View Single Post
Old 10-08-2007, 03:19 PM   #49
Ray Jones
@Ray Jones
Ray Jones's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,302
10 year veteran!  LF Jester  Helpful!  Forum Veteran 
Originally Posted by Weave
Seems to support my belief of bourderline herbivore/omnivore since we were scavengers who ate mostly small kills.
Scavangers usually do not kill at all. And borderline herbivore or not does not matter, since it was the ability to eat something else than plants that brought us through, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Ray
Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).
Another thing that supports that we were (and still are) only specialized for a mix of an omnivorous/herbivourous diet is how our teeth don't grow back after we loose our permanents.
I think my language was somewhat bad, because what I had in mind was "develop back", not "grow back".

Also, I don't think the fact that our teeth are only growing twice has nothing to do with our diet, since mammals, regardless of their diet, usually grow teeth only twice. Fishes and reptiles grow their teeth more often.

Is it natural to eat meat? Some meats are very natural: while others are artificially put into our diet.
"Artificially put into our diet?" I don't think so. Like everywhere else around the world, what can be eaten goes down the throat. Any tiger will, when hungry, not stop at your neighbour's dog just because he's not at his 'natural meat' list. Of course, usually any hunting animal will not attack something much bigger than its own size, but zebras and gnus are not necessarily smaller than the average lion is. The reason why we attacked mammoths is not to artificially put something on our diet, but because we were able to and one mammoth gave food for months and useful materials like its fur, bones and teeth for weapons, tents and ornaments. If a lion could hunt down an elephant, he would do. Also, even the biggest animal, if not ripped apart by any scavangers, will be eaten by pretty damn small things without any form of teeth: bacterias.

Still, all this supports that we are specialized in eating small animals, due to the size of our canine teeth, and lots of vegies, due to our many dull teeth such as the mollers.
Really? My point would rather be that we don't have bigger canines because we're specialised to find ways to make big animals small so we didn't need to develop bigger ones. And again, we were more specialised for a carnivorous diet, since vegetation became pretty bad food, and that was our advance compared to the other, more towards herbivorous diet specialised Australopithecus.

It's odd too since eating too many fruits now-a-days isn't really good for us.
Do not forget, it's not us humans. It's more like pre-pre-humans from 4-3 million years ago or something. That is *a lot* of time to change and to adapt.

I mean we're not looking exactly like a 4' hairy something either.

Last edited by Ray Jones; 10-08-2007 at 03:31 PM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,