Talk:Human/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions about Human. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Sexism or Sex-based Hierarchy

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

There is a section on race, but not on sexism, or any mention of division of labour between men and women or roles in society, the patriarchal structure of societies, or anything of that nature. I think this page ought to mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.223.98 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the anon here. We give a general mention of the physiological sexual dimorphism of humans, but really do not have any words at all about cultural sexual structures. Obviously, it's tricky to walk the line correctly, since there are few universals in the exact nature of sexual division in human societies. But there are enough broad patterns that we could figure out brief and well-cited mention, with links to appropriate related articles for broader discussion. LotLE×talk 09:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It may stir up some heated discussion but we should write something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose something like this sentence and more: Msushi (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power.

Sounds good to me. Ideally, it should be referenced though. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think this is one of those cases where the point is too broad for one narrow citation, and wikilinks to relevant and more detailed (and cited) discussions works better. E.g. to Gender#Sociological_gender, Patriarchy, Division_of_labor#Sexual_division_of_labour. I do think we could find some Intro to Anthropology book or the like that would say something similar, but I'm not sure the real benefit. LotLE×talk 00:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That said, I think this citation for the Division of labor article is pretty good: "Sexual Division of Labor by White, Brudner and Burton (1977, public domain)." LotLE×talk 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a suggested expansion of the above first sentence.Msushi (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power. These cultural differences have traditionally been understood to have arisen naturally out of the biologically based division of reproductive labor, extended from women's giving birth to nurturing and caring for children and household. Historically, there have been fewer matriarchies i.e., societies in which women hold the greater degree of political power, than patriarchies.

Just looking at the above; here's a proposed modification for better clarity and to say something about feminism:Msushi (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The sexual division of humans into male and female has throughout history been marked culturally by a corresponding division of roles, norms, practices, dress, behavior, rights, duties, privileges, status, and power. These cultural differences have traditionally been understood to have arisen naturally out of the division of reproductive labor; the biological fact that women give birth led without question to their further responsibility for nurturing and caring for children and the household. Challenges to these gender roles have been mounted with some success by 20th century feminism, mainly in first world countries, where organized opposition to male power over women has increasingly won for women greater political rights than they had previously. Historically, however, patriarchy (i.e., societies in which men hold the greater degree of political power) has been greatly predominant over matriarchy.

The data on "Conservation status" is deeply flawed. I am sorry but humans as we are told they exist can not account for 20% of the grand total. They form most often at best a slightly reviled minority, so I suggest that the status of that cattle must be changed to "spermatic reversation" (burdensome heritage for lack of more advanced technologies). This is the truth as it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.192.168.18 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

picture in anatamy

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments13 people in discussion

I think the picture of the man and woman nude shouldbe removed because a lot of kids visit this sight at school and this picture would be considered "inapporaite" in a school area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the school can filter it themselves. Wikipedia is not censored. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to suggest that your school technology staff look at this:Options to not see an image. 7 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Will someone just remove it and get over with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs)

In a word, No. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Now you've asked three times and received the same answer three times. Enough, please. Rivertorch (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What if you put a picture showing the inside of a human such as a skeleten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because, that is not what human being look like. If your cause is to protect children, then I strongly urge you to take he advice you have been given. The presence of that picture has been hashed out in debate which you can read in the archives. The consensus of the editors is that this picture is appropriate in demonstrating the exterior anatomy of the human body. An encyclopedia article that discusses human beings must ultimately discuss anatomy, and to do so selectively is to be a disservice. This encyclopedia is filled with topics that may not be wholly appropriate for children of all ages, and it is up to parents and educators to make that decision, and to take appropriate actions on their end of the internet. It is generally inappropriate for an individual or small group of individuals to demand that this website do the job that they themselves should be doing on their end. What would happen if a group of (for example) people representing faith X complained that articles related to faith Y were inappropriate, because their children might read them, and might be tempted to change faiths? I would think the appropriate response would be that this is not the concern of the encyclopedia, and is the concern of the parents. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think thats a good example plus a kid could possibly get into huge trouble for seeing a puicture like this while doing a report on humans I just don,t thiink it is a good picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any harm in the nude pictures. Even if a kid came across them, they have a right to know about his and his opposite's body and what it constitutes. These images are not sexually suggestive telling kids to engage in any sort of sexual intercourse. And if they get caught at school, is it really their fault?? Plenty of books in the school library will at least have illustrations of the human body. Many religious cultures teach that the human body is a vice and must be covered at all times. I reject such dogma. Mat Wilson (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that I thought better about it, I realized you are right, kids could really get in trouble for seeing an image of nude people on en encyclopedia. Anyway, there's an official Wikipedia policy that says that if someone asks for the same thing five different times, then he really means it. I will remove the pictured and change it for pictures of skeletons shortly. Won't somebody please think of the children? --Fixman^{Praise me} 05:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is an attempt at WP:SARCASM. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have succeeded, too, had it not taken eight days to arrive. :) Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue with this picture is not at all the nudity. Rather, I'm totally perplexed as to why both the man and woman have no pubic hair and the man is virtually hairless. If the picture is meant to present the exterior anatomy of fully developed humans, it would be greatly amiss for both of them (who are clearly post pubescent) not to have pubic hair. Frankly, it seems that the lack of hair is a reflection of contemporary Euro-American hairless beauty standards and not an accurate example of human exterior anatomy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.160.90 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of using what we've got. If you know of a better image, please provide a link so we can ~~argue about it~~ discuss it. :) Rivertorch (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They also have evidently been cutting the hair on their scalps, the male especially, and at least the male has been removing his facial hair. If our aim is to not depict humans in the habit of grooming themselves to one standard of beauty and hygiene or another, we are not likely to succeed but with infants. --Saerain (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; having virtually hairless humans conveys us with a cultural bias. I urge finding a new image. Daruqe (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone go tell your bearded friends to take nude photos of themselves!

Nudity and sexuality are not only not damaging to children, they are also completely unrelated. The only reason the human body is seen as sexual in this culture is because we cover it up until specific times, the most prominent being sexual encounters. By trying to hide a picture such as this from children, you are only perpetuating the millennia of damage to individual psyche and society as a whole. Your children, as well as other children raised to fear nudity and sex, will grow up sexually repressed and confused. Insecurities will run rampant, as their whole lives these people were told their body was something "bad" that needed to be covered up. I see that you're trying to help a little, but you're really hurting a lot.24.17.64.28 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OMG! People have organs under their bathing suit areas!? I'm pretty warped now that I know that; time to go on a shooting spree.

I would like to see an anatomically correct picture of the humans without them being covered. Science should not ever listen to any religious demands. If religious people cannot handle science, they should leave science alone. Kids is no problem if they are taught correctly and not just passages from a fairytale book like the bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.132.49.217 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OMG NUDITY, IT'S ALL WRONG, IT'S EVIL!!1! T_T No. There's nothing wrong with nudity, it's just been tabooed by attitudes like this. Black Cat Claws (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Conservation status

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please update the conservation status from "Least Concern" to "Overpopulated" as of December 17, 2009.

Agree. The species does not have a natural regulation of the population anymore and has it would only be correct to change the status to "Overpopulated".

Impossible, the scale only goes up to Least Concern. username 1 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Then change the scale. Or remove it. It's incorrect Black Cat Claws (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: last sentence of lead

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In the last sentence of the lead: "humans are the only species known to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies", please take out the part about cooking food. The other things in the sentence are about technologies we made to be useful, but cooking food is a human-specific adaptation based on our diet, not a thing we made because we're so clever. Maybe you could replace it with something to do with transportation or communication technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.131.175 (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Even if one does consider it significant, it seems redundant to mention it immediately following fire-building, if we're trying to give a quick, broad summary of these unique practices. How about: '[...] humans are the only species known to build fires, clothe themselves, cultivate crops, and use numerous other technologies.' --Saerain (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful. Ants also cultivate crops. Balfa (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of electrical circuits and gear-based machines seem like the important part to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.8.92 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite in the first person.

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments11 people in discussion

This would really make more sense, since everyone reading about this is a human, and referring to them in the 3rd person is kind of strange.

For instance.

Humans are bipedal primates belonging to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in Hominidae, the great ape family.[2][3] We are the only surviving members of the genus Homo. We have a highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, and problem solving. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees the arms for manipulating objects, has allowed us to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Mitochondrial DNA and fossil evidence indicates that we as modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago.[4] We are widespread in every continent except Antarctica, with a total population of 6.8 billion as of November 2009.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.255.115 (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! Name any other animal that could read and comprehend this article. There are none! Only us!! Mat Wilson (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This proposal is silly, and is clearly not going anywhere. As a start, the person mentioned is known as "first person" not "second person". Articles on Wikipedia are not written in the first person. Not the article Man, even though many editors of it are indeed men. Not the article on Catholicism, even though many editors of it are Catholics. Likewise not the article Left-handedness, or Party of the Democratic Revolution, even if left-handed PRD members write those articles. And not the article Anonymous, even if 66.31.255.115 decides to edit it. The voice of an encyclopedia is the third person, so it has always been, and so it shall be. LotLE×talk 08:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no chance whatsoever that someone reading this article will not be human. The reader 100% of the time is going to be what is described. Using third person gives this article a false sense of objectivity and is plainly a lie as the author undoubtfully is a human. So it should be "we" not "them". In order for the article to be sensible it cannot raise the author above the reader in this matter. This is the only article that cannot do this since it is not possible for the author and reader to not be genetically human. It's wrong to take a fake perspective. Only a creature such as a dolphin or a chimp could write "them". We cannot do that! llehsadam×talk 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are being serious, get your argument straight. First you argue that the man/Catholic/left-handedness/PRD analogy is irrelevant because it is possible for the reader to not be those things, then you argue that for an author to write from a third-person perspective about a subject that applies to him or her is a 'fake' perspective that 'raises the author above' the reader. The former argument is one of pure philosophy rather than grammar (note that even speaking of oneself in the third-person singular, though a social misconduct, is not grammatically incorrect) or encyclopedic writing, whilst the latter suggests that we ought to ensure that no men should edit Man, no Catholics Catholicism, no lefties Left-handedness, and no PRD members Party of the Democratic Revolution, to guarantee that they do not write from a 'fake perspective' or create a constant jostling of the article between first- and third-person. It is logically flawed from the outset and contrary to the very nature of an encyclopedia.

It would be absurd to write an encyclopedic article in the first-person, one of the fundamentals to encyclopedic writing being to write objectively of matters in which one may not be personally neutral, or subjects which one may not be exempt from. The author does not write from his or her own perspective, ever. It doesn't matter what the reader may or may not be.

There is nothing 'fake' about writing from a third-person perspective, whether or not the subject applies to the author or the reader—not in an encyclopedia and not in any other context. It may make the article 'warmer' in the opinion of some, yet it would not make it more grammatically correct, and it would make it less encyclopedic. --Saerain (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well put. Also, on a purely practical level, it would very difficult, if not impossible, to convey in the first person the same ideas as clearly and unambiguously as they're conveyed in the third person. Awkward generalizations would be nearly inevitable, since the pronoun "we" would tend to personalize things for the reader to an unavoidable degree while lacking clear parameters denoting who precisely is being referred to. The results would be bizarre, probably absurd—an interesting writing exercise, perhaps, but not something fit for an encyclopedia. And then there's the slippery slope: we editors aren't just humans, after all; we're other things, like primates, mammals, vertebrates, and so on. Should we rewrite those in the first person, too? Now that would be surreal. Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I guarantee you that all the readers and authors are human. Yes we, humans are also primates but unfortunately (or fortunately, whatever) not all primates are humans, so that argument fails. The PRD members Party of the Democratic Revolution argument fails too for not all readers shall be PRD members, so why refer to the reader as if the reader was a PRD member? It's not that the reader may or may not be human, the reader is human and so is the author. It would be informative to point that out. The use of "we" as a pronoun for humans does just that. It gives more information to the reader than a "they" which furthers the information in the article from the reader, when it shouldn't since the reader is human. Personally, the reader is human. The author cannot see from a third-person perspective at being human so the author cannot use the third-person. Impersonality fails in this article. llehsadam×talk 22:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.20.202 (talk)

You're argument is even more flawed. First you say it is obvious that the author and reader are both human. Later you go on to say it would be informative to point this fact out. If both the reader and author are aware they are human, then pointing this fact out by using the word "we" would not be informative in any way. Rather, it would be asinine.

