In graphical form, it goes like this: Lunging at the minority of evidence in the red box doesn't make the contrary position more compelling.The only way to make the contrary position compelling is to present more and better evidence (making the red box bigger), not to pretend that the green box doesn't exist.Those who insist that humans are omnivores, especially if their argument is based on canine teeth, would do well to look at what the evidence actually shows. I first wrote this article many years ago, but since then Milton Mills, M. published an excellent paper which covers the anatomy of eating, so let's skip right to my table-ized summary of his research: The meat-eating reader already has half a dozen objections to this before s/he's even read the rest of the article, and I will address those objections specifically, but first let me address them generally: It's human nature to want to feel that what we're doing is right, proper, and logical.When we're confronted with something that suggests that our long-held belief might actually be wrong, it's uncomfortable.
That really lays their motivations bare: They were never really interested in evaluating the evidence, they were only interested in being right. No, we haven't, and I'll provide evidence for that shortly.
The evidence favoring a plant-based diet for humans is clear, convincing, and overwhelming.
There is definitely some evidence for the other side, to be sure, but it's simply not nearly as strong.
Check out the chimpanzee picture at right, and consider that chimps' diets are up to 99% vegetarian (and what little non-vegetarian food they eat usually isn't meat, it's termites). D., has a good take on this: Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not tearing and masticating flesh.
And remember that we're more similar to chimps than to any other animal. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores.