More die on bikes than on trains. More die walking than riding the bus. It’s that sense of being in control, that your life is in your own hands, that makes the car or bike more attractive than the train, bus, or rollercoaster.

I did. I answered it before you asked. But I guess I can't expect literacy from someone with either Vegan or Glitter in their name, let alone BOTH

M8, if you had the reading comprehension of a kindergartener you'd know what I'm referring to, because I literally said it in plaintext.

Anyway, your first "source" is a literal propaganda channel, the second is just a guy's rambling video that doesn't cite sources, but not to worry, the legwork can be done easily to both determine what is factual in the second link, or at least likely factual, and what isn't. What is likely factual, is that if there is cellulase anywhere in the human digestive system, it's in the mouth, which would encourage chewing on leaves to suppress appetite or boredom, which is something we humans do. It is not in the gut, however, and instead cellulose is one of the indigestible carbohydrates we humans only use as fiber and not as a damn thing else. Eating plants as a source of fiber to aid the digestive tract is also something carnivores and omnivores do. Some even constipate themselves with this fiber to hibernate, and there's a carnivorous bear in asia that through human intervention and its own laziness for hunting, currently subsists on what little nutrition it can squeeze out of a plant that used to be just its fiber source.

Regardless, as your sources contained propaganda to begin with, you're not worth anyone's time, as it shows (as if you didn't show already in this thread) you're willing to be dishonest to make your nonexistent point.

That was a callback to

> your lack of understanding of k-5 biology

But you'd get that if you had the reading comprehension of a first grader.

Morals have nothing to do with my diet. Morals are subjective, and dietary needs outweigh them.

You're again conflating fruit with vegetation. If you can't understand the difference, there's no reasoning with you. Frugivory can emerge from either carnivorous or herbivorous ancestry, and with primates, typically the former.

If you're not going to cite anything outside of propaganda, there's no sense talking.

You act like only carnivores and herbivores exist. Again, did you ever graduate from 5th grade?

The word you're looking for, that our digestive system matches, is frugivore. Thing is, frugivory can evolve in species that were previously carnivorous or herbivorous, but with primates, far as we know it's the former. The fact that we don't have key features of an herbivorous digestive system, like the production of cellulase or the symbiotic relationship with a microorganism that does produce it, speaks volumes of that. Salads have very little caloric value to humans, because leaves are mostly cellulose. Micronutrients in vegetation are also quite the problem for us, because they're not as bio-available to us as they would be to an herbivore.

Not only this, but most plantmatter we eat is cultivated by us, biologically manipulated by us. Many plants we eat fruits from today can't even reproduce, we have to make clones and chimeras of them by methods such as grafting. Many of these plants used to be completely unsuitable for consumption, but we cultivated them anyway. Why? So we don't have to hunt as much. Then we started ranching animals, including them in our agriculture.

Ultimately, your whole argument stands on a house of cards built on ignorance and out-of-date dietary classification.

Pretty sure “more than your stomach can hold” is at the very least “grossly unhealthy”. Hell, that’s being generous.

And by not accessible, I mean exactly what I said. And I explained why leading up to that statement, but I guess you’re just illiterate. Most vegetation is inedible to humans. Humans are categorically, biologically, and digestively nothing like herbivores. Most of the “vegetables” we eat aren’t vegetation, they’re FRUIT.

We eat the stores of glucose, fructose, and starches in plants. Cellulose is only digestable by herbivores, something we are not. As such, cellulose’s only function in our bodies is as a dietary fiber.

You’re not going to subsist on the grass in your yard, though judging by your lack of understanding of k-5 biology, I’m guessing you’ve never touched grass.

Misleading.

The amount of plantmatter or the amount of processing needed to get comparable amino acids from plants that you would get from meat, is grossly unhealthy. Most vegetation is also inedible to humans, meaning without processed food or meat, much of the human diet is inaccessible for many.

The omni in omnivore shouldn’t be taken too literally. Humans are mostly adapted to eat meat and fruit (similar edibility to meat, but made mostly of carbs)