Wild boar: TB / Parasites no threat?
"Wade H. Reeser" wrote on:
>Humans are able only since the inventions of long range and strong
>weapons to kill-and-eat big animals.
>How would a gorilla or a australopithecus afarensis catch and kill
>a gnu or a gazelle?
Wade:
>I challenge this. First, humans dont need long range or strong weapons
>to kill big animals. From the journals of Lewis and Clark, indians of
the
>plains would kill large herds of buffalo by chasing them off cliffs.
Also
>pits were used.
There are pits cliffs, traps and such tricks, which humans can use
instead of huge teeth or sharp claws, to kill animals.
Where is the big african cliff, where all the gnu's zebras
were chesed down and where all the remainders of zebras as well as
humaniod artefacts are concentrated nearby?
Such things don't show up in the fossil record, to my knowledge.
>Also, this doesnt account for carrion. Some 'experts'
>believe that humans were largely scavangers.
Carrion is a diffrent thing, I would want to acknowledge as a
true and easy meat (or even better: brain) source.
In fact cooking alters meat similar than rotting does (becomeing tender)
Then there is the experiment of the two guys trying to find
the leftovers of lion's meals in africa.
It was reported that they found pretty much of it.
What speaks against is, that for humans the botulinus-toxin
(from food decaying anerob) is absolutely deadly, wheareas
cats (real born predators) can stand a lot of it.
Lions prey decay had to be aerob and humanoids quit to survive it.
>And comparing humans to gorillas or australopithicus makes about as much
>sense as using them as exaples for why we shouldnt drive cars...
D'accord. But if we try to trace back the lifestyle of our
true anchestors over millions of years, then we reach evolution
traces ranging back to austalopethines and older primates.
If we would to consider only the last few 7000 years then
we have (as european-stemming) a overwhelming cereal eating society,
or, up to 30000 years the ice age hunting time.
We could try to look back much further to get insights on adaptions
which might take longer times.
>>Before 2 mio years ago, primates evolved as fuit eaters (some insects
>>included) for about 300*hundred-thousand years.
>>Humans don't have such a strong stomach acidity as "real"
>>predators (as big cats for example), which could kill off parasites
>>and infections (from the food).
>i challenge this also. It is my understanding from physiology textbooks
>that the stomache acidity in humans is about 2 pH. This is about as
>acid as any stomache gets. Less acidity in humans is condsidered
diseased.
>This is the same as carnivores.
I tried to look up the reference for stomach acidity and didn't manage
yet. I'll come back with it as soon as i have it.
pH 2 is indeed *very* low.
The question is for how much food (1 pound meat??) the stomach was able
to establish such a low stomach acidity. Hydrochloridic acid is a strong
acid, but how "buffered" is the human solution, how much acid ions?
Other digestion details do point out the differences to
real adapted predators. E.g. to stand botulinus toxin.
>Why do you think smaller animals are less of a threat? They certainly
>get parisites. Rather than what you expect or feel is true, is there
>_any_ evidence for this supposition?
The older any animal gets, the greater are its chances to aquire
infectious diseases over the time. Some stay for a longer time.
Especially parasites "try" not to kill, but to stay living inside
their host, weakening it, multiplying and spreading in it.
A one year old rabbit has less chances to get a tapeworm than a
10 year old buffalo.
I consider the argumention of the author of naturalhub
agreeable that for a long time small animals were easier to catch as big
Thinking evolutionary, makes less time with less exposition to
big animals' remainders.
> Wade Reeser whr1–psu.edu
Jean Claude wrote:
>The Url http://www.medscape.com/14726.rhtml that Kathryn presented to us
2
>days ago is talking about pathogens infecting sprouts. It is not only the
>big mammals but every, plants and animals who carry pathogens.
Thanks for Kathryin's sprout info and sorry for a posting without
headline from me. Attempting sprouting means to be carefull of that
(often change water). Dangers are reported from lage scale industrial
sprouters.
>But yes,
>be , more the being used as food is far remove from us less they have
chance
>to carry the same pathogens than us.
Most are mammals as we are. With similar imune systems and diseases.
>easy for a primate to come after the lion share of a kill . Almost all
>instinctive eaters prefer the meat quite aged indicating that scavenging
>dead carcasses have been there longer for us than relying on fresh kill
that
>like you mentionned necessitate somme tools or techniques of hunting.
Like stated above, the carrion issure i have to acklowledge.
Somehow i just considered the carrion too disgusting as to argue on.
I know this POV is biased.
Humans probably ate *anything* edible and many items a true h/g man
would accept, i won't.
>A 40 year old modern human bone might look like a 100 year
old
>bone from an ancestor. Who knows?
Yes, who knows. If a low percentage of huomanoids were killed or
weakened by rotten/infected meat at the age of 30 or 40, who would ever
know. But we try to have 100%best changes, even after age of 40
(I'm 40 *g*).
>..... The fact that pathogens are present in "infectous disease" doesn't
>mean they are responsible for it.
True, and a healthy body may cope with a*any* attacks.
To which our genetic determined imune systems enables us.
Which are it? Clostridium botilinus definitely not.
What some told about previously getting (very) ill from having eaten
a fish or meat may account to other dangers.
regards
Amadeus S.
--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net
|
