Vegetable cellulose, no matter how much, can lead to gas, bloating, diarrhea, and even intestinal blockage. In some cases these can lead to death. One of the reasons we need to take in a certain measure of fat and oil is to offset this. Animal fats are particularly useful in this role. Furthremore, several critical enzymes that the heart needs are best found in meat products- coenzyme Q10 among them.

Meat may not be a necessity, but it requires a complex combination of other foods to replace it. In most locations on earth, this is fundamentally dependant on a global economy- only a few areas of the planet support diverse enough plant life to support a healthy vegetarian lifestyle.

Also, adress this issue more.. elaborately on each point: While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and ate the raw corpse would be considered deranged.

This is a social construct, and also not necessarily the case. I, and many others, have been known to pull clams and oysters out of the water, crack them open on a rock, and eat them raw right there. This isn't considered deranged in the areas where this is done- it is common. From sushi to steak tartare, raw or nearly raw meats are consumed worldwide by various cultures. I would assert that considering someone who kills with his bare hands to be deranged would have more to do with having weapons and tools as an option and failing to use them; we do tend to be skeptical of those who make things harder for themselves than they have to.

Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase.

Humans do not have the sense of smell that most other animals (carnivores or herbivores) do; it is neither sensitive nor discriminating enough to use it to find food, so it wouldn't make sense for that sense to tie into a predatory instinct. The throll of the chase though? That is a thing, for many humans. Some of us are even known to hunt for sport/fun, when we don't even need to eat the prey.

Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of blood, intestines, and raw flesh and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed.

Conditioning, or possibly a lack thereof. The young of carnivores tend to intially be repelled by the screams of prey animals until they're conditioned to associate such with food. Not so long ago, most humans were able to clean a carcasse without batting an eyelash. Even today, many can.

The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, another indication that we weren’t designed to eat meat.

No, this is just an indication that many of us expect several intermediaries between the animal carcass and our plate. It's certainly not innately repulsive to myself, or many others that I know.

Furthermore, to say "we are not carnivores we are omnivores" is not applicable seeing as when omnivores (such as bears) have a taste (or need) for meat, all of these carnivorous traits kick in. (I.e. Salivation, and excitement at the scent of blood.)

Strictly speaking, bears don't need meat any more than humans do, so long as they have a sufficiently varied alternate diet. It is preferential as a source of energy and fat for the winter, but they can subsist on an entirely vegetarian diet. Not all carnivores or omnivores respond in a similar way, and carrion eaters (as I touched on with my speculation earlier) neither have a specific taste for blood or an instinct to chase prey.

Obligate carnivores are typically such because they lack the ability to synthesize certain necessary enzymes, proteins, amino acids, etc. The inability to synthesize taurine is the key factor that makes felines obligate carnivores.

To say "we are not omnivores we are herbivores" is not applicable seeing as we can survive and thrive well beyond our natural life expectancy on a diet that is almost entirely meat- see the Inuit people for an example there.

The metric for "omnivore" is not whether it is ideal for the creature in question to eat both plants and meat- it is whether the creature in question in fact eats and derives nutrition from both plants and meats. Humans, and all other members of the great ape family meet this metric. That's really all that needs to be said on the matter.

Before you embarrass yourself, contemplate this assertion.

Pretty sure the right order is to contemplate before posting it in the first place which is what I did. Maybe you should contemplate why you don't understand it.

An animal that evolves from a carnivore to omnivore is going to be different than an animal that evolves from an herbivore to omnivore - contemplate why you have to be told something so trivial.

I'm sure he is asserting himself, unlike some (which includes you) who assert googled assertions

Only in your world does making an assertion and backing it up with peer-reviewed science count less than an assertion with no substantiation at all.

Let me post it again:

I actually do like these the best - someone who really really thinks they know what they are talking about, but really really doesn't.

Yet, I have not gave any proven false assertions

Except regarding intestine length, life-expectancy, bone loss, that herbivores have fingernails (ever hear of a panda bear?), etc. etc.

So, I wouldn't watch Fox even if I did watch the news.

See, you're not all bad - no matter what everyone else is saying ;)

If you are implying hypocrisy

Quite the opposite. Instead of saying hey stop using references, I am very truly encouraging you to use more of them. No one on the internet knows, or should be expected to believe, what research you did or are even capable of. There is a reason people value peer-reviewed research by people with PhD's and decades of experience in the field.

Yet, when I bring up herbivores being able to consume and survive off meat you STILL give no answer.. Why? Because this is key to how an herbivore being classified as so even though it has the ability to survive off of meat. You will not answer this because you want the 'coffin nailed shut'. Like always, you’re done with answers once your inexorable assertion can be deemed problematic.

