Tom Bri:
> The fact is we have very little way of knowing what they ate, just
> hints
> from things like the shape of teeth, scratch patterns on teeth etc. But
> we
> do know that we eat meat and that all our more recent ancestors did.
> Someone
> had to start it sometime.

Indeed, the only scientists who still think that australopithecines or later
hominids didn't eat meat (which, as you point out, includes insects, worms,
lizards, etc.--which most of them would probably admit that hominids and
pre-hominids ate if pressed on it, but they conveniently ignore these most
abundant of the animals) seem to be those who are from the "politically
correct" camp. Some are trying to prove that the female-provided foods were
much more important than the foods provided by males, as part of an effort
to feminize human prehistory. Then there are the fanatical
vegetarians/vegans/PETA activists who will never admit that ancient hominids
and most other primates ate meat no matter how much evidence accumulates. 

Given the accumulating evidence and the vegetarians' disregard for it, my
patience with vegetarians is growing thin. I have actually seen a vegetarian
claim online that fish, eggs and other small animal foods should be
classified in the vegetarian/plant class rather than meat/animal so he
wouldn't have to concede a point (and admit that he is not really a
vegetarian--just a fanatic). 

The motivations behind vegetarian causes usually have little to do with
biological science. Dr. Kellogg wanted Americans to eat cold cereal like
corn flakes for breakfast because he wanted to diminish their sex drive,
which he considered an inherently sinful aspect of nature, due to his
Adventist beliefs. 

> To argue that australopithicines did not eat meat because their teeth
> were
> the wrong shape is simply to ignore the fact that every other primate
> does
> eat meat, even if only bugs. 

I'm not sure about all primates today (but I wouldn't be surprised if that
turns out to be the case), but all primates (including humans) are descended
from an insectivore. If we include tiny insects and other microscopic
critters inadvertently eaten while eating plants, then we can definitely say
that all primates eat meat (but I don't know whether all primates will grab
an insect and eat it when they have the opportunity). Not surprisingly,
insects are very healthy food for humans.

> And they eat as much meat as they can get
> their
> hands on. Chimps, with very thick, blunt vegetarian teeth eat meat
> without
> problems, tearing it off the hunk with sideways jerks of the head, just
> like
> dogs do.

Yeah, and insects and worms aren't difficult to eat. You don't need huge
canines for those. That's a good counter to any vegetarian who claims that
humans or other primates are not "equipped" to eat meat. Unless insects were
reclassified as plants when I wasn't paying attention, that is a
ridiculously bogus argument that displays a lack of basic knowledge of
animal biology.

Meat is the favorite food of chimps, though not the most frequently consumed
(it's the less common treats that animals seem to adore most). Male chimps
use meat to obtain sexual favors from females and to gain political power
and prestige.

> Some also argue that our ancestors were too dumb to hunt collectively,
> ignoring that far less intelligent lions and wolves manage it easily,
> setting up drives and ambushes. 

And Jane Goodall discovered decades ago that chimps hunt and even war in
teams, sometimes going on months-long hunting or warring excursions,
devouring all the meat they can get their hands on, tearing small animals
apart as they fight over them. Their favorite meat is smaller primates--that
should disgust a lot of vegetarians. It's odd that Goodall's extensive
observations of these behaviors are not better known. Most vegetarians seem
to be completely oblivious of them, though some are beginning to recognize
and admit that humans started eating meat millions of years ago and that
most primates consume some animal foods.

> So our ancestors were just barely
> bright
> enough to scavange carcasses and catch the occasional mouse. Sorry,
> that
> looks like determining the desired result then making up a fancy theory
> to
> explain it, to me. A 'just so' story for the vegetarians.

Right on the money. They start with a premise and then seek to prove it.
It's difficult to believe that Australopithecines ate less meat than chimps,
and the only way I can imagine a scientist or anyone conceiving of that is
if they already hold a bias against meat or have been misled by the
vegetarian propaganda.