# Evolution question



## spilota_variegata (Sep 8, 2007)

I've thought about this a bit and was wondering what other people think. I've noticed a few digs at vegetarians in some of the threads - my question is this:

Do you think if the human species were vegetarians, would they have evolved to be:

1. Equally intelligent
2. Of lesser intelligence
3. Of greater intelligence

Interested in your thoughts.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 8, 2007)

well that would depend if you believe in evolution....


----------



## alex_c (Sep 8, 2007)

think of it this way look at leftists alot of them are vegetarian and then look how they act and follow eachother like sheep. and believe anything another leftist or conspiracy nut tells them instead of researching and coming to their own conclusion and opinion. so hey thats gotta mean something lol:lol:


----------



## spilota_variegata (Sep 8, 2007)

I certainly do  This question came to mind because most carnivorous creatures have to be more intelligent than their prey. I couldn't see the human race evolving beyond the capabilities of say a public servant if the most difficult evolutionary problem was how to outsmart a cabbage...

Sorry to any public servants out there ....


----------



## Hetty (Sep 8, 2007)

Depends on what said meat eaters eat. If they ate smart animals, like dolphins, then they would evolve to be smarter.

But in all seriousness, I can't see how there would be a difference if vegetarians got the right balance amino acids in their diet. If vegetarians eat corn and beans, they will get the 8 essential amino acids in their diet.


----------



## Australis (Sep 8, 2007)

The skills needed to hunt compared to say eating leaves off a bush! sure would select for intelligence.

There isnt a great deal of room for debate, it is how it went for us.


----------



## 0_missy_0 (Sep 8, 2007)

I don't see how they would be any less intelligent than meat eaters:|

The only difference I could think of is different skills as Australis has pointed out. No less intelligent, just diferently skilled. But then again, who here hunts for their own food?!


----------



## alex_c (Sep 8, 2007)

but you have to think harder to hunt so therefore it makes the carnivore or omnivore smarter


----------



## Dodie (Sep 8, 2007)

Hmm well why not start a thread titled, The uses of Meat Vs Plants...

Plants have many more uses than just food and the amount of time experimenting with them and all of the wisdom gained would have far greater benefits for humans.

I believe that plants can potentially cure all ailments in humans and more research just needs to be done to find them..

Bit of a tangent I know but don't under estimate the power of plants


----------



## SlothHead (Sep 8, 2007)

This is a pretty interesting topic, and there are a few real good journals dedicated to the subject. I also think there is a documentry based on the evolution of man which directly deals with this question. 

As prior mentioned by Australis, the problem solving skills needed of a meat eater compared to this of a vegetarian are different. But it doesnt stop there, 

What has been found is that the major leaps forward in human intelligence came about when they started ingesting meat. Many proteins in meat are not found in plants, and as such a diet consisting of primarily vegetable doesnt supply the nutrition for brain development.

So the evolutionary offshoot saw that the vegetarians of the day could not compete with the tribes which also ate meat. Their brains were more developed, thus making them better problem solvers etc. 

The next major leap was when cooked meat started to be ingested. I think the figures are somewhere in the vacinity of, the nutrition gained from cooked meat in one hour is comparible to the nutrition gained from raw meat in 8 hours. 

So the advent of cooking the meat saw another leap forward in intellect as so much more nutrients coould be consumed in a much less time. As such people would develop faster, and again compounding the problem solving ability. 

In human evolution there were complete natural vegetarians. However, they died out. I am not sure of the exact names i.e. ergaster, erectus etc, and which one each was. But i am sure a little net surfing would provide those answers. 

So i guess in conclusion, we wouldnt have evolved to where we are now, if that one person didnt think "hey i wouldnt mind taking a bight out of the rear end of that cow"


----------



## peterjohnson64 (Sep 8, 2007)

maybe if we were vegetarian we would have evolved into Cows


----------



## kandi (Sep 8, 2007)

man is supposed to be vegetarians we have molars for teeth and besides meat just putrifies in the gut , anything in moderation is good


----------



## alex_c (Sep 8, 2007)

if that was true we wouldnt be on top of the food chain and humans would be smaller and weaker.


----------



## hornet (Sep 8, 2007)

kandi said:


> man is supposed to be vegetarians we have molars for teeth and besides meat just putrifies in the gut , anything in moderation is good



where are you getting your information from? Man evolved to be omnivorous, every wonter why we have canine teeth? If meat if just rotting in your gut you have problems and i would see a doctor asap lol. Now to answer the question, if our decendents never ate meat we would not be like we are today, as said before the skills to find leaves and fruit wouldnt be as hard to learn as making tools to hunt food etc etc. Primates, as far as i know, are all either carnivores or omnivores, its how we evolved to be.


----------



## Retic (Sep 8, 2007)

Put it this way, what is more intelligent a Tiger or a Sheep ?


----------



## motman440 (Sep 8, 2007)

Heres my thought on the matter...... Its harder to catch an animal than it is to pull a vege out of the ground. Hunting forced early humans/apes/whatever it was back in the day to think. The Selective pressure would have favoured more intelligent people. these intelligent people would then breed and thus the offspring would be intelligent.

collecting plants is hardly an intelligent task and would put no selective pressures on the species.

so summing up. Humans would be less intelligent if they were vegetarians.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Sep 8, 2007)

I sometimes wonder about the "survival of the fittest" theory. I am sure hundreds of thousands of years ago this would have meant the meanest, largest, most fearless predecessor of man would have survived over the less powerful - and often smarter - rival. Size is no longer a prerequisite to superiority in humans. I say this because I have never been in prison, where I am sure size could sway your odds in the survival race.

IMO, humans are the only animals where size is not the key to survival - whether this means literally or by perpetuating your DNA by getting the female.

Does anyone know of any exception to this rule?


----------



## cris (Sep 8, 2007)

I personally dont even think any evolution needs to take place, true vegetarians/vegans generally lack a grasp of natural order and are in denial about what species they are. To me that says something about intellegence(no offence). Humans are omnivores, what are vegetarians?

Animals are made out of food for a reason, so you can eat them


----------



## Veredus (Sep 8, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> I sometimes wonder about the "survival of the fittest" theory. I am sure hundreds of thousands of years ago this would have meant the meanest, largest, most fearless predecessor of man would have survived over the less powerful - and often smarter - rival.


 
Who do you think has a better chance of catching food and therefore greater chance at survival. The giant muscly Cro Magnon with his bare hands or the quick nimble and clever Cro Magnon with the long hunting range of a thrown spear?

Fitness in terms of natural selection is measured in how many viable offspring are produced. The more intelligent spear hunter has more time to procreate and more food to feed his children than the man who has to bring down the gazelle with his bare hands.