It's because you already know the answer there. You've been hinting at it all along with your attempts to point out the negative affects that meat has on the human body, exaggerated as you make them out to be... there is some truth to them. Just as there is harm incurred from many forms of plant matter, including the example of plant cellulose that I offered in counter to the sole example you offered previously. In animals truly classified as herbivores, real sickness tends to develop in them- to the extent of what you prescribe to humans and more- and they are generally unable to offset these downsides sufficiently for reproductive success or longevity. In turn, they generally have mechanisms that compensate for the negatives we get from plant matter. We're able to process meat with little difficulty or negative affect, except when excessive quantities of particular forms of meat are consumed by some parts of the population.

You really don't think things through, do you? One minute, exaggerated claims of the deadly, deadly danger of humans eating meat because we're herbivores, and next- oh, actual herbivores can eat meat and be JUST FINE. Seriously? Are you counting on others just reading this exchange piecemeal as we post with hours and hours in between to forget details in, rather than some reading the dialogue through at once down the road?

You don't have an argument here without retracting the cornerstone of your argument against humans as omnivores. Checkmate, buddy ;)

Which you have failed to explain, rather, just prevaricate.

A scroll wheel mouse says otherwise :)

The fact that you bring up my school shows an act of defense from the feeling of inferiority. My school had nothing to do with the question at hand. "Who are you" was suggesting implication of 'appeal to person'. You opinion is no closer to a fact than mine. But, again, because of that quick feeling of inferiority--even though I said no offense--you that were the first thing you jumped to, as if I invoked you being lesser than me.Then in your attempt to abase me, you profess: "given the quality of graduates that I've been able to speak with as compared to yourself". which questions your intelligence due to the fact that you make this profession of one school being superior to another by conversing with said superior schools graduate's' (implying mare than one) to just one current Harvard student. Maybe your followers think that this is non-problematical but.... You actually do this a lot, but you being a sophist helps you look intelligent. You structure your fallible arguments really well, so most people will think that it is a good argument--which it is not. Every time you are faced with a difficult question you are discretely evasive--and nicely so. Almost all your responses are just facts (whether true or not), but when faced with a fact you don't know that requires an objection you resort to your excellent evasive techniques.

It's not really me bringing up your school, so much as you going out of your way to associate yourself with your school via your username, and then maintain an online presence prone to being generally pompous and holding naive positions, all with an undeserved air of superiority. You strongly conflate knowledge and education with intelligence, and it shows- though I'll grant you that except in extremes of intelligence, knowledge and credentials are generally more useful.

My aim is more to suggest that you are not making a good showing as a representative of your school by comparing you to your peers, than to draw conclusions regarding your school. Surely that wasn't too subtle for you? Like it or not, if you're going to post under the name 'HarvardGrad' you are effectively representing the school.

I don't feel any inferiority towards you, though perhaps a touch of envy, I'll concede. I was accepted to Cornell University, MIT, and a few other schools I found quite compelling, but was unable to attend any for a combination of complicated financial circumstances compounded by my own lack of forethought as a student, effectively tanking my chances at all of the scholarships I might have qualified for- and not for lack of trying. I really don't think this is the time or place to get into the whole financial sob story.

And you know... it really seems like you might be projecting some serious issues with your own debate style onto me, somehow. Evasiveness really seems to be your cup of tea, alongside cherry-picked facts (or gaping holes in your knowledge).

Also... I have followers now?

It was not just "one" hippo I was speaking of that eats meat sometimes for survival. As a species this happens. And to say that a select species (i.e. not 'bears' but grizzly bear; not 'a top' but t-shirt; not 'birds' but vulture) is in itself separated in its dietary patterns is absurd. I guess SOME leopards are omnivores right?

It is still not frequent with a large portion of the population of hippos, and is believed to represent aberrant behavior. We don't include dirt in the human diet simply because a small percentage of people have been known to do so at some time, and a smaller percentage repeatedly. This is not comparable to meat eating activity in humans, though it is comparable to meat eating activity in bonobos. Even then, though, hippos do not hunt, but rather feed within a territory, whereas groups of bonobos have been known to actively hunt on very rare occasion.

Is it really necessary for you to flip back and forth like this? Are you trying to confuse me regarding your position as a debate tactic? Seriously?

Lol, "in my opinion".

Yes, in my opinion. You would do well to edit a few of your posts to edit it in as a preface to numerous things you have presented as fact. Weren't you just going on about how I don't debate but rather just present facts? Except, you know, the opinions I offer based on said facts. I do my best not to present my opinions as fact, though I'm far from immune to it.

