Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives From Science | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives From Science

Currently reading:
Humans As Meat-Eaters: Some Perspectives From Science

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,662
14,275
70
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
This came in the Mail today..Read on...

Sahel is the transition region of grassland and shrubland between wooded Africa to its South and Sahara to its north.

This is the where the modern humans evolved, after chimps from the wooded south travelled northwards and started bi-pedalism and hunting for small prey and developed the first tools for cooking and hunting. Jaw size became smaller as the cooked food became available. And brain size and processing increased due to additional proteins available from hunted food. Anthropologists are unanimous in view after studying dietary habits and tools made by first humans in the region that modern humans may not have evolved without change in dietary habits.

Read articles below from Berkeley and National Geographic.


Sahel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

06.14.99 - Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies


--
Rgds
Amandeep Singh


Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
<img align="bottom"> BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.
It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.
Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.
Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley professor Tim White and others that early human species were butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years. Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology" (Vol.8, #1).
Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of nutrition.
"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of Environmental Science, Policy & Management.
But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet by putting different foods together.
In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat, they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened, for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional disease, pellagra.
Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to increase in body size while remaining active and social.
"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for energy," said Milton.
The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates, she said.
Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino acids present in meat. Sufficient methionine is difficult
to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize, barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.
Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth and energy for brain development.
"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution."
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a diet of more concentrated nutrients.
###

"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
<img alt="_"> Printer Friendly
<img alt="">Email to a Friend
What's This?
SHARE
Digg StumbleUpon Reddit
RELATED


Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work.
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:
How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?
Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.
How Did Meat-Eating Start?
Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.
Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).
Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.
"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"
The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.

When humans switched to meat-eating, they triggered a genetic change that enabled better processing of fats, said Stanford, who has worked extensively with gerontologist Caleb Finch of USC.
"We have an obsession today with fat and cholesterol because we can go to the market and stuff ourselves with it," Stanford said. "But as a species we are relatively immune to the harmful effects of fat and cholesterol. Compared to the great apes, we can handle a diet that's high in fat and cholesterol, and the great apes cannot.
"Even though we have all these problems in terms of heart disease as we get older, if you give a gorilla a diet that a meat-loving man might eat in Western society, that gorilla will die when it's in its twenties; a normal life span might be 50. They just can't handle that kind of diet."
Diet and Teeth
Tool-use no doubt helped early humans in butchering their dinners. But there is evidence that the advance to cooking and using knives and forks is leading to crooked teeth and facial dwarfing in humans.
Today it's relatively rare for someone to have perfectly straight teeth (without having been to the orthodontist). Our wisdom teeth don't have room to fit in the jaw and sometimes don't form at all, and the propensity to develop gum disease is on the increase.
"Virtually any mammalian jaw in the wild that you look at will be a perfect occlusion—a very nice Hollywood-style dentition," said Peter Lucas, the author of Dental Functional Morphology and a visiting professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "But when it comes to humans, the ideal occlusion [the way teeth fit together] is virtually never seen. It's really the only body part that regularly needs attention and surgery."
Lucas argues that the mechanical process of chewing, combined with the physical properties of foods in the diet, will drive tooth, jaw, and body size, particularly in human evolution.
Essentially, by cooking our food, thereby making it softer, we no longer need teeth big enough to chow down on really tough particles. By using knives and forks to cut food into smaller pieces, we no longer need a large enough jaw to cram in big hunks of food.
"We're evolving to eat mush," said Bernard Wood, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
Great information.

I saw a BBC documentary that stated that the combinations of fire and meat enabled human brains to get bigger. They were able to extract marrow from bones, the most nutritional. We are humans because we eat meat, rather than just Apes.

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Human brain began evolving early
 
Jul 30, 2004
1,744
87
world
Gurfateh

Weather such thing should be put in here or not. If found objectionable then could be deleted. One there was a meeting in Geeta Colony, Trans Yamuna, Delhi,. Mr Harjinder Singh Billah, a close aide of Delhi's Minster Arvinder Singh Lovly took part.