----------



## aspidito (Sep 8, 2007)

cris said:


> I personally dont even think any evolution needs to take place, true vegetarians/vegans generally lack a grasp of natural order and are in denial about what species they are. To me that says something about intellegence(no offence). Humans are omnivores, what are vegetarians?
> Animals are made out of food for a reason, so you can eat them


Your right, God told Noah after the flood that all the plants & animals are there to eat, I cant see the debate


----------



## spilota_variegata (Sep 8, 2007)

Very true Verdus, but that giant muscly Cro Magnon would also be the bully of the crowd who would forcefully take the spoils of the hunt from the quick, nimble and clever Cro Magnon, forcing the lesser sized of the two to have to go out and hunt again while the big guy impregnated all the women. Prior to law and justice, this would of (IMO) happened all the time.

A lot of big guys still throw their weight around. Just look at 95% of all bouncers. Ask them if they are superior to the smaller guys they intimidate. I would guess most would think they are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree. Sure there are exceptions, but usually, the less intelligent a person is, the more they think they are... I'm really digressing here  

Having said all this, I am in total agreeance with you Veredus...


----------



## alex_c (Sep 9, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> Very true Verdus, but that giant muscly Cro Magnon would also be the bully of the crowd who would forcefully take the spoils of the hunt from the quick, nimble and clever Cro Magnon, forcing the lesser sized of the two to have to go out and hunt again while the big guy impregnated all the women. Prior to law and justice, this would of (IMO) happened all the time.
> 
> A lot of big guys still throw their weight around. Just look at 95% of all bouncers. Ask them if they are superior to the smaller guys they intimidate. I would guess most would think they are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary tree. Sure there are exceptions, but usually, the less intelligent a person is, the more they think they are... I'm really digressing here
> 
> Having said all this, I am in total agreeance with you Veredus...


 lol on that note about the bouncers this guys like 5'2'' and would make them cry like little girls lol. when my friend was at marine bootcamp that guy was his D.I and he said to the recruits who thinks they can take me down? so my friend said me sir and tried to and the D.I grabbed his arm twisted it the way its not meant to go and kicked his legs out from under him. my friend is 6'2'' and told me he never knew somebody so small could be so evil lol. check out this vid and you will see how tiny he is lol:lol: [video=youtube;Huqr2d2zc-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huqr2d2zc-I&mode=related&search=[/video]


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Sep 9, 2007)

vegetarians are just food for the meat eaters
the proteins in meat is what helped our brains develop
meat eaters 4 life


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

[video=youtube;XtWBuv9imxs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtWBuv9imxs[/video]


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

PiMp said:


> vegetarians are just food for the meat eaters
> the proteins in meat is what helped our brains develop
> meat eaters 4 life



It is good to see you can regurgitate advertising brought to you by Sam Neil


----------



## Earthling (Sep 9, 2007)

Supposedly all needed fats etc can be gotten from a vegetarian diet. 
The argument we have eaten meat in the past and its helped us to this point is good but where is the relevance for the future regarding eating meat.........? Society has progressed so far from that individual, and how many people today go and kill animals to eat? Doesnt happen much.

Lastly a lot of vegetarians choose to not eat meat for ethical reasons. This means they have stepped up from the UGG Kill mentality and are using their MIND to provide sustanence. This could be said to evolutionarily be an advancement of the mind if the 'genetic trait' of ethics moves on in people. 

Remember, we no longer carry clubs and eat mammoths. So why do we need that trait?


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

mr black said:


> It is good to see you can regurgitate advertising brought to you by Sam Neil



I met him! (he's in Jurassic Park too )


----------



## jack (Sep 9, 2007)

hmmnnn... human evolution, my favourite topic...

the vegetarian versus omnivore experiment has occured in our prehistory, and the vegetarian off shoot did not survive... i am not going to go into detail, but here are some names and ideas that you can all look into...
basically the "gracile" australopithecines branched into our genus homo and the genus paranthropus...
paranthropus were vegetarian and due to this diet are recognised by the massive jaw structure (they were previously and still by some considered to be "robust" australopithecines)...


----------



## Miss B (Sep 9, 2007)

I think SlothHead summed it up pretty well.

There is a graph floating around somewhere which shows the history of humans on a time line, demonstrating the importance of a carnivorous diet in the development of our brain.

It's been proven that red meat is an important part of a healthy diet, but if vegetarians choose not to eat meat then that is their choice. I personally think that vegetarians who refuse to eat animal products but then wear leather shoes are just a tad hypocritical.

I also hate it when people talk about evolution on an individual level. That goes against the whole concept of evolution. Anyway, if we were meant to be vegetarian - cows would be made out of tofu  I love my red meat.


----------



## Riley (Sep 9, 2007)

evolution?? pfft..


----------



## junglepython2 (Sep 9, 2007)

Vego's need to spend much more time eating to gain their required nutrients compared to meat eaters, leaving less time for anything else, so I think over a long time that would have to dumb them down.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

and why is there an assumption here that evolution is true?
it is a theory, not a fact. Darwin himself said that evolution cant be true, just no one listened because he had explained so much and he couldnt fight against it, as he only said it a few weeks before he died.....


----------



## cris (Sep 9, 2007)

Evolution can be seen, it is real no longer a theory but scientific fact.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

alex_c said:


> think of it this way look at leftists alot of them are vegetarian and then look how they act and follow eachother like sheep. and believe anything another leftist or conspiracy nut tells them instead of researching and coming to their own conclusion and opinion. so hey thats gotta mean something lol:lol:



whose cause are you helping? Where is your research? Obviously none here but subjective discrimination.... the equivalent of which would be to say are that all meat eaters are right wing red necks incapable of independent thought. 

Though you most definitely fall into this catergory, not all do, and you do them a disservice.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> and why is there an assumption here that evolution is true?
> it is a theory, not a fact. Darwin himself said that evolution cant be true, just no one listened because he had explained so much and he couldnt fight against it, as he only said it a few weeks before he died.....



its only theory to those people incapable of independent thought.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

junglepython2 said:


> Vego's need to spend much more time eating to gain their required nutrients compared to meat eaters, leaving less time for anything else, so I think over a long time that would have to dumb them down.




rubbish. do some research. besides humans are not carnivores but omnivores. too much of anything is bad for you.


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

Im sorry guy but if u actually do a bit of research and you look into the realm of logic. Evolution is far more plausible than any other option. Evoloution can be observed in real time with micro organisms and viruses such as HIV. I beleive in 100 or so yrs even the religious folk will be admiting they were wrong about evolution just like the earth revolving around the sun.


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

I think these days 'Crap-ivors" or Chemi-vors' would be more descriptive of humanity!

Personally I find the Carnivor v's Herbivors Intelligence arguments hilarious, On the one hand if I claimed an animal of either disposition was intelligent, people would do their very best to shoot me down claiming animals are not intelligent bla bla, yet these same people are here getting hostile at each other claiming one or the other is more intelligent, citing all kinds of reasons!
The real question should be 'how intelligent are humans really?".


----------



## kelly (Sep 9, 2007)

Okay, I'm just going to go with answering the original question and no, I don't think humans would have evolved to be as smart as we are today without meat.
In saying that though, I also don't think we would be living in such a world of violence etc if we evolved as a species that didn't slaughter animals to survive.

