How in the hell are human beings capable of eating so much?

>>2239615
Give me one reason why we WOULDN'T be able to eat a fish, bird or whatever. You're wording it as if you think things from different areas of the planet are made of entirely different and indigestible elements and substances, and you're also suggesting that humans have ever been restricted to one area/diet. Very bizarre question.

>>2239615
>fully evolved

Stopped reading there.

>>2239615
Because we were created by God.

>>2239641
Right, because we were created by God.

>>2239637
Different groups of people (races) WERE restricted. We can still eat vast amounts of grown foods, such as crops and fungus and algaes and kelps and the like.

>>2239641
Sorry you're an autist.

>>2239657
Clearly the only actual reason :^)

My iguana can eat alot of the stuff in that picture to anon.
Alot of herbivorous animals arent restricted to only the local variety of where they range.
Alot of snakes naturally eat fish and amphibians but get switched to rodents in captivity.

It just so happens most things that are alive are also edible.

>>2239615
>Things that we didn't even fucking evolve around can be more nutritious and beneficial to us than the things we did evolve around.

What? All life on earth is made out of the same 20 amino acids and is of remarkably similar composition. Thing being edible to an omnivore are the rule, not the exception. The exceptions come from things that have specifically evolved to not be edible, not the other way around.

>We can eat animals from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ECOSYSTEMS to ourselves
So can just about every other animal. Even something as specialized as an ant eater can eat ants from all over the world that are, gasp, from completely different ecosystems.

>fully evolved
>fully
>evolved
I should have stopped reading here.

>We can eat huge numbers of plants and fungus
And yet we can't digest lignin or chitin, the two most common organic polymeres on earth by several order of magnitude.

>Most other animals can only survive and thrive on a very narrow, environment-specific diet. Not humans.
[citation needed]

>>2239696
Oh also I forgot

>We can eat huge numbers of plants and fungus
No? With very few exceptions (that do not provide great nutrition that you could survive on) we can eat the parts specifically evolved to be eaten, like fruit, or high energy density storage structures like rhizomes. You can't get any meaningful nutrition out of 99.99% of the plant mass on earth. You could stand in a forest surrounded by hundreds of tons on living matter and still starve.

>>2239615
>Most other animals can only survive and thrive on a very narrow, environment-specific diet.

Well obviously. Specialization is the key to diversity, look up niche diversification and adaptive radiation. There will always be more specialists than generalists. As long as resources differ from each other specialists exploiting those resourves will evolve and since a generalist by definition uses several resources, and there can not be several generalists using the exact same set of resources due to the competitive exclusion principle, there MUST be less generalists than specialists.

>>2239657
>>2239661
I think the point anon was making was that you're never fully evolved, it's an ongoing process and has no endpoint. Just like it's false to say it's possible to devolve.

>>2239664
Different races weren't restricted to certain areas though, most blend together in a spectrum, e.g. Europeans have darker skin/eyes/hair as we go south, central Asians generally look like a different blend of slavic/chinese/brown as you travel in certain directions etc., it's not a clear cut thing.

Regardless, you've invented this weird idea in your head where animals are unable to eat a food item presumably just because they didn't directly co-exist in prehistoric times. I'm absolutely lost as to how you came to this conclusion.

>>2239615
In a lot of cases it isn't as though animals can't eat certain foods, but that they won't. Instincts screaming at them that a dried vitamin paste is 'not food do not swallow' is part of the reason why we have to force our pets to take medication by force and/or trickery.

>We can eat SO MANY THINGS.

yet you choose to eat cock

Rats are similar. There's tons of stuff I can't give my dog, but my rats can eat chocolate, grapes, cooked bones. They're like fuzzy garbage cans.

>>2239754
Why wouldn't he? Cock is tasty.

>>2239615
Really makes you think....

>Most other animals can only survive and thrive on a very narrow, environment-specific diet.
well that's just not true, at all

>>2239661
No, because there is no such thing as fully evolved.

Think about it dickhead!

>>2239615
humans are a garbage disposal. We eat pretty much fucking anything we can that doesn't kill us (quickly).

>>2239615
>How in the hell are human beings capable of eating so much?
Because we cook our food.

There are tons of things we couldn't eat if we didn't process it and cook it first.

>>2239615
>fully evolved
We never stopped evolving.

File: eucalyptus-leaves-make-koala-bears-high_6816d9eceb8f5043.jpg (61KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x394px

>>2239615
wow buddy, you sound like a certified retard.

anyway, humans are omnivores. google that word. the kill yourself

wait, no, dont do it! first let me tell you, why you are even more wrong: humans cannot process cellulose. cows can. it takes a lot of digestion to do it, but it's possible.
but humans cannot.

now kill yourself. or wait, I changed my mind. there is actually one animal like you described all animals to be, and that is the koala, which is an evolutionary accident that needs to go extinct already.
it can literally only eat one plant, and that plant is particularly unsuitable for eating. they're like the inside jokes of evolution or something, I dunno.

ok, now kys

we've bred everything we eat to suit our own needs, for the most part

our agricultural and culinary knowledge has evolved with our bodies

[x] told, the thread