I specifically said "all" for the problematical purposes of everywhere there is a human populous there is not always access to "global economy". Basically, No, everyone "could" not.

And where did I say everyone, here?

A lot of the nutrition that is healthy for us in meat is the same nutrition that the meat derivative consumes. (Note: I said "a lot" not all.) And again, some of, what you would call, herbivorous species can do the same thing. So to imply that humans are omnivores because they can eat and survive off of both plants and animals, would be contradictory to your belief in the herbivores being still known as herbivores even though they can consume and survive off of both plants and animals. You have not come close to a refutation with sufficiency that deems this non-contradictory. In fact, all you did was make an absurd statement suggesting that a select species can in itself have two different dietary traits...?

I already touched on this before, twice now I think. Maybe it was in another thread. Agriculture has not always been a thing, you know? While many livestock today are typically fed grain that is edible in one form or another, actual human edible plants in the wild are not nearly a majority. Eating meat allows us, as I said before, to effectively subsist on inedible plants by using the metabolism of an herbivore as an intermediary. There are some negative affects, but nothing like the sickness that true herbivores tend to get, excepting a transient form if someone who is not used to eating meat suddenly incorporates a lot into his diet.

Last note, I can see how this will just keep going, I will allow a response, but I will not go back and forth with someone who counters with: "in my opinion", regarding a fact of humans naturally (which you purposely ignored like always) not being able to survive on certain parts of the world due to unsustainable conditions. Because you imply that the way humans counter these conditions is with 'intelligence'. I agree, but that does not mean that intelligence deems all things derived from as 'natural'. For example, consciously being able to never reproduce and then doing so would not be natural. This conscientiousness is still being questioned of 'how are humans able to do the unnatural' and 'is being able to do the unnatural natural', which brings me back to the original question, why did humans (or the ancestors) "start", and you answer resulted in me exemplifying herbivores that have been known to eat meat and can survive off doing so, and you follow-up to that was fallibly asserted.

I don't see much point in continuing with someone who presents his opinions as facts. And seriously, are you doing the appeal to nature, and in that way? The whole 'humans are natural' argument is stupid, because the word 'natural' exists specifically to delineate between that which resulted from mans actions and that which did not- even if the distinction is held to be an arbitrary one due to man being the result of natural processes, that distinction is still there, built into the meaning of the word.

I believe I speculated earlier that the shift to eating meat was done by a common ancestor, and was caused by some kind of blight of a staple food, or its loss due to climate change, or something to that effect; it probably involved a lot of animals dieing outright, with only a minority able to subsist on a diet that contained a lot of meat for a time, and still sufficiently thrive to reproduce. It may have even been carrion or the leavings of large predators that they fed on initially.

(1) With you knowing that each countries hunters are limited goes to show that it is not human instinct.

I know its been a while since we started this debate, so I will remind you what I said in my first response to you:

" a predatory instinct that is stronger in some people than in others..." and "We clearly aren't dietary specialists."

That predatory instinct is being bred out of us slowly as civilization reduces the need for hunting. If anything, that is the opposite of your argument.

As far as instincts...they are physical responses to stimuli that will be stronger in some specimens than others.

Also, you must have noticed that a lot of people have a natural distaste for fruits and vegetables.

We are a diverse species, and no dietary specialists.

Wow... So if someone grew up in a home full of deer hunters, their "instinctual" hunting trait would not be hunting game?

I have no idea where you got that, but that is not what I said or implied.

You seem to forget the purpose of a hunting instinct.

To satiate hunger. I never said we were obligate carnivores, I said we were omnivores. You do realize that there are more ways for heterotrophs to obtain food than just "herbivore" and "carnivore", right?

Anyway, for some people, this instinct is too strong to ignore. For most of us, it would only kick in if it was needed. Which is rarely the case in modern society. We don't usually get hungry enough or have so little food available to us that we would even think to hunt. There is no need for the response because, for most of us there is no stimulus. The fact that many people choose to hunt or fish recreationally shows that, in some cases, we don't need the stimulus to get the response.

Its like saying "fight or flight" isn't a part of our psychological make-up just because some people will never experience it.

And the vey fact that you said hunting is not cultural confirms your knowledge.

As being superior to yours? Sure.

Again, hunters exist everywhere, even in big cities. They can be raised right alongside a more modern cultural identity and still love to hunt.

We do not chew with our canines.. Our canines are useful for biting into large and tough fruits and vegetables.

"Rend flesh" is not necessarily the same as "chew". The simple fact that we use similar tactics on both fruits and meats with identical efficiency shows that our anatomy was not designed to specialize.