Also, with the rapid development of non-human animals (such as other species of great apes, who can learn to speak sign language and use human tools, including driving a small vehicle), the development of artificial intelligence, and the mounting (not necessarily definitive) evidence of extra terrestrial activity on earth, it is impossible to state any and all readers of this article, or any encyclopedia article for that matter, will be human. Don't think you're special, it's ridiculous to think humans are the only things that can read.

In short, stop trying to throw away time-tested conventions just to make something easier for you to read. The rest of us are doing just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.64.28 (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you are one for eloquent diction, yet you do realize that behind this facade of pompous rattle, you forget that you are not an ape (unless you are, then I am most frightfully sorry). I point this out because you should be aware that you can only read this because you were born a human and raised a human, making you human. I do not know if your response was capricious or burlesque, but it was flawed from birth. Your remarks must be satirical, for if otherwise, I would have to agree with you that indeed Great apes can read. And I do not want to do that.

I would also like to mention that believing that anything but a human can read is quite absurd. And then, if you glance at the numbers, it would seem that 100% of Wikipedia readers are in fact human, with one possible exception (see above). llehsadam×talk 04:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is one species of great ape whose members can read: homo sapiens. Well, some of them can. Occasionally, one of its members links a term without checking to see where it redirects. Such moments inject much appreciated humor into otherwise dry, boring watchlists. Rivertorch (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Phooey... I guess I got a little carried away. Humans are slightly different from the other Homonids, but I suppose we are still considered Great Apes. I still think that only humans can use Wikipedia though. llehsadam×talk 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not human, and I would be offended if you wrote it in the first person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.8.92 (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens is an animal. It is scientifically correct to write in 3rd person. I have no problem with it. In fact it helps approaching this specific species more objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.132.49.217 (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If this was first person, we would also have to make the articles mammal, Earthling, anglophone, and nerd in the first person, as those describe all readers. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, or we could just mention, even once, that this is the species that we are. The whole article doesn't have to be written in first person, but it's probably relevant that this isn't one species you might meet, but rather the species that you are. Imagine someone who didn't know the meaning of "human" yet looking it up here; it would be weird to read through the entire article without it being mentioned once that, "hey by the way guys, this is actually us." Unless this is trying to be unbiased against future alien races or evolved animals sharing wikipedia? 149.175.169.172 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If we were going to write this using "we" then we might as well wite the article on computers using "I", becase the only thing that is ever going to present you with this information is a computer.69.226.111.50 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsustainability?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

The transition to civilization section states that humans consume more resources than are available to them. It's uncited and isn't this also a logical impossibility? How can you use more resources than are available? In a market economy (a system created by humans for resource distribution), as resources become scarce their price increases which causes voluntary rationing, as well as creating an incentive to increase production. I move for deletion of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voisine (talk • contribs) 02:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The civilization is unstable in the long term. Just because it works now, doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.64.28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We're working on that. That's the point of alternative energy research. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there's a difference between "unstable" and "unsustainable." Some things are both [insert joke about fat actress here], but the words are still completely different. Either way, it is as impossible to consume "more than is available" as it is to work 25 hours a day. J.M. Archer (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is simply out of context, it is possible to consume 'more than is available' to us as a race. Consider the fact that if we were all to consume the same as Americans consume then we would need 3 planets to sustain us. Therefore the americans are consuming more than is available to the americans, they are consuming what is available to other nations as well, hence the instability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.65.201 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Age of Modern Humans

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The opening of the entry is wrong when it states that modern humans originated 200,000 years ago in Africa. The reference cited for this statement actually says that modern humans diverged from the common ancestor in Africa 200,000 years ago and that "the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa." This timeline needs to be clarified. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clothing and grooming

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

There has been much discussion, over time, as to whether humans depicted here should be clothed and have body hair. This discussion arises principally because there is no really 'natural' state for humans. As far as is known, since humans have existed, they have worn clothes of some kind and engaged in some kind of grooming activity, such as the trimming of hair.

Apart from a word or two in the lead there is little mention of these very human activities. In modern cultures, the wearing of some clothing is almost universal, as is the trimming of head hair to some degree. In many cultures, shaving of male facial hair is prevalent and in some cultures, trimming or removal of body hair is practised. Body modification and adornment is also common in many cultures.

We need a section on clothing, something pretty well unique to humans, and also something on grooming etc. Proper discussion of these issues in the text may also help to reduce arguments over suitable images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it's in Our Kind by Marvin Harris. Chrisrus (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone like to start something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a section under 'Culture' called 'Clothing, grooming, and body adornment and modification'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I found and article from a science magazine titled "Clothes make the human": http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/5946/1329-a Chrisrus (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here, look at this: Clothes#Origin_and_history_of_clothing

Asexuality

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Asexuality should be mentioned in the proper section. --71.30.211.204 (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this specific to humans? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

What, seriously? Which of these does not belong?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

From the article:

There have been a wide variety of rapidly advancing tactics throughout the history of war, ranging from conventional war to asymmetric warfare to total war and unconventional warfare. Techniques include hand to hand combat, the use of ranged weapons, and ethnic cleansing.

I'm curious: since when was "ethnic cleansing" a tactic used in warfare? Sure, sure, maybe it's something that warring factions will do, but does that really make it a tactic? Today, class, we're going to learn about judo, marksmanship, and ethnic cleansing!

...come on, guys. I'm totally deleting that. I know that we have to list things in threes and that once you cover "up close" and "far away" killing it's difficult to think of a third, but this is ridickerous.

J.M. Archer (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a tactic in warfare. It's certainly unethical, but that doesn't make it any less a tactic used throughout history by conquering armies. Mkemper331 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could say it's a tactic (strategy might be a better term), but I think Archer's objection was partly because we spoke of "rapidly advancing tactics" in the preceding sentence. This implies that we view ethnic cleansing as an advance over the other examples; not something I think we want to say. I think Archer's replacement example ", and, more recently, air support" is good. -- Avenue (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, yeah, I agree with that as well. Misunderstood. Mkemper331 (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Human vs. Homo

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments14 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – Consensus seems to be that this is the common usage for "Human". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Human → Homo sapiens — Content of Human should be moved to Homo sapiens; and possibly also Human should redirect to Homo. — Epastore (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I have heard scientists refer to any member of genus Homo as "human." However, this article seems to use the word Human to only refer to homo sapiens. Yet in other places, the article (and the disambig at the top) refers to homo sapiens as "modern humans," while indicating that there were other humans in the past. So shouldn't the rest of the article be more consistent in what it is talking about? Is a human only a modern human? If so, then why the word "modern" at all? Why not have the article Human redirect to Homo and have most of the content in this article be listed under "homo sapiens" (which currently redirects here)? — Epastore (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Human" is the current page; the vast majority of the time, if someone is searching for humans, they want the current page. The current page already has hatnotes for the other meanings/interpretations of "human". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To Epastore, first of all, a genus taxon must always be capitalized. In other words, there is no lowercase "h" in Homo sapiens. Second, you are actually right about the definition. Humans are in fact defined as any member of the Genus Homo. Given the fact that all other species of humans are extinct, however, the article on Homo sapiens will inevitably receive more hits than the articles on all the other types of humans. People tend to look up living species and taxa more often than extinct ones. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can see the desire to avoid confusion of people searching for "human" being directed to Homo, but is convenience really the driving factor? If someone looks up "human," and finds, correctly, that the term embraces all members of Homo, then aren't they gaining from the experience? But assuming that you don't buy my previous justification; I still put forth that this article needs a change in tone. The hat note leading to the genus is immediately contradicted by the first sentence, which very clearly defines humans as H. sapiens. The article then goes back and forth, sometimes using "human" and other times "modern human." The current setup with Homo sapiens redirecting here may be convenient, but it decreases understanding and clarity. Nothing would be lost by having Human redirect to Homo and putting this article's content where it belongs, in Homo sapiens. And the end result would be that people might learn something. That's a worthy goal of Wikipedia, is it not? — Epastore (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I spent a while reading about these topics recently, and I was frequently confused by which terms were used, and where links were directed. I'll try to find some specifics later, but the root confusion was surrounding the terms/links Archaic Homo sapiens vs. Homo sapiens vs. Homo sapiens sapiens (currently bolded in the infobox here, but the link is a redirect to Anatomically modern humans) vs. "human". I completely understand that this is a problem to do with scientific-evidence and theories and taxonomy slowly developing over the decades, which Human taxonomy and Human evolution go into a bit, but quite a few of the explanations could use a re-examination by a topic-expert/experienced-technical-writer. The Timeline of human evolution was the clearest, in the end, for me. Definitely something to keep an eye out for. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support (from proposer) — Convenience is no substitute for precision, clarity, and education. — Epastore (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose MOS recommends using a common name for the article rather than binomial nomenclature whenever possible. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). —Soap— 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Use most commonly used common name in English. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose people will search for the article using the term 'human' and will expect to end up here. Although the proposer is doubtless correct that human can be applied to anything in the genus 'homo', that's not the way the audience that uses the wikipedia think about it, and the MOS says we should use common usage. The situation is currently being dealt with by links at the top of the page- this seems the correct way to do this in the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose This has to be a joke, anyone on Earth can tell you that the common name for our species is Human. TJ Spyke 18:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone? You mean most anyone, but certainly not anthropologists. Most anyone will tell you that the name for Cattle is "Cow." But the article is under Cattle, because "cow" can refer to more than one thing... same as "human." — Epastore (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per naming conventions. Rivertorch (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:UCN Flamarande (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose because common usage rules. -- Scray (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to all of above (from proposer):

The Manual of Style is a guide, not a rulebook. It shouldn't be applied blindly, and it is misleading to be telling people that the common name for the genus Homo only refers to one species just because that is the only one around at this time.
The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) article applies if the word in unambiguous, which "Human" is not, seeing as it is a common name for a genus, not a species.
However... since it seems clear that consensus isn't likely to go my way, then I'll revert to my other alternative, which is that the article needs serious help. A single hat note which is immediately contradicted by the first sentence of the article is not sufficient. The article should start by saying that Human refers to the genus, but that since there is only one extant species, it now commonly refers to the species. Would that work for everyone? It also then should gain more consistency in its word choice since sometimes it says "modern humans" and other times just "humans." — Epastore (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the opposers above have lost the point that "human" is, in fact, an ambiguous term. The OED defines "human" as "A human being, a person; a member of the species Homo sapiens or other (extinct) species of the genus Homo." (among other things). Merriam-Webster, on the other hand, gives "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly: HOMINID." The relevant text from the Britannica article on Homo sapiens is worth quoting:

“

Following our ancestors into the distant past raises the question of what is meant by the word human. Homo sapiens is human by definition, whereas apes are not. But what of the extinct members of the human tribe (Hominini), who were clearly not us but were nonetheless very much like us? There is no definitive answer to this question. Although human evolution can be said to involve all those species more closely related to us than to the apes, the adjective human is usually applied only to ourselves and other members of our genus, Homo (e.g., H. erectus, H. habilis). Behaviorally, only Homo sapiens can be said to be “fully human,” but even the definition of Homo sapiens is a matter of active debate.

”

— Homo sapiens. (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9040899.

