Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by 108, Dec 30, 2013.
Clearly we can handle meat, but are we biologically intended to?
Animals have two functions....
taste good and fit well....
It's tough to say whether we were or weren't but I don't think the chart makes any difference. Since humans use tools to hunt and generally cook meat and use tools to eat meat, looking at our lack of claws and dull teeth and things of that nature really mean nothing. We would have evolved past the point of most things on the chart years ago.
If I were to guess, humans were intended to eat 85-90% herbivore diet. But that's a guess based on historical evidence, hunting and gathering, etc.
Clearly we can handle sitting in front of a computer all day, but are we biologically intended to?
As long as steak, lobster, ribs, and fried chicken continue to taste good, and don't kill me (quickly at least), I'll continue to eat them. Our bodies might not be designed for it, but our brains sure were.
Exactly. Also, even if we did originally (at some point in our evolution) eat only foraged plants, it is clearly our taste for meat (and the tools, communication, etc. needed to acquire it) that made us unique among species on this planet. We are also pretty sure that this preceded agricultural cultivation.
Seems pretty clear to me that we were designed to be omnivores.
My surmise is that our canine teeth were designed to shred okra.
Most mammals are omnivores at that, so it's hardly like this should be strange.
Even apex predators like bears and wolves eat plants (and survive on them indefinitely) if they need to...so not exactly sure what that list proves?
Chimps are omnivores, which seems like a good glimpse at our past diet. They are very plant heavy though.
Designed or not, I really enjoy a well made steak and will not give up bacon.
The single biggest advancement humans made was fire.
The amount of chewing needed for Raw meat is exponentially more than cooked meat - once there was fire our jaws shrank because they could, which allowed our brains to get bigger and mankind took off. Also affected the need for certain teeth, and as mentioned we were hunters so claws weren't needed.
My understanding was that we were mainly herbivores with some shrimp and other small meats thrown in, which is why our bodies do so well with omega 3s from fish. Over time with hunting and other advancements we expanded our diet, but not out of the realm of what were were always capable of.
What about eating.....................well never mind.
Sure it's raw, but it's fish and it's sliced very thin.
I'm pretty sure humans were meant to eat thinly sliced poisonous puffer fish rather than in big chunks
So our brains grew bigger simply because there was now space for it to grow bigger? Does this work for other animals as well who have more than enough space for more brain but yet still have small brains?
Overall, humans are pathetic excuses for an animal. I am going with the above theory that we got off the general animal train when our brains grew so that we didn't play by the same rules. So what we see is the last remnants of an ancestor that doesn't pertain to what we finally evolved into. And if someone said we are vegetarians by nature I couldn't care less.
As an aside, when you see the reality shows and they have to forage for food, there is a remarkable difference between when they are not eating meat and when meat is suddenly put in their diets. The fat, protein and nutrients are just too concentrated of a food source to be made up easily in plant material.
Interesting question. I looked it up just now, seems as if the theory has been refined a bit since I heard it a number of years ago, it's more about the newfound calories we could comsume going to brain growth than increased cranial capacity. But this article also addresses the question of primates.
Interesting to me just how often these theories change and are "refined." However, it's hard to call it a refinement when the change is completely different than what was stated before.
So if other animals had only learned to cook their meals like those neanderthals, they may have been able to increase their brain sizes. Do theories like these go hand in hand with most modern evolutionary theories, or are they separate?
We were designed to adapt to whatever conditions are presented us. We might not like it but we could subsist on roots if we had no other choice.
Don't know if what I heard years ago was peer reviewed (it was some science channel show so may have just been some scientist's idea)but this last one was published. Either way fire was the catalyst for the development of brain growth, which was the important point. Wasn't trying to stoke a larger evolution vs religion debate, those go nowhere here and not something I want to participate in.