We live in a world today where we have the resources and such that you are able to quite easily survive on a vegetarian/vegan diet and get enough or perhaps even more nutrients than someone who chooses to eat meat.
This might not be everyones ideal way of living but fair enough, everyone has their opinion.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

I went through and had a look at the number of new PhDs from a group of students I am familar with. Of the 6, 4 were vegetarians. So this post is not about fact, its about who people chose to discriminate against.. shame shame shame. does that mean that the vegetarians (of which I cannot say I am one) should put up a poll asking if all meat eaters were red neck fascists? fools.

I cannot believe that evolution is even an issue. It happens. Unfortunately we have stuffed up natural selection by allowing certain elements of the community to breed. Its a pity we cannot at least ban all religions and those with religious affiliation from politics. See how quickly wars and such like would dissipate. Patriarchal religion, the root of all evil. And yes, research does substantiate this.


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

I think it would be pretty stupid to say that eating meat didnt help us get where we are today. But how we evolved shouldnt really affect how we live today.


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> Im sorry guy but if u actually do a bit of research and you look into the realm of logic. Evolution is far more plausible than any other option. Evoloution can be observed in real time with micro organisms and viruses such as HIV. I beleive in 100 or so yrs even the religious folk will be admiting they were wrong about evolution just like the earth revolving around the sun.


 
True, and it can be seen in much larger organisms, too. Take salmon; humans have, by way of directional selection via fishing with gill nets, steadily reduced the adult size at which some species reproduce. Simply by removing the larger individuals on a yearly basis as they travel upstream, we have created a new mortatlity factor, meaning larger adults are removed by 'natural (or in this case, artifical) selection'. This means those that breed at smaller sizes and younger ages are more likely to pass on their genes (as the smaller individuals pass through the nets), and as such at least one sp. (can't remember scientific name, sorry) are evolving to breed at a smaller size. There is ample data to back this up, Im pretty sure you could probably google it (but Im not saying you should trust anything on the net).

But......how did we get here from vego's Vs Cromag's?


----------



## kelly (Sep 9, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> I think it would be pretty stupid to say that eating meat didnt help us get where we are today. But how we evolved shouldnt really affect how we live today.



Exactly, very well said


----------



## junglepython2 (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> rubbish. do some research. besides humans are not carnivores but omnivores. too much of anything is bad for you.


 
How is what I said rubbish? Have a look outside, vegitarian animals spend a much higher proportion of their time eating compared to omnivores and carnivores. And I never said humans are carnivores. How about you do some research.


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> Unfortunately we have stuffed up natural selection by allowing certain elements of the community to breed. .


 
:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## cris (Sep 9, 2007)

kelly said:


> In saying that though, I also don't think we would be living in such a world of violence etc if we evolved as a species that didn't slaughter animals to survive.


Yes by simple fact we wouldnt exist(be livng) if we didnt eat meat and wernt violent...


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

But using this as a reason for not being vego is stupid


----------



## Miss B (Sep 9, 2007)

It comes down to the fact that people are able to make choices for themselves. If someone wants to be vego, who cares? If others want to eat meat, who cares?

The only time I have a problem with anything is when others try to force their views down my throat - whether it be vegetarians, religious freaks, politics etc. 'Live and let live', I say.


----------



## Sdaji (Sep 9, 2007)

Wow! A thread on APS about evolution where the posts which make sense outnumber those that don't! :shock:

Meat is a higher quality food than vegetation. Obtaining meat requires more intelligence than obtaining plants. With very few exceptions (funnily enough, snakes are very often exceptions to the rule), predators are more intelligent than the things they eat (well, vegetarians usually are too, but it's not difficult to outbrain most plants). These three facts are not really debatable unless you're highly ignorant or stupid (yes, I know, I'm rather tactless *shrug*).

It always amazes me when people say human digestive systems are not designed for meat. This is a bit like saying our hands are useless for manipulating tools and evolution only designed them to be used as heat-sinks!

If you're ever so inclined, cut open some vegetarian animals (koalas, horses, sheep, cows, etc etc), then cut open some carnivorous animals (tigers, lions, snakes, sharks, crocodiles, dolpins, etc etc) and you'll notice a massive, massive unmistakable difference between them. Then cut open some omnivores (most bears, pigs, dogs, wolves, etc etc) and you'll see that they're remarkably similar to humans. The digestive systems of humans are utterly unlike those of vegetarian animals, and yes, also unlike those of strict carnivores. You see the exact same thing when you look at the teeth - ours are utterly unsuited to a vegetarian diet, not specialised for meat alone (and certainly not designed to catch live animals), but good for processing a wide range of things. We are unique among predators in that we generally hunt with tools rather than catching our prey with our claws or teeth, so we have brilliant hands to use weapons, but no impressive weapons as part of our bodies. Most of you probably won't have the opportunity to cut up a wide range of animals and examine their skulls, but you'll probably be able to find reasonable pictures of digestive tract dissections online. Once you've taken a close look at a range of digestive systems and learned about the way in which they work, there is no question remaining about what humans have evolved to eat - just about everything! The only things we're not very good at using are grasses and other plants which are difficult to chew or digest. Looking at our bodies with an understanding of how they work makes it clear that eating meat has hugely influenced what we are.


----------



## Miss B (Sep 9, 2007)

Most intelligent and well-written post so far, good work Sdaji.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

oh dear


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> I think it would be pretty stupid to say that eating meat didnt help us get where we are today. But how we evolved shouldnt really affect how we live today.


As someone with a degree in paleoanthropology, I can honestly say that was a pretty stupid comment


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> As someone with a degree in paleoanthropology, I can honestly say that was a pretty stupid comment



why?


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Wow! A thread on APS about evolution where the posts which make sense outnumber those that don't! :shock:
> Meat is a higher quality food than vegetation. Obtaining meat requires more intelligence than obtaining plants. With very few exceptions (funnily enough, snakes are very often exceptions to the rule), predators are more intelligent than the things they eat (well, vegetarians usually are too, but it's not difficult to outbrain most plants). These three facts are not really debatable unless you're highly ignorant or stupid (yes, I know, I'm rather tactless *shrug*).
> It always amazes me when people say human digestive systems are not designed for meat. This is a bit like saying our hands are useless for manipulating tools and evolution only designed them to be used as heat-sinks!
> If you're ever so inclined, cut open some vegetarian animals (koalas, horses, sheep, cows, etc etc), then cut open some carnivorous animals (tigers, lions, snakes, sharks, crocodiles, dolpins, etc etc) and you'll notice a massive, massive unmistakable difference between them. Then cut open some omnivores (most bears, pigs, dogs, wolves, etc etc) and you'll see that they're remarkably similar to humans. The digestive systems of humans are utterly unlike those of vegetarian animals, and yes, also unlike those of strict carnivores. You see the exact same thing when you look at the teeth - ours are utterly unsuited to a vegetarian diet, not specialised for meat alone (and certainly not designed to catch live animals), but good for processing a wide range of things. We are unique among predators in that we generally hunt with tools rather than catching our prey with our claws or teeth, so we have brilliant hands to use weapons, but no impressive weapons as part of our bodies. Most of you probably won't have the opportunity to cut up a wide range of animals and examine their skulls, but you'll probably be able to find reasonable pictures of digestive tract dissections online. Once you've taken a close look at a range of digestive systems and learned about the way in which they work, there is no question remaining about what humans have evolved to eat - just about everything! The only things we're not very good at using are grasses and other plants which are difficult to chew or digest. Looking at our bodies with an understanding of how they work makes it clear that eating meat has hugely influenced what we are.




