Every single macro or micro nutrient can be found in high concentration in some plant matter... It's a pain, but there's absolutely no scientific reason why you couldn't balance a diet off of plant matter. 

... What concerns the bolded, here - that isn't how evolution works. There, in fact, exists no such thing as "devolution". We stay with whatever form is most optimal. Saying that eating less meat makes it more optimal to have smaller brains really doesn't have any sort of basis. (In the past, it could - since hunting required intelligence. The same can't be said about choosing ground pork on the supermarket aisle.) That is also not how regressive genes work. They don't activate on a diet, they activate if there is no dominant gene, (ususally only happens when inbreeding).

Again, omnivorous doesn't mean that we need a diverse diet. The whole point of being omnivorous, and what has allowed us to prosper so long, all over the globe, is that just about anything will do. As said, most ancient cultures had 90% of the population living almost exclusively off of the most available starch source. That definitely isn't healthy, and there are a number of specific *deficiencies* that were caused from it (scurvy, the most notable), but it still worked out, otherwise - because the human body is extremely adaptable, as said. These people were physical labourers, by the way - if anything, more so than anyone doing the same today. Deficiencies have been studied for a long, long time. You definitely don't slowly starve yourself to death from a vegan diet.

I'll agree that Veganism is more of a hassle than many people are willing to engage in, and does require you to do some linear algebra on your nutritional intake. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, does not have such a restriction, and is generally considered perfectly healthy, without supplements. 

I've actually already debated someone on here that there aren't any inherent medical advantages to veganism, either, haha, so it's fun to defend the other side, for now. The point remains that there ISN'T anything, at all, in meat, that you can't find in higher concentration in some fairly common plant-based food - be it amino-acids, fatty acids, sugars, or any micronutrient of your choice. It requires some linear algebra to get the proportions right, because each *single* plant is further off from what you'd need, but there is absolutely no scientific reason for which a planned diet should in any shape or form have worse results on your health than taking it from meat. Because, again, in the sum, a diet can be planned to have entirely identical nutritional content, after digestion, if the calculations were done correctly.

Anyways, interesting topic. I'm not vegan/vegetarian, btw, haha!

When someone to have a healthy diet on vegan or vegetarian needs to do a lot of planning against a regular meal anyone is already eating you can see that it isn't healthier per se. 

I know how average works. And yes a lot of child died of malnutrition and diseases. Still the most someone lived on average base was 65 not 100.

Well, Veggies and Meat will have fat on them, but sure you can add dairies on this diet... and also yes I put a regular diet for people of today (that mostly are officer workers). But there is no denying that too much meat on your diet isn't health (same with only veggies).

... What concerns the bolded, here - that isn't how evolution works. There, in fact, exists no such thing as "devolution". We stay with whatever form is most optimal. Saying that eating less meat makes it more optimal to have smaller brains really doesn't have any sort of basis. (In the past, it could - since hunting required intelligence. The same can't be said about choosing ground pork on the supermarket aisle.) That is also not how regressive genes work. They don't activate on a diet, they activate if there is no dominant gene, (ususally only happens when inbreeding).

Again, omnivorous doesn't mean that we need a diverse diet. The whole point of being omnivorous, and what has allowed us to prosper so long, all over the globe, is that just about anything will do. As said, most ancient cultures had 90% of the population living almost exclusively off of the most available starch source. That definitely isn't healthy, and there are a number of specific *deficiencies* that were caused from it (scurvy, the most notable), but it still worked out, otherwise - because the human body is extremely adaptable, as said. These people were physical labourers, by the way - if anything, more so than anyone doing the same today. Deficiencies have been studied for a long, long time. You definitely don't slowly starve yourself to death from a vegan diet.

I'll agree that Veganism is more of a hassle than many people are willing to engage in, and does require you to do some linear algebra on your nutritional intake. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, does not have such a restriction, and is generally considered perfectly healthy, without supplements. 

I've actually already debated someone on here that there aren't any inherent medical advantages to veganism, either, haha, so it's fun to defend the other side, for now. The point remains that there ISN'T anything, at all, in meat, that you can't find in higher concentration in some fairly common plant-based food - be it amino-acids, fatty acids, sugars, or any micronutrient of your choice. It requires some linear algebra to get the proportions right, because each *single* plant is further off from what you'd need, but there is absolutely no scientific reason for which a planned diet should in any shape or form have worse results on your health than taking it from meat. Because, again, in the sum, a diet can be planned to have entirely identical nutritional content, after digestion, if the calculations were done correctly.

