Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

I think we humans are facultative hypercarnivores in our nature and biology

You're confusing our *capacity* with our *nature*. Humans are fundamentally omnivores, and our biology screams it. We have flat molars for grinding plants, a long digestive tract suited for mixed diets, and we synthesize vitamin C—carnivores don't need to. Our ancestors thrived on whatever they could find: berries, roots, insects, occasional meat. We survived *because* we weren't picky, not because we're secretly obligate carnivores hiding in omnivore clothing. Every population that survived on pure meat alone faced scurvy and malnutrition without plant foods. The Inuit weren't choosing carnivory—they were adapting to barren landscapes. Call us adaptable. Call us opportunistic. But "facultative hypercarnivore" is just pseudo-scientific window dressing on a basic fact: humans need plants to thrive.

The digestive tract ratio is 6:1 close to a wolf and our stomach acid speaks for it too every animal disregarding some frugivores synthesize vitamin c and if ur eating 70% or more of you diet is meat ur probably in ketosis where the glut 4 transporter doesnt compete with glucose and vitamin c gets stored and falutative hypercarniopres can eat berries but why would they it is indicated that we homosapiens ate around 70% or more of our caloreis came from meat over 90% of our existance meat has every nutrients u really need

You're cherry-picking anatomy and ignoring the full picture. That 6:1 ratio claim is disputed—actual measurements show humans closer to 10-12:1, firmly omnivore territory. Wolves have pH 1-2 stomach acid; ours sits at pH 3-4. Different beast entirely. And your "70% meat for 90% of existence" is pure speculation. Archaeological evidence shows our ancestors ate whatever was abundant—nuts, seeds, roots dominated many regions. The ketosis argument proves my point: you need *artificial* metabolic conditions to function on pure meat. Real humans in real history ate plants constantly, not as an afterthought. Inuit populations without plant access developed severe deficiencies. You're describing adaptation, not design. We're omnivores who *can* survive on meat, not carnivores pretending to eat salad.

our ph sits at around 1 to 3 not 3-4 it is in carnivorre territory it is pretty much consens that we ate hypercanivourus during ice age which was pretty long and nuts seed roots werent very tasty or nutritious i said faultative ketosis is not atifical metabolic conditions u can still eat seeds it seems like u dont know what facultative mean but alright ketsosi s good for the brain and autophagy Inuit population dont have plants they still have perfect healthy for theyre enviroment just like the inuit

You're moving the goalposts faster than I can track. First, stomach pH 1-3 includes both carnivores *and* omnivores—it's not a carnivore-only trait. Second, "consensus" on ice age hypercarnivory? That's wishful thinking. Actual anthropologists debate this heavily; we have zero fossils proving 70% meat diets. Third, nuts and roots *were* nutritious—our jaws evolved to crack them open. Finally, facultative means *optional*, which proves my case: we *facultatively* eat meat when available, not that we're designed for it. Inuit health is irrelevant—they adapted to scarcity, not proof of our "true nature." You're describing survival, not biology. Show me one population thriving on pure meat without supplementation.

Our stomach acidity is actually lower (more acidic) than that of classic omnivores and many generalist carnivores, putting us closer to scavengers. In biology, maintaining this intense level of acidity requires an enormous amount of metabolic energy. It didn't evolve for digestion alone; its primary function is an ecological filter to kill foodborne pathogens. This strongly suggests that during our evolutionary history—particularly the Homo erectus transition—our ancestors were regularly consuming meat that had been sitting out, requiring a severe chemical shield against bacteria. 2. The Ice Age Hypercarnivory Debate & Isotopes You mentioned there are "zero fossils proving 70% meat diets." While we don't have a preserved stomach contents menu, we do have something nearly as precise: Stable Isotope Analysis of fossilized bone collagen and tooth enamel. When scientists measure the ratio of Nitrogen-15 (δ15N) in Pleistocene hominin remains (like Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens), the chemical signatures consistently place them at the very top of the local food web. The Trophic Scale: In a given ecosystem, nitrogen levels jump predictably with each step up the food chain. In numerous European and Eurasian sites, the δ15N values of hominins match—and sometimes exceed—co-existing hypercarnivores like wolves, hyenas, and lions. While anthropologists heavily debate whether this reflects a true 70% volumetric meat diet across all global populations, the chemical reality shows that for large stretches of our evolutionary timeline, animal protein was not an occasional snack—it was the primary trophic driver. 3. Jaws, Roots, and the Tool Revolution Your point about our jaws evolving to crack open nuts and roots is spot on for our early ancestors like Australopithecus. They had massive molars and heavy jaws built for heavy chewing (often called the "Nutcracker man" morphology). However, the genus Homo represents a radical departure from this layout. Over the last two million years, our jaws shrank, our teeth grew smaller, and our masticatory (chewing) muscles weakened. We didn't adapt to hard plant foods by growing stronger jaws; we outsourced that job to stone tools and fire. By processing food before it ever touched our mouths, we paved the way for a highly efficient, shorter digestive tract optimized for dense, easily absorbed nutrients (like cooked starches, fats, and meat) rather than high-fiber plant matter. 4. "Facultative" vs. Thriving on Pure Meat This is where the semantics get tricky, and your definition of "facultative" as optional is biologically accurate. A facultative carnivore can subsist entirely on plants if necessary, but is physically optimized to utilize animal tissues when available. As for populations thriving on pure meat without supplementation, you mentioned the Inuit. While they are a classic example of survival in an extreme climate, their physiology adapted beautifully. They didn't just "survive"; they maintained excellent cardiovascular health on a traditional diet of marine mammals and fish. They bypassed scurvy because raw whale skin (muktuk) is exceptionally rich in Vitamin C, and their livers adapted to handle massive protein loads without entering "rabbit starvation" (protein poisoning). Similarly, the traditional Maasai pastoralists historically lived almost exclusively on meat, milk, and blood, showing remarkable metabolic health until Western processed foods were introduced.

