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 That’s not inherently bad, but essentially all it does is pull things in from other (if you check, quite outdated by nearly 60 years, which is a lot, ESPECIALLY for biology) articles and say “… and therefore this other thing may be true.”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