"AS a human, we have no teeth to eat meat and no digestive ability, so meat is not a question no matter how it was raised."
Comparisons of physiology are important, but flawed in this case. There is something that is often ignored here - tool usage. Human intelligence, expressed via tools and behavior, allowed humans to easily overcome many of the alleged limits on adaptation that the comparative proofs discuss.
True, humans do not have sharp teeth or claws of a carnivorous animal like a lion, but we compensated with hunting and cooking tools! This is what enabled humans to adapt to and include meat in the diet for millions of years. Evolution itself has adapted our physiologies (GI tract) to the results of this behavior. The evidence of the fossil record is, by and large, clear: Since the inception of the earliest humans (i.e., the genus Homo, approximately 2.5 million years ago), the human diet has included meat. This is well known in paleoanthropological circles. This cannot be ignored.
According to a 1999 article in the journal The Ecologist, several of our physiological features "clearly indicate a design" for eating meat, including "our stomach's production of hydrochloric acid, something not found in herbivores. Furthermore, the human pancreas manufactures a full range of digestive enzymes to handle a wide variety of foods, both animal and vegetable.
Comparative "proofs" focus only on similarities, and ignore differences. They ignore the fossil record and evolution. They ignore the important features that make humans unique in nature.
I recommend reading:
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date:
Are Humans Natural Frugivores/Vegetarians,