4 ms·

Perhaps the cooking is key, as stated in this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990810064914.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/0

• donw 16y ago
  I think that's it's pretty obvious that our digestive systems are suited for meat, since we're completely incapable of digesting most plant matter. Humans are incapable of metabolizing most of the foliage out there, whether or not we cook it, whereas we can draw nutrition easily from fruit, nuts, and even raw meat. Our dentition patters are further evidence; we're dentally equipped as omnivores, but our dentition patters learn more towards carnivore than they do herbivore.
  • limist 16y ago
    While we can eat and digest meat, that fact doesn't address the larger question of what is optimal for us to eat. Our canine teeth are quite pathetic compared to true carnivores: 4, not very big. Compared to all our molars, side-to-side jaw motion for grinding veggies, etc. Also, compare teeth patterns of our primate relatives with us, and their diets - gorillas and chimps have much larger canine teeth, but their diets are mostly vegetarian. Also, if we're meant to eat a lot of meat, why are our digestive tracts nothing like carnivores'? Compare length, acidity, and time to digest. Finally, thousands of people die every year from choking on food. I don't think they're mostly choking on berries, leaves, or rice.
    • shasta 16y ago
      > Our canine teeth are quite pathetic compared to true carnivores: 4, not very big You know that people can use tools, right?
      • run4yourlives 16y ago
        Are you suggesting that we've been using tools so long that our teeth have evolved to account for this adaptation? In other words, are you suggesting that there was a human at one time that had a more canine like mouth?
        • shasta 16y ago
          No, I'm saying that big canines are useful for killing things, not eating meat. People don't kill the way a tiger does, and probably never have. I don't see how it follows that people weren't designed to eat meat.
          • run4yourlives 16y ago
            Is there an example of an animal you have that supports the assertion that it is hunting habit that determine the style of teeth and not diet? I'm curious because I always thought diet was the driver in mouth design, while hunting was more a factor in eye placement.
            • shasta 16y ago
              Most teeth are for chewing or incising food, and thus I'd expect most teeth styles to be designed for diet. Canines aren't used for eating - they're used for killing. So I'd be surprised to learn that they evolved for diet only. I'm too lazy to do the research, but I'd be happy to be learn I'm wrong. A quick search turned up a somewhat relevant article about large canines in primates (not carnivorous): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626145058.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080626145058.ht... It discusses whether they evolved the large canines for fighting or to impress females, but either way it wasn't related to diet.
    • billswift 16y ago
      Predators' enlarged canine teeth are for catching and killing their prey, not for eating meat. Interestingly, the teeth that are adapted for meat eating in carnivores, their carnassials, are pretty similar in general shape to our incisors and canines. The carnivores carnassials are more jagged because of the limited room for their cutting action since the are in their cheeks. Human incisors are actually more effective at cutting meat in some ways than carnivores' teeth. And our "side-to-side" jaw motion is quite effective at cutting meat with our incisors. And humans can choke on anything that is large enough and hard enough.
  • adolph 16y ago
    Totally right. Meat and electrolytes, that's what a body needs.