. I'd have to speculate that availability
> was, if not the sole factor, the primary influence in determining
> what prehistoric man consumed to meet their nutritional needs. i.e.
> coastal communities ate various marine animals while landlocked
> groups, game, fowl, eggs, insects, etc.

that is a concept that is hard to understand for peoples who became  used to
have food landing  miraculously in their plates from unknown sources without
effort..
there is more to adaption or selective pressure kind of concepts than just
eating . the quest for food have a primordial regulating effect in what is
eaten .I love shrimps but it is harder for me to get than crabs so i eat way
more crabs etc...
jean-claude

>
> Have not contemporary native (relatively pristine) groups been
> observed to include animal source foods despite living in tropical
> environments abundant with fruit and vegetable sources? If I remember
> correctly, mammals (monkeys, boars) were commonly hunted. And
> freshwater fish consumed when available?
>
> I suspect, and correct me if I'm in left field Stephanie / Arjen,
> that the spine issue has more to do with a vegan inclination to
> towards ethical distinctions, that for me to eat fresh squid (a
> gastropod) or grasshopper (an insect) is somehow less abhorrent than
> eating the heart and brain of Bambi. i.e. consuming "lower" animal
> species is OK but ethics enters the picture when food sources exhibit
> structures resembling human anatomy.
>
> If biochemical adaptions are necessary for humans to consume
> vertebrate flesh, I'd like to hear more about this.
>
> Thanks,
> Jo
> --