And S. nice try, but fail. not quite on the money, but its amazing would you can do with twisting the facts. Meat in itself, is not the be all or end all factor. Just because you like to eat it, and because you consider yourself a scientists, doesnt mean you will fool everyone. 

In 1990, I participated in a world wide survey to see what the effects of meat eating was on gastrointestinal cancer. Using data from over 30 years, surveying over 10 million people. We learnt, that in those cultures where regular meat eating was introduced, that the incidence of cancer went up by 86%. Now, if meat is so essential to our survival, intelligence and so on, why does it cause cells to metatastisise in such a fashion. We published the research in the Journal of Medicine, (main researcher was D.J Frommer). In the same year the meat industry increased its funding to research by an astronomical amount to anyone prepared to find data that state that meat eating is healthy and necessary.

If you are able to think, you are able to derive something from that.

Now I have had the opportunity to cut up people and animals, and examine skulls and so forth. I went from being a paleontologist to a paleoanthropologist and so on... until I quit the scene all together so don't get Mr Qualified on me. Your facts are not entirely wrong, they are just twisted subjectively.


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

I could write a few pages of a response but I will not as this thread is slowly sliding into some sort of messy mix of heated arguments

So instead I will summarise my opinions in regards to the original question:

1. Yes eating meat has helped us evolve to where we are due to the introduction of new amino acids and the need to change for the purpose of hunting i.e fashioning of tools, walking on hind legs etc.
2. It is not the sole reason we have evolved this far in terms of intelligence.

I personally believe social structure has led us to where we are, which is also mirrored to a similar extent in chimps and elephants, which coincidentally are the only two other animals to show sighs of 'consciousness'. Social structure among humans has allowed for milestone marks in anthropology such as land cultivation and domestication of animals, and if you don't have to spend time hunting and gathering then you can work on many other things etc

Recently a new theory was proposed in regards to our brains evolving due to sexual selection. I will not get into it here, but for anyone with knowledge of evolution it is basically the classic 'male peacocks tail feathers' sexual selection argument as applied to humans and I personally believe it has merit.


----------



## cris (Sep 9, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> With very few exceptions (funnily enough, snakes are very often exceptions to the rule), predators are more intelligent than the things they eat (well, vegetarians usually are too, but it's not difficult to outbrain most plants). These three facts are not really debatable unless you're highly ignorant or stupid (yes, I know, I'm rather tactless *shrug*).



I personally disagree that there are few exceptions, there are thousands of types of fishes, snakes, invetebrates that are quite simply very dumb but will be happy to eat a mouse, seal etc. This doesnt really affect your arguement as relevant to the discussion, as these animals dont need to be smart.(and yes im stupid so im able to debate your point)


----------



## cris (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> In 1990, I participated in a world wide survey to see what the effects of meat eating was on gastrointestinal cancer. Using data from over 30 years, surveying over 10 million people. We learnt, that in those cultures where regular meat eating was introduced, that the incidence of cancer went up by 86%. Now, if meat is so essential to our survival, intelligence and so on, why does it cause cells to metatastisise in such a fashion. We published the research in the Journal of Medicine, (main researcher was D.J Frommer). In the same year the meat industry increased its funding to research by an astronomical amount to anyone prepared to find data that state that meat eating is healthy and necessary.
> If you are able to think, you are able to derive something from that.


Yes you would be a better politician than scientist.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

yes, and elephants are incredibly intelligent, as are some birds, your point is?? you like meat, therefore you HAVE to justify it. period.


----------



## Kali7 (Sep 9, 2007)

cris said:


> Yes you would be a better politician than scientist.



Subjective opinion again rules the day.


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> yes, and elephants are incredibly intelligent, as are some birds, your point is?? you like meat, therefore you HAVE to justify it. period.



Actually I am a vegetarian. My point was that an elephant is a herbivore, it is intelligent.


----------



## hornet (Sep 9, 2007)

i think the point weare trying to get across is humans evolved to eat meat, naturally we are omnivores.


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> And S. nice try, but fail. not quite on the money, but its amazing would you can do with twisting the facts. Meat in itself, is not the be all or end all factor. Just because you like to eat it, and because you consider yourself a scientists, doesnt mean you will fool everyone.
> 
> In 1990, I participated in a world wide survey to see what the effects of meat eating was on gastrointestinal cancer. Using data from over 30 years, surveying over 10 million people. We learnt, that in those cultures where regular meat eating was introduced, that the incidence of cancer went up by 86%. Now, if meat is so essential to our survival, intelligence and so on, why does it cause cells to metatastisise in such a fashion. We published the research in the Journal of Medicine, (main researcher was D.J Frommer). In the same year the meat industry increased its funding to research by an astronomical amount to anyone prepared to find data that state that meat eating is healthy and necessary.
> 
> ...



What does that have to do with intelligence though?


----------



## $NaKe PiMp (Sep 9, 2007)

the people on this thread said my snakes are DUMB
*runs away weeping openly *


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

> What does that have to do with intelligence though?


 
Poignant question for those arguing pro human carnivor! I wonder if they ever consider a large proportion of 'scientific findings' depend on whos paying and how much!
Sheer number of conflicting 'findings' should make that obvious.
hence the likes of 'pro-meat- ads a la Sam Neil.

I personally dont beleive diet is all that much to do with intelligence, look at most of today youth under 20. What does mc Chemi-food do for intelligence?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

well i dont care who has a degree in what areas or subjects, I am a 13 years old and i believe that a poll is used to express opinions and possibly explain why you believe it and then discuss it in a civil matter.
Not to say that i am smarter because i have this degree and therefore i am right...
I must say, most people here have been discriminative here in one way or another, whether it be someone who thinks they r the better person due to degrees, or someone who thinks that people, including "religious freaks", although i believe religious people were have surficed, and "scientists" are trying to shove viewpoints down there throats.
I shared my view on the topic, with my belief that the "THEORY" of evolution is not true, but in no way am i forcing my opinion on anyone in any form or matter.



> so don't get Mr Qualified on me.



i mean what is this from someone who had previously said in a previous post that they had a degree in paleontology and paleonpathology, or whatever it was.

I think everyone needs to get over themselves and use the poll in a civillised manner.

The-Guy

[


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

Emydura said:


> I personally dont beleive diet is all that much to do with intelligence, look at most of today youth under 20. *What does mc Chemi-food do for intelligence*?


 
Quite possibly artifically enhances it, for all we know, lol.


