>>76737540
>implying that primitive man primarily subsisted on plants
I didn't imply anything. I have been very clear, in the same posts you just quoted, in saying that primitive man absolutely subsisted on plants.
>outrighf saying we were too weak and feeble to do much hunting at all
That is correct. And I'm going to loop
>>76737545 into this one since he's on the same tier of retard and I can put you both in your place at the same time. The digestive system of homo sapiens was well established prior to its arrival. Your digestive system is not significantly different from that of the hominids that preceded you. Let's take a look at a few of them, shall we?
I hope we're all well familiar with Australopithecus? Probably not, considering. Australopithecus is generally considered the first point at which we see the genus homo start to emerge, so basically the oldest form of what would eventually become humans.
>In 2025, a study published in Science measured nitrogen isotope ratios in fossilized teeth and determined that Australopithecus was almost entirely vegetarian. Australopithecus species are thought to have eaten mainly fruit, vegetables, and tubers, and perhaps easy-to-catch animals such as small lizards.
Stone tools are roughly 3.4 million years old, while this guy showed up around 4.2 million years ago. So no tools, no hunting, no meat. Make sense?
We can now jump way ahead to homo habilis at around 2.4 million years ago.
>It is thought H. habilis derived meat from scavenging rather than hunting
>Fruit was likely also an important dietary component, indicated by dental erosion consistent with repetitive exposure to acidity.
>it is also suggested that early Homo, in a drying climate with scarcer food options, relied primarily on underground storage organs (such as tubers)
So tools exist, still no complex hunting strategies, no reliable meat source, eating fruit and tubers and whatever they can scavenge. Does this sound familiar
>>76737375?
