One of the most ridiculous and persistent false claims made by armchair nutritionists, meatarian propagandists, and even academics, who really should know better, is that the human species is an "omnivore"; that is, it should eat both plant and animal matter.

In general, this error is based on the accidental, or perhaps intentional, confusing of the verbs "to be" and "to do". If the human "is" a natural omnivore, then we should have ALL the physical and biochemical equipment that is NECESSARY to run down, kill with our bare hands, tear asunder, eat, and properly digest, RAW animal prey, just as ALL natural omnivores, or carnivores, do. Just looking at our bodies will conclusively prove that we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

No human cultural-carnivore kills its animal prey with his/her natural equipment, nor do they eat their animal prey raw. I have challenged countless meatarians to do so in the past 30 years, and NONE have shown the courage of their conceptual convictions and done so. Why? Simply because we are NOT an "omnivore". In fact, we have strong anti-killing instincts. Try to kill an animal with your bare hands to demonstrate this.

Any second-grader could differentiate between the verbs "be" and "do", yet this important distinction is totally ignored by cultural carnivores, and even academics with PhD's, who foolishly claim that because humans have been DOing cultural-carnivorism for a long time, that somehow (never explained) magically, we ARE "omnivores". They want to believe that DOing modifies BEing. They fail to understand the profound difference between Nature, and inviolable Natural Laws, and silly, self-destructive local cultural customs. By their absurd and faulty logic: because some humans DO murder, and because murder has existed throughout human history, ALL humans ARE born murderers.

http://ecologos.org/omni.htm

Hey Bo, does the author pose a point in history where humans started eating meat?

You are what you eat

Still reading, but did find the below.

One hears hollow claims that since "Paleolithic man" ate flesh, that modern humans are somehow "adapted" to do so. In fact, a Paleolithic diet cult is being developed.

The "Paleolithic argument" runs something like this: The proto-human was indeed a frugivore (eating primarily fruit, such as modern chimps) 50 million years ago (MYA) to 2 MYA, when the "appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time" coincided with "increased meat-eating". Well, that's the end of the argument, as its fatal flaw is revealed: the fact is that "increased meat-eating" occurred ONLY because of tool use, and since tools, including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level.

Bo

My goodness that article is entertaining.

May I introduce you to new guy, over here, just for fun:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8099377.stm

Apparently HE was a crazy cultist along with the rest of you Paleos.

Humans have but a single trait that makes them human: The ability to learn. Other forms of life may have this ability but to a much lesser extent, if at all. This ability allows us, for example and due to environmental imperatives, to adapt to an all meat diet which de facto becomes our normal diet. The child learns that eating meat is normal and teaches this to his descendant and so forth. Incidentally, an all meat diet also happens to be complete, i.e. it lacks nothing nutritionally. Nor does it cause us to grow sick, fat, weak or stupid. It merely nourishes us.

This ability to learn allows us to acculturate ourselves to the diet that is allowed by the environment. For some this diet contains only animal flesh. For others it contains animal flesh and plants. This acculturation gives us a bias toward what we've learned is normal. We see different customs as abnormal. The farther it is from our habits, the weirder it is in our eyes.

Gimme a goddamn break already. There is no moral code to eating. It's either we eat what's there or we die. Any other perception is merely a product of some higher moral code. This higher moral code is a product of the abundance of food which is a product of agriculture.

"the fact is that "increased meat-eating" occurred ONLY because of tool use, and since tools, including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level."

Because higher intelligence is not Natural. Nor genetic. Or something. I love this guy!

But, we have those tools: I hereby present The Stick™ and The Rock™. Separate or combined, they are indeed powerful tools that have helped hoomans survive the eons. The Stick™, for example, when used as a spear allowed us to hunt down and kill prey while The Rock™ allowed us to crack open its skull and bones to extract the rich marrow and brains.

