Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material. Human groups have adopted a range of diets from purely vegan to primarily carnivorous.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
...That "Megafauna extinctions in areas where they coexisted with humans were most likely caused by a combination of human pressure and access to water" It's pretty obvious that as human society expanded there were less resources for the largest of animals. Sure, early humans hunted, and certainly to the brink of extinction and beyond in the post-industrial age, but do you really think that early humans hunted giant short faced bears to extinction for their meat or is it more likely that we simply outcompeted them?
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.
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!
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!
Still dying to know how the tooth's name at all indicates anything of its function. Canines are literally omnivores. Most primates use theirs for fighting. So please, if you're done with the ad hominem I'd love to see you try to defend this here comment.
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."
Anyway if you want to pretend that the current factory farm hellscape is humanitie's natural state, you go ahead because unlike you I have a philosophy of live and let live.
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.
OP didn't make an argument, OP posted a meme poking fun at people who unironically say things like that. In response the OP of this particular thread unironically said something like that. I'm just having a good time.
i didnt know teeth was the only factor in if you are carnivore or omnivore or whatever. i thought it was the fact that humans have eaten both meat and plants for as long as humans have been around