were to disappear, so would we. We no longer rely on nature to provide a niche for us; now we create our own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #124 September 29, 2008 QuoteOh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! I guess that is best suited to the herbivores in our midst.. since both of those are plant products... I think some people have been grazing on those mind altering plants again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 5 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
SuFantasma 0 #114 September 29, 2008 PETA is pitiful Animals are FOOD, not FRIENDS!Y yo, pa' vivir con miedo, prefiero morir sonriendo, con el recuerdo vivo". - Ruben Blades, "Adan Garcia" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #115 September 29, 2008 I'm quite confused as to how my stating that I do not support PETA as well as the comment about animals and dissection have anything to do with what my position is as to whether or not humans are herbivores, carnivores, etc. Not sure how you can come up with a "kinda have" in relation to that. To be honest...I don't care what humans were originally designed for or have evolved to be. It's not something that matters to me as it will not change my eating habits. Plus, I won't be a doctor of humans so I don't care how they eat. If one's beliefs are that they want to be a vegan, awesome. If they want to be a carnivore, awesome. However, I like to learn why others have their positions/beliefs and what they base them on. I may actually learn something from a person. I may not agree with their position/viewpoint/etc., but I'm always up for learning something new. Do I eat red meat? Yes, back in the states probably once a week. Here on the island, maybe once a semester, if that. Do I eat chicken, turkey, etc.? Yes, about the same about home vs. here. Fish? Yes, more here on the island than back home. On the island, however, I find myself leaning towards a more vegetarian way of eating, and it's not because of some sudden change in views, it's because 1) The fruits and veggies here are spectacular , and 2) I'm not quite sure that I trust how they process meats. While I believe in humane treatment of animals - be they pets, livestock or wildlife, I do not believe in the extremist stances that PETA takes hence I will never support them. And as far as going through each of your individual points and coming up with the counterclaims (which I'd do through PubMed), since Dr. Karen's already pointed out a few, I'm going to spend my time in a little bit more of a satisfactory way...studying for a test in just a couple of hours. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyskydiver 0 #116 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #117 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I haven't stated my position as to whether humans are carnivores, omnivores, herbivores, chocolativores, etc. so don't make assumptions as to which "side" I'm on. Quite frankly, I've been exceptionally entertained with how this thread has continued. Starts out with PETA and human breast milk ice cream, goes to politics, goes to Dahmer, etc., and then is on to herbivore, carnivore, etc. Don't forget GUNS! We made a stop in Kennesaw, Georgia! Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3345656#3345656... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #118 September 29, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Damn! I knew I left something out. Now, all we need is boobies and sex, and I believe we've come full circle. Can i have sex with you and play with your boobies You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #119 September 29, 2008 Quote > biologically, meat is meant to be a part of our diet . . . Not really. It's a recent adaptation that allows us to eat it at all, but our bodies are not really designed to handle it. Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of its implications) and simply switch to "suited"?? Quote To start with, we don't really have much in the way of a predator's mouth. (Try to eat a raw dead rabbit with just your mouth.) Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment with ONLY their mouths--so why does the fact that we'd have trouble eating a raw dead rabbit with only our mouths prove anything? Cats grab their prey with their claws and kick the guts out of them. They don't capture, kill and eat with only their mouths. Nor do dogs. Quote Our teeth and jaw are much closer to an herbivore's than a carnivore's, and our digestive system is a lot better adapted to eating plants than animals. But none of these things lack what we need to enable us to be OMNIvorous! Quote We started out as herbivores, and then as we learned to hunt, we gradually started adapting to be able to eat meat. That's not the way evolution would have worked. The first time a member of a species that had no ability to eat meat killed and ate something out of meat, it's not as though his genes said, "I'd better produce progeny who are better at this." You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Pishposh. Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. Not the less suited for tearing meat.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #120 September 29, 2008 QuoteThe jaw angle and teeth structure indicate herbivore. The jaw design indicate herbivore. Didn't you see the data and site I posted? Care to address it? Not really, just shoot from the hip as to your opinion? Cool. Every time you say "herbivore" and pretend like "omnivore" does not exist, you make it appear that you believe we cannot eat other than vegetable matter, when the clear fact is that we can. No one is saying that we're "carnivores," because we're smart enough to realize that we eat other than meat. But you are saying we're "herbivores," implying that our diet is strictly vegetable. You're simply wrong. I proved it last night when I ate that sirloin.