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy:
Don't get drawn in to stupid arguments. If your views differ from other peoples, thats fine, when it comes down to it, thats possibly the best way things can be. If everyone thought the same the human race would be extinct in no-time. All you can do is state your view (if you feel the need) and not worry too much about what other people have to say. If you don't want to believe what others (including myself, lol) are throwing at you, then dont, but don't stress over difference of opinion, especially in philosphical topics like this.


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> I must say, most people here have been discriminative here in one way or another, whether it be someone who thinks they r the better person due to degrees, or someone who thinks that people, including "religious freaks", although i believe religious people were have surficed, and "scientists" are trying to shove viewpoints down there throats.
> I shared my view on the topic, with my belief that the "THEORY" of evolution is not true, but in no way am i forcing my opinion on anyone in any form or matter.[



Were not shoving evolution down anyone's throat we are discussing it. If you don't believe in it then don't participate in this thread, or start your own about why evolution is 'just a theory'. 

And by the way, you don't understand what a theory is in the scientific sense.


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

Lol Rednut, Im pretty sure my last big mac was an intelligent lifeform in its own right! 

Hmmm...could be new excuse for Andrew Johns!


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Im not stressed about it, im just giving my point of view,im saying that most people here are not excpeting that others have different beliefs and seem to be quite discriminative about stupid things.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Mr black, read my post again, im saying that someone else said i was shoving my point down his throat and i was rebutting against this as i had just shared my view point...


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

> im just giving my point of view,im saying that most people here are not excpeting that others have different beliefs and seem to be quite discriminative about stupid things.


 
Thats called EGO !


----------



## Sdaji (Sep 9, 2007)

It's a bit of a dead argument as to whether humans would be more or less intelligent had they evolved as exclusive herbivores. I won't dignify it with further discussion.

If you bother to examine digestive systems and learn how they work, there is no question about what humans have been eating during their last few hundred thousand years of evolution.

Some obscure case where a group of people had a rise in the incidence of cancer is suppsed to change that? Perhaps eating meat does increase the incidence of cancer, or perhaps that particular group of people was eating meat processed using carcinogenic chemicals, or perhaps it had nothing at all to do with the meat (presumably when meat was introduced it happened at a time when a lot of things were changing, and any of those things could have caused the change in cancer rates). This is all quite irrelevant, it does not change the fact that predators are typically smarter than herbivores (yes, you'll find some stupid predators and smart herbivores, but for each of those there will be many, many, many more which do fit the rule) and that predation brings an evolutionary push for higher intelligence.

Eating meat may in some cases bring problems, but we are designed to eat it. What you're saying is as silly as "Every time cars are crashed, they are being driven, thus we can conclude that cars are not designed to be driven around".

Amazing that I describe the large picture in a broad sense, and from a range of aspects, and you come up with one obscure reference and accuse me of attempting to warp the facts and justify my own position! Very cute! :lol:


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

excepting*


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

......ego!


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

whatever


----------



## serenaphoenix (Sep 9, 2007)

alex_c said:


> think of it this way look at leftists alot of them are vegetarian and then look how they act and follow eachother like sheep. and believe anything another leftist or conspiracy nut tells them instead of researching and coming to their own conclusion and opinion. so hey thats gotta mean something lol:lol:



I agree!!! Except - replace lefties with right wing conservative tories...


----------



## serenaphoenix (Sep 9, 2007)

I've said it once, I'll say it again - I just love a big juicy steak... regardless of consequence... preferably a kangaroo rump...


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

kangaroo? only had it once, it is just stringy, toughish steak...


----------



## Sdaji (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> kangaroo? only had it once, it is just stringy, toughish steak...



It obviously wasn't cooked very well!

I'm getting hungry!


----------



## hornet (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> kangaroo? only had it once, it is just stringy, toughish steak...



if you get a decent one they are a really great steak, i prefer them over beef, exported all over the world these days.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Sep 9, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Some obscure case where a group of people had a rise in the incidence of cancer is suppsed to change that? Perhaps eating meat does increase the incidence of cancer, or perhaps that particular group of people was eating meat processed using carcinogenic chemicals, or perhaps it had nothing at all to do with the meat (presumably when meat was introduced it happened at a time when a lot of things were changing, and any of those things could have caused the change in cancer rates).


 
Looks like this thread has stirred up a hornet's nest. I have not seen the results of this study nor have I seen the demographics used. I personally would not be surprised if excessive meat consumption contributed to some forms of cancer. Let's face it, eating some plant products can also cause cancer - or death - take curari for example.

I think (and I am by no means an authority on this subject) that most of the increased cancer rates are due to the fact we are living a lot longer. This longevity is a direct result of our intelligence - or moreso, breakthroughs in medical science (is there a direct corrleation between the two)??

It looks like people are straying from the original question. That is because as intelligent creatures we are all capable of independent thought. It is clearly obvious there are some among us who feel passionate about this subject. It is also obvious some of us (definitely not me) have considerable background - some even have degrees - in subjects relevant to this sort of discussion/topic.

I'm sure the result of the poll is probably biased by the majority of us who are "carnivores." I respect vegetarians for their choice of diet. If they feel strongly enough against eating animals, then bravo. I have very strong beliefs on pollution and the greenhouse effect, yet here I am sitting on the computer (which I never turn off), with the televsion blasting in the next room with noone watching it. I drive to work everyday when there is a free bus service available.... I wish I had the strength of those who have chosen to give up what I consider to be one of the most enjoyable things in life - eating, particularly eating meat.

I truly believe the human species has evolved to a point where diet no longer plays a role in the further development of intelligence. I would love to know in what point in our evolution this event occurred (if it has at all).


----------



## ari (Sep 9, 2007)

Personally I think it has got alot to do with many variables but inparticularly the food souce and its availability on how a species evolves. When a certain food source dries up there are 2 choices, either adjust & change food sources or perish. 

Humans weren't ment to really be vegetarians, but I believe now we can as we have the mentality & ability to scientifically study the make up of food types and still get the required amounts of vitamins & minerals because we know what vegetarian foods will supply this as a replacement for meat.

If in evolution we didn't eat meat I reacon we would have evolved into a much weaker species to what we are now, both in staminer & muscle weight. But who knows.


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

Sdaji said:


> Amazing that I describe the large picture in a broad sense, and from a range of aspects, and you come up with one obscure reference and accuse me of attempting to warp the facts and justify my own position! Very cute! :lol:



pwnd


----------



## Miss B (Sep 9, 2007)

I don't like kangaroo, it smells weird.

Just went down to the butcher yesterday and bought an entire Wagyu rump!! I am drooling just thinking about dinner tonight.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> But who knows.



God


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

thenothing said:


> pwnd


 
LOL. Maybe we should start a poll investigating whether or not using 'pwned' instead of its base 'owned' has influenced a change in intelligence. Afterall, it must take more intelligence to purposely use a misspelt word in the place of its original while still realising it will be understood, than to just use the original. Perhaps this might cause an increase in higher order logic?


