I found a french article which criticize Gary Yourofski, I think it is fair so here is the translation strait from google :
I must admit that even thought his discourse is globally false, that doesn't change the fact that we are omnivores so we have the choice to choose our diet. I don't want to become a vegan that eat loads of industrial stuff, so it would have to be local, homemade and tasty with as little energy as possible.
http://hitek.fr/actualite/homme-est-il-omnivore_7437Hello young bipeds, have you already done serious scientific studies? If so, the answer to the question of the article you must appear quite obvious. Unfortunately, everyone does not study and a lot of bullshit are broadcast on the net so that it even affects the nature of man and the animal world. And bullshit number 1 released online, Gary Yourofsky is the perfect example of a big problem Humanity ie lie. Indeed, this individual made a video where he is in an amphitheater where he explains that Man is herbivore. The problem is not to explain this kind of thing, everyone can give arguments, whether false or not, the problem is that it had nothing to do here.
Indeed Gary Yourofsky according to Wikipedia is "American activist for the cause of animals" and when you look good, we do not see ANY SCIENTIFIC TRAINING, he's just a journalist and has only the rights associations and it allows talk about science to students as if he was a teacher. That is the problem number 1 of our planet, people who do not know what they are talking is used to express the greatest number. So today we will all take some of his "arguments" and see their validity, which will answer the question posed in the title of this article, I do not therefore evoke the theme of animal suffering because that's another subject. Just for the record, said Gary Yourosky seriously that women who wear fur deserve to be raped, now we can start the article. But first, I will introduce myself, just to not do like Gary. So I'm Yoann Negro, I'm 23 I make popular science and Hitek on Youtube, and I'm studying License Biology, Microbiology specialty and I am convinced Darwinist.
Slavery, possession, profit, are the exclusive dominion of the human race?
It is with this question "rhetoric" that the gentleman's speech begins, if I specify in quotes that is rhetoric, it is because for more rights is the worst animal on Earth dominates the other and seeks only his profit blah ... So no, the man is not the worst animal, it is right at the top of food webs (yes we are not told Food chain because the relationships between people on Earth do not limited only to eat), making there no other species can do worse on a large scale. But if we had a natural predator, it is clear that it would be much worse than us.
For slavery, then there are ants who practice slavery, for example on plants where they will cut the buds to make it to the plants there is a threat, and the plant will recruit ants to defend by giving them food. This is a common scenario in the equatorial forest. The concept of possession, profit and domination, we will quote all viruses (yes viruses are living beings, a research team in Illinois has proved that at the beginning of October of this year, so c is very recent) protozoa that will parasitize the cells for their own proliferation. Another rule, all animals are making territorial domination, like my hamster, dogs, cats, primates, for example, there are sexual domination, with all the cats who abuse their female so that they are their faithful and kill all the little ancient Alpha males when they take their place. I give a few examples, because if I have to make a list, I'm not finished. It is just the introduction of speech and we already see the gaps sir.
Let a child choose between an apple and a rabbit, he will not play with the apple eating rabbit
While this argument implies that children are pure beings and they do not like violence. So if that was the case, there would never have been violence and harassment at school, but why not, after all we are not in reality but in a Disney movie everybody knows. This argument is horribly wrong and false tripling, why?
1. Because it is a packaging issue, put an apple and candy, and the child will eat the candy. Also you can put Brussels sprouts and a rabbit in front of a child, I do not think that rabbits will survive long.
2. If you have to take things in their natural state, the apple is the top of an apple tree and rabbits on the ground. So if we eat quickly, it will be eaten rabbit.
3. A child may not be able to feed itself, that's why we need to look after them.
We have flat teeth like herbivorous
Well, this individual never really had to look at his teeth, but we will compare 4 jaws, those of a human, a cow, a cat and a pig. Why pigs? Because it is omnivorous.
As we can see, we have the same teeth as pigs, which are omnivores. Sorry Gary, but science, this is not to say random things.
The length of our intestines is 7 to 13 times larger than our trunk as for herbivores and the carnivores only 3 to 6 times the length of the trunk, it allows carnivores to have a quick transit to get rid animal protein, cholesterol, saturated fat, trans-fatty acids. Enzymes which was for digestion are present only in herbivorous.
