Vegans, Are We Omnies Anatomically? ALL The Evidence You Need For The Debate!

The omnivore vs herbivore debate is a common one, and while people can pick and choose particular elements to suit their point in an argument, the only way to properly address this is to lay out and analyse all of the anatomical evidence. One of the most popular arguments against veganism is that because humans have canine teeth and are able to eat animal flesh, we are therefore omnivores and the omnivorous diet is therefore “natural”.

An important fact that we must not forget

is that while humans are capable of eating both plant and animal matter, of the two, we are able to thrive without eating animals—however, if we eat no plants, we die. Our canine teeth are really only that in name—human canine teeth are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are very long and pointed.

Below is a collection of anatomical evidence that makes quite a case for what our  features actually align with.

 

FEATURE CARNIVORE OMNIVORE HERBIVORE HUMAN
Facial Muscles Reduced to allow wide mouth gape Reduced Well-developed Well-developed
Jaw Type Angle not expanded Angle not expanded Expanded angle Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location On same plane as molar teeth On same plane as molar teeth Above the plane of the molars Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles Temporalis Temporalis Masseter and pterygoids Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size Large Large Small Small
Teeth – Incisors Short and pointed Short and pointed Broad, flattened and spade-shaped Broad, flattened and spade-shaped
Teeth – Canines Long, sharp and curved Long, sharp and curved Dull and short, or are long for defence, or none Short and blunted
Teeth – Molars Sharp, jagged and blade-shaped Sharp blades and/or flattened Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing None; swallows food whole Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing Extensive chewing necessary Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva No digestive enzymes No digestive enzymes Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes Carbohydrate-digesting enzymes
Stomach Type Simple Simple Simple or multiple chambers Simple
Stomach Acidity (with food in stomach) < pH 1 < pH 1 < pH 4-5 < pH 4-5
Length of Small Intestine 3–6 times body length
(push through raw flesh & animal protein quickly)
4–6 times body length
(push through raw flesh & animal protein quickly)
10–12+ times body length 10–11 times body length*
Colon Simple, short, and smooth Simple, short, and smooth Long, complex; may be sacculated Long, sacculated
Liver Can detoxify vitamin A Can detoxify vitamin A Cannot detoxify vitamin A Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney Extremely concentrated urine Extremely concentrated urine Moderately concentrated urine Moderately concentrated urine
Nails Sharp claws Sharp claws Flattened nails or blunt hooves Flattened

* “Body length” measured from neck to anus, as with the other animals.

DO OUR ANATOMICAL FEATURES ALIGN WITH THE OMNIVORE OR HERBIVORE?

A fair look at the evidence shows that humans are optimised for eating plant foods, according to the best evidence: our bodies. We’re most similar to other plant-eaters, and drastically different from carnivores and true omnivores who have far differently shaped teeth, chewing actions, saliva enzymes, stomach acidity, and intestine and colon lengths.  Those who insist that humans are omnivores, especially if their argument is based on canine teeth, would do well to look at what the evidence points towards.

The anatomical evidence tells us that we’re optimised for eating plant foods. 

The only way to come to another conclusion is to ignore the bulk of the anatomical evidence.

Most plant-eaters eat small amounts of non-plant foods, usually insects (either intentionally or inadvertently).  The small non-plant consumption of plant-eating animals doesn’t mean that they’re “omnivores” in the classical sense, and certainly doesn’t justify the idea that humans are adapted to a very mixed diet of plant and non-plant foods.

“Omnivore” doesn’t mean 50% plants and 50% animals. 

Many of my critics consider chimpanzees to be omnivores but 95-99% of the chimp diet is plants, and most of the remainder isn’t meat, it’s termites. If humans are omnivores, then the anatomical evidence suggests that we’re the same kind: the kind that eats almost exclusively plant foods.

Saying we’re omnivores because we’re capable of eating meat is just silly. 

We’re capable of eating cardboard, too. And by the “capable” argument, then cats are omnivores too, since nearly every commercial cat food has plant ingredients. Nobody would ever make the argument that cats are omnivores based on what they’re capable of eating, but they sure make that argument for humans, enthusiastically.

Our so-called “canine teeth” are “canine” in name only. 

Other plant-eaters (like gorillashorses, and hippos) have “canines”, and chimps, who are almost exclusively vegan, have massive canines compared to ours.

Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian (source, article #5).

We sleep about the same amount of time as other herbivores, and less than carnivores and true omnivores.

The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat (source).  Real carnivores and omnivores don’t have that problem.

The idea that a switch to meat-eating is what sparked early humans’ brain development has no more evidence to support it than the competing theories

(such as that it was a switch to cooked foods that did the trick), and certainly doesn’t square with what comparative anatomy tells us.

In case you have an issue remembering all these in a heated debate, bookmark, print it out and give out to the next person, who is trying to claim that anatomically, we were ‘designed’ to eat meat!

Source