Those eskimos who lived on almost only animal products, had a lifespan at least ten years shorter than those who didn't. That they didn't die immediately, but diedeaslier on a almost raw-flesh diet tells us something, doesn't it?The inuit for example, live(d) almost completely off of -raw- flesh for survival,
Even if these weapons both have been used to protect us against much stronger animals, and that some tools originally was assumed to be used for hunting were used for digging in the earth, I don't think anyone suggests that nobody ate meat in those periods - that's a different discussion which nobody seem to be interested in.We have made many archeological finds of hunting tools and weapons from the paleolitic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic ) eras
There's of course a link between the two, but what you write almost suggests that 'if you have guns/tools, use them'. Maybe it was the other way round: some humanoids developed weapons for a reason - maybe the needed meat to survive (they certainly did in some periods), they though they did - or looked at (some) animals and copied what they did.I have a theory that before the paleolithic ages, we (or our ancestors) ate less meat because we hadn't yet developped as many tools and skills to catch and kill it.
We have some threads about this already...Our digestive systems are completely different to either that of an herbivore or a carnivore.
We are able to eat mud as well. Does that make us natural mud eaters?We are specifically evolved to be able to eat either, depending on what environmental circumstances we have to adapt to.
I posted five questions about 'being able to' used as an argument that potentially supports the idea that we are natural omnivore in an earlier post in this thread:
Question 9: Humans are capable of dancing foxtrot (with no known unwanted side effects). Do you suggest that humans are 'natural foxtrot dancers'? Or would 'we may or may not dance foxtrot' be more accurate?
Question 10: Does it make sense to you to look at stuff "we can digest" (vague term, I know) and use that as a reference for terms like 'natural ******** eaters', terms normally used to describe what would be considered a good diet for humans ?
Question 11: If you do not see 'capable of' as a relevant criterion for what's to be considered natural for us, why should we consider humans 'natural omnivores' or 'natural animal product eaters'?
Question 12: We have many other threads with links between health problems on an omnivorous diet, and many more will come. Looking at our Cancer, adaptation and the vegan diet, would you say that humans are 'perfectly capable of eating meat and thriving'?
Question 13: Are you sure it wouldn't make more sense to claim that a plant based diet (containing many nutrients known for reducing/preventing serious diseases like cancer - nutrients NOT existing in animal products*) is a diet we are "perfectly capable of eating and thriving on" to a larger extent than an omnivorous diet?
*meaning that we'll get less of them for every piece of animal product we consume)[/list]
Since I don't understand your humans are omnivores-argument, can you please answer these questions for me? I need your help to understand what you are talking about!