In that light, I prefer a split between Homo sapiens and "human", with Homo sapiens covering the species and "human" the general concept and history of the term. Ucucha 02:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it's ambiguous or not, what matters is whether there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and most seem to agree there is; even if there were to be a move, "Human" would redirect to the present article for the same reason. If we didn't allow any ambiguity, every page with multiple possible meanings would be a dab page, which isn't the case. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not positive that there is a primary topic. Human usually means Homo sapiens because that is the species we most commonly encounter, but are people who search for "human" likely to want information about Homo sapiens, rather than the broader concepts of "humans" that includes neanderthals and H. floresiensis (i.e., our closest relatives)? I am not sure. Ucucha 03:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Epastore, I am having difficulty understanding your point. You say, 'The article should start by saying that Human refers to the genus, but that since there is only one extant species, it now commonly refers to the species'. The article starts, 'Humans commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens..... However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo'. Is this not much the same thing. You say that 'human' is the genus but sometimes the species, the article says that 'human' is the species but sometimes the genus. The point is that 'human' is not that rigorously defined, as Britannica says, 'There is no definitive answer to this question'. That is why we have scientific names. On the other hand 'human' is the best know word and thus the best title for the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It used to say that Human only referred to H. sapiens. I changed it, and User:Cybercobra improved my edit. I still would like to see a move, but it's clear consensus isn't swinging that way, so at least the current article is more clear. I also favor the distinction made above by User:Ucucha, where "human" refers to everything having to do with Homo, and "Homo sapiens is specifically about the distinguishing characteristics of our species. — Epastore (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not my opinion. Ucucha 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What reliable sources do we have on this subject? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary entries I'd presume. See above where a couple are quoted. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interesting debate

That was an interesting debate to read. It is true that experts do refer to non-sapiens species of our genus as "humans", but that's never set well with me. If you don't paint your walls, store food, eat vegetables, or innovate your technology hardly at all for thousands of years, there's definately something inhuman about you. What normal humans habitually poo where they eat? No people poo where they eat, sleep, live. The English words, "human", "person", these words are pushed beyond the limits of the normal referent to include those species, IMHO. They don't pass the duck test. Kudos to those who limited it to sapiens.Chrisrus (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Homo heidelbergensis (10233446).jpg

Reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis

The Paleolithic or Early Stone Age starts around two million years before H. sapiens arrived and continues until just 14,000 years ago. By comparison, Behavioral modernity, which saw the dawn of things like painting walls only started, perhaps 25-50 thousand years ago. And agriculture only began a scant 10,000 years ago... a mere blink in the history of H. sapiens. What makes a human a human is what began the Stone Age: the significant use of tools for a broad range of purposes. It is deeply telling that the Early Stone Age starts long before sapiens was on the scene and continues until well after the last Neanderthal (the last other Homo) died. There is nothing particularly less human about the other Homos using tools than there was about us. There is an argument for Homo sapiens sapiens being distinct... but nobody here has made the claim that "human" is restricted only to that subspecies. (And again, behavioral modernity post-dates the advent of anatomically modern humans by about 100,000 years.) — Epastore (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Put another way… does this reconstruction of Homo heidelbergensis look inhuman to you? (Even look at the reconstruction of Homo erectus.) If you are applying the "duck test," then this should sway you in the other direction. — Epastore (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I’d like to remind us that there are gray areas just about every concepts, so most articles on Wikipedia have the problem of where to draw the line around the referent of the word in the title of the article. You have to have an article about apples, birds, pencils, tables, computers, trees, fish, bottles, etc. We all know that bottles exist and that we can say many things about bottles, including the fact that there are some bottles that might legitimately be thought by some to be jars or jugs or whatever. You always have arguable gray areas. So even if we knew nothing about humans we already can guess that there’ll be things that kind of seem like humans in some ways, but don’t seem very human in other ways, and that there’ll be individuals or groups that one could see as human while another could legitimately disagree, it depends on your criteria.

You accept Neanderthals as people, human beings, but please admit that this is at least debatable. I could argue your point for you, they were very much like us in many ways; they are clearly close cousins. But please admit that they weren’t like us at all in many ways, ways which make them seem very inhuman. In no particular order:

They never ate vegetables. Humans and our direct ancestors eat all kinds of things if we can. Sure, we can make it for a while on an all-meat diet, but humans are omnivores, this article says so, and even though there are vegan theories about the nature of humans, no one says that human nature includes eating nothing but meat; human nature is not like that of tigers or Neanderthals.
They almost didn’t vary by culture. If you dig up human remains in different places, you’ll find different things, a different way of life, of doing things. There is a little of this among chimps and orcas and Neanderthals, but nothing like there is among people.
They didn’t innovate new ways of doing things very much at all, over the course of time, a very long time. They did a little, but not very much, actually, and certainly not anything near the amount of new ideas and variations that you see among humans in a very short amount of time compared to the relatively huge amount of time that Neanderthals existed.
You find salmon bones scattered about wherever bears or Neanderthals have been eating them over the millennia, and in their poo, but when you have humans you’ll also find them in the cave. Neanderthals and bears never brought the fish back to the cave to eat it. They just ate it right where they’d caught it, like bears do, and not like humans.
If you have humans living somewhere for very long, there’s some kind of evidence of art of some kind. It’s just human nature. Yet Neanderthals lived for so very long, and no art at all. Some will point to a bead, but that was probably post-contact. No art to me is very inhuman. No art, to me, means little symbolic thought. It’s human nature to make art. The Neanderthal “flute”, looks as much like a mistake as the bead, but really, if they were human we wouldn’t be quibbling about a “flute” or a bead, there’d be plenty of cave paintings and statues and such. To me, no art means no symbolic thought which means no way to make a fully developed language. Sure they had language, or probably some primitive precursor to real language, but I don’t believe they had real language like all humans do, because I think you need symbolic thought for that and they don’t seem to have had that.
What human just lets go and poops wherever they happen to be, like gorillas and Neanderthals? That's typical of many (not all) animals, but not the animal you and I are. I remember the Oranutan lady with her toddler playing with the baby Orang, the two species are so similar in so many ways at that age. But the orang wants to hide when he eats but will poo right where he is, but the child wants to eat in a group and poop in private. Neandertal caves are filled with carnivore poop; when Sapiens replace them they's no poo because people hate their own poop.

I could go on, but do you not see that if I’m right about these things about Neanderthals, one could legitimately question whether the word “human” fully describes them, or whether they might be, at the very least, in the gray area between what defines human beings as described in this article and what would describe another animal.Chrisrus (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Granted, Neanderthals differed from modern humans in many ways (though of course, there ar many members of Homo other than Neanderthals). And of course there is significant gray area in the definition of human (in a sense, all of the humanities are specifically geared toward attempting to define the word).

However, my two main points are:

Other species in genus Homo are more like us than they are like other apes. That is, they resemble a modern human much, much more than they do a chimpanzee.
The more generally accepted view is that Behavioral modernity appears to post-date anatomically modern humans by ~150,000 years. So note that most of the things you define as intrinsically human behavior were not practiced by people who were in every way genetically equivalent to us.

And regardless, behavioral modernity certainly post-dates the emergence of the H. sapiens species by several hundred thousand years. It would seem rash to claim that we are human, but other members of our species are not. — Epastore (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your second main point is more convincing to me. For the first point, simply being closer to one animal than any other doesn't make you one of that first animal. I've heard such things as hippos being closer to whales than they are to any other animal. While you could therefore see hippos as amphibious whales or whales as sea hippos, that'd be, at the very least, pushing the limits of those words. The second main point is interesting, as it backs me into the position of having to admit that I don't see pre-behavioral modernity humans as being fully humans as far as the article goes; although obviously in the gray area, they're very close but not quite if they don't do such things as boil water or tell stories and other things that either should be or are in this article or its sub-articles. Of course, my opinion doesn't matter so much, but what matters is that when this article describes human beings, all the things we say about human beings in general, it may be important for the article to clarify that they might not fully apply to very early Homo sapiens. Chrisrus (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing domain taxon

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Humans are part of the Domain Eukarya. Domain level is a basic taxonomic rank, every bit as necessary to list as the ranks from Kingdom down to Genus. It's not a Super- or Sub- anything or anything trivial, so stop removing it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article..." And that is an EXACT quote from the very template on whose grounds you people keep yelling at me over the Domain Eukarya. Domain has come to be recognized a major rank unto its own, and is no longer considered another word for Superkingdom. I know that because the same can be found in any relatively new college biology book, and you can trust me on that because I'm a Biology Major. So, given that Domain level is a major rank, not a minor one, why is it less necessary than other major ranks? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that text was ever intended to include domains, given that most articles, including the example at Template:Taxobox, don't. I'll bring this up at Template talk:Taxobox; if we agree that the domain is needed, it may be best to tweak the taxobox to automatically include the domain for every animal, not only humans. Ucucha 03:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

See Template talk:Taxobox#Domain. Ucucha 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Major taxonomic ranks, including Domain, are not unnecessary clutter. That is true by virtue of being major ranks, meaning main ranks and not Super-, Sub-, or Infra-whatever-else. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Many taxonomic ranks that are not super-, sub-, etcetera, are still considered minor; e.g. tribe, section, series, variety. I consider domain to be minor too. Hesperian 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that your information isn't just old? I was under the impression that Domain was officially elevated to a major rank in late 2006. If not, the fact that you can find entire chapters devoted to Domain-level classification in early 100-Level college Biology books nowadays certainly makes it seem like a major rank to a Bio. Major. In any case, the facts that there are only 3 Domains in existence (Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya) and that it is the highest taxonomic rank (unless a Clade of the Whole Biosphere is counted as a Supreme Taxon, of which there is only 1) make it not at all cumbersome to include. Besides, Variety is a synonym for Subspecies and therefore does fall into the Supers and Subs category, as does Race, another term for Infraspecies. (Most articles here on Wiki use Subspecies for animals and fungi, Variety for plants and maybe a few other autotrophic eukaryotes, and Strain for all members of the Domains Bacteria and Archaea, but I do believe at least the 1st 2 terms are technically interchangeable.) If memory serves me right, the same can be said for Tribe, which is another term for Infrafamily. Domain, however, is not correctly interchangeable with Superkingdom. Between the Domain Eukarya and Kingdom Animalia, the currently considered-unranked Clades Unikonta and Opiskonta could very well turn out to be a Subdomain and Superkingdom, respectively. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Variety and subspecies are not synonyms; at least, not in botany. Nor are tribe and infrafamily. Hesperian 23:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the article entitled "Variety (botany)," a Variety "As such...gets a ternary name (a name in three parts)." It should be noted that Subspecies, such as Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu, are likewise listed with trinomials. I'm pretty sure Variety is generally used in botany while Subspecies is typically used instead in zoology, but that isn't the same as one being a rank above the other. Furthermore, the article entitled "Tribe (biology)" explicitly begins "In biology, a tribe — or infrafamily — is a taxonomic rank between family and genus" [Italics added]. So, in any case, none of that changes the fact that an early 100-Level college Biology book will devote entire chapters to Domain-level classification but not to Tribe-level or Variety-level classifications. That certainly makes Domain seem like a major rank to today's Biology Major. Besides, Domain has the very notable distinction of being the very highest taxonomic rank. Last but not least, the Template:Taxonomic ranks displays all major ranks, including Domain, in bold. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Botany, in fact, uses both subspecies and varieties; for example, Banksia ericifolia has subspecies and Banksia sessilis has varieties. The text on the tribe page appears to have been wrong; "infrafamily" is apparently a very rarely used rank that is usually placed above the tribe [1]. Ucucha 03:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It has become clear that your certainty exceeds your knowledge. Until that has been rectified, I have nothing more to say, except that you are going to have to conform to the strong consensus that has formed at Template talk:Taxobox. Hesperian 03:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lower ranks like Infrafamily and Tribe are not the point. I admit that I know more zoology than botany. In any case, I do have a little expertise unless everyone here is also a Biology Major. Anyway, the other template, Template:Taxonomic ranks, does show Domain in bold, indicating a major rank. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the Subspecies/Variety matter, I just talked to a Botany Professor who said she didn't see much of a difference there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to take my word for it

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it. It says in this Article that there are 8 major ranks including Domain. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are humans edible?

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

It seems a great mystery to me, how humans could have wandered the savannah, especially women while bleeding for days on end, if they are in any way edible by other creatures. And I know that humans are high in urea (so high, that it can come out of the blood and cause gout). Urea is one compound known to make sharks unpalatable, and related compounds even make species like the Greenland shark poisonous.[2] Though we do know that certain animals can consume humans as a regular diet like goonch and the vultures at the towers of silence. But I still feel like there's something that should be known about human inedibility to some ordinary predators, because why else would sharks and large carnivores so frequently take one bite and go away? I'd think someone must have discussed it somewhere... but it's not the kind of thing that's easy to search for. Wnt (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the other day, a woman was eaten by a wolf in Alaska. I don't understand why killer whales aren't maneaters. Lots of animals are or have been maneaters. See for example the article man-eater, or the suggested links on the disambiguation page maneater, towards the bottom, where many more specific articles are listed. Also, there's the article cannibal! But I've heard experts claim that the reason Lions and such survive in Africa while they are either extinct or very rare elsewhere lies in the fact that African animals evolved alongside humans and have learned to avoid us or at least not to try to make a living eating us. Or at least not too often anyway. The shark phenomenon you mention is maybe because they like to bite once and wait till you die before attacking again. Most articles on specific species speak of their predators, so this one could have such a section, too. Then again, maybe not. Chrisrus (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans are not inedible but they make bad prey for several reasons. I believe certain human characteristics have affected the way that predators have evolved in the presence of humans.

Humans protect the weak (especially the young) in their social groups much more effectively than any other animal. Remember that for a predator even one minor injury per meal is a very bad deal. When children are protected by heavily armed warriors, predators are likely to come off much worse than this. Humans are also capable of taking many passive measures against predation.

I believe that humans have a strong sense of revenge and vindictiveness which has has put very strong evolutionary pressure on predators not to prey on humans. I would imagine that if say a lion were to take a child from a human settlement, the entire pride of lions would be hunted down and killed, including any stray lions met on the way. Also, because of weaponry and the use of intelligent tactics, humans are capable of preying on all species, including predators, if they wish. Predators have therefore rapidly evolved to avoid human contact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation was perfect until you somewhat simplistically said we could eat everyone else. While we can eat some other carnivores (largely aquatic ones), most carnivores are considered inedible to humans because their meat is too tough or otherwise unattractive in texture. Humans evolved as primary/secondary omnivores (which means any given prey was either a plant or another animal that was itself a herbivore), and we probably still bare an instinctive memory of this fact. I don't even have to mention the various toxic plants and animals for which humans lack the metabolic antidotes that some other predators have in them. Also, to the best of my knowledge, humans are the only animals who refuse to eat certain other animals based on relative intelligence. For example, in the United States of America, horses are illegal as human food because they are more intelligent than pigs and cattle. (Pork and beef are both perfectly legal.) I say this with great intended respect, and I give you props for the parts about strength of social groups and use of weapons. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall a source in which it was hypthesized that evolutionary pressure from prions naturally selected for humans with an aversion to cannibalism and eating carnivorous mammals. In any case, this interesting matter should be on Wikipedia. If not in this article (a "preditors/prey section?) maybe somewhere else.Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mysterious El Willstro, thanks for that clarification. I am fascinated by the fact that vindictiveness and revenge, which are very human characteristics, are generally seen as negative traits, whilst I believe that they are probably a major factor in the success of the human species. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I might add that humans can prey on other species for reasons other than food. Skins and hair for clothing, for example, and as trophies. The more dangerous the species the more prized the trophy. Anyway the point we agree about is this, that for for carnivore, to prey on humans is to kiss your genes goodbye. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but we are slowly but surely returning (which I say because we most likely did the same as we evolved) to the pattern of using skins and such after eating the animal's muscles. For example, if you find a wallet made from cattle leather, it most likely came from a steer who was butchered for steaks and patties. Increasingly, most countries are banning products that require non-edible animals to be killed. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; for a hundred thousand years or so, all the "gutsy" predators (and prey, really) have been killed off, leaving only their more timid relatives to carry on the species. Welcome to the top of the food chain, bro.

Actually, I might point out that most predators--once those missing "guts" are reintroduced--are quite happy to kill and eat humans (or try, anyway).

J.M. Archer (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

First line

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The first line of text here is wrong

Humans commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man")

Homo sapiens actually means 'same thought' as any linguist should know, hence homosexuality, homogeneous, and other 'homo' prefix terms referring to things being the same. Not a particularly good start to the article.

212.159.89.142 (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Homo or homeo is Greek for "same", but homo is also Latin for human (stem homin-). And sapiens is not a noun, so the translation is correct. —Soap— 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"any linguist" indeed. Sometimes "anyone can edit" is a heavy burden. --dab (𒁳) 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture in anatomy

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think that either we get a pic w/ pubic hair or just have an image of skeleton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsdude15 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a replacement candidate and we can talk about it. Before we have a valid candidate it is futile to debate the drawbacks of the currently used image. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The note that I added to the caption about the removal and trimming of hair at least stops the current image from being misleading. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans are herbivores

Latest comment: 14 years ago45 comments14 people in discussion

See the "Humans Are Biological Frugivores" Archive Heading.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Most biologists agree that humans are herbivores.^[1]^[2]^[3] Our digestive systems are far more similar to that of other herbivorous species, not omnivores. I'm not suggesting take everything about being omnivores out, because we obviously act like we are, but adding something about how humans are biologically herbivores.24.17.64.28 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think popular usage applies here meaning we can't say something even if it's true if the general population believes or says otherwise. For instance, we can't say Obama is the first mixed president. we have to say he's the first black president since that's what the media says.username 1 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. Common knowledge is often mistaken and WP often debunks common misconceptions. The vegsource article cited seems reasonably reliable. I don't see why the info couldn't be incorporated. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources all seem to be from vegetarian web sites and do not support the assertion that most biologists agree that humans are herbivores.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It ought to be something more like "Some biologists/doctors/whatever such as XX and YY believe humans are anatomically herbivores." --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We are NOT anatomically herbivores. We are true biological omnivores. Members of Homo sapiens HAVE what are called canine teeth near the front of the mouth. True herbivores (such as horses, cattle, and rabbits) LACK that type of tooth altogether. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a scientifically sound conclusion. Gorillas (which of course are much closer to us than the ungulates and rodents you use as examples) have enormous canine teeth, and are complete herbivores. They use their canines to cut into hard plants such as bamboo. It is invalid to conclude that the existence of canines equates with meat-eating. — Epastore (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans were never capable of eating any plant as hard as bamboo, so our canines can't be for that as those of gorillas are. (I will not even emphasize the fact that gorillas do eat certain insects, and insects do count as animals rather than plants.) Meat, I might point out, is far softer than bamboo, and what's taught in bio. classes is that we evolved omnivorous, and, when eating meat, tearing it straight off the bone. This explains the shape of a canine tooth that is nowhere near strong enough to tear very hard plants. Also, can gorillas digest true cellulose? (Humans can't. I can tell you that much for certain.) Furthermore, our Australopithecine ancestors were not like modern gorillas in their diet. See the "Diet" Section in the Article Australopithecus. We are also directly descendant from Homo erectus, a largely carnivorous scavenger, by way of our immediate ancestor, Homo rhodesiensis. In any case, even the very oldest fossil sites of Homo sapiens (after our own speciation) sometimes have animal bones near them, which means we are true biological omnivores. To be exact, we are supposed to be primary-secondary omnivores, which means the animal prey we eat is itself herbivorous. (So, we eat plants and herbivores but not other carnivores.) With some exceptions, we largely adhere to that even today. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussion below under the subject heading Humans Are Biological Frugivores. The cuspids ("canines") are adapted for cracking nuts. Our cuspids are short, stout and slightly triangular, and bear no resemblance to the long, round, slender, curved, sharp canines set apart from the other teeth, which is a feature of all true carnivores (except birds).

Anthropologist Nathaniel J. Dominy of the University of California,Santa Cruz and colleagues have found that Homo erectus has a stable isotope signature that is consistent with a high-starch diet, not a carnivorous diet. Pearl999 (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, with all do respect to Prof. Dominy, Homo erectus falls under paleontology, not anthropology. H. erectus is just that old, and had no developed cultures such that the field of anthropology is designed to study. Second, I never said they were true carnivores. I said they were partial scavengers, which is true. (It was in a History Channel Documentary, and those are very well researched.) So, while they were not true carnivores, they were also not true herbivores. Furthermore, humans canines can't crack nuts. Try it sometime. You'll actually break your teeth long before you break the nut. (Hence: Nutcrackers.) A better explanation is that predators with longer and rounder canines often bite into live animals in order to kill them. (Try watching a pack of wolves attack a deer.) Humans, in the partial scavenger heritage of H. erectus, have always had their animal prey already dead long before biting into the meat. The difference is that Homo rhodesiensis and Homo sapiens had better weapons and could kill prey animals, thereby not having to look for already-dead ones.

Third, I would like to draw some attention to the fact that true herbivores can digest straight-chain cellulose, something humans can not do. Furthermore, the human stomach is proportionally too small to be consistent with a complete herbivores. (Herbivores have more distended bellies to accommodate more material, because plants are still harder to digest even if one can digest cellulose.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity for necessary correction. Human canines are known as "incisiform" canines, which anthropologist David Pilbeam suggests function as extensions of the incisors and by analogy perform the same function.. "absolutely and relatively large incisors are correlated with food procurement tasks, such as biting into large fruits with hard rinds." (Pilbeam D., 'Human Evolution' course Harvard College, Science B-27 handouts, Section 3 - Anatomy II: The Cranium, Mandible And Dentition). Dental and oral anatomy of humans is entirely consistent with that of a frugivorous great ape, with the addition of canine teeth further adapted to a biting plus suction fruit diet. Source: http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Are-Humans-Omnivores-/html/4

As noted below in the section Humans are Biological Frugivores, there is good evidence of human hunting skills only around 100,000 years ago, and it's clear they were very ineffective big-game hunters. Some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think humans had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago. With regard to scavenging, the opportunistic eating of uncooked carrion by nonhuman primates or humans is likely to result in gastrointestinal illness. See: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3630928 Pearl999 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Insects are animals animals rather than plants. Therefore, the fact that other great apes (such as gorillas) feed on insects as well as plants makes them omnivores, not true herbivores, even though they mostly eat plants. Also, Homo erectus was adapted to eating partially rotten meat in ways that the descendant species Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis (from which Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens later speciated in turn, respectively) somehow lost. They probably had a better immune system than we do now. All I know for sure is that it was in a documentary on human evolution that they were scavengers at least in part. Furthermore, I'm still not seeing anything to counter argue the fact that humans can not digest straight-chain cellulose, an ability that a herbivore would have a hard time surviving without, considering that plants usually contain that tough polymer. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Humans are frugivores, not herbivores (grazers/browsers). Larger primates may ingest or eat insects, but they comprise a very small proportion of the diet. Pearl999 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A mostly-frugivore with even a tiny percentage of animals in its diet, even if those animals are small and taxonomically distant as insects are, constitutes a type of omnivore. Furthermore, it is about time I produced a non-Wiki link, so here's one. Our teeth (which actually have a rather hard time cutting through thick rhinds unaided, by the way) aside, the rest of our digestive system beyond our mouth is not consistent with an exclusive plant-eater. I mentioned before that we can't digest straight-chain cellulose, and our stomach pH is more consistent with carnivores than herbivores. The list could continue from there. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an external link. To address your points.. 1. An omnivore, according to an accepted definition given below, is an animal who (naturally) eats both animal and plant foods as a primary source. 2. Are you saying that a human couldn't bite into a melon - a large fruit with a hard rind? 3. Carnivores (omnivores are carnivorous) have a much higher concentration of hydrochloric acid in the stomach for break down of proteins and to kill any dangerous bacteria. Their stomach acidity is less than or equal to pH 1 with food in the stomach, while humans have a pH 4 to 5. (http://naturalk9.com/PDF/Anatomy%20of%20a%20Carnivore.pdf) 4. There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates. - Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59 (5 Suppl):1153S-1161S http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/5/1153S “Although human beings eat meat, we are not natural carnivores. We were intended to eat plants, fruits, and starches! No matter how much fat carnivores eat, they do not develop atherosclerosis. ... Thus, although we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores. [frugivores] http://www.baylorhealth.edu/proceedings/11_4/11_4_roberts.html#ref4 Pearl999 (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That little superscripted [1] is a link outside Wikipedia, and if someone can tell me how to make the link work better that would be great. 1. Omnivores are NOT truly carnivorous. A true carnivore feeds exclusively on meat in terms of direct consumption. 2. Try it. Many types of melons just might chip your teeth, and our teeth don't grow back. 3. See 1. As stated in the article that I tried to link to above, the stomach pH when empty, however, does not match that of true herbivores when empty. 4. Prehistoric humans got a lot more exercise than modern ones, and that is the real problem with fat content and so forth. 5. True herbivores can digest straight-chain cellulose. We can't. That's more or less a smoking gun for this Discussion. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'information' at the website you've linked is extremely flawed, as a look at the page "Comparison Between the Digestive Tracts of a Carnivore, a Herbivore and Man" quickly reveals. The statement that human "jaw movements are vertical" alone should alert you to the fact that this is nothing more than pseudoscientific nonsense. If "mastication is unimportant" in man, try "wolfing down" chunks of your next meal of animal flesh and you'll rapidly become part of a statistic.. http://www.hassandlass.org.uk/query/reports/1998.pdf . Your author makes no mention at all of frugivores. Omnivores have carnivorous biological adaptations. Humans do not. The coronary arteries of the extremely active Masai showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26 Please try to support your claims with credible evidence. Pearl999 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Atherosclerosis can be prevented by balancing red meat (more LDL than HDL) with fish (more HDL than LDL). This provides HDL to help break down LDL, which would otherwise build up in blood vessels. Furthermore, according to the Abstract of your article on the Masai, their fat intake exceeds that of American men on average, thereby balancing out their higher levels of exercise. In any case, fish are animals rather than plants. As for my sources, I seem to remember citing History Channel Documentaries and the like, and those are quite reliable. As for the fossil record, arrowheads have been found at Homo habilis fossil sites, which is part of how the binomial, which translates as "handy human," was derived. Even if their hunting skills were not stellar, they were not exclusive plant-eaters, and the members of H. habilis were the very first humans, for their species was the ancestor of the Genus Homo. According to the History Channel Documentary on Human Evolution, Homo sapiens evolved with at least a minority of meat in the diet, although I forget whether it was 5% or 10%. Furthermore, Homo neanderthalensis, also a type of human, had a diet of nearly 90% meat. The fact remains that exclusive plant-eaters can digest straight-chain cellulose, which humans can not do. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another type of animal flesh to counter the deleterious effects of consuming animal flesh, you think? The effects of lean fish on plasma lipoproteins, .. Compared with the nonfish diet, the lean fish diet induced higher plasma total and LDL apolipoprotein (apo) B and apo B:apo A-1 ratio, indicating that the substitution of lean fish for beef, veal, pork, eggs and milk provides little benefits with regard to plasma apo B concentrations in a low-fat high P:S diet. http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/745 Comparison of three species of dietary fish: effects on serum concentrations of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein in normotriglyceridemic subjects ... the consumption of fish with a moderate amounts of n-3 fatty acids (salmon and sablefish) may cause a deleterious rise in LDL-C and apo B concentrations in normotriglyceridemic males (even compared with lean fish). http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/2/334 Try: Effect of a diet high in vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipids. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9160820 If humans were naturally carnivorous, the Masai, et al. (omnivorous humans) wouldn't get atherosclerosis, period. Homo habilis: declared by most evolutionary paleontologists to be an ‘invalid taxon’ (biological category), i.e. a phantom species composed of a ‘waste-bin’ of fossils more correctly assigned to other species.10 http://creation.com/missing-the-mark-louis-leakey A search on the www reveals no evidence of arrowheads from the early period you are referring to. In any case, what is being discussed is biological adaptation, not behavioural adaptation. Please distinguish between the two, thanks. And again, since you will keep referring to it: humans are frugivores, not herbivores (grazers and browsers). Also, another point I think you need to address, is how our teeth could become chipped from biting into melon. Pearl999 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Pearl999, you just resorted to citing a Creationist source. (Namely, http://creation.com/missing-the-mark-louis-leakey.) That alone concludes my listening to anything you could possibly say. Furthermore, Homo habilis is not an invalid taxon, although some individuals have been invalidly placed in it. A minority of taxonomists want to call it Australopithecus habilis, but the current name (H. habilis) sticks because a majority of experts do consider it valid. Although there is some controversy over its Genus-level inclusion, that is different from being polyphyletic as you suggested. As a Biology Major, however, I am well aware of invalid taxa, such as, for example, the alleged Kingdom Protista. I was taught from the start that it was polyphyletic, and it annoyed me, personally. Eventually, the experts figured out how to discard it (i.e. what actual kingdoms comprised it), hence the Kingdoms Chromalveolata and Excavata to name just 2. See also the alleged Kingdom Monera.

In any case, the Natural History Museum recognizes H. habilis (and I was there as recently as December 2008), as do some quite recent documentaries on human evolution (from the History Channel and the like). As for fish, I have heard from a Registered Nurse about some medical literature that fish can improve HDL:LDL ratios. In order to counter her, what is your degree (level and field)?

When I asked Evolution Professor Edward Gabriel (of Lycoming College, Williamsport, PA) about this very matter, he affirmed that humans evolved with a small portion of meat in our diet, perhaps 5% or 10%. I fully realize that those are far smaller percentages than what most present-day humans consume in meat, but it still makes humans omnivores. Any animal short of 100% plant or animal prey, in either direction, is automatically an omnivore according to the definitions I learned back in High School Biology (College-Prep Level).

Last but not least, I have yet to see an alternative explanation on why we can't digest straight-chain cellulose, an ability without which an exclusive plant eater in the wild is in serious trouble. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Kreger (2005) concludes that "No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus." http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homohabilis.htm . If citing from unreliable sources is a criteria for (not) being listened to, well I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you. With regards to fish, I've just given you published research. Allegedly reliable TV documentaries, hearsay and say-so don't really cut it here, sorry. Humans are still biological frugivores no matter what percentage of animal flesh there may be in the diet. Frugivores don't need to digest cellulose (which becomes necessary fibre that aids in digestive transit), since our molar teeth are adapted to mash and grind fruits, roots and other succulent parts of vegetables, thus breaking the plant cell walls and releasing the nutrients within. Pearl999 (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

At least all the articles I cited were (also, at least) by Ph. D. biologists, and not a single one from a Creationist site. Furthermore, the references from individuals are from experts (Professors of relevant subjects) and experts alone. That's not hearsay. That's more like interviewing experts in the field. The History Channel is not allegedly reliable, but quite well researched. More importantly, the Natural History Museum recognizes Homo habilis. The Natural History Museum is among the ultimate reliable sources for evolution questions. I acknowledge that humans perhaps evolved with mostly plants as food, but not 100%. I acknowledge that 5% or 10% meat is much less than what most present-day humans consume, but it still constitutes a point on a spectrum of true omnivores. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Barry (mastication is unimportant) Groves, PhD - http://www.foodforchange.org.uk/2008/10/saturatedfatisgoodforyou/ . Where are humans' evolutionary carnivorous biological adaptations? Why was there no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet? (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679). How is it that the relative risk (RR) of colon cancer for the intake of red meat for >0-<1 time/week = 1.38 , and the RR for >0-<1 time/week = 1.55 for white meat (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf) if humans are natural omnivores? Human dietary habits do not constitute evidence of evolutionary biological adaptation. Pearl999 (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Our closest taxonomic relatives do eat insects despite how tiny a proportion of their diet those animals constitute. Our relation to them is not a habit (and you're right that habits alone don't count as adaptations), but a matter of evolution. Furthermore, that 5%-to-10% estimate pertains to what we evolved while doing, not present-day habit, which would show higher percentages of meat consumption. In addition, the examples of Gorilla gorilla and Gorilla beringei, our relatives in the Order Primates, demonstrate even from insects alone that frugivores fall short of eating 100% plant material. These relatives of ours lack the artificial changes of habit that we have. Thus, only herbivores (as in grazers) are 100% exclusive to plants. I should also point out the fact that humans only have mutualistic bacteria in the large intestine, and not in the stomach itself as exclusive plant-eaters do. The human caecum is also far too small to be consistent with an exclusive plant-eater, as is the human colon. Those last 2 items in Italics are not consistent with the adaptations of exclusive plant-eaters. Aside: [3]. I compared my own lower jaw as best I could to this well-resolved image of the lower jaw of a female gorilla. I found, in a matter of anatomy, not habit, that my teeth are in fact slightly sharper and rougher than hers, naturally. (I have never had any crazy tooth-sharpening surgery or the like, so my tooth shape must be as nature had it.) Unless this comparison of a human's and a gorilla's teeth is a gross anomaly, this is an adaptation to chewing a small dietary portion of non-insect meat. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves, or by animal matter (mostly insects) -- a flexible dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between various categories of food items available in different habitats throughout the seasons of the year. The largest primate species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter to provide their protein requirements. (http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf). Diet and seasonal changes in sympatric gorillas and chimpanzees at Kahuzi-Biega National Park - Gorillas rarely fed on insects, but chimpanzees occasionally fed on bees with honey, which possibly compensate for fruit scarcity. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v074m6375801080w/ Studies of frugivorous communities suggest that dietary divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce, and that niche separation is clear only at such times. (Gautier-Hion & Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983) - Foraging profiles of sympatric lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lope Reserve, Gabon, p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270. And again, humans are frugivores, not herbivores (grazers and browsers) adapted to consume and digest large quantities of grasses or leaves, so it really is pointless for you to keep comparing the two. Our plant food mashing and grinding molars could certainly also grind insects, but to claim that they're specifically adapted to doing so... well it just doesn't fly, Mysterious El Willstro. Pearl999 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The contrast between gorillas and chimps advances my point, rather than refuting it like you wanted to do. In the sentence, "Diet and seasonal changes in sympatric gorillas and chimpanzees at Kahuzi-Biega National Park - Gorillas rarely fed on insects, but chimpanzees occasionally fed on bees with honey, which possibly compensate for fruit scarcity," I found a rare gem of argumentation. Despite how gorillas look more like us to the untrained eye, humans are taxonomically closer to chimps than to gorillas. In addition, I do not claim that are teeth are adapted mainly for insects, but rather that human molars are sharper than those of gorillas based on a well-resolved image of a female gorilla's lower jaw. By all means, compare your own lower jaw to hers as best you can. Also, you can make all the Ad Hominem arguments about Dr. Groves that you like, but his table under "Comparison 4" is actually accurate with the possible exception of the one line about mastication. Come to think of it, it depends what one means by "important," as it is often physically possible for humans to swallow relatively small pieces of food with little if any chewing. (Consider an extra-thin carrot stick or such that if anything one mostly chews to maximize taste.) The rest of the table matches what I've learned in class (and since the table is a retrievable source I can use what I've learned in class to reinforce it). As physically unhealthy as he himself may be, I seem to recall reading that he is now in his 70s, coming to be a nice ripe old age. People will start to fade in their 70s onward no matter what. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Plant foods provided ~99% of the food seen eaten by chimpanzees during a year-long study. http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html. I must remind you that according to an accepted definition, 'Omnivores... are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source'. A food source constituting ~1% of the natural diet can in no way be considered primary. Gorillas are highly folivorous, hence the flatter more herbivorous type leaf-grinding molars that you observe. In contrast, a. the dental and microwear patterns exhibited by Australopithecus are compatible with the additions of roots to a chimpanzee-like diet (http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html) and, b. researchers report that humans have on average 3 times more AMY1 copies compared to chimps, indicating that the consumption of high-starch roots and tubers began early in the human lineage. (http://thexvials.blogspot.com/2008/02/planet-of-starch-eaters.html). The argument against Dr. Groves is not ad hominem. He's promoted blatant nonsense on those pages despite being an authority in your estimation. If you'd like to pick through what's there to provide us with what you consider to be credible evidence for carnivorous biological adaptations in humans, then go ahead and we'll examine it together. Carnivores can rip large chunks of flesh from a carcass and swallow it whole. Humans cannot. If you think that a physically unfit (why? if humans are natural omnivores) man in his 70's is a 'nice ripe old age', try this: 140 Uygur centenarians among the ages of 100 to 135 years of whom nearly two thirds could take care of themselves and some could even do slight physical labour. .. with (footnotes) (6) Higher than expected levels of serum sex hormones, (7) Intaking of large quantities of fresh maize, melon, fruits and onion all year round; http://www.cmj.org/Periodical/PaperList.asp?id=LW8518 . And yes, vegan men have higher testosterone levels (offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin). They also have low insulin-like growth factor-I, and higher levels of IGF-1 may increase the risk of several types of cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10883675 Pearl999 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned an age range of 100 to 135. The world record for a human lifespan was only 121 years or so. Look it up. That person died in the late 1990s. Let me clarify this: There is no such thing as an expert "in my estimation." A Ph. D. is a Ph. D. Furthermore, animals that can bite into live pray as you just described are pure carnivores, not omnivores. Comparing with wolves and such is pointless when no one is arguing that humans are true carnivores. I will also point out the fact that humans are not forest primates by natural habitat. The Congo plain where Homo sapiens speciated from Homo rhodesiensis is a Savanna region, not a jungle. Trees (a source of fruits and hard roots) would be far scarcer there than meat would. I would be amiss not to mention that the fact that chimps and gorillas (the largely frugivorous apes you cite as analogous examples) both evolved in the jungle, whereas we evolved on the Savanna. That is quite a major habitat difference, and habitats must always be taken into account when interpreting adaptations or potential adaptations, such as tooth morphologies and everything else. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed your edit to bring the link outside the "ref" tag to make it more visible. —Soap— 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Soap! Could you send the syntax for that on my User Talk Page? Apparently, the type of link I originally used works better in Articles themselves than on Talk Pages. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to edit my comment to note that gorillas do eat insects. However, obviously their canines are not suited to that purpose. All I was saying is that is it scientifically invalid to claim that the mere existence of canines indicates meat-eating, or that canines can only be used for rending flesh. Comparing us to ungulates and rodents hardly seems relevant, so I made a comparison to other Great Apes, and noted that very similar animals use canines for non-carnivorous purposes. Separately, do be careful in how you say that one species of Homo evolved from another. If you dig into the anthropology, you will find that there is really no certainty there. What you claim as fact is more the generally (but by no means universally) accepted hypothesis. The evidence provided by fossils is very scarce; and no anthropologist will say there is certainty about almost any direct descent from one Homo species to another. — Epastore (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I said most biologists based on personal experience. Every biologist I've spoken to/met has agreed that humans are herbivores. I don't suggest using this wording in the article. Yes, the sources are from vegetarian web sites, sure, but they are all articles written by biologists with no ties to these web sites themselves. I merely couldn't find the articles posted elsewhere. Also, the third source was meant to be ^[1]24.17.64.28 (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Biology Major. We are true omnivores. Even the very oldest fossil records of humans show at least some meat consumption. Actually, let's go even further back to "Diet" in Australopithecus. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen humans in real life several times and they were eating meat, so based on observation alone it appears the the species is omnivorous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.8.92 (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also encountered several humans who, in their natural habitat, were eating meat. Seems to me they're omnivores and should be listed as such.AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid entering this dispute for the time being, but my personal opinion is that humans are unique and cannot be classified in a category with any other animal. Yes, we eat meat, but generally only if it's of an animal that's been dead for a long time (relative to the fresh kills we see in the wild), drained of blood, cleaned of internal organs, and cooked in a very careful way. Yes, there are exceptions, but they're rare, and no human will take all of the exceptions at once, by e.g. hunting a small animal and then eating it raw right then and there. People who do try things like that (see raw foodism) suffer health problems, because it's not just a preference, it's an actual evolutionary adaptation. So there are quite a lot of differences between us and nearly every other "meat eater". Also, we're the only animal in the world that by nature eats grains ... we invented grains. So we're not really much like any of the other herbivores in the world either. Hence, I say that humans are unclassifiable on the herbivore/carnivore/omnivore spectrum, though if we have to pick one, I would say omnivore is the one that makes the most sense because pigs are omnivores and we're the most like them. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the reason I said I'm avoiding the content dispute and then went on to reply to the discussion is because my argument is pretty much classic original research, which is sometimes acceptable on an article talk page if (and only if) it oontributes to the discussion at hand, but is never allowed in the article itself. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Locusts eat grains. Unless i'm mistaken. But I digress. username 1 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of animals eat grains: insects; birds; rodents; many large herbivores as supplements grasses; etc. We're the only animal who eats ground and cooked bread, for example (except for others that scavenge it from humans)... but then, we're also the only animal who eats hot dogs or sushi too (modulo the scavenging thing, of course). There's nothing hard to classify about human diet, particularly; albeit the amount of preparation humans apply to most foodstuffs is certainly more than with other animals. LotLE×talk 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We can probably put a paragraph or two on Human nutrition though we need a better source. username 1 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Evolving to eat cooked meat and processed grains is pretty notable and should be mentioned. --174.91.8.92 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Herbivores hmm why do i eat meat? Why did my ancenters have incensors? y does every time i eat meat i dont barf

