On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:11:46 -0500, william <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Robert Kesterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:01:08 -0500, william <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>>  This should not be a popularity contest. A diet should be what
>>> people ate, not what someone claimed that they ate.
>>  That's all we have for paleolithic -- there are no survivors or  
>> eyewitnesses, so all we have is a best guess based on secondary
>> evidence.
>>
>
> IIRC analysis of bones showed that paleoman ate meat. Is this just a  
> rumour?

I have a fair amount of confidence in science.  But I'm not confident that  
you can take a hundred thousand year old bone and tell me definitively  
that the owner never ate a strawberry.  So, as you noted, it's "what  
someone claimed they ate".  The claimant may be a scientist, but there is  
still quite a bit of educated guessing going on.

>>> The  assumption seems to be that paleolithic man was as stupid as  
>>> neolithic.
>>  I see no reason to believe otherwise.  If our bodies haven't had time
>> to adapt to the post-paleo world, then neither have our brains.
>
> Oh but they did adapt; they shrank.

So which is it?  Did we have time to adapt (evolve), or didn't we?

--
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]