Amadeus, one can always find evidence to support their position and
ignore
evidence that does not. In Protein Power Life Plan, there is a chapter
on
the excavations at Boxgrove, England and Atapuerca, Spain which
provides
strong evidence that homo errectus was an extremely skilled hunter as
far
back as 500,000 years ago.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Amadeus Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [P-F] Lucy seen


On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:43:20 -0400, Mark Labbee <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>I am .. saying Lucy ... just that the diet she ate isn't relevant to
>hominids
>further down on the evolutionary timeline such as homo errectus which
>definitely did hunt game animals and does have relevancy to homo sapiens
>sapiens.

Lucy is an australopithecus which is (probable) in our line of
anchestry,
away about 3.2 mio years or 160,000 generations.
Homo erectus -at least the earlier versions- probable too anchestral,
away about 1.9 mio years or 100,000 generations.
Anatomical modern humans -like the present variety of humans today-
are found since 0.12 mio years and the 6000 generations didn't make
much of a difference.

Like genetics are, each following generation has to rely on the genome
of its predecessor.
It is very unlikely that mutations result in improvements.
But due to the mechanism of sexuality improvements in the developement
of
subtypes are much quicker. Selection of the fittest in a given
environment
is done by the partners. And, much more important, a child is always a
variation of the genome of father and mother.

In this way we still are a variation of genes found in Lucy as well as
homo erectus.

But not neanderthals, because they are probable not in our line of
anchestry. They just can be similar in not shifting too much away from
the
point of split in the anchestry, about 0.6 mio years ago.

I've found an interesting reading which covers themes like
homo erectus and up to date findings and the relation to nutrition in
"THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN NUTRITION" at:
http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/ANTAO1/Projects/Bogin.html

An up to date view on meat eating of erectines described there was:
1.there are few or no convincing findings that they did hunt game
2.cut marks on bones above them of predators show scavenging as a
habit
  specialized on marrow and brain , possibly avoiding meat
3.a scavenging niche for hominids would be *marrow*
  Predators (lion) are nor equipped to eat it. Ston tools can reach
it.
  Professional scavengers (hyenas) are night active.
4.hominids were a prey. of leopards.
..

A most important change in nutrition took place only 40k years back,
not
determined by genetics, but by *cultural changes*.
On the importance of cultural vs. genetic changes see also this link.

I think that it is an interesting reading for paleo- and nutrition-
interested people.

regards

Amadeus Schmidt
"eat like naked with a stick and a stone"
(but i think you can and should select what you prefer of it)