As per him consumption of meet also enhance capability of humans for male female or household relation ship. Further to it he said that due to vegetarianism only that Sikhs ladies do not like Sikhs boys more and go to non Sikhs.

Well as far as knowledge of das, male reproductive fluid is made up of proteen and meat is the fastest source of the same.

Forgive, if anything objectionable is said.
 

greenjuice

SPNer
Jun 5, 2009
29
5
humans are not natural carnivores...
official organizations and main-stream media will say that we are, but how much of their budget comes from the meat industry?

PLEASE ADD THE LINK RATHER THAN UNLINKED TEXT!

And what if i wrote the text?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

could this get more stupid?!
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,179
Vegetarians, especially women who are nursing babies, over time risk heart failure because of the lack of essential amino acids in the veggie diet. The risk is actually 20 percent greater than the general population. The lack of aminos has to be made up through deliberate consumption of yoghurt and other fermented dairy products.


So -- though vegetarian that I be -- please if you are make a careful attempt each day to balance proteins and aminos. There are real advantages to including meat and fish in the diet and one has to be deliberate about food choices if one does not eat meat and fish.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
humans are not natural carnivores...


Every text book that has been written in schools must be wrong and the fundementals of human science are flawed. :happy:


official organizations and main-stream media will say that we are, but how much of their budget comes from the meat industry?

I guess there is a mass meat conspiracy. Dear oh dear! :rofl!!:
 
Apr 25, 2006
2,921
1,643
As far as evolutionary science is concerned we are only HUMAN because we were hunters.
Something that makes us human is that we have no fur compared to other primates.
The reduced fur allowed us to loose heat quickly and outrun our prey. If we had fur we would need to stop and pant, like other predators. This would be a huge disadvantage. But we only got to this reduced fur stage if there was a need to lose it.
Why do you think we can run marathons and cheetahs cant? Because we lost fur overtime.
This allowed us to become even better at hunting.
Sure our prey would be faster and was better equipped for running but ONLY for shorter distances. We were slower but could run longer!


And thats just one example.
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
As far as evolutionary science is concerned we are only HUMAN because we were hunters.
Something that makes us human is that we have no fur compared to other primates.
The reduced fur allowed us to loose heat quickly and outrun our prey. If we had fur we would need to stop and pant, like other predators. This would be a huge disadvantage. But we only got to this reduced fur stage if there was a need to lose it.
Why do you think we can run marathons and cheetahs cant? Because we lost fur overtime.
This allowed us to become even better at hunting.
Sure our prey would be faster and was better equipped for running but ONLY for shorter distances. We were slower but could run longer!


And thats just one example.
If people bothered to read this:

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Rather than assuming that all these people were in conspiracy then we would at least accept the truth. Fact is, if we did not start cooking and eating meat we would be like Gorillas.

I would like to know what came first, fire or brain development? They say it was fire that helped our ancestors unlock nutrients from meat.
 

greenjuice

SPNer
Jun 5, 2009
29
5
Every text book that has been written in schools must be wrong and the fundementals of human science are flawed.
yes.

I guess there is a mass meat conspiracy. Dear oh dear!
yes. just like the economic and media "conspiracy", which isn't realy a theory or a secret- everyone with a gram of brain know that a few people control almost all the money in the world, and consequently- almost all of the media and industry (including the meat and "official science" ones).

thinking for yourself, and not being a good- modern, liberal "citizen of the world", just looks hard, it ain't really; but it seems that it is not ecouraged here on this forum, and that such msgs are deleted.

let's try again:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws


Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores


Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding


Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.


Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater


Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits


Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

where do the school text books and "fundametals of human science" explain this?

comparisons are from the a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

humans ARE NOT meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or ****** meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and ******. The thought of eating such meat makes one's stomach turn, while eating it is certainly not healthy, and that's an understatment.

oh, yeah, wanna link? here:

PROOF THAT HUMANS SHOULD NOT BE CARNIVORES! Biological proof that cannot be denied.

but i'm sure there's always a reason to delete my msg...
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,662
14,275
70
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
QUOTE:<<<<<<<<<
but i'm sure there's always a reason to delete my msg...<<<<<<<<<<<<

why do some always feel this way ?? in Punjabi they say..paala maardah....cold feet ???
but why ??
its a fact that messgaes get deleted only on one track fanatic "forums/sites' controlled by talibanese...
try anbd post a pro meat message on those forums and see if it gets posted..over there they all THINK ALIKE and pat each other on the backs...and thus you see the same posters posting...or peopel think up soem alias and post under that to make up variety !! Here on SPN we actively HUNT DOWN and ban multiple IDs...:D:D:D:D:D
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
Proof please from reliable sources.


yes. just like the economic and media "conspiracy", which isn't realy a theory or a secret- everyone with a gram of brain know that a few people control almost all the money in the world, and consequently- almost all of the media and industry (including the meat and "official science" ones).

thinking for yourself, and not being a good- modern, liberal "citizen of the world", just looks hard, it ain't really; but it seems that it is not ecouraged here on this forum, and that such msgs are deleted.

let's try again:

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws


Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores


Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding


Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.


Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater


Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits


Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

where do the school text books and "fundametals of human science" explain this?

comparisons are from the a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

humans ARE NOT meant to eat meat. Meat and seafood putrefies within 4 hours after consumption and the remnants cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines for 3-4 days or longer than if a person is constipated. Furthermore, the reaction of saliva in humans is more alkaline, whereas in the case of flesh-eating or preying animals, it is clearly acidic. The alkaline saliva does not act properly on meat.

All omnivorous and carnivorous animals eat their meat raw. When a lion kills an herbivore for food, it tears right into the stomach area to eat the organs that are filled with blood (nutrients). While eating the stomach, liver, intestine, etc., the lion laps the blood in the process of eating the dead animals flesh. Even bears that are omnivores eat salmon raw. However, eating raw or ****** meat disgust us as humans. Therefore, we must cook it and season it to buffer the taste of flesh.
If a deer is burned in a forest fire, a carnivorous animal will NOT eat its flesh. Even circus lions have to be feed raw meat so that they will not starve to death. If humans were truly meant to eat meat, then we would eat all of our meat raw and ******. The thought of eating such meat makes one's stomach turn, while eating it is certainly not healthy, and that's an understatment.

oh, yeah, wanna link? here:

PROOF THAT HUMANS SHOULD NOT BE CARNIVORES! Biological proof that cannot be denied.

but i'm sure there's always a reason to delete my msg...
These are the rantings of some nutcase from some forum. That is not reliable evidence. Sorry you fail!

Below are reliable sites and journals.

Stanford, C.B.: The Hunting Apes: Meat Eating and the Origins of Human Behavior.

The Human Brain - Fats

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Go educate yourself !
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
maybe 'couse my msg 5 posts upwards was deleted? :a19:
Your post was deleted because there was no link, and also I have now noted it is just written by some nutcase from a forum, rather than a journal. I follow science, not some weirdo vege/vegan Nazi site. Sorry.;)

Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
Chimpanze's eat meat. Explain that.

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

I would say my nails are pretty good claws.

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Chimpanzee's?

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
hahahah.

I suppose my Canine teeth are for show?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html
"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

February 18, 2005
Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.
Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.


Our taste for meat has also led us into some trouble—our teeth are too big for our downsized jaws and most of us need dental work.
"It's really amazing what we know now that we didn't know 15 or 20 years ago," said Mark Teaford, a professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University. Teaford helped organize a panel discussion on human diet from a number of perspectives:
How did the ability to eat meat shape the evolution of humans?
What can we learn about early humans from tooth shape?
Carnivorous humans go back a long way. Stone tools for butchering meat, and animal bones with corresponding cut marks on them, first appear in the fossil record about 2.5 million years ago.
How Did Meat-Eating Start?
Some early humans may have started eating meat as a way to survive within their own ecological niche.
Competition from other species may be a key element of natural selection that has molded anatomy and behavior, according to Craig B. Stanford, an ecologist at the University of Southern California (USC).
Stanford has spent years visiting the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park in Uganda, Africa, studying the relationship between mountain gorillas and chimpanzees.
"It's the only forest where mountain gorillas and chimps both live," he said. "We're trying to understand the ecological relationship—do they compete for food, for nesting sites?"
The key difference between chimps and gorillas ecologically is that chimps eat meat and gorillas don't. A total herbivore is able to coexist with an omnivore because they have significantly different diets.


Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
err no.

In a cow it is 20 times longer

http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/article_series/bovine_biology/9_Small_intestine.htm


Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Jesus, is this guy who wrote this on acid?

Humans are OMnivores, designed for meat and vegetables.


Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits
Again we are Omnivores.


Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Sorry I am besides myself. How old is the guy who wrote this? He cannot even get the basics right?
 

unbiasedview

SPNer
Aug 7, 2008
30
22
1.compare the canines of humans with that of carnivores u will see they r better in cracking nuts than
meat
2.if cows intestine is 20 times longer, it is still on thelonger side not the smaller side.
3.omnivorous habit doesnt doesnt gives excuse for a ph that is not good enough to digest meat properly!
4.yeah human evolved from primates,let them stay human,dont make them live like primates again!
5.animals ahve social organisation like us,they have emotions like us,but u dont know whether plants have emotions or not (they have life we all agree)by overlooking these emotional aspects we r desensitizing ourselves and that doesnt augurs well for humanity
6.and all those who say vegeterianism isnt good enough to support life is rubbish,i know ppl who have been vegeterian all thru there lives and they have better haemoglobin levels than so called flesh eaters.and cereals and pulses have all the amino acids,its jus that u have to eat them in combinations!
7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)
 
Last edited:

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom
1.compare the canines of humans with that of carnivores u will see they r better in cracking nuts than
meat
My friend, if you can manage a nut shell, then you can easily manage meat.

2.if cows intestine is 20 times longer, it is still on thelonger side not the smaller side.
Humans are Omnivores so maybe our tract maybe somewhere between a plat eater and a meat eater? Just maybe?

3.omnivorous habit doesnt doesnt gives excuse for a ph that is not good enough to digest meat properly!
That is your opinion, please give us some facts.


4.yeah human evolved from primates,let them stay human,dont make them live like primates again!
Actually if humans didn't eat meat we would be swinging around in trees.

Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man

Maybe vegetarians might de-evolve into apes? :rofl!!:


5.animals ahve social organisation like us,they have emotions like us,but u dont know whether plants have emotions or not (they have life we all agree)by overlooking these emotional aspects we r desensitizing ourselves and that doesnt augurs well for humanity
Ok let me get this right, because a plant does not run away and scream thats fine? Hmmm.:{;o:



6.and all those who say vegeterianism isnt good enough to support life is rubbish,i know ppl who have been vegeterian all thru there lives and they have better haemoglobin levels than so called flesh eaters.and cereals and pulses have all the amino acids,its jus that u have to eat them in combinations!
Read the articles. Humans became humans because we ate meat:


Meat in the human diet: an anthropological perspective. (01-SEP-07) Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia

BBC - Science & Nature - The evolution of man


7.why shouldnt humans eat humans if flesh is so good?u would say that would wipe out the race.ok point taken.but what abt a guy who has died just out of accident and his body is good enough to be eaten?i think human flesh would be even better than other fleshes as it is exactly what u want in your body!i would say it is the emotional part that stops one from doin that.and in killing a animal ur overlooking that emotional aspect(and u dont know whether plants have emotions or not)
Why don't vegetarians eat tree bark, or maybe cow dung? How about grass?

This is getting silly now. Be serious.:rofl!!:
 

Randip Singh

Writer
Historian
SPNer
May 25, 2005
2,936
2,948
50
United Kingdom

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

SPN on Facebook

...
Top