It is interesting that you just falsely asserted that. I said we are able (obviously) but that we should not. As we are designed to not. Also, you never answered the question so I am going to assume ignorance.

"Also, just because there is a shortage of grass does not mean that deer will start hunting mice."

Not falsely asserted. You said they will not start.

This comment lets me know this is a troll.

Are you serious? The one non troll answer is what leads you to believe I am a troll?

I have stated empirical evidence multiple times; I gave reasonable scientific analogies that would help the herbivorous argument; I have pointed out the false statements such as 'because we can survive of meat as our ancestors did, that makes us omnivores'; and so on, it is YOU that seems to be having a problem countering my objections to these assertions with prevarications in the

False. You have only ever stated that we don't have the biological makeup to be carnivores. You have not shown any empirical evidence that we have the biological makeup of herbivores. All of your proof that we are herbivores is that we come really close to being herbivores.

Are hippos herbivores or not? The simplicity of this answer necessitated a "yes" or "no". But obviously you ignorance got the best of you, so you resorted to being a prevaricator. That's cool, but, I suggest you not intrude on my debates not relative to you because I am not a fan of arguing persistent ignorant people.

You are the one who said that herbivores don't ever eat meat.

If your preference is to change the definitions of words, I really can't help you there...

When I said this, I was stating that just using the term "omnivore" does not justify humans eating 'animal' meat. Absurdities such as: 'because something is omnivorous means that it can (non-harmfully) eat anything edible', is intolerable. I say that you assert this absurd statement, because you suggest that we are omnivores, by the 'definition', because we (supposedly) are supposed to eat insects. Hippos have been known to hunt, catch, kill, and eat livestock. Do we call them omnivores? No.

Humans do not eat 1% meat and 99% plant material

I never said this? Of course most humans eat more meat, but it is the simple fact (which is proven) that they should not eat any, so....

---

First, isn't the non-existence of humans a more serious negative effect?

I am guessing you mean this due to lack of necessitated vegetation, encouraging the consumption of X (meat) , opposed Y (vegetation) right? There are various species that could survive on a diet opposite of theirs. They will, more than likely, not commence such diet due to said diets presumed 'qualities'; lack of 'attraction' (looks); lack of 'stimuli' in opposed diet that would entice senses, such as smell; albeit rare, lack of 'taste', due to having tried said opposed diet previously. This does not mean that just because they can survive off their opposed diet, they are considered 'omnivorous'. Deer, hippopotamuses', cows, and various species of duiker, all have been witnessed eating, and sometimes hunting, animals (cannibalistic and all). Yet, they are still herbivores. I suppose you believe they are omnivores? By your ideologies I can assure that you do. These animals exhibit such behavior, sometimes for just the wanting to consume opposite of their (supposed) necessary diet; sometimes they do it from lack of necessitated food. This can be the difference between survival and death. But, once again, they are still considered herbivores. So to assert that because our ancestors consumed meat to survive, classifies them as 'omnivores', would be considered hypocrisy if you consider the meat eating animals, as I stated above, 'herbivores'.

Second, there are also negative effects from not eating meat - vitamin B9/B12 and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid deficiencies

The problem with this, (pertaining to my notion: 'positive effects outweighing negative), is that the majority of vegetarians are naturally healthier than apposed omnivorous (disregard unrelated external encroaching factors). You point out 2 (likely to be 100% fact) negatives, but I can point out, as I did before, more negative (and more serious) effects of eating meat. Sure there are cases of a few senile or adolescent vegetarians suffering from such deficiencies, but most live sufficiently well. There is however millions upon millions of people suffering and dying from far worse than ‘a VB-12’ deficiency from meat-related substances. Basically, the fact that most vegetarians live healthier lives (in just nutrient aspects) than ‘omnivores’ without these (presumed) ‘necessities’, shows that the negative effects of ‘not eating meat’ are negligible. Fun fact- most human “instant” food-related fatal accidents are from choking on meat. Real omnivores and carnivores do not have this problem. Also, herbivores, (design), have the longest lifespans, and humans are a part of this category. We also sleep around the same time span of herbivores. There is plenty more, but let us get back to the debate.

Third, as I have already mentioned, we have developed specific meat-adaptive gene alleles which specifically reduce the cardiovascular risks

(1) I asked: “why did we start to eat met,” with “start” referring to ancestors. I wanted to know postulations of how it began. So when you say “developed” you are implicating that it ‘was not always’. This brings me back to the original question.