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

rednut said:


> LOL. Maybe we should start a poll investigating whether or not using 'pwned' instead of its base 'owned' has influenced a change in intelligence. Afterall, it must take more intelligence to purposely use a misspelt word in the place of its original while still realising it will be understood, than to just use the original. Perhaps this might cause an increase in higher order logic?



zomg, you think too much.

pwnd ftw!


----------



## hornet (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> God



is a lie


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

thenothing said:


> zomg, you think too much.
> 
> pwnd ftw!


 
Yeah, Im gonna go run the dog round the park, lol. :lol:


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> is a lie


that would be a matter of an opinion...


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

rednut said:


> Yeah, Im gonna go run the dog round the park, lol. :lol:



Okay, I read that about five times. And I still don't get it


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> I don't believe in evolution either .....and don't get me started on Gravity!



at least someone is with me on this...


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> Evolution can be seen, it is real no longer a theory but scientific fact.



I know this was said a while ago, but i would like to clarify what i believe...

Technically speaking, it is an unproved theory with much proof to support it.
Scientifically speaking, yes it is a fact, but i always thought that "science" is a whole bunch of lies put together to explain things that we don't understand.

for example:Gravity is used to explain why we dont fall off Earth, but seriously, Earth would be pretty crap if we just fell off it, so for some reason we dont. So some genious decided to call it gravity...


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

although, a scientist would believe that religion is a whole bunch of lies put together to explain things they dont understand...


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> Technically speaking, it is an unproved theory with much proof to support it.
> Scientifically speaking, yes it is a fact, but i always thought that "science" is a whole bunch of lies put together to explain things that we don't understand.



Well actually science is about putting together hypotheses and then testing them rigorously to try and find out wether they are correct or not in order to collect proof.

To say 'science is a whole bunch of lies,' is not only strongly offensive to me, but it should be to you as well considering you wouldn't be typing on a computer without science let alone everything else science has provided, in particular in regards to health care.


----------



## bredli84 (Sep 9, 2007)

oh no, we understand most of those things. they can be explained, tested and verified _scientifically_


----------



## urodacus_au (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> I know this was said a while ago, but i would like to clarify what i believe...
> Technically speaking, it is an unproved theory with much proof to support it.
> Scientifically speaking, yes it is a fact, but i always thought that "science" is a whole bunch of lies put together to explain things that we don't understand.
> for example:Gravity is used to explain why we dont fall off Earth, but seriously, Earth would be pretty crap if we just fell off it, so for some reason we dont. So some genious decided to call it gravity...



Hahahaha...come on dude, you cant possibly be that ignorant to the ways of the world. Or maybe you can.....i think i may actually have lost a few IQ points reading this post. I really hope the average person doesnt view the world the same way you do or our species is doomed.....


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

thenothing said:


> Okay, I read that about five times. And I still don't get it


 
Hahhaaa...It meant exactly what it said...I just walked the dog, LMAO :lol:


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

rednut said:


> Hahhaaa...It meant exactly what it said...I just walked the dog, LMAO :lol:



Oh, I thought it was some kind of metaphor :?

I think I need to eat more meat


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

I am sorry that you are offended by this, i am just expressing my point of view, the original thought was actually said by my science teacher to my class in a public school, and i thought about it for a while and figured it was a pretty good philosophy to me. I thought a little more and thought that yes, science seems to make sense and has got us this far, but then i thought, this couldd simply be the work of god, or maybe our scientific facts all fit together and seem to work, but many things still dont make sense, and dont fit, so maybe if we rethink all of our scientific knowledge so far and re-experiment we could come up with things that actually do fit or just realise that maybe we wernt meant to fully understand our world. I mean seriously why do we need to understand our world so well, animals know nothing of why things happen, they seem to live fine...

But i am open to make a new opinion if anyone can convince me otherwise.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Oh wait, i just re-read everything in my last 3 posts, nevermind that, im thinking way to hard for a weekend and none of that made much sense....(except that my science teacher once said that)

but needless to say, i dont believe in evolution.

So sorry to you Mr Black, if that offended you. Perhaps we should ignore those 3 posts....


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> It's common knowledge that the Gods made fossils as a practical joke to keep scientists occupied.


I like that


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> but needless to say, i dont believe in evolution.



Do you believe in Adam and Eve?


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

Well as beings with consciousness we were bound to start asking questions about our origins sooner or later and as a result we have both science and religion. Both strive to answer the same question yet both vary greatly in terms of how that question will and should be answered.

I don't care what anyone believes in, but you have to understand that one tries to answer questions about us and our world correctly as far as reason and proof goes, whilst the other is simply telling you the answer.

If you don't see the problem there then that is entirely up to you.


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

thenothing said:


> Do you believe in Adam and Eve?


 
I know where this is going...
LMAO


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

Greebo said:


> It's common knowledge that the Gods made fossils as a practical joke to keep scientists occupied.



Are you a Bill Hicks fan?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> Do you believe in Adam and Eve?


Yes, why? You have something against Christians?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

> Are you a Bill Hicks fan?


No, he understands gods sense of humour


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> Yes, why? You have something against Christians?



I have nothing against Christians.

I'm just curious. So, we started with Adam and Eve. They bred, then their progeny bred, then their progeny's progeny bred, etc, etc. So we're incredibly inbred, right? Not many genes in the pool.

To add to that, after a while God got mad at us, being sinners and all. But Noah was a good man, so he decided to kill everyone but Noah and his family. So Noah's children bred, then his grandchildren bred, etc. So we're even more inbred. Apart from this being socially unacceptable, with so little genes in the gene pool, how is it that we still exist?

Again, not attacking you, just curious


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

Well, I've got 3 legs, not sure about the rest of ya'all

Socially unacceptable? Damn.....


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

rednut said:


> Well, I've got 3 legs, not sure about the rest of ya'all
> 
> Socially unacceptable? Damn.....



Is that where you thought I was going?

And yes, in *most* parts of the world it's socially unacceptable.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

ok, that bit is a little complicated.
Just because Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, doesnt mean that they were the only ones made by god. God could possibly have created many other men and women, the bible only says that they were the first. Also, before sin, inbreeding wasnt a problem, it was only because of sin that things of this sort came around, as well as disease etc. Yes Noah was a good man, but not by gods standards(perfect), he was told to build an ark and to get anyone who wanted to come with him on it to help him, but no one except him and his family believed him about the flood, so only he and his family went on with two of every animal plus extra of small animals such as birds etc. Then Noahs family were so big that inbreeding was hardly a problem and things went on from there. Although, because this wasnt all in the bible many christians have there own ideas on it, this one is just the one i believe.

That is one of the more complicated questions about the bible, but if you are that curious i can ask someone else if you like to find their opinion.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

But i think this is getting a bit off the original topic of this discussion, so maybe we should go back to the vegeterian thing...


----------



## mr black (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> No, he understands gods sense of humour



Did god answer for him to you?


