"Brian Smith" wrote in message
...
Humans have NOT 'evolved to eat meat'. It's NOT good for you!

So why do we have teeth designed for tearing flesh, you know, those 4 teeth
either side of your front 2, they are sharpe and perfect for ripping flesh.

'Most “nutritionists” assert that we have definite carnivorous leanings,
and some have even termed our incisor teeth “fangs” in defense of
their erroneous position that humans are natural meat-eaters! If you
look at the various species in the animal kingdom, each is equipped
with teeth that are ideally suited to masticate a particular type of food.
Herbivores (like the cow) have 24 molars, eight jagged incisors in
the lower jaw and a horny palate in the upper jaw. Their jaws move
vertically, laterally, forward, and backward, enabling the herbivore
to tear and grind coarse grasses. Omnivores (like the hog) have
tusk-like canines allowing them to dig up roots. Frugivores (like the
chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in each jaw including four incisors,
two cuspids, four bicuspids, and six molars. The cuspids are adapted
for cracking nuts, and the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the
frugivore to mash and grind fruits. On the contrary, carnivores (like
the cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp,
cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth. Fangs and
sharp pointed teeth that penetrate and kill, that rip and tear flesh, are
a feature of all true carnivores (except certain birds). The powerful
jaws of the carnivore move only vertically, and are ideal for ripping
and tearing flesh that is swallowed virtually whole and then acted
upon by extremely potent gastric juices. Human teeth are not designed
for tearing flesh as in the lion, wolf or dog, but rather compare closely
with other fruit-eating animals. Human teeth correspond almost
identically to the chimpanzees and other frugivores. The complete
absence of spaces between human teeth characterizes us as the
archetype frugivore. The “canine” teeth of humans are short, stout,
and slightly triangular. They are less pronounced and developed
than the orangutan's, who rarely kills and eats raw flesh in its natural
environment. Human canines in no way resemble the long, round,
slender canines of the true carnivore. Human teeth are not curved
or sharp like the wolves or tigers, nor are they wide and flat like
the grass and grain-eating species. Human teeth are actually like
the fruit-eating monkeys, and the human mouth is best suited for
eating succulent fruits and vegetables. It would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, for humans to eat raw flesh without the
aid of fork and knife. To term our incisor teeth “fangs” or even to
liken them as such is outrageous. '
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm

We evolved from monkeys right ..

Relating Chimpanzee Diets to Potential Australopithecine Diets
Conklin-Brittain, Nancy Lou
Wrangham, Richard W.

We report data using an ape model to reconstruct the nutrient
composition of the frugivorous diet of our last common ancestor
with African great apes. We aimed to determine whether the
African ape clade, from which hominids evolved, has any unusual
features. We studied frugivory by comparing chimpanzee diets to
that of three species of cercopithecine monkeys in Kibale Forest,
Uganda.

Data came from a 12-month period that showed inter-monthly
variation in fruit abundance. The monkeys consumed stable
nutrient levels except for lipid, which was low (3.2 +/- 2.0 %
dry matter (DM)), but peaked at about 9% DM during ripe fruit
abundance. Chimpanzees also consumed low lipid and sugar diets
during fruit poor seasons. Protein intake reflected each species'
fallback food: leaf consumption kept the protein levels high for
monkeys (16.7 +/- 1.9% DM); chimpanzees relied on herbaceous piths
and maintained a low protein intake (9.5 +/- 3.0% DM). Fallback
food was probably also responsible for the high fiber (NDF) intakes
by monkeys, which was not significantly different from chimpanzees'
(32.4 +/- 3.6% NDF versus 33.6 +/- 4.5% NDF respectively).

Three conclusions emerge: fat intake was low for all frugivores,
protein intake was low for chimpanzees, and fiber intake was high
for all species. Our data (from a lipid-poor habitat) show that
high lipid or high protein is not needed for normal health and
reproduction of chimpanzees. Therefore, hominids were probably
capable of living on a low-fat, low-protein diet such as would be
provided by fibrous roots commonly found in a seasonal woodland
environment.
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../abstract.html

.. and monkeys eat flesh, we've all seen the
nature program that filmed the 3 chips chasing after the tree monkey,
capturing it, killing it, then eating it. They were compelled to do it by
instinct!

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed
"no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although
they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes
change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the
Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima,
revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees
ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani published
in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects, vertebrates,
avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in the 14 stools
that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and Suzuki found
the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88), although only
14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects and other animal
foods. So perhaps these differing observations are due to seasonal
variation, or even local differences (cultural variation) in feeding
preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps
groups are 'vegetarian', while other are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are meat-eaters.
...
Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive
systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey
animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments
of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to
be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
...'
http://web.archive.org/web/200303011...c/polemics.htm


Brute.

Damn right!