John Coleman wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> 8<
> > No it isn't, the human digestive system is quite well adapted to
digesting
> > meat.
>
> meat eating causes constipation - meat has no plant fibre in it
Straw man. No one suggested a diet for humans that consists entirely
of meat. Consuming plant fiber as well as meat aids in the digestion
and is the typical feeding method for an omnivore/faunivore.
>
> > Humans are not carnivores, they are omnivores like most
apes/primates.
>
> There is no scientific definition of "omnivore"
There is to the extent there is a scientific definition of
"herbivore" and "carnivore",
- some anatomists challenge
> the concept entirely for primates.
Cite? Most who shy from the word "omnivore" use "faunivore" instead.
This is not the same as challenging the concept. You lied.
When wild primates consume animal
> products that humans eat, they get heart disease.
Cite? Even if this is true, who said they had to eat the same animal
products as humans?
Most primates are either
> foli-frugivores (large ones) or fauni-frugivores (smaller),
Please provide scientific definitions for "foli-frugivore" or
"fauni-frugivore". If you would stop your desperate semantic bullshit,
you'd realize that "fauni-frugivore" would be synonymous with
"omnivore". You just contradicted yourself.
none seems to be
> able to process significant quantities of leaf, fruit and animal
matter.
Cite?
> Larger primates tend to eat less energy dense foods, because of
relatively
> lower basal energy requirements.
>
> Wild primates eat raw meat, not toxic cooked meat.
Relevance? How does the fact that non-human primates haven't mastered
the use of fire support your ridiculous position?
Not all primates are meat
> eaters, and meat is not essential for our closest relatives the chimp
and
> bonobo.
Relevance?
>
> Humans do not have the biochemistry typical of so called omnivores -
see my
> other posts.
We must, otherwise we would not be faunivores or "fauni-frugivores".
>
> Please don't use scientific sounding words if you have so scientific
> definition of them.
Your comedy act sucks. You are a fraud.
I'll cite a few vegetarians for you and I'll emphasize(by use of ***)
the points you are too dishonest to address.
>From a vegetarian who at least attempts to be honest:
http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
Conclusion
***Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical
traits***. ***There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the
assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet***. For
that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain
ecological, ethical, and health concerns.
[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The
American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a
primatologist.]
And from one who is entirely honest:
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml
"Analysis of the human gut data using the coefficient of gut
differentiation (a measure of gut specialization) placed humans in the
frugivore range, ***along the margin with the faunivore category***.
However, analysis of the same data using the index of gut
specialization (yet another measure of gut morphological
specialization) placed humans ***squarely in the faunivore range***."
Recall that all frugivorous primates eat at least some quantities of
animal foods, even if only insects. Thus the result that humans
appeared to be frugivores by one measure and faunivores by another
***suggests a natural diet for humans that includes both animal foods
and fruits***.
***Human GI quotient pattern typical of faunivores***
Human GI quotients are considerably lower than predicted/expected for
all 4 digestive system components measured. Martin et al. report [1985,
p. 72] that:
Calculation of gut quotient values has particular interest in the case
of the four average surface areas of the gut compartments determined
for six Homo sapiens. It can be seen from figs. 1-4 that man has values
of less than one for all four gut compartments, most notably with
respect to the cecum:
GQ = 0.31; IQ = 0.76; CQ = 0.16; LQ = 0.58
[In the above, GQ is the quotient for the stomach, IQ for the small
intestine, CQ for the cecum, and LQ for the colon.]
***This is a pattern shared with a number of animals relying heavily on
animal food*** ["faunivores" (Chivers and Hladik, 1980)].
Meaningful dietary groupings based on statistical analysis of GI
quotients. A dendrogram, or "tree" diagram, based on statistical
analysis of the GI quotients for the different animal species in the
study was derived in order to determine meaningful dietary groupings
according to similarity of GI tracts. The dendrogram for the study can
be found in Figure 11, p. 81 of Martin et al. [1985], and includes Homo
sapiens. Humans fall into group A2 in the dendrogram, about which,
Martin et al. [1985, p. 82] comment:
Group A can be characterized as containing numerous mammalian species
(primates and nonprimates) that ***include at least some animal food in
their diets***. Again, there is a separation into two subcategories
(A1, A2), the second of which contains most of the mammalian carnivores
and only two primate species--Cebus capucinus and Homo sapiens.
Thus the result of the advanced statistical analysis in Martin et al.
[1985] is that ***humans fall into the faunivore--meat-eater--class,
yet again***. Note also that the Capuchin monkey, Cebus capucinus, is
in the same statistical grouping as humans, thereby confirming the
remarks in Milton [1987], discussed earlier in this section, that the
human and Capuchin monkey gut dimensions are similar.
Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
The use of logarithmic quotients is preferable to the use of
anti-logarithmic quotients in MDS analyses.
MDS analysis techniques are more robust (for the subject data set) than
dendrogram-based clustering techniques.
Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations. From MacLarnon et
al. [1986, p. 297]:
....[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the approach using
logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3 and 5) is particularly
interesting in that it suggests a marked departure of Cebus [Capuchin
monkey] and Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates lacking
any special adaptation for folivory...in the ***direction of
faunivorous*** non-primate mammals....
5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering purposes suggests
that Cebus and Homo possess gastrointestinal tracts that have become
adapted in parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with notable
reduction in size of caecum relative to body size. Nevertheless,
because of the artificiality of most modern human diets, it cannot be
concluded with confidence that the small human sample examined to date
reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The
results obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive.
Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests, but is not (by
itself) conclusive proof, ***that the human GI tract is adapted for the
consumption of animal foods***.
....
The basic result appears to be that the ***anatomy of the human GI
tract shows what appear to be adaptations for faunivory (consumption of
animal foods)***, regardless of whether humans fall into the faunivore
or frugivore class.
....
***the sum total of current evidence suggests that humans (and Capuchin
monkeys) are (figuratively) where the faunivore and frugivore classes
"meet.***"
....
***Humans fail on raw, ape-style frugivore diets, but thrive on
faunivore diets***
....
***[human] gut dimensions are those of a faunivore***
....
***Humans are on the inner edge of the faunivore [meat-eater] cluster,
showing the distinctive adaptations of their guts for meat-eating, or
for other rapidly digested foods, in contrast to the frugivorous apes
(and monkeys)***.
....
Section summary and synopsis
Although by comparative anatomy analysis (alone) the issue is not yet
settled, the results of two different statistical analyses of a "large"
data set on gut morphology and diet (i.e., ***the best available
scientific evidence) support the idea that animal foods are a natural
part of the human diet***. That is:
***Humans are faunivores or frugivores adapted to a diet that includes
significant amounts of animal foods***.
The morphology of the human gut does not correspond to that expected
for a nearly 100%-fruit frugivore, as claimed by various fruitarian
extremists.
Finally, the simplistic analyses of gut morphology found in the various
comparative proofs of diet are (badly) outdated.
Let's see how you tap-dance around this. Oh, and don't attack the
messenger, Billings was quoting directly from peer-reviewed research.
All you have is unfounded extremism.