Are humans naturally vegetarians/ herbivorous?

We can try to go with this trackback in the past right to the first life-form, it's not important.
The thing is that homo sapiens biologically are omnivores. And if you don't believe, look at your teeth or visit any supermarket.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

4 pages, 40 posts each, and somebody still can not accept scientific evidence as truth?
IQ tests should be made mandatory prior to registration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And interestingly the scientific 'reality' seems to be much more interesting than the general notions that were brought forward earlier in this thread.

On the notion of being evolved from a herbivore.

I think we have to be careful here. They didn't really state that we didn't evolve from omnivores. What it basically says is that our teeth became more specialized in comparison with afarensis and chimps/gorillas to deal with meat.

The other very interesting notion is that these changes are largely due not because of the main diet, but because of the fall back diets. If things are lean, if it is a season in which general foods are not available, different species start eating a very particular fall back diet. These seasons are crucial for survival apparently and can induce specialization in teeth.

Of course it is debatable if fall back diets are merely seasonal. The early homo diet was in its basis probably very similar to other apes. But to get the survival edge it starting eating more meat, or needed to eat more meat and this resulted in an adaptation of their teeth.

This doesn't mean that the ancestor wasn't an omnivore I think. I think it suggests that the early homo became more dependend on meat than its ancestor.

This kind of blows the vegatarian position away that we are herbivores in nature. We actually evolved to be more adapted to eating meat (or other elastic tough food).

This opens new avenues of debate. So dig in if you care.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm a vegatarian, but I don't hold that silly position. Just to be clear.

 

Yes, homo sapiens are omnivores. The term "human" is vague in the this thread, and I suppose we need clarification as to the scope Buddah was looking for. But, I was defining "human" as the very first human species. Homo habilis was omnivorous, but was still in the change. So, what we define as "human" will determine what we were. If we call "human" Australopithecus africanus, then we can say humans were herbivores. Where do we begin to apply the word "human"?

We also know that homo habilis was an opprotunistic carnivore, and they had primarily ate plants. There are many reasons why humans are not carnivores. Meat has never been our primary source of food, unlike plants, which used to be our primary, but not only source of food.

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...n/EvolutionoftheHuman/EvolutionoftheHuman.htm

http://www.ivu.org/history/early/ancestors.html

 

There is no human species, we are of the homo sapiens species and that's it.
There was one subspecies of homo sapiens - Homo sapiens idaltu.



Scientific classification:

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

 

And therein lies the problem. The thread is specifying humans. Since there are no human species, we are left to speculate what Buddah means by human. If we are defining the word human to mean the ancestors to the homo sapien we could have an argument that we were herbivores that become omnivores. If we are defining the word human to mean homo sapiens, then we have a completely different argument. The word, "human" is too vague to discuss what is natural. We may as well say humans naturally were carnivores as jelly, eating single-celled organisms.

 

Well, I think natural for us is what is natural for us now, not what might have been natural some millions of years ago to some ancestor of homo sapiens.
If it was, then now it isn't.

 

I think we are homo sapiens sapiens actually.

 

bah, I knew someone will bring this up!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies of the homo sapiens species

now there is no difference though, because we're the only subspecies in the species category

p.s. my honest opinion is that that second addition of sapiens (or rather what it means) is too arrogant, I don't think we are THAT wise

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.p.s. You are of course correct, spurious, we're homo sapiens sapiens, but the species is homo sapiens.
I didn't think that it's important though.


That becomes important if somebody wants to say that Homo sapiens idaltu were not humans. But, as already pointed out, human is not a scientific term.

 

Agreed, but knowing Buddah's other arguments, he's interested in the roots of human behaviors, which are both socially and evolutionary influenced, which to answer depends on when we became "human". I suppose the now is human, as you say. So the straight answer to Buddah is that humans are omnivorous. End of story.

 

Yes, but I already stated and it seems that you did too, that when we touch the roots category there is no going back , but to go back to the first living organisms on this planet.
We have the evidence (rocks of truly ancient ocean floor in Greenland, signs of carbon*) of life (micro organisms) as early as 3.8 billion years ago.
But already then it was efficient, lived in water and was plentiful and already must have had a pre-history, i.e., life emerged well before 3.8 billion of y. ago.

As far as I know omnivore, herbivore or carnivore is really decided by the environment the species lives in. If there is a severe competition for seaweed, but no predator, someone will become a predator to get that then freely available nutriment directly from herbivores/omnivores around. And an ancient legacy to that is the jaw.

*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nah, that's malarkey. Look at your own teeth. Your canines and incisors should be sharp or sharp enough to pierce flesh, if you give enough strength. However, most of our other teeth are blunt, and are ued to smash through plant matter.
Humans are omnivores, i.e can eat pretty much any type of food.

 

Do I see the ghost of Lamarck here?

So if we start chewing on stones, we will eventually evolve teeth soothed for that.

 

Where did you read about this interbreeding and how has this been proved?

 

neanderthal in this instance would have been "human" as well wouldn't he?
definately a sub-species but if he was able to interbreed then he would just have
been another "race" of humans?

 

How will you get your necessary omega3 fats which lack greatly in our diet (due to modern methods of agriculture)?

I take at least one capsule of fish oil (purified!). It's been a few ^months since I started and I feel the difference. The best thing to do is actually to get your blood analysed for this, so the dose can be made according to your needs.

 

Most of the Inuit diet consists of fish. The basic food products for calcium are fish and dairy products, so I am surprized to hear that they suffer from high levels of osteoporosis? Anyone have any ideas on this?

Low life expectancy can be expected since they live under severe habit conditions and have limited access to decent medical facilities and qualified physicians.

 

And for nitrous oxide(aka N2O, laughing gas) ABusers(Or those who use it too much)........ MAN, nitrous IS delicious!! And legal!... Fuck sweets, unhealthy and immoral meat and shit(I live with my parents, so I kinda have to eat it. My mom's a veggie, but they're divorced)! They're bad for you... Nitrous is not(if you take a vitamin B12-pill). Chicks are even funnier than nitrous...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!