PersonDude wrote...
I'm guessing you are a believer in evolution (Have nothing against your belief) by your statements. I'll explain it in a evolutionists standpoint. Elephants are considered to be big animals today, and from what I see, size has gotten smaller through the years of evolotion. If we take that into account, the predecessors of elephants would have been much bigger. That means that they too could have been carnivoirs and the animals we see today could have evolved into a carnivoir. Not all animals have been carnivoirs at the beginning of time according to evolution. They evolved into one and seeing the considerable size of it's predecessors, which were giant hippo like animals in the ocean, it too could have been "on top" of the food chain, but it isn't.
I had to reread this a couple times because it made absolutely zero sense. I didn't say all animals were carnivors. Also size has nothing to do with carnivore or herbivore. There have been large herbivores and small carnivores. So size has nothing to do with this argument. I said the human species and their ancestors (early humans) ate meat. Monkeys ate fruit, and plant matter to survive. When the climate changed and the large forests gave way to large expanses of open land. We could no longer survive on plant matter alone. In the next step we ate bone marrow (which gave us the protein to develop larger brains) roots, and various other things. The next step was early humans which ate meat as well as various plants but, mostly meat. Since Neanderthal and Homo erectus our diet has required a lot of protein. To fulfill that requirement we ate meat. We are an omnivore and our bodies are designed to eat both vegetables and meats. Ever notices that those who eat proper amounts of both are healthier than those who eat only meat or only vegetables?
PersonDude wrote...
what I meant to say was that just because we are superior does not mean we have to eat meat and your argument of pointing out our superiority as a right to eat lesser animals was invalid since there are many other "superior" animals that could have done so.
This made little sense to me. Lets see if I understand you correctly. You are stating
"Because we are the superior species we do not need to eat animals."
I was stating that we
CAN CHOOSE what we eat because of our status as the dominant animal on this planet. Our teeth give us the ability. We have incisors
AND molars which give me the ability to choose and because of that we can
EAT WHAT WE WANT. If our teeth were only molars then we wouldn't be able to eat what we want because the teeth aren't designed to tear flesh so we would only eat plants. Molars are meant to grind hard material (nuts, roots) and plant matter. If our mouths contained only incisors like that of a wolf, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Velociraptor, foxes,etc. Then were would only be able to eat meat since those teeth are designed for tearing flesh instead of chewing plants.
So, where does it say I can't eat what I want? I have the teeth for it. Other than "Your hurting the animals" there is no reason why I shouldn't eat meat other than personal choice like Hibia. I personally choose to not eat fish (not because I'm sorry for the poor fishies) but, because I dislike the smell. Since I can't tell the difference between good/bad fish,lobster, muscles, crabs.