Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:48:27 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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]
|
|
|