But the most beautiful tool of all, The Hand™ with patented Opposable Thumb™. Indeed, without these, The Stick™ and The Rock™ would be useless to us as they are useless to all forms of life except hoomans.

All of these tools are taken advantage of by one of the most impressive piece of technology: The Brain™. Without The Brain™, all the tools in the world don't make a difference. And this Brain™, without appropriate nourishment, is just another pile of dung. This is why I say "A priori, the brain can't function properly when it's malnourished: Eat fat." Perhaps the author's brain is malnourished?

Oh my. The author's brain is indeed malfunctioning. If all those toxic agents are eliminating exogenous B-12 from food, then the rib steak that I'm eating wouldn't contain any since it was fed with plants, which did not contain B-12, so I'm supposed to lack B-12 right now. Huh huh. Thar logic is flawed.

In references, also found the below.

Timeline of dietary shifts in the human line of evolution

Bo

This argument is about as irrelevant to living as whether gay people "are" or just "do." All that matters is what works for ya.

Funny that the only significant difference between the human digestive tract and that of a dog is that our saliva has amalyase. Otherwise we are adapted to meat eating.

Is meat eating the only cultural product she denies us, or does she assert that all culture is bad? Where does she draw this line? After which point in time does she reject cultural development? Does she make this argument, or does she limit her theory to meat?

How does she reconcile her theory with the idea that humans did not develop claws and fangs and special bowels because THERE WAS NO NEED TO? Current theory of human evolution poses that the kind of morphology she thinks is necessary is--almost humorously--anti-adaptive? That selection pressure would be AGAINST the physical structures and changes she finds to be required?

Does she include any thermogenetic analysis? Any mention of energy at all?

Does she claim that meat eating is a learned behavior?

Dang, I wish I had time to go hunt it down, but there were two distinct periods of time when human intelligence took a leap. The first was when we started to consume animal fat and the second when we began to cook our food...presumably after the discovery of fire. Apparenty there are molecular changes in food that cooking must have created, thus making the nutrients more bio-available.

Now, I'm not a scientist, but I am a Christian. The bible does specifically state that we are allowed to eat meat (even though in those early days, certain animals were forbidden probably because they carried disease). Secondly, Jesus was not a vegan...he ate fish and lamb, that we know. So if God in the flesh ate flesh, than how could the intention be for humans to be vegan? Sorry to bring that nasty word, "religion" into the discussion, but I have heard rabid vegan's say that Jesus was a vegan; He was not!

Anyway, this whole argument that because humans didin't have the built-in "tools" to kill and consume prey, we weren't suppose to eat meat is totally specious. Humans are compared to all other living beings, intelligent for a reason. We were created to discover, invent, develop, etc. to improve our lives and those of our fellow man. What better way to use our God-given abilities than to expand and improve the nutrition we need for higher functioning.

PS .scientists have discovered that vegan's have shrunken brains and nutitional deficiencies that require supplementation. Clearly, their diet is not providing them what they need.

http://stanford.wellsphere.com/heal...ironment/652504

Do you eat a vegan diet and use vegan products? If so, you may be harming your health and the environment in ways you are unaware. Consider the vast amount of products consumers use and demand that are necessary for the vegan lifestyle - foods containing grains, corn, and soy such as food, personal care products, and household items - and you begin to get an idea of just how widespread the use and consumption of vegan foods and products really is. .......

Diets void of meat proteins and replete with plant variety proteins are lacking in many nutrients necessary for optimal health. Soy can inhibit absorption of vital nutrients in the body, and can cause or contribute to deficiencies such as Vitamin B. Parents who impose a vegan diet on their growing children are also believed to commit a gross disservice to the health of their offspring. Professor Lindsay Allen of the U.S. Agricultural Research Service stated, "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly, and they are developmentally retarded - possibly permanently." Lindsay is particularly pointed toward those who eliminate fats from children's diets such as meat and dairy foods. "If you are talking about feeding young children, pregnant women, and lactating women, I would go so far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life. There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegan."