I've not checked, but I would have thought that the timespan was far longer, after all chimpanzees, withIs that true? I thought it was a relatively recent change in our history, say around 10,000 years. Physiologically, we're more likely to have been herbivores for considerably longer in our evolution before becoming omnivores.
That's simply not true.Is that true? I thought it was a relatively recent change in our history, say around 10,000 years. Physiologically, we're more likely to have been herbivores for considerably longer in our evolution before becoming omnivores.
Is that true? I thought it was a relatively recent change in our history, say around 10,000 years. Physiologically, we're more likely to have been herbivores for considerably longer in our evolution before becoming omnivores.
I read somewhere that neanderthals' diet was virtually all meat, and they died out around 35,000 years ago?we were hunter-gatherers long before that, the earliest human records point to that, and it was also the lifestyle of neanderthals, it's a huge part of our evolution and brain development.
That's simply not true.
We have four canines, we have forward facing eyes (herbivores are generally on the sides of the head to better see predators whereas predators are forward facing as binocular vision makes hunting easier).
No idea where you got your 10,000 year rubbish from.
We still are, wait till we play the Rags ;)were then capable of herding animals.
My apologies.
Dr T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus Cornell University.
I think he argues that that date is around when meat became more common in our diet as we were then capable of herding animals.
The two words that stick out there are "more common" and it doesn't mean the same as your post which wasn't factual but I can see where you got that date from (around the same time we started farming and domesticating animals).My apologies.
Dr T. Colin Campbell, professor emeritus Cornell University.
I think he argues that that date is around when meat became more common in our diet as we were then capable of herding animals.
Exactly. Luckily he apologised at the start of his post so I think he's come to that conclusion himself.There's a substantial difference between meat-eaters, and meat becoming more common.
I read somewhere that neanderthals' diet was virtually all meat, and they died out around 35,000 years ago?
How do the far northern folk, Eskimos, (Innuit) manage to subsist entirely on meat? I know
things have changed nowadays with expansion etc; but the diet of these peoples consisted solely
of Whale meat and blubber, seals and fish, not a carrot, lettuce or spring cabbage in sight,
yet some experience great longevity.
It's a shit hyperbolic analogy and fails on that fact that you harm 'someone' and not 'something'. For it to be fair then the reader has to believe the rights of a chicken are the same as those of a human.
The only thing that is obnoxious is your sanctimony.
Fine, you don't like the analogy, but all you have done so far is use shit fallacies. Appeal to nature, appeal to tradition, and ad hominems. I'm deranged, a fruit and sanctimonious.. you just can't help yourself can you kiddo. Until you can use an argument to defend why the systematic breeding, abusing, and killing of highly sentient animals is a good thing, or morally irrelevant then I suggest you go back to playing with your dolls.
I don't have to defend anything.