Here we begin to read shameful things. So we'll start with something very simple BOWEL DO NOT TAKE CARE OF DIGESTION! So we will summarize the digestion:
1. With your teeth, you grind your food. Salivary glands will make the saliva will wet the food they spend more easily in the stomach and saliva contains an enzyme called alpha-amylase which digests starch which is found in plants. I guess it speaks of this enzyme then. Except that the enzyme is found in omnivores too so it means nothing. (
Http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26043446 if you can read English and that you're interested, I put this link because it is a fairly recent article)
2. The pharynx and esophagus, they only carry the crushed food, so like the death of a set of Game Of Thrones, who cares.
3. The stomach has PH = 2 what does it mean? Is that if you put a bone in your stomach, it will dissolve. In addition, there are enzymes, such as pepsin (which cut the protein) or a gastric lipase (it cuts triglycerides, but it is a minority). These enzymes are present in all stomachs.
4. The role of the small intestine is TRANSPORTER nutrients obtained, and there you'll say "But it's not absorb?" Indeed, it does not absorb, not actively anyway. In reality, there are two bodies that will play the role in absorption. Pancreas, which will synthesize pancreatic lipase (such as gastric, it will cut the fatty acid triglyceride) and the liver, which will synthesize bile whose role is to form a layer around the fatty acids (or emulsify for those who love big words) which will allow them to be absorbed by the cells of the intestine.
5. The colon. At this stage, 90% of the nutrients were absorbed and the bacteria will fecal matter. But not only ! Bacteria in the colon will degrade the cellulose, which is the main constituent of the plant, to make methane and hypothetically water to hydrate the colon, we do not really derive energy. And faeces will be evacuated through the rectum and anus.
extremely important, herbivores digest completely differently. In fact they have no stomach but a rumen, which is like a fermentation tank where bacteria will degrade cellulose to make energy. As we do that makes us do as methane. Ah, but wait! There are bacteria that do this kind of fermentation in the Appendix, except that with the evolution, the appendix only regress. So the only thing that actually brings us closer to a herbivore has only to regress since the appearance of man. So this argument of digestion and enzyme is only the fruit of poor scientific knowledge. Moreover, if we really compare the digestive systems, we have the same system as the pig is omnivorous. We continue ?
Carnivores do not sweat. Carnivores and omnivores have claws, not herbivores which have nails or hooves
Well no, all mammals sweat, and mammals there are the cats, which are carnivores. So that all carnivores have claws and consider that the nails are not claws, this is a level of high-level stupidity. But otherwise just like that sharks do not have claws yet in movies and Reunion, one often sees accidents with sharks, carnivorous plants also have not either. And if we compared with our closest cousins, namely chimpanzees? Are herbivores? Well, no, they are omnivorous because they eat insects and consume meat, meat also is used as a gift to the females in exchange for sex (
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2009/04/08/589346-femelles-chimpanzes-aiment-males-offrent-viande.html, because this is truly epic I think)
I challenge you to catch a squirrel without artifice, to kill and eat the whole (eyes, nose, face, toes, tail, anus, blood and fur and all organs)
Then there is sadness key. Because this individual appears to have never had a philosophy course of his life, I will quote Aristotle, who was certainly a bad scientist and a great philosopher do not forget: "Man on the contrary [of other animals ], has many defenses, and it is always open to him to change and even having the weapon he wants when he wants. for the hand becomes claw, green, horn or lance or sword or other weapon or tool. It can be all of that, because it is able to just grab and hold everything. " (Aristotle, Parts of Animals)
This means that the "tricks" that are used are just part of our human nature, because they are an extension of our hand and the result of using our brains. So at least not human, we must use our devices to drive, otherwise it's like telling a lion kill a prey without using his claws. To say this is to forget the anthropological studies that point to the fact that our ancestors were formidable hunters, patient and good with their weapons. Besides, for that matter, there was a human species only herbivore, Paranthropus boisei like, which died out there 1.34 million years. Welcome to Darwinism, in nature, when an individual is not adapted to its environment, it disappears. Can we say that the omnivorous human species survived for millions of years as herbivores or carnivores quickly disappeared, because they were more adapted to survival? Yes.
