Amadeus --

My understanding of how evolution works, is that bottlenecks, coupled
with an extreme environment (an environment very different than the
environment that was before), can bring about very, very rapid changes
in the gene pool of an organism.  The idea is that, if an environment is
so different than the previous one, that most of the population of the
organism dies, and only a few are left (those presumably who were best
suited to the new environment), then the new gene pool is determined
only by those who survived (of course) no matter how different they were
than the previous population.  If the ice age were such a pressure, then
the changes could have been profound, and rapid.

Erik Hill

Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
>
> Michael Audette wrote:
>
> >Alot of genetic changes and adaptations have happened in 7000000 years or
> >when ever. It would be illogical to think we could survive on the diet of
>
> >our ancestors from that time.
> >We are no longer the same animal as then.
> If you mention genetic changes then please don't forget, that
> despite  7mio years of seperation humans genes have been found to
> be very close to gorillas' and even more chimps'.
> They are not close to cats genes.
> So it might make more senes to mimic
> the diet of a chimp than the diet of a cat.
>
> I think its not at all "illogical" that "we could survive
> on the diet of our anchestor from" the time 7mio years away.
>
> If the diet of later times was similar to the diet before nothing speaks
> against it - but everything speaks for keeping old diets.
>
> >the
> >diet we want to mimic is that which humans ate just before the present
>
> >Neolithic.
>
> Neolithicum was the last 10000 years,
> Cro Magnon Ice age was the 20000 years before.
> What makes you think, that the *last* 10000 years were less important
> than the 20000 years before? Should the last 400 generations have had
> less influence than the 800 generations before that?
>
> Trying to understand the principles, i think we need to look back further
> the 80000 generations of savanne africa
> and the 1.5 million generations before that (frugivore/herbivore time).
> Isn't the length of the ages *the* main paleolithic argument?
>
> I know as brother of the "neander"-thin author you have to
> defend the theory that the neander-thal human branch had
> *any* genetic influence on *us* (before they died off).
> But however - even this doesn't lengthen the time of known
> heavy meat consumation much, compared to the african origins.
>
> Its better to think of what whas the best food for true humans
> to proliferate in south africa. IMO.
>
> regards
> Amadeus S.
>
> --
> Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net