Although humans are capable of digesting meat, human anatomy clearly favors a diet of plant foods. Our digestive systems are similar to those of the other plant-eaters and totally unlike those of carnivores. The argument that humans are carnivores because we possess "canine" teeth ignores the fact that other plant-eaters have "canine" teeth, and that ONLY plant-eaters have molar teeth. Finally, if humans were designed to eat meat, we wouldn't suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and osteoporosis from doing so.

As for the argument about a certain age being right for being a vegetarian, this statement makes the assumption that protein from plants isn't as good as protein from meat. The truth is, protein is protein. It is all made from amino acids. Children need 10 essential amino acids to grow and develop properly. These amino acids are as readily available in plants as they are in meat.

No it does not, as said before Animals sysnthesize amino acids plants cannot. Also Meat contains other nutrients aviable in plants at such small levels its ridiculous. (Any want to eat 300 pounds of brocoli to get 1 drumsticks worth of Dipolyathilium) Also those failures do occur in other animals, at the same rate in herbivores and carnevores. In us it comes from an exesive amount of meat (Atkins, or even less) not meat itself. In fact without animal protein the heart is weaker and more suspetiable to coronary failure.

I'd love to see some links!

AFAIK, the only vitamin not readily available in plants is B12, however, any human who has eaten meat has enough stored in his colon to keep him going for the most part. B12 can also be found (yuck) through dirt but more popularly is supplemented through a vitamin.

I'll show you my links if you'll show me yours!

http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/veg...-diet-myths.htm

How is it then that studies show a vegetarian diet contributes to a lower rate of heart attacks?

Loma Linda University of California decided to test 24,000 people to determine mortality rates from heart disease. They found that lacto-ovo vegetarians (including dairy and eggs) had 66% fewer deaths from heart disease than their meat-eating counterparts. Pure vegetarians had an impressive 90% fewer deaths than the meat-eaters.

http://www.healthrecipes.com/heart_attack.htm

Once again, I respectfully ask for links proving your theories.

Time Magazine, Week 37, 2000

Also Lacto-ovo vegterian in most studies have 25% fewer heart related deaths than more "Pure" Vegetarians. Who can say that the aging hippy ranks of veaganism are more pure. They tend to have hugely weak immune systems and the vegetarian who only eat fruit, whatever their called, are dropping like flies. The reason vegetarian are more healthy is becuase people eat too much meat. In moderation meat is good, but with the atkins diet its not only taking it too far, its turing a good thing into an attrocity. Also who are you to say arn't meant to eat meat when all primates eat at least bugs, if not somthing even larger. Lacto-ovos tend to have 8 extra years over veageans. People who eat poltry and fish in moderation tend to live 12 years longer than veagans. Also birds and fish do not have quia so you can't argue that you are hurting them. Plus if they anr't farmed you think the species will live on a happy life in the forest? Nope. They become extinct. They are domesticated and will not survive in the wild at all. Human propagate their speices by farming them!

Interesting . . . but still no link. Time magazine has an article on vegetarianism but I don't see the above theory there:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story5.html