Just a couple comments:

Don wrote:

"1.  Humans are not really fit for grassland life because they sweat
profusely in high heat, and require abundant water supplies as a result--but
the grasslands are dry in the summer, the time of the year that manıs need
for water would be greatest.  Human sweat glands makes sense only if man
evolved in a water-rich environment--such as at the land-water interface."

Horses sweat profusely too.

"5.  Humans are the only primates capable of producing tears, a
characteristic that is found in marine birds, crocodiles, and sea snakes."

Dogs, cats, cattle and horses (to name a few) all produce tears.

"7.  Humans are the only land animal that is not an obligatory nose
breather, due to the fact that the larynx is connected to both the mouth and
the nose; this adaptation also makes speech possible."

Haven't you ever seen a dog pant?

"8.  ...Human infants can swim spontaneously, with no instruction, at birth
(and before six months of age)."

Most puppies can swim also.

Just some thoughts,

Hank
>From: matesz <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [P-F] Brains and fish
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:26:58 -0400
>
>---
>Don Matesz <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
>
> >Neanderthals had limited capabilities over 10thousands of years
> >although - as long time ice age hunters - they should have had the
> >very best access to the one (and only?) stuff that is used
> >to build up brains (DHA and other w-3 fats).
>
>No, they did not have "the very best access" to DHA.  Only animals in the
>marine food
>chain have the very best access to DHA, but Neanderthals did not eat fish!
>
> >After that wild game is rather low in fat (mammouth too?) it is rather
>probable that they
>*did* eat the fatty brain of the prey. And one brain should countain *all*
>what's
>necessary to build up  one brain, isn't it so?.>
>
>No, land herbivores' brains do not have "all" the DHA required.  Land
>herbivores have
>rather small
>brains which naturally contain only small amounts of DHA.  For example a
>hippo's brain is
>only .59  kg, an ox brain is only .45 kg, gorilla .40 kg, chimpanzee only
>.34 kg.
>Compared to man, 1.5 kg and dophin 1.6 kg.  One man's brain is 3 times the
>size of a
>gorilla's, and nearly 5 times the size of a chimpanzee's, over twice the
>size of a hippo's
>brain.  The remarkable thing is the close absolute and relative size of
>human and dolphin
>brains.    The human brain is 2 per cent of body weight, the dophin is 1
>percent.
>
>Further, its not like you build a brain in the first two years of life and
>then you're all
>done with it and no longer need any EFAs.  The brain is in need of a
>continuous supply of
>DHA throughout life.    If you don't replenish the brain with EFAs on an
>ongoing basis,
>throughout life, the nervous system degenerates at an unnecessarily rapid
>rate.    This
>may result in various adult onset neurological/behavioral disorders, as is
>well discussed
>in The Omega Plan by Artemis Simopolous M.D.
> >
> >What you say, would imply that DHA was especially important for forebrain
>development.
>
>Maybe--to produce a forebrain may require more DHA input--and other input
>not available on
>the savannah.  Here I don't think anyone has enough knowledge to say yes or
>no.
>
>We must remember that in order for the forebrain to develop, the skull must
>develop in
>concert to contain it.  A Neanderthal type skull can't accomodate a modern
>human brain.
>Since man does not differ from Neanderthal only in brain development but
>also in skull
>shape, there have to be reasons for development of both differences at the
>same time
>because a forebrain can't develop without a forehead.   Further, that
>forebrain would be
>useless unless at the same time there is development of the advanced
>peripheral nervous
>system, and changes in the vascualr system to support the peripheral
>nerves, and changes
>in glandular function and biochemistry to support all of it.  Personally I
>think that this
>kind of problem (need for simultaneous development of numerous new
>biochemical,
>physiological and anatomical characteristics in the transition from one
>species to
>another) presents great, if not insurmountable problems for a theory of
>evolution by
>natural selection.
>
> >Access to coastal fish and mussels may indeed be an important
> >difference I have heard about iodide (not DHA) lack
> >as a main problem for good ol' neanderthals.
> >