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #121 September 29, 2008 Quote>Umm OMNIVORE Nails (on land mammals.) Carnivore: Sharp claws. Omnivore: Sharp claws. Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves. Human: Flattened nails. Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Elephants are herbivores, and they have those awesome tusks and they can indeed use them to harm other animals. (I doubt they'd hunt very well with them, though. Kind of hard for an elephant to sneak up on a critter.) QuoteNone of this should be taken as "therefore you shouldn't eat meat." But the "we were designed to eat meat!" argument is no more valid than the "we were designed to drink alcohol!" or "we were designed to do cocaine!" argument. Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! You can say that it's "no more valid than" but clearly that's wrong. Cocaine does nothing to nourish us, nor does alcohol. On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. So yes, eating meat IS more valid than doing those things. But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. If our niche were to disappear, so would we.Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #122 September 29, 2008 Sure. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,078 #123 September 29, 2008 >Why can't you folks give up the use of the word "designed" here (with all of >its implications) and simply switch to "suited"? OK. Our bodies are best suited to eating plants. >Even cats and dogs, which are clearly predators, don't achieve nourishment >with ONLY their mouths . . . Fair enough. I'll give you (no tools) and a coyote a dead rabbit and see which one is more successful at eating it. >You're saying that we learned to hunt; we started to kill animals; we started to eat >animals; and then we began to develop systems that could handle them? Not quite. Pure herbivores can eat animals. Mix some blood or some animal fat into a rabbit's chow - they will not die, and indeed, in small quantities, they will be able to use the additional calories. They may prefer carrots, but given a choice between eating it and starvation and they will eat it. (Any more than a small amount and they will have GI problems, of course.) It would be silly to therefore claim that rabbits were omnivorous based on that, though. Likewise, we started out as herbivores. Once we started to catch the easier to catch animals (which was much easier when we were not yet their natural predators) we tried to eat them. Again, not a surprise there; starving animals will try to eat almost anything. Those of us which could get a little nourishment from the animal's blood or fat survived a little longer than those that couldn't or wouldn't. Had we been unintelligent animals at that point, then evolution would have taken over. We'd have gotten sharper teeth, wider throats, lower stomach pH, all the other adaptations that omnivores have to be able to process both animal and plant matter. But we had something better than pure natural selection - we had intelligence. Instead of evolving better teeth, we learned to use knives. Instead of evolving sharper claws, we learned to use arrows. Instead of evolving lower stomach pH, we learned to cook food. Instead of evolving a wider throat, we learned to cut up food with our new knives before eating it. >Also, I would bet that the further back you go into our genetic past, the >LARGER were our aggressive, "canine" teeth. Not the smaller. That's correct - ALL our teeth were larger, because it took a lot of chewing to break down plants. From Encyclopedia Britannica: =========== In any case, our ancestors were not strictly or even heavily carnivorous. Instead, a diet that relied on tough, abrasive vegetation, including seeds, stems, nuts, fruits, leaves, and tubers, is suggested by primate remains bearing large premolar and molar teeth with thick enamel. =========== >Have you forgotten that it's mankind's brain that enabled it to adapt for the loss >of the natural "weapons" that strict carnivores possess? Ding ding! You are correct! And it is that very intelligence that allowed us to eat meat that our bodies are not, by themselves, suited for. >Oh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or >alcohol?! Yep. Alcohol contains calories, and we clearly have some rudimentary adaptations for it (ADH and ADHD.) We have mouths for drinking it, livers to break it down, and kidneys to excrete the waste products. Sure, drinking too much of it is bad (as is eating too much meat) but in moderation it can actually be good for you. So we are as "suited" for alcohol as we are for meat. >On balance, those things are essentially poison to us. Meat is not. Small amounts of meat, cocaine and alcohol are not bad for us. Cocaine has no nutritional value, but alcohol surely does, and confers other benefits (pathogens are killed by alcohol, and moderate consumption of alcohol has been linked to longer life.) Do too much of any of the three and you will likely die an early death, of course. >But once again, we were not "designed" for any of what we do. We filled a niche. >If our niche were to disappear, so would we. We no longer rely on nature to provide a niche for us; now we create our own. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #124 September 29, 2008 QuoteOh my god, to put eating meat into the same category as doing cocaine or alcohol?! I guess that is best suited to the herbivores in our midst.. since both of those are plant products... I think some people have been grazing on those mind altering plants again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