Small food biochemistry lesson, physiology and evolution. You should know that the brain size of the line of homosexuals has increased significantly during evolution. Our current brain uses 20% of our energy to operate. What does it mean ? That during the evolution we had to bring more energy to our brain for over generations, it can develop and grow. You should know that the energy provided by the nutrients is specific to the food, meat and this energy input much higher than the vegetables (except some like soy for example). For example 100 grams of green beans bring to the body 31 calories and 100 grams of ground beef provides the body with 204 calories. Obviously, the protein content of the food is different, but be aware that the energy provided by a food is due to the degradation of proteins and lipids into energy. So even if the nutrient intakes are different, meat provides more energy. Why am I telling you this? As you can see on this chart from the site hominides.com which is the reference site on anthropology, our meat consumption has increased over time. One can clearly infer that intake of meat in our eating habits has contributed to the evolution of our brains in time. Sorry Gary, but had to study before making conferences.
Where do you think most of our current diseases come from? Broccoli? Blueberries? Cabbage? Raspberries ? Spinach ? Lawyers ? Shit! Human or animal shit.
It evokes salmonella, cholesterol problems and poisoning due to Escherichia coli. While Escherichia coli is a bacterium that lives in our gut and when it causes poisoning is due to consumption of undercooked animal products, raw or fresh fruits and vegetables as emphasized the Pasteur Institute. And for cholesterol, it is an exaggeration of reality. The meat does not cause cholesterol problems, but over-consumption of animal fat causes cholesterol problems. But be aware that cholesterol is produced by the body and serves as a precursor for synthesis of steroid hormones like testosterone, for example, as well as the rigidity of our cells. In addition, cholesterol problems are linked to a control problem of the synthesis and degradation of cholesterol by the body. That's why we give to patients with cholesterol drugs problems will inhibit cholesterol synthesis in addition to a decrease in the consumption of animal fats.
Animal protein is too acidic for the human body. 1/3 meat eaters suffer from cancer. People who eat more meat suffer more from osteoporosis and cancer.
I tried to understand what he meant, but for once, it does not mean anything. I think he said it because there are amino acids such as asparagine and glutamine, but it makes no sense to say that it is too acidic for the human body because the animal protein (casein for example), such as vegetable proteins, consist of all amino acids. vegetable consumption or meat brings in both cases protein so it is absolutely not an argument to say no to meat consumption.
I expect Yoann interrupt you, but WHO said the meat was carcinogenic as tobacco!
This is false, processed meat such as salami, sausages and bacon are considered carcinogenic. More red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic and white meat presents no problem. And for tobacco, it is not comparable because as recalled in the UK Cancer Researcher, tobacco is linked to 19% of all cancers and red meat and processed meat are associated with 3% of all cancers . So this is not comparable even if the risk of over-consumption of these products turned out. I do not know where Gary released his third, but probably not a scientific study.
And for osteoporosis, we must not forget that it is a disease whose risk factors are associated with age, fracture history, a body mass index lower, reduced physical activity, lack of vitamin and calcium, smoking or a high alcohol consumption (
http://osteoporose.comprendrechoisir.com/comprendre/osteoporose-causes). Only PETA, which says it is linked to the meat. And as we have already mentioned in a discussion, the Japanese do not eat meat and do not have a health problem. The fish is not meat how long anyway? I do not know who studied at PETA, but it's not lying to people that their cause will win into consideration. Although animal suffering is another topic that will not be discussed here.
I think we did the question of the tower, on food, and one thing is evident and demonstrated, we are omnivores. This allowed us to evolve and adapt to climatic events such as glaciations for example. I can understand that people decide to change diet for ethical reasons, it is their choice, and since we're omnivores, they have the ability to precisely choose their diet. But tell lies to want to convert people, it is unfortunate. The real problem of our diet, is over-consumption that makes you eat anything, anyhow and this with a lot of mess. But cease to want to say that man is not omnivorous, that's two million years that humans consume meat, if we were not able to eat it, evolution would have us do would eat more meat for a long time. With that, this article is finally finished I hope that you will have learned something! Kisses.
