Isn't it true that humans actually have bodies more suited for eating and digusting vegatables rather then meat?? Like for instance our teeth.
2006-09-19 03:05:53 · 5 answers · asked by Aquamarine 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
I propose that we have evolved to be able to digest meat if the need arises... somewhat developed canines, a single stomach and an alimentary canal that is shorter than many herbivores. The human intestines are notably longer than in carnivores in general (and other omnivores), however, and meat can reside in the human gut for months before being ejected, increasing the risk of sickness and disease. This signals to me that eating meat is possible for the human digestive system, albeit less preferable than a vegetable-based diet.
2006-09-19 05:02:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Also herbivore have often several stomachs (2,3,4) and much longer intestines then human do.
There are some fossils, scientists say those are bones of extinguished kind of "humans". They were all herbivore. And were extinguished by human omnivores, who had better chances for survival because they ate plants and meat.
It would be best if we wouldn't have to kill anybody for food. But, we're omnivores, so why make difference? Why would LIFE of one apple be less valuable then life of a chicken!?
2006-09-19 03:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by dragonfly140 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, we have evolved as omnivores. Our teeth are very generalist, we have shorter canines than a dedicated carnivore, but smaller molars than a dedicated herbivore.
2006-09-19 03:14:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Our teeth show consistency for both...note you have incisors (pointed teeth for tearing, not for grinding)
2006-09-19 03:56:53 · answer #4 · answered by leikevy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
our teeth are suited for both... our eyes are in front, this makes us preditors
2006-09-19 03:14:07 · answer #5 · answered by eldridgejoe 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