Most of the arguments on this page have tremendous holes in them. The one I feel like poking at the moment is, "no, we don't need meat, we just want it."

This is a natural fallacy. There is a reason we want it, there is a reason it tastes good. Can you say other-wise?

My retort to this argument would be: Well, if necessity is going to be judged by desire, than tell me why we desire harmful substances such as alcohol?

The answer is this: Harmful substances that induce pleasure mimic substances that are beneficial, and your Nucleus Accumbens, a structure right above the amygdala, says, 'more, more!' Now, the critical point of this argument is whether meat is simply mimicking something else we need or if it is the genuine substance our body is craving.

I lean towards the later, after all, there is an entire section of out tongue devoted to it! (Umami)

So, I think it is quite foolish to say we are not physiologically adapted to eat meat, because we are... Our canines are designed specifically for tearing flesh. However, one could argue for instance, that A: The ability to eat meat was evolved to prevent starvation, or B: Meat provided an advantage to the young and adolescent in muscle growth (or something to that effect), but caused problems later on (which would not be a problem because of a shorter life span). I have been wanting to write a research paper on this, I'm really curious what kind of research has been done.