On Mon, 28 Sep 1998 21:04:48 ADT, Lisa Sporleder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> In the case of the hominid, it appears as if a (almost) fruitarian
>> beeing - the hominid - suddenly got the possibility to access a new
>> food resource - meat.
>
>Amadeus:  How can you call a hominid that eats insects and bugs a
>fruitarian? There is every reason to believe that bugs made up a
>considerable proportion of the early hominid diet.
How much is considerable for you?
As much as chimps eat? 1.5% insects and 2% meat?
I called early hominids
(exactely : our anchestors' line before they learnt to use stone tools)
"almost fruitarian" because every fruitarian p
robably has a
small insect portion in the food.

IMO such small portions of insects in the food will not cause
a severe selection pressure to adapt to any kind of animal food.

So before we end up in a term definition what to call a "fruitarian"
- we can use something else
maybe "fruit and vegetable eaters with 3.5% animal parts".

Term redefinition to omnivore will not increase the insect parts.

> The critters may
>be little, but they are still protein-rich bodies, fauna as opposed
>to flora. Therefore the consumers of such critter needs to be
>thought of as omnivores, right from the start of the species.  Even
>other primates, which you are fond of comparing to our species, get a
>lot of protein and calories from bugs and insects, even if they do
>not eat other meat sources.
If you imply that our own anchestors ate more insects than
let say chimp's anchestors, then t
hat too is pure speculation.
Where are *your* references that there existed a species, which you
could possibly identify as our anchestor, which ate
considerable more insects than todays chimps?

What speaks against it is, that the smaller primates are, the more
insects the include in their diet.
We are among the bigger primates, aren't we?.

If you cite any scientific sources showing that human anchestors before
invention of stone tools ate much more insects or other animal
parts, then I'll be glad to switch my timeline when to assume a bigger
meat consume to an earlier point.

>There is *not* agreement on this list that early hominids were
>fruitarians.  It is only that some of us are getting tired of
>repeating ourselves, so we quit responding when you ignore us.  Do
>not mistake our lack of response for agreement.
The question is, what the scientific evidence is.

If you dis
agree on something I said, I'll be glad to exchange
some facts and arguments with you or anybody, which could lead
one or both of us to new insights in the course of a discussion.

If you simply tell that you or others disagree or believe something
else I can't help it. May it be agree or disagree, it will never show up.

You tell me to be tired repeating something, what did you repeat?

>Lisa

Amadeus