More fake science: Your Vegan ancestors

[JTEM]

This is politics, not science:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/early-human-ancestors-didnt-eat-meat?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_share

We know our ancestors ate meat and seafood.

Period.

We have the evidence going back millions of years.

Pan even eats meat, though nowhere near as often...

[RonO]

 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/early-human-ancestors-didnt-eat-
meat?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_share
We know our ancestors ate meat and seafood.
Period.
We have the evidence going back millions of years.
Pan even eats meat, though nowhere near as often...

There is no reason to believe that Australopithecus ate any more meat
than chimps. The data indicate that this is the case. It doesn't claim
that they did not eat meat.

QUOTE:
Lüdecke notes that the findings don’t mean A. africanus couldn’t have
occasionally exploited a meaty meal. The results also don’t rule out the
primates eating lots of termites — a reliable, high-energy food — since
they contain relatively less of the form of nitrogen elevated in
mammalian meat.
END QUOTE:

The picture is of a robust Australopithecine that had huge teeth for
processing vegetation. They seemed to be equiped to process vegetation
that even chimps could not eat. Leakey called A. robustus nutcracker
man back in the 1960's.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[JTEM]

Post by RonO
There is no reason to believe that Australopithecus ate any more meat
than chimps.

Well it's six of one/half dozen of the other.

But there's also a very good argument to be made that we are
not descended from Australopithecus. It was for a very long
time dismissed as an evolutionary "Cousin."

Post by RonO
Lüdecke notes that the findings don’t mean A. africanus couldn’t have
occasionally exploited a meaty meal. The results also don’t rule out the
primates eating lots of termites — a reliable, high-energy food — since
they contain relatively less of the form of nitrogen elevated in
mammalian meat.
The picture is of a robust Australopithecine that had huge teeth for
processing vegetation.  They seemed to be equiped to process vegetation
that even chimps could not eat.  Leakey called A. robustus nutcracker
man back in the 1960's.

Well many claim to see both a gracile & robust Australopithecus, with
a diet separating the two. But there is an argument that
Australopithecus isn't even an ancestor. It's one of the VERY frequent
criticisms of paleo anthropology where anything they pluck out of the
ground is dubbed an ancestor then shoehorned into some savanna idiocy.

These veggy-lusting-ancestor kick is pure politics, and nothing more.

[RonO]

Post by JTEM

Post by RonO
There is no reason to believe that Australopithecus ate any more meat
than chimps.

Well it's six of one/half dozen of the other.
But there's also a very good argument to be made that we are
not descended from Australopithecus. It was for a very long
time dismissed as an evolutionary "Cousin."

Post by RonO
Lüdecke notes that the findings don’t mean A. africanus couldn’t have
occasionally exploited a meaty meal. The results also don’t rule out
the primates eating lots of termites — a reliable, high-energy food —
since they contain relatively less of the form of nitrogen elevated in
mammalian meat.
The picture is of a robust Australopithecine that had huge teeth for
processing vegetation.  They seemed to be equiped to process
vegetation that even chimps could not eat.  Leakey called A. robustus
nutcracker man back in the 1960's.

Well many claim to see both a gracile & robust Australopithecus, with
a diet separating the two. But there is an argument that
Australopithecus isn't even an ancestor. It's one of the VERY frequent
criticisms of paleo anthropology where anything they pluck out of the
ground is dubbed an ancestor then shoehorned into some savanna idiocy.
These veggy-lusting-ancestor kick is pure politics, and nothing more.

The article that you posted was about Australopithecines.

Ron Okimoto