----------



## Hetty (Sep 9, 2007)

The-Guy said:


> ok, that bit is a little complicated.
> Just because Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, doesnt mean that they were the only ones made by god. God could possibly have created many other men and women, the bible only says that they were the first. Also, before sin, inbreeding wasnt a problem, it was only because of sin that things of this sort came around, as well as disease etc. Yes Noah was a good man, but not by gods standards(perfect), he was told to build an ark and to get anyone who wanted to come with him on it to help him, but no one except him and his family believed him about the flood, so only he and his family went on with two of every animal plus extra of small animals such as birds etc. Then Noahs family were so big that inbreeding was hardly a problem and things went on from there. Although, because this wasnt all in the bible many christians have there own ideas on it, this one is just the one i believe.
> 
> That is one of the more complicated questions about the bible, but if you are that curious i can ask someone else if you like to find their opinion.



How big was Noah's family? for a population not to go extinct you need 100 animals in that population. Oh, duh, that's science, must be wrong :lol:

Does it ever seem to you that the interpretation of the bible is a little too convenient? So much isn't in there so people try to justify how much it doesn't make sense. If that makes sense. Does that make sense?


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

So if a man u had never met came up to you and said "God is going to flood the entire world so we need a boat that will fit every land animal on the planet, will you help me build this boat?" Would you help the man?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

No, he may well be a Bill Hicks fan, i am just saying that that comment shows gods sense of humour.

and were you trying to be offensive with that comment?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

If the man said that god told them that, i would personally ask god and if he said yes, then yes i would help him build an ark.


----------



## hornet (Sep 9, 2007)

god doesnt have a sense on humor, hes make believe, like the easter bunny and eskimo's


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

yes, he is just as make believe as an eskimo


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Simpsons quotes never help in an argument,

so yeah, think about it.


----------



## Radar (Sep 9, 2007)

hornet said:


> god doesnt have a sense on humor, hes make believe, like the easter bunny and eskimo's


 
Simpson's? LMAO


----------



## hornet (Sep 9, 2007)

god is the man in the sky, he never existed apart from in the minds of believers


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Yes, simpsons, why?

That again is a matter of an opinion...

What the heck happened here? we have to wait 900 seconds now?


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

Oh, i see, never saw that before.

I assume this doesnt count for moderators?

Thanks.


----------



## Emydura (Sep 9, 2007)

When you close your eyes and really really wish for something...God is the guy who ignores you!


----------



## Dodie (Sep 9, 2007)

What did the animals eat on the Ark? Seeing as animals like to eat other animals? Or were there many more animals around back then and Natural selection took place and only the strong animals survived and the rest went extinct?


----------



## spilota_variegata (Sep 9, 2007)

Results so far:

Total votes - 56
Of equal intelligence - 7 votes (12.5%)
Of lesser intelligence - 44 votes (78.6%)
Of greater intelligence - 5 votes (8.9%)

I wouldn't mind seeing what the percentage of forum members are vegetarians... Would be very interesting.


----------



## cris (Sep 9, 2007)

Dodie said:


> What did the animals eat on the Ark?


There were 2 animals of every kind... makes for an awesome feast


----------



## grimbeny (Sep 9, 2007)

I wonder how the barrier reef (along with pretty much every other aquatic animal) survived with the sudden change in salt conc. and water temps.


----------



## The-Guy (Sep 9, 2007)

well, im no expert, ask someone who knows the answers...
all i can say is, through god, anything is possible.


----------



## Adzo (Sep 9, 2007)

http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

Sorry to bring this thread back, but it is certainly relevant

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6983330.stm


----------



## -Peter (Sep 19, 2007)

yeah that goes a long way up in the frozen tundra!


----------



## slim6y (Sep 19, 2007)

Think of it this way:

If males were hunters (because we eat meat) and females were gatherers - what is the 'difference' between the two?

Interesting really isn't it... we'd have evolutionised to be a pack of women!


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

-Peter said:


> yeah that goes a long way up in the frozen tundra!



Yeah cause that was where humans started......

I think you will find humans migrated there at a later point in human evolution.


----------



## -Peter (Sep 19, 2007)

silly me, anyway Im off to my psychology seminar, we have a series of lectures from Professor Potato Worm.


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Think of it this way:
> 
> If males were hunters (because we eat meat) and females were gatherers - what is the 'difference' between the two?
> 
> Interesting really isn't it... we'd have evolutionised to be a pack of women!



Speak for yourself...

I didnt see any valid theory in that potato article, sad how they always leave stuff out in the news.


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

cris said:


> Speak for yourself...
> 
> I didnt see any valid theory in that potato article, sad how they always leave stuff out in the news.



I understand that this article is not as in depth as the article I read in new scientist about it, or obviously as in depth as the paper it came from, but there is enough 'meat' lol in that article to explain the theory.


----------



## moosenoose (Sep 19, 2007)

I love this quote: * If man evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys{/b] :lol: :lol:

I eat meat for fun anyway *


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

I couldn't live if I couldn't eat meat.


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

I hate vegetables.


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

I might be able to survive on fruit thought.


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

I would like to keep this thread on topic. Please don't turn it into a vegetarian/christian/i love meat argument that a good deal of the thread already is.

Please just keep it to the science of diet and human evolution


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

I reckon it's not as healthy to have a fully vegetable diet.


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

The main thing i dont get is why a simply energy that requies virtually no brain power to find would drive us to evolve to be smarter. Seems far more logical that a far more nutritous meat meal, that requires far more thinking to aquire would drive this evolution.

It also seems stupid to suggest ppl where running around on the gound to get starchy foods while walking past a far more tasty animal meal.

Without eating meat we simply wouldnt be here today, as pointed out right at the begining of the thread.


----------



## slim6y (Sep 19, 2007)

cris said:


> Speak for yourself...
> 
> I didnt see any valid theory in that potato article, sad how they always leave stuff out in the news.



How is that speaking for myself? I speak for everyone on this...

If women are gatherers - and men are hunters - this is part of our evolutionary skills!

Therefore - without hunting we wouldn't have made tools like scud missiles and the hydrogen bomb... Instead we'd all be pulling each others hair out!


----------



## JasonL (Sep 19, 2007)

Kali7 said:


> I went through and had a look at the number of new PhDs from a group of students I am familar with. Of the 6, 4 were vegetarians. So this post is not about fact, its about who people chose to discriminate against.. shame shame shame. does that mean that the vegetarians (of which I cannot say I am one) should put up a poll asking if all meat eaters were red neck fascists? fools.
> .



You would need all your friends relatives going back many generations to be vegetarians to have any possible effects on their brain capacity. The original question is a reasonable one and is not talking about individuals and their food preferences.


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

Slim6y, sorry i misread what you were saying i thought you meant we are all a pack of women now because we dont hunt anymore :lol:


----------



## Vat69 (Sep 19, 2007)

Ahh yes, because women are of course inferior specimens! :lol:

Annd to make my post relevent, yes, I believe that the pull to eat meat forced humans to become more intelligent.


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

cris said:


> The main thing i dont get is why a simply energy that requies virtually no brain power to find would drive us to evolve to be smarter. Seems far more logical that a far more nutritous meat meal, that requires far more thinking to aquire would drive this evolution.
> 
> It also seems stupid to suggest ppl where running around on the gound to get starchy foods while walking past a far more tasty animal meal.
> 
> Without eating meat we simply wouldnt be here today, as pointed out right at the begining of the thread.



