"Actually lifespan is highly correlated to body mass, metabolism and nutrient flow in the body-not whether you are a carnivore or herbivore."

Common error in understanding: body size rules the overall rate of metabolism/longevity- such as between a mouse versus a large rat, etc. NOT between same-sized carnivores vs herbivores... i.e.: The common domestic tabby lives to 24, but a rabbit, which is the exact same size, lives only to ~6 (in captivity- and far shorter in the wild).

Identical comparisons can be made between the longevity of the big cats and similar-sized herbivores- with the same results.

Do I detect a 'grasping for straws', or is it a simply a case of ingrained contrariness, leading to a need to contradict everything not part of one's own belief structures? Seems the case. Not to worry- relax, I have done my homework very thoroughly.

We can discount the last, the pub article. The second shows size/metabolism, which is established. The first is invalid off the line, since it compares a chicken and an elephant, and metabolism as well as body-design differences impinging on metabolism (especially the lungs) in birds are radically different from mammals. Birds are the last surviving dinosaurs.