I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of meat-eating humans. Making the majority of humans omnivores. Black Cat Claws (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of biologists classify humans as omnivores. Just look at homo sapiens the way we would look at any other species: what does this species eat, and not just recently, but over the history of the species? Going back tens of thousands of years, at the very least, our species eats both meat and plants.--RLent (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the fossil record? We've always eaten meat. The fossil record is unambiguous. Chrisrus (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans Are Biological Frugivores

Latest comment: 14 years ago81 comments10 people in discussion

Chrisrus was right in that comment at the end.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Copyright violations removed.) Ucucha 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) (...) http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

(...) http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

(...) http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

(...) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

(...) http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679

Pearl999 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The way I read hominid articles, all apes eat lots of fruit, but it tends to be a boom-and-bust source of food. The robust australopithecines were built to handle eating plant material we couldn't possibly deal with. Their skulls look like those of gorillas, with huge bovine teeth, so they moved on beyond fruit to grains and other rougher stuff. And they died out, while the gracile australopithecines, which seem to have built for meat and lots of other things, gave rise to our genus; while the robustus types died out. Which makes sense because a varied diet with lots of meat pushes an animal towards intelligence, organization, and pressure to solve problems. We recently seem to have eaten a lot of fish at one time, but early on we ate a lot of marrow. Fish is good brain food, and that seems to have helped us over the threashold to humanity. Our closest cousins/enemies such a neanderthals, well, we've got more evidence there, according to that article we know practically for sure that they ate meat, meat, meat, and then for dessert some meat. They were a wierd bunch, those neanderthals, very unlike us in many ways, so what they did doesn't say anything about what our ancestors ate, but there's no doubt at all that they weren't vegetarians.

In fact, modern vegetarianism is only possible thanks to the artificial selection work of many generations of peasant farmers in Asia and Mexico, quite recently in terms of our evolution, desparately trying to grow meat on a bush. Thanks to them, you can be a vegan if you want to by eating lots of soy beans and mexican beans and such, lentils, but these didn't exist in nature, we had to artificially create them, and our ancestors did not have that option, at least not until way too recently to make a difference. And still you will notice, -"burp"- still don't ("toot" - excuse me burritos for lunch) - still are WAY far from easy on the ol' human digestive system, much less to subsist on.

Plants want you to eat their fruit, so they make it easy on the species they contract with for seed dispersal. But they hate to be eaten, so making themselves unpalatable, if not poisonous or impossible to digest. All but the best herbavours have to stay where they evolved because they're not used to the plants in another biome. Meat eaters don't have that problems, because, as the Africans say, meat is meat. If you can eat a zebra, you can eat a caribu. Without meat eating, how could our ancestors have spread across the world and learned to live in every biome, just about.

By the way, think about eskimos, they didn't eat any vegetables at all. How do you explain that?

So eating too much meat is bad for us? No doubt, but what does that prove? So is eating too much salt or sugar will also kill you. But having too much meat and salt and sugar wasn't a problem homonids had, was nothing we evolved to cope with. Quite the opposite. Humans will, if given the chance, eat way too much meat and salt and sugar, that's true. But if you stop and think about that for a bit, it's pretty obvious why that is. We didn't evolve with supermarkets and restaurants in the enviroment! Chrisrus (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Humans are opportunistic omnivores, able to survive and reproduce on a very wide range of foods. In any case, the claimed harm from eating some foodstuffs in excess is actually insignificant in evolutionary terms. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Human anatomy is almost identical to the anatomy of frugivorous primates. Gut measurements do not support theories of an adaptation towards carnivory, but are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

That is not what this article is all about. It basically makes the point, 'while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, and contrary to popular belief. Whatever the article is about, the measurements of the (modern) human gut are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Alan Walker and associates, anthropologists at John Hopkins University, found that "Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater." (NY Times, May 1979). Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor of anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis. discovered that Australopithecus afarensis did not have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut animal flesh. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011

Indeed, humans developed tools for killing animals and cutting meat and thus do not need specialised teeth.

If humans were naturally carnivorous, we wouldn't need external aids. Humans also constructed airplanes, but flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans have used tools since they first evolved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

And ...? Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So noted, Pearl999. We must now stop flying and eating dead animals. :) J.M. Archer (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you can do, the fact remains... humans are by nature terrestrial frugivores. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

K. Sure. So tell me something: how many animals are classified by what it looks like they should do rather than what they do? J.M. Archer (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Really! Mr. Pearl, let me ask you this: What would you say to an anatomist who, if you were a panda caretaker, who came to you with a skull pointing out that this animal is clearly a carnivore, so you should stop feeding it bamboo? What would you say to him? Would you say "ok" and then start feeding Ling Ling only meat, based on the anatomy of the skull, plus the fact that almost all other members of the order are carnivores? Chrisrus (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's Ms., but you may call me Sir. ;). WRT the Panda. Pandas are closely related to the bears, and whilst indeed being almost completely herbivorous, Pandas do in fact sometimes still eat small animals. With the exception of the polar bear, bears are regarded as omnivores, having molar teeth adapted to grinding plant-foods. The bears "diverge from the carnivorous type towards the Ungulata; the result being the same,- that is, regarded in the mass, they become omnivorous. But the exceptions, so far from being inconsistent with the law of correlation, furnish fine illustrations of the manner in which its details are carried out, in contrasted cases of mixed types." http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/ScPr/Falc.htm (Hope that cite's not excessive) Pearl999 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Species throughout nature intuitively consume the foods they are specifically adapted to consume. So normally there's no discrepancy between what other species do and what it looks like they should do.

Speaking of classification, Linnaeus, who introduced the system of naming animals and plants according to their physical structure, wrote: "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of other animals shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." Pearl999 (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're answer is "yes"? Chrisrus (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See reply above. If something's still unclear, just ask and I'll do my best to clarify. Pearl999 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, there can be a discrepancy between what a species does and what it looks like they should do based on looking at their jaws and teeth and such because one could have recently changed, as for example with the Panda, which looks for all the world like it should be a meat eater and because it evolved from meat eaters and its closest relatives all eat meat, but that doesn't matter because we know that pandas are basically herbivores because we observe them in their natural habitat eating it and so we feed them mostly bamboo in captivity and they do well on mostly bamboo and very little meat. So that trumps anything an anatomist or taxonomist can tell us as a zookeeper. Proving what you do trumps what it looks like you should do. Right? Chrisrus (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The panda has developed a number of physiological adaptations. The cheek teeth are large and blunt and covered with tubercles to serve as a grinding surface for cellulose-laden materials such as bamboo. The same is true of the premolars, a condition not seen in other bears (Schaller, 1985). .. continues at http://giantpandaonline.org/naturalhistory/description.htm Pearl999 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you know that we now know that Neanderthals ate almost nothing but meat. What can you say, morphologically, taxonomically, about them that you couldn't say about us? We also know they had campfires, a habit that scores one in the human collumn for them. So they cooked their meat, which makes them seem human, and therefore could eat meat even though they didn't have cat teeth or dog jaws or some such. They ate meat anyway dispite their fructavore design because they had fire, just like us. Why aren't you at the article Neanderthal saying these same things about them? If you really believe this line of argument proves we are vegans by nature, why doesn't it apply to them? By your logic, you should be making the same arguement over on the neanderthal talk page, so you should go do that. But I don't because you'd be wrong. Even though those things you say are true, the evidence that neanderthals were almost pure carnivores trumps anything you might think by comparing the length of thier intestines or talking about their teeth. Chrisrus (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's evidence that the neanderthals suffered the consequences of adopting an unnatural diet. The same applies to humans. Pearl999 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Underground roots and tubers would have been an important nutritional addition to the diet of Australopithecus during short periods of above-ground food scarcity. Their dental and microwear patterns are compatible with the additions of roots to a chimpanzee-like diet (Hatley and Kappelman, 1980; Grine and Kay, 1988). http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html

Yes, humans are omnivores and eat roots.

There's no mention of flesh-eating above. Humans can be omnivorous (behaviour), but that still doesn't mean that humans are omnivores (biology). Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP says 'Omnivores... are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Geologist Frank Brown, dean of the University of Utah's College of Mines and Earth Sciences, says that while the emergence of Homo sapiens is about 195,000 years ago, evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, even tools. comes in very late (appearing together with cultural artifacts as a coherent package only about 50,000 years ago), except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm Professor of anthropology and physiology Jared Diamond wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpazee (pp.33-34) that there is good evidence of human hunting skills only around 100,000 years ago, and that it's clear they were very ineffective big-game hunters. According to professor of anthropology Robert W. Sussman, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think humans had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011 Thus it's very unlikely that animal flesh was a primary source of food for at least the first 140,000 years from the emergence of Homo sapiens, and the species didn't suddenly become biological omnivores thereafter any more than cows fed animal protein. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A review of Plio-Pleistocene archaeology found site location and assemblage composition to be indicative of low-yield scavenging in the context of competitive male displays, and not consistent with the idea that big game hunting and provisioning was responsible for the evolution of early Homo. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

Again nothing here says that humans have not evolved to eat meat only that meat eating did not play an important part in human evolution. These are not the same thing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here (or anywhere, for that matter) says that humans have evolved (as in biological adaptation) to eat animal flesh. That's the point. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But nevertheless nearly all humans did eat meat.

