• Ace T'Ken
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    Errrr… are you looking for me to provide you a primary scientific source for how teeth work in animals with differing diets? Most of that is in veterinary texts (which is an amalgam of info), but it’s akin to asking for a scientific evidence for gravity. What you’re asking is too broad to be covered in a single paper and shows a misunderstanding of how scientific studies focus and function. I was simply giving you a primer since you asked, and that blog is good enough for that (and accurate from the portion I read).

    I can point you at papers (such as this one on Tooth root morphology as an indicator for dietary specialization in carnivores) which can help explain part of how food selection works in evolution, but I’m not sure what level of information would satisfy you or why you’d even want it?

    Here’s one on how tooth wear affects teeth differently based on evolutionary eating habits.

    Here’s one on the development and evolution of teeth.

    Here’s one on mammalian teeth in specific.

    If you’d like more, feel free to use https://scholar.google.com/ to look for more.

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t have anything to add, but I want to take a moment to applaud your comment. Well done, truly.

      • Ace T'Ken
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I appreciate it! I mod [email protected] if you’d ever care to join us.

        We try to disagree in good faith and not attack each other there.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I appreciate the effort given, especially on that last link 😅 However I’m not sure we’re on the same page. I don’t refute any of that. Of course an animal’s tooth morphology can help deduce its diet, but it’s far, far, from the only factor. Tooth morphology can also be a vestigial trait. Body parts don’t just fall off when they stop being useful, like the human tailbone for example. Or the body part may serve a different purpose. In the example I’ve given of the panda bear and gorilla, the teeth are both, they evolved in their meat eating ancestors AND they help tear apart the plants they eat. In fact this is true for almost all mammals, and your sister should be able to back this up, as does the Wikipedia article thrown at me earlier. Meat eating animals have broad flat molars in the back of their mouth. Herbivorous mammals have sharp incisors to help tear apart plant matter.

      So yeah, we may have a couple of sharpish teeth, a characteristic we share with most herbivorous mammals. We have a whole lot of other herbivore characteristics as well.

      Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?

      Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

      The expert I feel expresses my point well enough but the whole article is worth reading. You should send it to your sister and discuss it. :)

      • Ace T'Ken
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        That paper is not really a source, it’s a literature review. That’s not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say “… and therefore this other thing may be true.” It’s essentially philosophizing.

        The paper neither invalidate nor proves anything, it simply makes a loose connection to a strange claim.

        The author is correct that we do have characteristics of herbivores. However that is not something anyone was questioning; that’s literally one of the requirements for being an omnivore. We also have characteristics of carnivores. And even obligate carnivores will often have some characteristics of herbivores due to evolutionary holdovers.

        The paper is, essentially, saying nothing of value.

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Seeing as how we hunted multiple mega fauna to extinction, I’m gonna go ahead and say that humans have been eating meat for a very long time. Also there’s shit tons of archeological evidence for our omnivorous diet going back hundreds of thousands of years, but… whatever.

        I will never understand why people feel the need to try and prove humans are supposed to be herbivores. Who gives a fuck? There’s ample evidence that your can eat a healthy vegan diet, who gives a shit about “supposed to” if you can eat vegan either way?