Think of it like this. There was a point where we were not intelligent enough to hunt or catch animals for food and hence did not recognise animals as a food source. It is a lot easier to dig roots out of the ground then hunt animals at this point. 

Roots contain high levels of starch, which is a combination of amylose and amylopectin which are polysaccharides. They are very high in energy content due to the amount of glucose sub units in these polysaccharides. This energy allowed for the formation of the brain and as the brain developed so did our intelligence and then the ability to hunt.

So with the ability to hunt came the extra benefits of meat proteins and hence the rest is history.


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

In a way the starch provided a precursor of intelligence due to the energy imput which allowed hunting. I believe personally that social interactions were much more of a benefit to the evolution of intelligence than overall diet or surroundings. Working together gives more stability in a community allowing members of the community to focus on separate endeavours, such as hunting and gathering or building etc other than depending on yourself to do it all etc.


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

Well I reckon you're all wrong when it comes to how we became so smart but I'll keep my mouth shut about it.


----------



## slim6y (Sep 19, 2007)

Vat - there was nothnig sexist in saying "we'll all be a pack of women" I happen to like women (haha).

To be honest, the truth behind my post was to highlight the point that hunting played a HUGE role in our evolution - and the 4 out of 6 PhD students who were vegetarians, have our evolutionary partners from the prehistoric age to thank for that.

Yes, women were predominantley gathers, yes men were predominantley hunters. It is because of these roles that we had built in our societies and communities that we survived so well.

Part of our evolutionary success (invention in particular) can all stem back from hunting!

The wheel and metal working (what for... hunting)...


----------



## Vat69 (Sep 19, 2007)

Slim, I wasn't referring to you. Sorry I wasn't being clear.

I was just joking anyways, but thankyou for bothering to explain your post rather than get defensive and reply with something offensive. I think alot of members would do well to follow that example


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

I like women too, doesnt mean that as a male i want to be one... well maybe for just a day :lol:
It is a well known fact that biologically women are better gathers and nurturers and men are better hunters, fighters and technologists. Each is as important as the other but definately differant.

War and hunting have been the primary drive for our intellegence and technology IMO, eating potatoes and farming have simply helped us on the way.


----------



## slim6y (Sep 19, 2007)

You see cris, that is why we're evolutionary superior - we had hunting and gathering for meat and two veg (we're two thirds vegetarian anyway).

And after reading about copulating possums - look what they're degraqded to - doing it on the discovery channel (on people's roofs during sense and sensibility) - if they had hunted instead of gathered, it may have been us on their roof!!!


----------



## PhilK (Sep 19, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> I've thought about this a bit and was wondering what other people think. I've noticed a few digs at vegetarians in some of the threads - my question is this:
> 
> Do you think if the human species were vegetarians, would they have evolved to be:
> 
> ...


 
Probably wouldn't have been as intelligent, as they were top predators, and so could survive. If we weren't top predators, another animal would take that niche and eat us. Look at most of the higher animals (mammals) - carnivores and _omnivores_. The important thing about people is they need both meat _and_ plant matter. 

The drive to hunt animals and gather food lead to tool use etc etc. All the 'lower' mammals (intelligence-wise) are herbivores. People are what they are, because they were what they were (think about it.)


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

PhilK said:


> The drive to hunt animals and gather food lead to tool use etc etc. All the 'lower' mammals (intelligence-wise) are herbivores.



What about elephants? They are one of the three known species that have demonstrated a sense of consciousness and they are herbivorous. Their social hierarchy is what has made them intelligent, not their diet.

Yes humans are different, but if the theory of starch being the major energy source to build our brains is correct then obviously without it hunting etc may not of occurred at all and we might still be eating fruit from trees.


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

If Tigers and Sharks and Crocodiles are so good at hunting and are carnivores, how come they haven't evolved to something even more superior yet?


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

mr black said:


> What about elephants? They are one of the three known species that have demonstrated a sense of consciousness and they are herbivorous.



What do you mean by consciousness? if its what i think it is there is a very credible theory that nothing has it, or otherwise most animals should have it.


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> If Tigers and Sharks and Crocodiles are so good at hunting and are carnivores, how come they haven't evolved to something even more superior yet?



because they didnt need to.


----------



## Joshua VW (Sep 19, 2007)

But by the time apes had half evolved into half human half ape, they would have been quite strong due to the monkey part and smart due to the human part of them.
So why evolve any further?


----------



## Adzo (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> If Tigers and Sharks and Crocodiles are so good at hunting and are carnivores, how come they haven't evolved to something even more superior yet?



The predator only needs to be smart enough or skilled enough to catch its prey. If zebras and antelope evolve, whether by intellegence or behaviour, to a point where they evade crocodiles everytime they encounter then no doubt crocs would change behaviour, diet and hunting practises .


----------



## cris (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> But by the time apes had half evolved into half human half ape, they would have been quite strong due to the monkey part and smart due to the human part of them.
> So why evolve any further?



We evolved further so we could become the dominant species and eat all the tasty animals, make TV's, cars, guns, beer etc. :lol:


----------



## Adzo (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> But by the time apes had half evolved into half human half ape, they would have been quite strong due to the monkey part and smart due to the human part of them.
> So why evolve any further?



At one stage amoeba like organisms were top predators. Why did they evolve further?
Humans evolved further as a result of environmental stimuli, evolution is not a conscious process. Nothing decides to evolve and decides to stop.


----------



## PhilK (Sep 19, 2007)

mr black said:


> What about elephants? They are one of the three known species that have demonstrated a sense of consciousness and they are herbivorous.


I mean of course "most" lower mammals are herbivores.


----------



## PhilK (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> If Tigers and Sharks and Crocodiles are so good at hunting and are carnivores, how come they haven't evolved to something even more superior yet?


Mammals are generally the ones attributed with "intelligence"


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

cris said:


> What do you mean by consciousness? if its what i think it is there is a very credible theory that nothing has it, or otherwise most animals should have it.



When I say consciousness I mean a sense of awareness, not a spirit or "collective conscience"etc that I do not believe in.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225764.600-elephants-recognise-their-mirror-image.html

There are only a handful of species that are self aware and they are all social animals.


----------



## mr black (Sep 19, 2007)

Joshua VW said:


> But by the time apes had half evolved into half human half ape, they would have been quite strong due to the monkey part and smart due to the human part of them.
> So why evolve any further?



I think it has to do with humans being social creatures. I think we evolved more, in particular our brains, as a result of sexual selection. Due to living and working in functioning groups the need to be strong predators so to speak would have paled in comparison to intelligence in regards to sexual selection. Why reproduce with a specimen that is a strong hunter when you could reproduce with a smart hunter who was more efficient due to better weapons and traps etc. 

The time and energy created from more efficient hunting leaves more time for shelter and protection of a partner and offspring hence making that partner more fit selecting out specimens with less intelligence.


----------

