Ward:
>microscope studies show that australopithecus (roughly 2.5 to
> 3.7 millionyears ago) and homo habilis (dating to roughly 2 million
> y.a.) were largely frugivorous, but they also show that they ate some meat.

And I would add that this is precisely the same with modern chimps
(who eat about 2/3rds fruit), so it looks like diet has not changed
all that much & there has been a remarkable consistency in homonid
diet for a long time.  This would not have been the case unless
there were strong arguments in favor of this evolutionarily, & the
question needs to be answered just what is it in RAF that is
beneficial?  Is it simply an adaptation designed to grant survival
during times when plant foods were scarce, or is it also designed to
provide specific nutrients?  Are we having trouble answering these
questions because there are one or more undiscovered nutrients?
These questions are reminiscent of the sorts of things being asked
back in the years prior to the discovery of the vitamins.

But I suspect that this is probably not true, & what all this is
designed for is to insure the intake of essential minerals and/or
fats.  It may be that both are more concentrated in animal than in
plant foods, & certainly there is a possibility of mineral
deficiencies in any local soil.  By eating animals there is a
greater chance of taking in minerals picked up by animals
(especially fish or birds & their eggs) which had traveled into a
region from afar, even if they are several animals removed from the
final animal you eat.  This meshes well with Weston Price's work, in
which he pointed out how some inland peoples went to great efforts
to insure they had a little seafood to insure sufficient minerals.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]