- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/24943429
Human ancestors like Australopithecus – which lived around 3.5 million years ago in southern Africa – ate very little to no meat, according to new research published in the scientific journal Science. This conclusion comes from an analysis of nitrogen isotope isotopes in the fossilized tooth enamel of seven Australopithecus individuals. The data revealed that these early hominins primarily relied on plant-based diets, with little to no evidence of meat consumption.
You must log in or # to comment.
Not really surprising as we had recently evolved to stand on two legs and probably lacked the brain power to hunt effectively. We only started using fire sometime during the following two million years as a we transitioned into “modern” humans. Fire was likely a huge motivator to begin consuming meat once the maillard reaction was “discovered”. The last ice age probably kicked out hunting skills into high gear due to sparse vegetation and the need to consume more fats and proteins.
Three million years ago we ate what we could find and plants do not run away or bite. What will the next great finding be, homeless people don’t eat steak?
Terribly reductive take. There’s a myriad of different edible plant species, variably digestible and non-digestible for different species. This article outlines how the reconstructed mouth microbiom of human ancestors as far back as 100’000 years ago was already capable of breaking down starchy foods. With the advent of fire, those would’ve been cooked just like meats and would’ve facilitated a growth in brain all the same, while being more reliable a food source.
You did not quite seem to explain how it is reductive to note the lifestyle was opportunistic based upon what was easily and safely available rather than preference, instead you just seemed to say different plants exist.
I just fail to see how eating meat is an inherent “preference” while eating plants is “opportunistic”. Seems like a false dichotomy
It is not your fault you fail to understand, people have different abilities.
Indeed. Mine include having a MSc. in Molecular Biology, yours, trolling on the internet
From your subject knowledge and comprehension you almost certainly do not have a postgraduate degree, I have a PhD in soft rock geology. I have explained to you twice that opportunistic means taking whatever is most readily available. Under the circumstances discussed that will be most often plant material but that selection does not imply any preference. You are the only one implying preference because you are trying to crowbar in your vegetarian agenda. I see also you have cranked up a few side accounts to upvote yourself.
You are the only one implying preference
Third party here, jumping into this thread. It’s pretty clear that OP didn’t say, or even imply, anything about preference, and even put scare quotes around “preference” when responding to you bringing it up. You come off as paranoid and bizarrely defensive in this thread, and it’s a bad look.
I see also you have cranked up a few side accounts to upvote yourself.
lmao got me Mr. Soft Rock 🤡
I will just leave this without further comment, people reading your “contributions” can make up their own mind as to your credibility and whether or not it is I who has the agenda.
Edit: For people actually interested in the science, here’s an interesting example of what opportunistic-carnivorous feeding would’ve looked like – underscoring the absurdity of talking about meat-eating in terms of preference in an anthropological/survival context.
They also had no science, no literature, no music, 85 % child mortality, and died of old age at 35. Coincidence?
Yeah man vegetarianism is dangerous!
Someone tell the carnists!