You've done your homework, but you're still conflating survival with design. Yes, isotope data shows meat was *important*—nobody disputes that. But δ15N signatures measure *relative* consumption, not absolute percentages. A diet of 60% meat still registers as "top predator" chemically. Your jaw argument actually undermines you: we *shrank* our jaws because we could process *anything* with tools and fire, not because we became carnivores. The Inuit thrived despite meat-only diets, not because of them—they're metabolic outliers with specific genetic adaptations, not proof of universal human carnivory. Maasai added milk and blood, not pure meat. You're describing what we *can* do under extreme conditions, not what we're built for. Facultative means flexible. That's the opposite of your argument.

Let’s drop the concession glove and go for the throat on this logic. The argument that "facultative means flexible, which is the opposite of carnivore design" sounds elegant, but it completely misunderstands how evolutionary zoology classifies animals. In biology, a facultative carnivore is not a generic omnivore. It is a predator that is anatomically and physiologically engineered to run on animal tissue as its primary, optimal fuel source, but possesses backup equipment to survive on plants when the hunt fails. Think of a wolf, a coyote, or a grizzly bear. When meat is scarce, they eat berries, roots, and grasses so they don't starve. That plant-eating is their survival mechanism. But when the environment allows it, they hunt. Humans fit this exact metabolic profile. Let's dismantle your points one by one. 1. The Gut Anatomy: We Traded Our Fermentation Vats If humans were "built" for flexibility and plant consumption, our digestive tracts would reflect it. They don't. When we look at a true primate omnivore (like a chimpanzee or orangutan), their digestive system is dominated by a massive colon (large intestine). This is a giant fermentation vat designed to hold kilograms of fibrous plant matter for hours, breaking it down into short-chain fatty acids. Humans are the exact opposite. We swapped a large colon for an elongated small intestine. The Small Intestine is where dense, high-quality nutrients like animal protein and lipids (fats) are rapidly absorbed. Our Colon is shrunk by over 60% compared to what is expected for a primate of our size. We literally lack the biological machinery required to live optimally off raw, high-fiber wild plants. We have the gut proportions of a carnivore, optimized for high-absorbency, nutrient-dense foods. 2. The Brain-Fat Connection (The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis) You cannot talk about human "design" without looking at our most metabolically expensive organ: the brain, which consumes roughly 20% of our daily basal energy. From an evolutionary standpoint, you cannot fuel a massive, ballooning brain like Homo erectus did on wild roots and nuts. Wild tubers are incredibly fibrous, low in calories, and seasonal. To get the massive influx of lipids, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and arachidonic acid required to build and run a human brain, our ancestors had to hit a minimum threshold of animal fat and protein. The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis proves that our brains could only grow because our fiber-digesting guts shrank—a trade-off that is only biologically stable if meat consumption is locked in as a primary, non-negotiable staple, not an optional luxury. 3. The "Amylase" Myth is a Recent Genetic Patch The go-to argument for humans being built for carbohydrate flexibility is that we have salivary amylase (the AMY1 gene) to digest starches in our mouths. But genetic sequencing has completely shattered this timeline: The Reality: Neanderthals and Denisovans had very few copies of the AMY1 gene. The Timing: Massive duplication of the AMY1 gene in modern humans is highly correlated with agricultural expansions very late in our history (the last 10,000 to 40,000 years). Amylase duplication isn't our ancient foundational design; it is a late-game genetic band-aid. It’s evidence of our bodies desperately trying to adapt to the sudden loss of Pleistocene megafauna (big game) and the forced transition to agriculture. For 95% of the genus Homo's existence, starch-digesting enzymes were a minor background player. 4. Metabolic Lock-In: Biological Dependencies A true, built-from-the-ground-up omnivore (like a bear or a pig) can easily synthesize or extract everything it needs from plants. Humans cannot. We have severe, hard-wired biological dependencies that scream carnivore ancestry: Vitamin B12: This is a non-negotiable nutrient for human brain function and red blood cell production. It is fundamentally unavailable in the plant kingdom. A line of hominins cannot "flexibly" wander away from animal products for generations without facing literal neurological extinction. Iron Bioavailability: We absorb heme iron (found only in meat) at a rate of 15–35%, while non-heme iron (from plants) is absorbed at a miserable 2–20%, and is heavily blocked by phytates in those same plants. Conversion Dead-Ends: True omnivores easily convert plant-based Alpha-Linolenic Acid (ALA) into the vital brain fats EPA and DHA. Humans are notoriously terrible at this, converting less than 5–10% of it. We are designed to ingest our DHA pre-formed from animal tissue.

You're building a cathedral on a foundation of cherry-picked data. Yes, our guts are optimized for nutrient density—but that's because we cook and process food, not because we're carnivores. Fire changed everything. Cooked plants are as digestible as meat. Your B12 argument proves too much: we also need iodine, which wild game lacks unless it ate seaweed. Humans solved this with fermented foods and organ meats, not pure carnivory. The AMY1 gene expansion isn't a "band-aid"—it's us adapting to new food sources, which is exactly what facultative means. Your expensive tissue hypothesis actually supports omnivory: we got smart *because* we ate everything available, not despite it. Flexibility won us the planet, not specialization.