Sorry but that's an unsupported claim, and even if they did the biology hasn't changed. Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Early mastery of fire would have further increased the calories available from tubers (by 50%). Most wild yam species are non-toxic and available in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A. Hladik and Dounias, 1993). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

Note that taro root is believed to be one of the earliest cultivated plants. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taro

What is the relevance of this?

That gathered foods including roots and tubers could have provided the energy needed to support human populations for most of human history. Arrowroot (taro) is found worldwide in temperate zones and the tropics. http://www.wilderness-survival.net/Appb.php And that's just one edible wild plant food source out of thousands. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The neanderthals are long extinct. Short lifespans and evidence of arthritis in their skeletons, systemic illness or a severely deficient diet. "no worse off than the Inuit"... http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/neander.htm

Neanderthals lived for an amount of time as a species on this planet that dwarfs that of Homo Sapiens. That they had short, hard, brutal lives doesn't prove that their diet wasn't sufficient for them to survive long enough to reproduce, because they did and were very successful. The quote "no worse off than the Inuit" in that context was meant to say that they weren't much less unhealthy than modern hunter-gatherers. The point is, you agree that everything that you say about human tooth/jaw structure could also be applied to them. They didn't have typical carnivore anatomy either, but you agree that they not only ate meat but ate it much, much more than we do. How are able to accept the fact that neanderthals ate meat but not that humans do? How can you point to the teeth and such and say "this is proof that humans don't eat meat" and then turn around and say the same evidence in neanderthals doesn't prove that, because other evidence showing that they did eat meat trumps the tooth form evidence? Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Homo sapiens emerged about 195,000 years ago. 'By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by 30,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal. According to new dating evidence the last neanderthals in Europe died out 37,000 years ago - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126220321.htm. I've not denied that ancient humans consumed some animal flesh, but noted that it was unlikely that it could have been a primary source of food until humans had developed an efficient method of hunting. With regards to dentition, the use of cutting tools and tenderising by cooking enables the eating of animal flesh. Cooking also makes it safer to eat. (Early scavenging was avoided as a bad dietary strategy.... http://www.jstor.org/pss/3630928) Pearl999 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Or this?

You: "we know practically for sure that they (neanderthals) ate meat, meat, meat, and then for dessert some meat. ... there's no doubt at all that they weren't vegetarians. .... think about eskimos, they didn't eat any vegetables at all. How do you explain that?"

As it goes, the Inuit ("eskimos") traditionally went to great lengths to gather available plant foods. I'd give you an authoritative quote from a post to a public forum but sorry that's been deemed by the WPTB to be copyright violation.. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no one maintains that humans are exclusively carnivorous but they can clearly survive and reproduce on a wide range of diets. That makes them omnivoresMartin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. Humans have no biological carnivorous adaptations whatsoever, and the omnivorous diet is associated with disease and premature death... Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Clinical and epidemiological nutritional studies consistently reveal health benefits from the consumption of plant-based foods and conversely, significant increase in the risk of chronic degenerative diseases with the consumption of animal-based foods. According to the findings of the most comprehensive large study there was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 Pearl999 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Eating too much of anything is bad for you. Many humans do that now, because they can.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read it again. An 'ability' to do something doesn't mean that you should be doing it and that there won't be severely detrimental consequences from doing it. Pearl999 (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. Humans eat too much of certain foodstuffs because they are now much more freely available than they were historically. Most notable are fat (animal origin) and sugar (vegetable origin). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please acknowledge what's posted just above? Pearl999 (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I honestly can't believe the guys at the Frugivore article sent Pearl to the Human article to make trouble, as if there isn't enough here already. I'd suggest you fellows review her contributions over there, just in case you're curious what has already been debunked, etc... [Edited to add: This comment was very poorly worded. My apologies to Visionholder.] 12.19.84.33 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that comment above is me. I don't know why it won't log me in when I tell it to, but it's evil. >.<

Also, you might note that this Linnaeus guy Pearl keeps pulling out died in 1778.

J.M. Archer (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't show a single thing I've posted here or there that's been "debunked". Maybe the guys at Frugivore Talk were looking for some assistance? What part of what Linnaeus determined would you care to try to dispute? Pearl999 (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay... first of all, I did not send Pearl999 here to "make trouble." After being thoroughly shot down over her attempted edits, she proceeded to use the talk page as a forum, which it is not. Since she claimed that her view was about content, I pointed her here since I found it suspicious that someone would choose to push their agenda on an important but not heavily watched page, especially when the material (if it were valid) would clearly belong on this page. Since she clearly wasn't going to drop this, I sent her to an article where 1) a larger number of people could demonstrate that her views are a minority and not supported by the literature, and 2) the topic could be discussed under a more appropriate page, since in good faith, Pearl999 appears to genuinely want to improve the article. As for "wanting assistance", I wouldn't start feeling too terribly proud, Pearl999. Your views were clearly shot down at Talk:Frugivore. We didn't need any help. You clearly plan to beat this dead horse until its nothing but glue. You keep changing your argument from saying that humans are "obligate frugivores" to just "frugivores" just because our anatomy suggests that our ancestors at one point evolved adaptations for such a diet, regardless of the fact that hominids have eaten meat for millions of years to varying degrees. (That, by definition, is an omnivore.) You are clearly trying to push an agenda, which appears to be coming from the animal rights end of the spectrum. You have even thrown insults at admins. This behavior has to stop. Any edits you make concerning this topic will be reverted, so you might as well just give it up. I will say this to you one last time: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FORUM! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Vision; I should have worded that much differently. J.M. Archer (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You actually need to demonstrate that my 'views' are "invalid". I made the case for humans being biological frugivores with short cites from the required published literature, and the evidence is clear. I said that I think it could be argued that humans are obligate frugivores in response to someone else raising that question, and if "obligate" has nothing to do with nutritional requirements in order to maintain good health, well that seems rather strange to me. But anyway it is a separate issue, discussed separately, not changing back-and-forth. It has been said that the definition of an omnivore is a species that consumes both plant and animal matter as a primary source. See above. Pearl999 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In common use, the term omnivore may be used to describe both a) what an animal does and b) what an animal is. This article addresses the suggestion that humans are biologically omnivores, because this is what people infer when they say "humans are omnivores". http://www.free-ebooks.net/ebook/Are-Humans-Omnivores-/html/1 Pearl999 (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am stating that your views are not supported by the current, predominant academic literature. The sources you have cited have been either very old, from people outside the field (such as Percy Bysshe Shelley), are from unreliable sources (such as your latest link to a "free book" by John Coleman... whoever that is), or do not support your view (by not explicitly stating that humans are frugivores). My point is that you can't find a source, and even if you could find one, it would not overturn the majority opinion in the academic literature. Wiki is an encyclopedia. By trying to gather your own evidence, you are violating WP:NOR... basically doing your own research and trying to put it on Wiki. Please understand that the term "omnivore" includes eating fruit... as well as leaves, animal matter, etc. If you're going to argue that humans are frugivores since they eat fruit and well-adapted for it, then you can equally label almost every omnivore as a frugivore. For example, on the Ring-tailed lemur article, they are called "opportunistic omnivores." The majority of their diet is fruit and leaves, but because they will readily consume animal matter, that is what the literature calls them. The literature does not say that the Ring-tailed Lemur is a frugivore, folivore, and a carnivore. There's a reason for that. But regardless of their reasons, we go by the academic literature. If for some reason Wayne Pacelle wrote an article for the Humane Society of the United States noting that the Ring-tailed Lemur is a frugivore, that still wouldn't overrule the academic literature. The Wiki article would not change. Likewise, you will not find in the literature what you want. If it were there, one of us would have changed the article already. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Props to you, Visionholder! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is again really incorrect. My views are indeed supported by recent academic literature. I've cited anthropologists, nutritional research, and even the older sources were, with the exception of Shelley, authorities in the study of human anatomy. A review of what I've posted confirms what I've just said, even with the massive deletion of material (I recommend following the links provided). John Coleman, yes, like myself, has done a great deal of research, and sources are referenced. Pearl999 (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your recent academic references did not clearly state that humans are classified as frugivores. They argued that humans eat fruit and have for a long time. I remember you quoted Robert Sussman, a prominent anthropologist. You felt that he was arguing that humans are frugivores. Here's a short quote from Dr. Sussman related to this matter: "Many primates, including man, are omnivorous (Harding 1981, Sussman 1987, Martin 1990)." Source:

Sussman, R.W. (2003). "Chapter 1: Ecology: General Principles". Primate Ecology and Social Structure. Pearson Custom Publishing. p. 8. ISBN 978-0536743633.

Except for your animal rights literature, no one with a relevant degree is arguing that humans are frugivorous over omnivorous. They are simply arguing that humans have evolved from mostly frugivorous primates and that a sizable amount of our diet includes vegetable matter (possibly in response to the Atkins Diet craze). Be careful not to synthesize material from multiple sources to advance your argument (WP:SYNTH). – VisionHolder « talk » 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The dietary status of the human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/ Pearl999 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

We're essentially debating here how humans should be classified in the -vory categories of animal diet (herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, frugivore, folivore, insectivore, granivore, vermivore, etcetera). The way such a debate should be resolved is by determining what sources like the book Visionholder cites have to say—high-quality, reliable sources that summarize academic knowledge, rather than centuries-old works and quote-mined primary research papers. Ucucha 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Measurements of human gut size are grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf Pearl999 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

this is all so much ideological nonsense. The shift to scavenging was absolutely crucial to the emergene of the Homo genus. I do not think that this is disputed. The entitre point is, yes, anatomically Australopithecines and early Homo were "frugivores", which put them under strong pressure to adapt their behaviour, i.e. to invent tools, which is the first step in a chain of events that produced humans in the first place. "Humans are frugivores" is much like saying "humans are apes". Not absolutely wrong from a purely anatomical point of view, but ignoring worlds of differences in behaviour. If you want to focus on items that are shared by hhumans and great apes, I suggest you edit the Hominidae. The Human article will naturally focus on modern (behaviorally modern) humans. If you want to discuss the biology of early humans, you want Homo. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Low-yield scavenging in the context of competitive male displays cannot account for the significant changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00006/art00604 The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for the incipient hominids could have been drawn from alternative sources. http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

The biology of modern humans is relevant, and that's what I've been getting at all along. Pearl999 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that no one in this debate, including me up till now, had even bothered to check the article frugivore to see what the word means. It doesn't mean "vegan" or "vegetarian" or even "obligate frugivore". All it means, according to that article, is an omnivore that often eats fruit. Therefore, saying that humans are "frugivores" is about as contravertial as saying that we have elbows. We could add it to the article with no citation as no one who understands the word would challenge it; everyone knows that humans are an omnivore whose diet tends to include fruit. Even if it were challenged, you could easily cite a statement to the effect of "fruit is one of the things that people eat". I don't see the point, however, because the word is used in the sources there mostly to discuss an important element in the distribution of seeds for fruit-bearing plants, so it's a useful concept in that context. Here, we must say that humans are omnivorous, but calling us "frugivores" would single out one element of our omnivorous diet for special emphasis above all others, and I don't see the point of that.

Ipso Facto, unless the article frugivore is wrong about what the word means, this entire debate could have been dealt with by simply reading the first sentence of that article, proving that it pays to READ THE ARTICLE about something before TALKING ABOUT IT (myself included). Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The ambiguous term omnivore is used to emphasize a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly frugivorous diet. http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf

First, as a point of order, please make it clear when you are talking to me and when you are pulling a quote out of context to have someone else respond to me for you. Yes, as far as I know, the term "omnivore" is used, when discussing Chimpanzees and such, more to emphasize that they do regularly also eat meat, but the fact is that not all chimps do eat meat, because many females and young chimps are prevented from doing so by the big males that tend to hog it all. So the source has a point, I don't know if the point is also yours, but yes, it might better be said that many chimps are omnivores, but some aren't. But I thought we were talking about people, who tend to let their women and children eat meat, unlike chimps.