(2) Fatal heart-related health effects, derived from ingesting meat, are still consistent amongst humans. For example, ingesting meat causes your blood to become more acidic, to compensate, your body does various things like contract calcium in your bones, which then causes you to need more calcium (like milk), which is not necessary seeing as how you body naturally produces calcium. But of course the ingestion of the unnatural (to the body) substance, has negative consequent effects. And using terms like “reduce” makes me wonder why do we need to ‘develop’ genes that allow us to ‘adapt’ to eating meat if we are designed to do so in the first place? These (heart) health effects, of course, are ensured not to happen if there is no ingestion of meat.

(3) Why haven’t humans developed genes that cease all the other imposing factors regarding negative health effects from meat-eating? And, why did our ancestors not need these genes along with Vitamin B-12? I’m assuming that because the use of your terminology, you assert that we, originally, did not have these genes; therefore, they were not needed; which means, because they were not needed, we can assume it was because they were not consuming food that has necessitated elements that give said gene a function.

Fourth, larger brains and more mating years are more highly selected for than problems in post-child bearing years

…..

Fifth, the modern processed diet is not to be mistaken as the same as our diet for the last 2 million years

I can assure you I am not “mistaken”. Unprocessed meat causes these same side effects. Some negative effects of meat can be caused by procession of meat, yes, but not most of them. And from the looks of it, if we assume that we, inherently, are omnivorous based of the whim of insects, then our diet still should not consist of animal meat. Four million years ago, our ancestor’s diet consisted almost exclusively of vegetation.

Great, then I shall now check your references... oh, wait

(1) I have been stating facts from personal knowledge of anatomy and empirical evidence of situations pertaining to the debate, instead of, constructing an arguments solely on other scientist arguments, (both opposed and in defense of my position), as you have.

(2) Since you seem to be googling all of your oppositions, instead of actually knowing them, (and don’t say you do not have to have a near full understanding of a topic to debate it, as that would be absurd), you can google some scientist that agree with my assertions. I will reference a specificity if do not have systematical accuracy of so.

Again, this is a deliberate (and poor) attempt to cherry-pick data. Which meat eaters, which herbivores, which omnivores? Herbivores like cows and oxen have intestine to body ratio of 20:1 and sheep and goats have a ratio of 27:1 ref A carnivore like the dog has a ratio of 6:1 Humans have a ratio of just under 8:1 Now where would humans fall?

I have lost all hope for your intelligibility and knowledgeability. An herbivores (which include humans), intestines length is 10-12 times the length of their trunk, while a carnivore’s length is 3-6 times their trunk. This is an inexorable fact. This is not ‘situational’. There is a reason for punctuation marks such as “-“. In case I am talking to someone ignorant of punctuation, the use of (-) between the two numbers was to represent ‘through’ or ‘to’. So “3-6” can be said as “three through six” or “three to six”. I said this to say that herbivores intestines varies in size, but herbivores (including humans) will always have a length 10 “through” 12 times the size of their trunk.

That doesn't seem like an accurate quote - I don't see anywhere that I said that.

I am sure that was meant to be an accurate implication based on your suggestions. I never said it was a direct quote.

You already made up your mind, don't confuse you with facts, eh?

So I guess I am pulling out all of the (proven) facts for my position out the crack of my ass right? All those medical FACTS (that you did not deny as you know it is fact) I just, “guessed”, right? I guess I researched in books that I can formulate in my head right? I mean, how else would I research if I got my research from me? Gee I wonder what’s next…

Well you have an unnamed professor that you talked to one time and I have every peer-review article and study ever done

So I guess I am just going to keep responding to straw-man, or just blatant ignorance? So you are basically saying, because I was informed of a previously unknown fact by a professor, means that I am going to take it as a truth and debate, EVEN WHEN I explicitly stated that I did not know that it was true, so I went and did research of anatomy, biology-relatives, etc., to conclusively acquiesce with said informed fact? It is almost as if you just read a fraction of a sentence and dispute it. This also relates to your previous fragment of my “falsely asserted non-direct quote”, because if you had fully read, you would have seen how it was not my intention to make said quote “direct”.

Meaning none unless it is presented. If something can just be asserted to be true, then it can just as easily be asserted to be false.

Which means your ‘googled’ assertion(s) can also be false.

Then name it.

Anatomy. Ha-ha, this feels like jeopardy! I like jeopardy

My view is that scientists know better than you. Note: Still no definition of omnivore presented - much less one that excludes humans.

That is an assumed view, seeing as how you don’t know me, you cannot make the assertion that I am not as knowledgeable as a scientist, or even, that I am not a scientist myself. Anyway, I addressed this throughout this disputation.