• @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              66 months ago

              The statement was “Human teeth are omnivorous.” Which I’ve given plenty of counter-examples to. Showing me that humans have varied diets does absolutely nothing to further the argument, I can already see that. If you want to feel better about your choices I’m not the one you need to convince.

      • Ace T'Ken
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Human teeth also have sharp peaks and deeper valleys within them which is the case for the overwhelming majority of omnivorous creatures. Most obligate herbivores have flatter teeth or will regrow them unless they have teeth explicitly for a particular use case.

        Source: You can check out scads of scientific resources on herbivores versus omnivore versus carnivore teeth. I assume you know how a search engine works, but here’s a solid article on differences.

        Also my sister has been one of the veterinary bigwigs at several zoos through her lifetime and we’ve had multiple discussions on it.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          How is a blog a source? All you’ve given is anecdotal evidence. I have that too. Pandas, sharp teeth, claws, obligate herbivores. Gorillas, sharp teeth, big muscles, obligate herbivores.

          I’m sure your sister is a fine veterinarian, and if we’re going to get anecdotal I have a degree in biology and don’t really care what opinion your sister has. I work for real medical doctors who are anti-vax. Someone’s job doesn’t make them sensible.

          • Ace T'Ken
            link
            fedilink
            English
            166 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              96 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
                26 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 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
                66 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                56 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?

                  • Liz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    26 months ago

                    I genuinely have no idea what you’re trying to say with that link. What’s obvious?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            46 months ago

            Obligate. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

            In all seriousness, pandas are still bears and can/do eat meat on occasion. Gorillas regularly eat insects and larva, digging up termite and ant nests. Our closest cousins the chimps are not only fully omnivorous, but are accomplished predators. Most herbivores (like ungulates, bovines, etc) will not pass up the opportunity to eat carrion, baby birds, small rodents, and the like.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Cool source (the second one, the first one fucking sucks I hate it 😁). According to it all mammals have canines, even and especially herbivores. The sabre-tooth water deer for example, cited in your source, has extremely pronounced canines. Still a herbivore. Next!

              Downvote if you can’t refute!

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I mean the source you provided literally says the bottom canines are less pointy and pronounced than the top set, especially in humans, so I don’t feel very corrected? You keep at it though, I believe in you!

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    76 months ago

                    says the bottom canines

                    The bottom what? Bottom canines? So you’re arguing they’re not what they are literally called?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                the fact that I can digest meat at all suggests that I am an omnivore

                it is wonderful that you are vegan but please shut the fuck up trying to pretend that it is humanity’s natural state

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Cannot help but notice that that paragraph does not contain the word “omnivore” anywhere except the first sentence.

                    The fact that the human body is not especially well suited to killing prey with its bare hands and tearing flesh off of bones is more indicative of tool use and the fact that we cook our food than anything else, and even if it weren’t, herbivores get sick when they eat meat. Carnivores get sick when they eat plants. Humans get sick from neither; therefore, definitionally, we are omnivores.

                    I do agree that the state of factory farming is apalling. I can also imagine futures in which factory farming does not exist besides the one where no human eats meat ever again.

                    i’m not gonna say it again. i applaud your decision to go vegan, but please, for the love of everything you hold sacred, stop pretending your choice is the only correct one. You say you can live and let live. Demonstrate this please.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  26 months ago

                  Flat teeth, ate meat.

                  Panda: sharp teeth, eats plants.

                  Almost like your argument falls apart at the slightest bit of scrutiny. Anyway

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    56 months ago

                    My argument? OP’s argument was that people not having “carnivore teeth” means people shouldn’t eat meat.

                    I see you agree that that is a nonsense argument.