I will admit it is a theory. But, a theory that makes a lot of sense! All I am really saying (and anyone please tell me how this can be refuted) is if given the choice between hunting/eating animals or eating vegetation, any species will choose animals, simply because of the laws of survival (more energy with less energy used to get it). Once we had the skills and the tools, and providing there was adequate game, we would have chosen to eat ONLY animals. Now, if anyone disagrees with this they need to take a course in logic! So, all I am saying is ONLY if there was no game would we have been forced to eat anything other than animals. Also, it is a FACT that animals provide superior nutrition AND more energy (more "bang for the buck") than any other source of food. Like I said, just ask a cat (or any animal at the top of the food chain) if they would prefer anything other than other animals. So, enough with this nonsense about how the WAPF found certain blah, blah, blah. If you want to argue whether during our evolution there was times when humans couldn't find game, fine. I don't think that was the case, though. I think it was the game (our food supply) that was the biggest factor in controlling our population size (that and other factors like diseases, accidents, etc... but, the food supply was the most critical, as it always is in nature). Again, once we had big enough brains to start society up and take in those cats, we changed our ways. Wheat attracts mice, what can I say! Hey, blame it on the cats! It's their design!