> >Later,in europe two big different cultures emerged (with agrigulture)
> >megalith and linearband -- the latter without access to coast products.
> >But no difference in brain size or shape is reported.
>
>Was there trading?  Most likely so--the inland people trade for fish and
>sea weeds all
>over the world.  In fact it was essential for access to iodine (important
>for preventing
>cretinism) and DHA.    Although there may be no difference in brain size or
>shape, there
>may be difference in EFA contents of brain tissue and consequent
>differences in
>intelligence or neurological health.  It is well known that coastal people
>with high EFA
>intakes have lower
>rates of neurological diseases such as depression and MS compared to inland
>dwellers.  In
>land foods just aren't rich enough in the required EFAs.
> >
> >I wouldn't want to reject that aquatic theory although it doesn't
> >seem to be much discussed among scientists.
> >Coastal fish aren't the ones wtich are particularly rich in DHA
> >-- and deep water fish we can't consider.
>
>Why can't we consider deep water fish? Salmon aren't coastal fish, they are
>"deep water
>fish" but they come to the coast regularly.  It is the same for other
>species not only of
>fish but of sea mammals carrying blubber rich in EFAs.
>
> >Please mention what rejects savannah origin in your opinion
> >(the 8 points).
>
>First of all this is not my opinion alone, you seem to have missed that I
>was quoting Dr.
>Michael Crawford, who is one of the world's leading reserachers in brain
>biochemistry and
>EFAs.  Dr. Crawford rejects the idea of a savannah origin.  The idea that
>man originated
>at the land-water interface, not on the grasslands, is supported by a set
>of features of
>human anatomy, physiology, and behavior, some I learned from Dr. Crawford,
>some elsewhere:
>
>1.  Humans are not really fit for grassland life because they sweat
>profusely in high
>heat, and require abundant water supplies as a result--but the grasslands
>are dry in the
>summer, the time of the year that manıs need for water would be greatest.
>Human sweat
>glands makes sense only if man evolved in a water-rich environment--such as
>at the
>land-water interface.
>2.  Humans have lost most body hair--a trait shared with some aquatic
>mammals, whereas all
>grasland animals are covered with hair.
>3. At birth, man has an abundance of ³baby fat², and as an adult, man has
>subcutaneous
>fat; this kind of fat is found in sea mammals but not in other primates nor
>grassland
>animals in general.
>4.  The human nose is shaped in such a fashion that salt water is prevented
>from entering
>during swimming and diving, unlike the noses of the vast majority of other
>land animals
>and priamtes.
>5.  Humans are the only primates capable of producing tears, a
>characteristic that is
>found in marine birds, crocodiles, and sea snakes.
>6.  Compared to other grassland animals, humans have an inferior sense of
>smell--but on
>the grassland, a sense of smell is important.
>7.  Humans are the only land animal that is not an obligatory nose
>breather, due to the
>fact that the larynx is connected to both the mouth and the nose; this
>adaptation also
>makes speech possible.
>8.  Like other semi-aquatic animals, but unlike obligatory land animals,
>humans have a
>natural diving reflex (the heart rate declines as soon as the head is
>submerged) and a
>remarkable ability to swim, unlike grassland animals.  Human infants can
>swim
>spontaneously, with no instruction, at birth (and before six months of
>age).  Adult humans
>are capable of diving to a depth of 150 feet, and of swimming long
>distances, such as
>accross the English Channel,  without any equipment.
>9.  Examination of drowned humans finds that the amount of water aspired is
>small, due to
>the fact that humans have a reflex spasm of the larynx--a reflex not foudn
>in strictly
>land-based species.
>10.  Humans on land have a susceptibilty to degnerative joint diseases that
>may indicate
>maladaptation to land-only life.
>11. Humans love to be by water:  They like to live and vacation by bodies
>of water, they
>build pools and fountains in their yards and even in their homes, they go
>to great
>expenses to have hot tubs, jacuzzis, and other pools of water at hand.
>
>All of these points indicate that man is not really designed for a life of
>hunting and
>gathering in the arid grasslands, and may have originated at the land-water
>interface.
>
>Don

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com