I’m sorry I came off as passive aggressive. I genuinely just enjoy debate about different topics and was grateful that you were willing to prompt some discussion. But I can see how my comment reads that way.

The areas you’re thinking of are very different than what I’m looking at. The type of education I have basically requires that you find a study for the arguments you’d like to make, but I admit I am less well-versed in the areas such as archaeology, history, medicine, etc. that you mentioned. I am more familiar with psychology and literature based on theory. If you have any resources you’d recommend, I’d love to look into them.

And no, I am not looking for evidence that is equivalent to cats being carnivores. From what I’ve read, humans can survive, and in some cases thrive, on lots of different diets. So with our diets I’m relatively open to different ideas.

I think our view of semantic choices differs. For example, you used the term “designed to” in a previous comment, which to me could mean “meant to” in this context. But it sounds like you lean more toward feeling like “meant to” refers to something other than natural selection and evolution (such as god). For me, “meant to” could mean that we were “designed to” be bipedal because of the way our bodies evolved. However, I see the point you are making with language choices.

I would love it if you went on. I genuinely meant no harm with my language, and I am thankful for your willingness to share.

I don’t know that that’s necessarily true. Take nutrition for example. You can find a study to back almost every diet out there. Veganism? There’s a study to support that. Carnivore diet? There’s a study that supports that too.

The difficult part about determining what we were “naturally” meant to do is that we have a hard time finding the line between nurture and nature when studying complex human behaviors. Humans live diverse lifestyles which could point to a natural adaptability, but could also suggest that our vast population and rich cultural differences just socialize us to behave in certain ways. What part of our behavior is created and what is “natural”?

So although we may have people dedicating their lives to studying this topic and all of its niches, is there a unanimous opinion? I believe, for the most part, no. Do you feel differently?

I disagree that the language of “meant to” suggests divine intervention. Big cats, for example, are meant to eat and hunt meat. That is what their body is designed to do. That does not point to a god, in my opinion, but to evolution.

Thanks for sharing.