"Laurie" > wrote in message
<snip>
>1. Natural carnivores/omnivores have sharp, pointy physical tools
> (fangs, claws, talons, beaks, ...) for capturing/killing/eating animal
> flesh; humans have none of these. Humans are also too slow to run down
and
> capture animals.

Before humans evolved, pre-humans developed knives, scrapers, and other
tools which helped to cut meat. They also developed fires.

> 2. Natural carnivores/omnivores eat their flesh fresh and raw; humans
> cook their flesh and further disguise it with spices/condiments. The need
> for tools necessary for human flesh-eating is irrefutable evidence that
> humans have no 'adaptations' for flesh-eating.

Humans eat raw meat as well, just got into any restaurant that serves steak
tartare or sashimi. Pre-humans likely cooked their meat in their fires
anyway.

> 3. Natural carnivores/omnivores have instincts to capture, kill, and
> eat raw their prey. Humans have a strong anti-instinct to do so, and all
> meatarians, boldly claiming such mythical 'adaptations' who are challenged
> to kill their prey and eat their flesh like ALL natural
> carnivores/omnivores, do not have the courage or commitment, to do so. We
> have no such instincts which clearly must have co-evolved with any
> 'adaptation' for flesh-eating.

We can steal carcasses from other predators. We are crafty and can set up
traps for animals. We can drive them off of cliffs or into pits lined with
spikes. We can catch them in snares. We can throw spears at them. And some
of course, can be caught by hand. Turtles for example, mollusks, lizards,
snakes, insects, baby birds, etc.

> 4. The strong association of all the currently-popular "degenerative
> diseases" with flesh-eating is epidemiological proof that no such
> 'adaptation' ever occurred.

People are eating too much in general and getting fat and those degenerative
diseases aren't a result of meat but a result of eating too much and living
too sedentary of a lifestyle.

> 5. The strong, characteristic, offensive odors of human flesh-eater's
> feces, urine, perspiration, breath are proof that animal proteins are not
> properly digested and/or assimilated, since if they were, the amine
> compounds responsible for these odors would not exist. Why? Because
proper
> digestion and assimilation of protein removes amino acids (and their amine
> residues) from the digestive tract into the body.

Plant materials can cause some of the worst cases of bad breath and odor,
such as garlic and onions.

> 6. There is no evidence in contemporary evolutionary theory that
> suggests that a species that voluntarily changes its diet (humans being
the
> only one capable of this act, since all other species eat by instinct as
> contrasted to the human who consumes diet by cultural conditioning)
thereby
> produces the profound biochemical/physiological changes necessary to
> successfully digest/assimilate the new, radically-different diet.

Animals are opportunists. If food is scarce as it was for some of our
ancestors, meat eating would be an excellent adaptation.

> 7. People who propagate the false concept of 'human adaptation for
> flesh-eating" can produce NO scientifically-credible evidence that this
has
> ever occurred. None.

I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with
scraper marks.

> 8. People who propagate this false concept are unable to
differentiate
> between Nature and culture, and that is the source of their error.

I think you have trouble differentiating between science and pseudoscience.

-Rubystars