Humans are physically much closer to herbivores than true omnivores and, of course, carnivores. If anything we're opportunistic primates that evolved to take advantage of calories where we found them.
But I'm not sure these arguments are really that relevant to the present. We have radically reshaped nature to suit our needs and that includes everything we eat, both animal and vegetable. These appeals to nature generally ignore the fact that the things we ate over the millennia don't exist now.
>Humans are physically much closer to herbivores than true omnivores and, of course, carnivores.
Where can I read more about this?
>If anything we're opportunistic primates that evolved to take advantage of calories where we found them.
That sure sounds like "omnivore" to me.
>These appeals to nature generally ignore the fact that the things we ate over the millennia don't exist now.
They also fail the other way: for example, humans have evolved new metabolic pathways for adult consumption of lactose at least twice in the last 100,000 years, and they're different pathways! (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048992/)
homestasis doesn't mean "everything is constant", it means "everything's moving all the time, and the set point doesn't change a lot if things are going well because we're always compensating"
I think we agree that what humans ate as we evolved doesn’t really dictate what we should eat now, particularly when the plants and animals we ate along the way are so different from what we eat now.
As for humans being closer to herbivores, our dentition, stomach acid and saliva composition, and digestive tract are much more like those of herbivores than carnivores.
After reading that article, that doesn't seem to be what they're claiming (despite the title / URL). It says that we were opportunistic, and what opportunities presented changed over the years (and our guts with them).
I disagree that our teeth and guts are more akin to herbivores, and so does the article you link. Hell, if you google image search for "omnivore teeth" the first result is literally a human mouth. Do some omnivores mouths look different? Sure, some have evolved to eat more live prey than others- some canines are bigger than others because of this. But the same teeth are present; most herbivores literally do not have canines. The ones that do, such as elephants, aren't used for eating but instead for defense or manipulating their environment so I don't think that counts.
>Most people have small or even non existent canines. Not much use for the jobs real carnivores need them for
And smaller jaws generations by generations... I believe anthropology concluded this adaptation was caused by cooking. Certainly, gorillas who are almost obligate herbivores have proportionally bigger fangs than us.
Incidentally, human guts don't ferment plants at all, so I'd argue we are closer to the carnivore half of the omnivore spectrum.
Or perhaps we outsource the fermentation to our tools and storages, which is actually a valid animal feeding tactics..
Incidentally, humans don't need meat, so I'd argue we are closer to the frugi/graminivore half of the omnivore spectrum, like chimpanzees, our closest relatives.
Well how many herbivores have a set of canine teeth meant for ripping? All homo sapiens do. Most herbivores that have incisors tend to have small ones (deer only have incisors on the bottom and press them against the hard upper palate to rip vegetation). Virtually no herbivore has sharp incisors (compared to a lion or homo sapien). Many herbivores have overdeveloped incisors that are used for defense such as an elephant's tusks
Herbivores tend to use premolars and molars to grind and crush vegetation. Carnivores use sharp incisors to cut food and canines to tear food (like flesh from bones). There is no need for a herbivore to ever have canines. Homo Sapiens have both, but our premolars and molars are less pronounced than herbivores.
It is logical and seems to be scientifically accurate to deduce Homo Sapiens are evolved to be Omnivores.
"Geladas are the only primates that are primarily graminivores and grazers – grass blades make up to 90% of their diet. They eat both the blades and the seeds of grasses. When both blades and seeds are available, geladas prefer the seeds. They eat flowers, rhizomes and roots when available,[12][13] using their hands to dig for the latter two. They consume herbs, small plants, fruits, creepers, bushes and thistles.[12][13] Insects can be eaten, but only rarely and only if they can easily be obtained." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelada#Range_and_ecology)
Obviously humans can and do eat so I don’t think we can claim that humans are pure herbivores. But omnivorism is a spectrum and, like our primate cousins, we’re much more geared to lie on the plant eating side of that spectrum.
One of the more reasonable theories about why Neanderthals went extinct was due to Homo Erectus and then Homo Sapiens having much more plentiful and common access to protein. The book Born to Run mentions Endurance Hunting[1] where tribes literally run down game animals such as elk or gazelles until they overheat as proof of this. There are tribes that . Virtually no other mammal on the planet can sweat while on the move. Big dogs and cats have to stop and pant or find shade to sweat and cool down. If they don't, they'll overheat and die. There are evil still tribes[2] that do this today.
But I'm not sure these arguments are really that relevant to the present. We have radically reshaped nature to suit our needs and that includes everything we eat, both animal and vegetable. These appeals to nature generally ignore the fact that the things we ate over the millennia don't exist now.