Diet categories in comparative proofs are typically narrow. The comparisons made are relatively simplistic, and the thinking process involved is also usually rather narrow: herbivores vs. carnivores vs. humans (and omnivores are sometimes added to the list). In referring to narrow thinking here, we mean that the comparative proofs neatly define their dietary categories in a narrow way, and ignore the fact that in nature, diets are usually not strict (i.e., "pure" diets are rare). The comparison of digestive system features comprises the second major component of many comparative proofs of diet.

Other shortcomings of typical comparative proofs. Needless to say, the comparative proofs suffer from many of the limitations identified in previous sections--subjective list construction, assuming the form/function linkage is strict, ignoring the reality of modern knowledge of ape diets, resolution problem (analysis may be on too gross a level), and so on.

Preview of this section. Instead of listing the numerous claims of Mills and the other proofs, and analyzing them directly for possible shortcomings, this paper takes a different approach. First, we'll review the work of Milton [1987], as it nicely illustrates that the human gut is (nearly) unique--even when compared with the great apes. Then we'll review an excellent series of papers: Chivers and Hladik [1980, 1984], Martin et al. [1985], and MacLarnon et al. [1986], which are the most authoritative analyses of gut morphology done to date. Also, Sussman [1987] and Hladik et al. [1999] are discussed, for they provide additional insight into the major papers on gut morphology. Finally, the different definitions of the term "omnivore" are explored, including how those differences have been exploited in an intellectually dishonest way (in my opinion) by a fruitarian extremist.

Milton [1987, p. 102] notes:

When compared to those of most other mammals, the relative proportions of the human gut are unusual (my calculations, using data from Chivers and Hladik [1980], and Hladik [1967]).

Additionally, Milton [1987] discusses two primates whose gut proportions appear to roughly match those of humans:

• Capuchin monkey (Cebus species) which has a high-quality diet of sweet fruits, oily seeds, and (40-50% by feeding time) animal foods--invertebrates (insects) and small vertebrates [Milton 1987, pp. 102-103].

• The savanna baboon (Papio papio) is a selective feeder who searches for high-quality, nutritious foods. [Caution--remark is based on only one measured specimen for gut proportions.]

Rather, it appears to represent similar adaptive trends in gut morphology in response to diets made up of unusually high-quality dietary items that are capable of being digested and absorbed primarily in the small intestine.

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(Quantitative Analysis of Gut Morphology in Primates and Humans)

Return to beginning of article

SEE REFERENCE LIST

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR:
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 4 PART 5 PART 6 PART 7 PART 8 PART 9

---

GO TO PART 1 - Brief Overview: What is the Relevance of Comparative Anatomical and Physiological "Proofs"?

GO TO PART 2 - Looking at Ape Diets: Myths, Realities, and Rationalizations

GO TO PART 3 - The Fossil-Record Evidence about Human Diet

GO TO PART 4 - Intelligence, Evolution of the Human Brain, and Diet

GO TO PART 5 - Limitations on Comparative Dietary Proofs

GO TO PART 6 - What Comparative Anatomy Does and Doesn't Tell Us about Human Diet

GO TO PART 7 - Insights about Human Nutrition & Digestion from Comparative Physiology

GO TO PART 8 - Further Issues in the Debate over Omnivorous vs. Vegetarian Diets

GO TO PART 9 - Conclusions: The End, or The Beginning of a New Approach to Your Diet?

Back to Research-Based Appraisals of Alternative Diet Lore

Ø