On Wed, 30 May 2007 06:18:54 -0400, Geoffrey Purcell
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It's true that bulls have been part of human mythology from the
> Palaeolithic onwards - mostly as a symbol of fertility etc.. However,
> Palaeolithic cave-paintings clearly show the giant aurochs(prehistoric
> cattle) being hunted, rather than milked, so it's clear that
> Palaeolithic hunters never domesticated animals. However, there does
> seem to be some small evidence for the domestication of animals in the
> Mesolithic-era, prior to the Neolithic-Age. Even that doesn't
> necessarily indicate that consumption of raw-dairy occurred at that time.
Easier to get meat from a herd than a wild animal - let us not
underestimate the laziness (efficiency) of paleoman.
The cave drawings of the hunt may have been warning stories of what
happens to the stupid.
Also, interestingly, , a recent scientific study re DNA suggests
> that widespread lactose-tolerance occurred at a rather more recent date
> than the 9,000 years, previously quoted. Here's a couple of standard
> articles re this:-
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6397001.stm
>
> http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/02/26/7232
>
> The scientists behind the study claim, elsewhere, that widespread
> lactose-tolerance in the European population only appeared c. 5,000
> years ago or so, c. 2,500 years after cattle-herding was introduced into
> Europe in a big way.
Yes, it could have taken man that long to get stupid enough to drink milk.
>
> As for Darwin's theory of natural selection, I would say that there is
> rather too much evidence backing it, for it to be discounted.
Evidence seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'll
> admit, though, that there are a number of other theories, within the
> whole field of evolution, such as Gould's laughable claims re
> "punctuated equilibrium", which are definitely shot full of holes.
>
I haven't read Gould's idea - url, please?
Still, the theory of devolution makes more sense than anything currently
fashionable.
William
|
