The Human "Omnivore": a mythological beast

On 14 Nov, 14:59, NotMe wrote:
On 14 Nov, 11:26, Gloria wrote:

The Human "Omnivore": a mythological beast
No human cultural-carnivore kills its animal prey with his/her
natural equipment, nor do they eat their animal prey raw.

I have eaten raw fish and steak. However in the last few millennia we
have evolved to eat most of our meat cooked, this is better as it
contains less harmful bacteria, leading to longer life spans.

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"[W1]. 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,

So you agree that for the last 50 million years we have been evolving
into omnivores.

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.

The proto humans of 50 million years ago would look very different to
us now. For a start they would not have had the cognitive abilities to
make the arguments that you are making. Our natural nutritional needs
of 50 million years ago are totally different to what they are now. If
we had not made the step to eating meat, we would never have evolved
to this level.

Anthropologists' fantasies that humans commonly 'scavenged' dead,
putrefying flesh left to rot by natural carnivores, or produced by the
natural death of animals, are totally absurd. I would challenge any
such confused academics to test their own theory by actually eating
some rotting road-kill, raw, with their bare hands.

Again, the animals we were 50 million years ago, are totally different
to what we are today.

Evolution happens because of small, infrequent, random mutations
in the genetic material:

No-one knows exactly how evolution works, some people suggest small
steps, some other people suggest larger steps. There are been several
animals that have been seen to take large steps in just a few
generations. These include changing colour and fitting into a new
environment.

Because a faulty diet does not kill its proponents outright BEFORE reproductive age, there is simply no way to
"adapt" to a diet radically different in chemistry from the natural one for that species

Using this argument you are suggesting that no animal could have
evolved to become a carnivore, yet it has happened.
Equally no single cell life could have evolved into bi-sexual life,
life could never have left the seas etc.



Not surprisingly, all such claims as to the unsupported human
'evolution' from frugivores to omnivores conveniently do not mention
the fact that neither the necessary sharp tools (teeth, claws),

The adult Human mouth has four canine teeth evolved to tear meat, only
carnivores and omnivores have these.

digestive biochemistry, fleetness of foot, nor animal-killing
instincts have co-evolved with the alleged 'evolution' to omnivore.

Our eyes are both forward looking and placed close together on our
faces, in common with most carnivores this allows us to gauge the
distance, size and speed of our pray. Herbivores usually have their
eyes more to the sides of their faces, giving them better peripheral
vision, so that they can keep an eye out for predators.

Why did the concomitant, and quite necessary, tools NOT co-evolve?

We have one tool that did co-evolve much better than any other meat
eater, the human brain. Our brains could not have evolved to the
levels it did without eating meat. Use of our brain allowed us to use
tools for hunting, to hunt in packs and set traps.
Have you ever watched sport on telly, team sports such as foot ball
show our ability to act as a team when hunting, sports like rugby and
tennis show our evolved ability to track and intercept animals and
objects, sports like basketball, snooker and archery demonstrate our
ability to accurately throw objects to hit a target.

Have you seen the film footage of primates hunting other primates for
food, they are physically similar to us, and they manage by trapping
their prey.

People distorting evolutionary theory to make the evolutionary
omnivore argument fall silent on those points.
On the B-12 issue, the self-contradictions continue.
Interestingly, "In one study of vegans ... the [source of B-12]
was due to eating unwashed vegetables that had been grown in gardens
containing intentionally manured soils, from which the B-12 came.
Ironically, the manure in this case was their own excrement

The planting of crops has only been happening recently in the
evolutionary time scale, and manuring the soil even more recently than
that. To use your own words, "this is a cultural phenomenon" and has
happened due to our evolved intellect.

Ironicallly this shows that our ability to have a totally vegetarian
diet has only come about in the last few thousand years, and under
very controlled conditions, considering the health hazards of eating
human excrement.
Human excrement can contain some very nasty diseases including
Giardiasis, Hepatitis, Shigellosis (bacillary dysentery), Typhoid
fever, Vibrio parahaemolyticus infections, Polio and Cholera.

Would you honestly eat your own excrement to get your B-12, or food
grown from a complete strangers excrements?