Second, please tell me now if you and I are using the word "fugivore" the same way. As I have asked you before, do you think it means "animal that often eats fruit" or "animal that eats fruit, not meat"? Because it seems like you mean the latter. If so, please read the first sentences of the article frugivore and notice that that article defines it as any animal whose diet features fruit, regardless of what it eats the rest of the time or what the proportion is. I need to know if I disagree with you or not if we are to continue this conversation. Chrisrus (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sticking as closely to repeating the authorities referenced as possible. Claude Marcel Hladik has been conducting field research for about thirty years, analysing the diet composition of 38 primate species in their natural setting (http://www.ecoanthropologie.cnrs.fr/pdf/page_HLADIK.pdf ). As you've rightly noted, animal flesh is rarely available to females and never exploited by the youngest animals. Small mammals may likewise be captured and consumed by chimps in the context of male displays. You yourself are emphasizing a supplement of flesh included from time to time in a mainly frugivorous diet with your use of the word "regularly" in order to say that many chimps are omnivores. Understand that omnivore (n.) is commonly seen as reference to animals who have appropriate and necessary evolutionary flesh- and plant-eating physiological adaptations (e.g. bears and hogs). Some chimps could at a stretch be described as omnivorous (adj.), if we accept that to mean any consumption of animal flesh at all for whatever reason, however occasional it is and small in amount. While many humans are today indeed omnivorous, the human digestive tract is that of a frugivore, naturally suited to a flexible diet that can, parallel to the chimpanzee, include occasional small amounts of animal matter, edible shoots, leaves, and so on, but which consists primarily of fruit and seeds. To maintain that humans are natural omnivores, you really need to show: a.) evidence of carnivorous biological adaptation, and, b.) that humans are capable of consuming significant amounts of animal matter without adverse effects to human health.. Pearl999 (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

So you agree with your sources that humans and our closest hominid ancestors and cousins did eat fruit, tubers, nuts, and meat, but that we couldn't eat as much meat and tubers originally until we had started regularly cooking, as tubers and meat are too tough without cooking. You are, or you aren't, trying to say that it's not human nature to eat tubers and meat. Or are you? Chrisrus (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Australopithecus afarensis didn't have the dental adaptations necessary to eat animal flesh (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=38011), but dental and microwear patterns exhibited by Australopithecus are compatible with the additions of roots to a chimpanzee-like diet (http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/nconklin/conklin.html). Pearl999 (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no evidence of a threshold beyond which further benefits did not accrue with increasing proportions of plant-based foods in the diet. The American journal of cardiology ISSN 0002-9149 CODEN AJCDAG http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 Pearl999 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Humans evolved from Autralopithecine apes

"In a 1979 preliminary microwear study of Australopithecus fossil teeth, anthropologist Alan Walker theorized that robust australopiths were largely frugivorous.[9] However, newer methods of studying fossils have suggested the possibility that Australopithecus was omnivorous. In 1992, trace element studies of the strontium/calcium ratios in robust australopith fossils suggested the possibility of animal consumption, as they did in 1994 using stable carbon isotopic analysis.[10] Australopithecus mainly ate fruit, vegetables, and tubers" (Alticle on Australopithecus) [Italics and Bold added]. The word "mainly" is different from "entirely," and it must be noted that the Genus Homo (humans) diverged from the Genus Australopithecus (Australopithecine apes). So, while plants are supposed to be an important part of our diet, we did not evolve as exclusive plant eaters as some of you are trying to insist. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor of anthropology Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D. has stated that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. They didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut animal flesh. They simply couldn't eat meat. (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/38011.php). Furthermore, carrion avoidance is a dietary strategy in primates as a response to the association of gastrointestinal illness with the ingestion of contaminated meat from scavenged carcasses. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3630928) Pearl999 (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the more recent studies cited in that article. Anyway, how does Australopithecus even fall under the field of anthropology? When are our ancestors old enough to fall under paleontology instead? Actually, I could scratch that argument and still prove this point. Anyway, assuming that Australopithecine apes could digest straight-chain cellulose (i.e. had the enzyme to break Beta bonds), that is an ability we have lost, in which case that's one adaptation to a small (5% or 10%) proportion of meat in the diet. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what more recent studies? Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. You know what's said about assuming, right? Really relevant (and supported by science) is the evidence of the greater number of copies of the AMY1 gene, indicating increased ability to digest large quantities of starch. (You can read about the study at http://thexvials.blogspot.com/2008/02/planet-of-starch-eaters.html ..) Pearl999 (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the more recent studies here: [[4]], in the Diet Section of that Article. They were more recent than some of the ones you cited earlier. Since omnivores are partial plant-eaters by definition, they can digest starch without problems. I was talking about straight-chain cellulose, which has strong Beta links that starch polymers do not have. Humans can not digest this molecule. Exclusive plant-eaters can. That is a chemical adaptation to perhaps a tiny fraction of the diet as meat, but still a fraction.

We lack the enzyme to break Beta bonds. Period. Did our Australopithecine ancestors have the ability to digest cellulose (straight-chain, not starch) or not? If they did, that means we have adapted biologically to a diet that was somewhat different than theirs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The two australopithecines from South Africa, as well as the two species of Homo from South Africa and Tanzania, show considerable variation between individuals in all cases, but do not approach the extreme C4 dietary component of A. boisei. http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v104n3-4/a1610404.pdf Many sedges are C4. The rhizomes and culms of many sedge species provide starchy food all year round (Haines and Lye 1983, Peters et al., 1992; van der Merwe et al., 2008). The author, Marion K. Bamford, thinks that this plant group has been greatly underestimated as a staple food. (Foods Available to Early Hominins). A. boisei clearly had a diet that included a lot of C4 plants. (The Diets of Early Hominins from South Africa and Tanzania: Isotopic Evidence) http://www.socarchsci.org/bulletin/SAS3202.pdf . And yet again the question remains: even if early Homo was opportunistically eating some animal matter, and especially in certain environmental conditions, how does that constitute evidence of carnivorous biological adaptation? Frugivores don't need to digest cellulose (it becomes necessary fibre that aids in digestive transit), as our molar teeth are adapted to mash and grind fruits, roots and other succulent parts of vegetables, thus breaking the plant cell walls and releasing the nutrients within. (Mastication is important in humans :) Pearl999 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Other parts of a plant cell contain starch, but not so much the walls. Those are mostly straight-chain Beta-bonded cellulose. An inability to digest cellulose, is, for the most part, an inability to break down the plant cell wall proper, contrary to your explanation. Much of the reason that frugivores needn't digest cellulose is that they, unlike herbivores (grazers), are not quite entirely exclusive to plants. Recall the fact that most jungle apes do eat insects. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Frugivores don't need to digest the plant cell walls, because they are broken through the process of mastication. Frugivores (the larger primates) may ingest or eat insects, but they constitute a very small proportion of the diet. Pearl999 (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are the dietary habits of Australopithecus discussed on Talk:Human? This belongs on Talk:Australopithecus. The dietary habits of humans are beyond dispute, I hope, as they are directly observable. Please stop turning this into a discussion of what humans "should" eat. Humans have eaten a diet of meat, eggs, berries, nuts, grain, fruit etc. for 2 million years and they still do so now. I honestly don't see what can be disputed about that. The only thing that can be argued about is the addition of milk products since the Neolithic and the development of adult lactose tolerance in Eurasia but not elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 10:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about dietary habits (behaviour), but biological fact. Pearl999 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

When you say "this isn't about..." what do you mean by "this"? We are supposed to be discussing the article, specifically the section about dietary habits/behavior of humans. You agree it should say that the human diet has typically included meat; you don't suggest that this fact be removed from the article: human diets typically include meat. But vegans don't die, and in fact are healthier. And this bears mentioning, it does prove something about the human diet. Something like "even though...includes meat, it doesn't have to/shouldn't". That's a rational position, if proven. If I'm wrong about this and what you want is the removal of the fact that the human diet has/does include meat, you are doomed to failure because people eat meat. The best you can hope for is "...includes meat..., however,..."Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you interpret "human diets typically include meat" to mean that "most of mankind for much of human history has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets", and that "the vast majority of the population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diets..."? [Position paper on the vegetarian approach to eating, Journal of the American Dietetic Association 77(1980):61-69]. "This" referring to the clarification that while human diets may include significant amounts of 'foods' derived from other animals, human biology is that of a frugivore, not omnivore. Pearl999 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin in the above subsection had a point earlier when he talked about moderation. Too much meat is a bad thing, but complete vegetarianism, or even more so veganism, makes it harder to find a sufficient supply of easily digestible proteins. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The American Dietetic Association concludes that a well-planned vegan diet is healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701103002.htm More evidence that even "moderation" is harmful: Ischemic heart disease mortality for the highest third of intake compared with the lowest third - 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13) for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol. No protective effects were noted for fish, and the consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with ischemic heart disease mortality. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S . Pearl999 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I mention again the shortage of exercise that most Americans get. I read your cited abstract on the Masai, and it says their fat consumption was higher in the first place than that of American men. The higher fat consumption balanced off the positive effect of greater activity. Had they consumed the same levels of animal fat in the first place, they would have felt the benefit of more exercise. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The above study involved subjects recruited in the United Kingdom, not Americans. It is speculated that the Masai's physical activity causes their coronary vessels to be protectively capacious, but their aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis, regardless. (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/1/26). I doubt that it could be said that lives in rural China were sedentary, and their animal protein intake was very low, about 10% of US intake, yet coronary artery disease mortality rates were inversely associated with the frequency of intake of green vegetables and plasma erythrocyte monounsaturated fatty acids, and positively associated with plasma apolipoprotein B, which is positively associated with animal protein intake. (The American journal of cardiology ISSN 0002-9149 CODEN AJCDAG http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 ). Pearl999 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, the Abstract still says equal rates of atherosclerosis after higher (not equal) fat intake than that of Americans. In any case, the USA and UKGB are both "1st World" industrialized countries, and would be much more similar in lifestyle to each other than to the Masai. Furthermore, I will point out that even the very most active of present-day humans are not quite as active as the original evolutionary Homo sapiens. In one of their great migrations, our ancestors literally walked all the way from what is now Saudi Arabia to Siberia, in what the fossil record shows to be a shorter amount of time than has ever since been achieved since on foot. (A week or 2 is it estimated? Across all of Eurasia in such time!) Good luck to the most active Chinese or Masai peasant to repeat that feat. The comparison just doesn't stack up in terms of activity when it comes to how we actually evolved. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Exercise may be able to help by reducing the amount of fat in the blood, but this cannot be considered to be an evolutionary carnivorous adaptation. Naturally carnivorous species do not develop atherosclerosis no matter how much animal fat and protein they consume, and even in relatively very inactive domestic dogs it's extremely rare. Pearl999 (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Omnivores would not have the exact same adaptations as pure carnivores. Dogs are pure carnivores, not omnivores. All omnivores are partial plant eaters. 1. It's true that we can't bite into live prey, which shows we're not pure carnivores, and no one is arguing that. 2. We also can't digest cellulose (again, straight-chain, not starch) as pure plant-eaters can. 3. Back then as now, fruits were not that widely available on the Savanna where fruit-bearing trees were (and still are) a very sparse part of the plant community. Homo sapiens evolved in that habitat, not in the tree-rich (and fruit-rich) jungles of our frugivorous relatives known as gorillas, and chimps, and so forth. (If anything, the slightly lower temperatures of the 4th Ice Age would have made tree populations there even sparser than today.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whyis Pearl999 allowed to talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.2.88 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pearl, have you said specifically what and exactly how you would like the article changed? You have to have a proposal; "I want to add this in this place" or "I want to delete this" or what it is we are discussing doing to the article. Otherwise, we're not talking about ways to improve the article which means you would have to stop doing what you're doing on this talk page. You have accepted that humans are omnivores. You have accepted that humans do, in fact eat meat. Are you saying our ancient ancestors did not eat meat? All hunter-gatherers living today or in historical memory ate meat. You are saying early Homo sapians did not eat meat? If you are talking about something other than fully modern humans, it's not for this article. This article is only about fully modern humans. What do you want to change about the article? Chrisrus (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

^ http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/30.htm

[1] ttp://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/11/the-comparative-anatomy-of-eating.html

[2] ttp://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

[3] ttp://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

[4] ttp://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/30.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]