Anyways, interesting topic. I'm not vegan/vegetarian, btw, haha!

Yes there is devolution in life due to environmental and food sources you may however just call it evolution as it is no different and no, humans would not remain the same if we didn't feed ourselves the varied diet we need nor would we be able to retain our current state. In the same way prehistoric creatures like spiders became much, much smaller due to oxygen we would over many generations change in a more negative way equal to how we have evolved from a varied diet. Ever had to have your appendix out? That's evolution in action in real time with pain to prove it

... What concerns the bolded, here - that isn't how evolution works. There, in fact, exists no such thing as "devolution". We stay with whatever form is most optimal. Saying that eating less meat makes it more optimal to have smaller brains really doesn't have any sort of basis. (In the past, it could - since hunting required intelligence. The same can't be said about choosing ground pork on the supermarket aisle.) That is also not how regressive genes work. They don't activate on a diet, they activate if there is no dominant gene, (ususally only happens when inbreeding).

Again, omnivorous doesn't mean that we need a diverse diet. The whole point of being omnivorous, and what has allowed us to prosper so long, all over the globe, is that just about anything will do. As said, most ancient cultures had 90% of the population living almost exclusively off of the most available starch source. That definitely isn't healthy, and there are a number of specific *deficiencies* that were caused from it (scurvy, the most notable), but it still worked out, otherwise - because the human body is extremely adaptable, as said. These people were physical labourers, by the way - if anything, more so than anyone doing the same today. Deficiencies have been studied for a long, long time. You definitely don't slowly starve yourself to death from a vegan diet.

I'll agree that Veganism is more of a hassle than many people are willing to engage in, and does require you to do some linear algebra on your nutritional intake. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, does not have such a restriction, and is generally considered perfectly healthy, without supplements. 

I've actually already debated someone on here that there aren't any inherent medical advantages to veganism, either, haha, so it's fun to defend the other side, for now. The point remains that there ISN'T anything, at all, in meat, that you can't find in higher concentration in some fairly common plant-based food - be it amino-acids, fatty acids, sugars, or any micronutrient of your choice. It requires some linear algebra to get the proportions right, because each *single* plant is further off from what you'd need, but there is absolutely no scientific reason for which a planned diet should in any shape or form have worse results on your health than taking it from meat. Because, again, in the sum, a diet can be planned to have entirely identical nutritional content, after digestion, if the calculations were done correctly.

Anyways, interesting topic. I'm not vegan/vegetarian, btw, haha!

For the example of spiders, there's a rather obvious relation. Spider's don't have lungs, and aren't able to distribute  oxygen throughout their bodies correctly, if there isn't sufficient oxygen. They die, if they're too big. So, smaller spiders survive. Simple as that.

Humans don't die, don't become infertile, etc... when they have a vegan diet, and a smaller brain certainly doesn't compensate for that in any way. The evolutionary drive just isn't there. 

Some proteins/fats/minerals/vitamins are really hard to find in "plant matter" though.

Who is fitting the bill here? Do you want to pay? Do you want to personally manage the diet of people who barely have enough time to fart let alone keep their energy levels up and their body in top shape. If you think a vegan diet doesn't take significant time and can't be adopted by the VAST majority of people for time, health and managing their health without without getting sick because of it then you're kidding yourself. I've seen people go Vegan, have to devote more time and money to thier diet every passing week and still end up looking like they were on drugs, both a man and two women. None could keep it up and all had to return to either meat or fish and diary products and look a damn sight better for it. 

There is a reason you only see vloggers and celebrity vegans or rich kids who look healthy and are living on a Vegan diet with little health effects. Time and money and even with some people that still isn't enough, thier bodies reject Veganism the same as it would if they ate straight meat. Why is it so hard for people to just accept we are omnivorous and we have inherited the world and our higher level of intelligence because of a diverse diet of meat, fruit and veg.

Even if everyone in the world went vegan and we managed to straighten out the ill effects, which isn't posdible as you say it is unless you're a time traveller, it would be screwing future generations out of forward evolution and at the very least cause mental illness, regressive gene traits and as I said cause a quick devolution for the human race. 

Respect the animals that die to keep your health and mind up to the pinnacle it can be, don't waste either and make the most of what you're given. No need to slowly starve yourself or make life difficult, just source your meat. Become a free range farmer. Anything but a vegan mess of mood swings and violences in the hope to make the world a better place yet spreading nothing but a volatile in the short term. 

...as you can tell, this is a subject close to my heart. Lmao.