(Please note:  I originally posted this message to the list two weeks
ago, but it got lost somewhere in cyberspace.  Just after sending it, I
had to send my laptop out for service, and had no access to the file copy
to resend until now. )


On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 07:33:57 -0500 Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

> I think the introduction date of fire is debatable, really.
> After I read the superb article of Prof.Wrangham again after some
> years, I tend to rate early fire with  a greater probability.

Still not early enough to propose that the dietary needs the human animal
have changed significantly since then.  Another thing you avoid dealing
with is the fact that "paleo" as proposed by Ray, WORKS as he predicts
for many people.  Yes, it does seem that some populations or individuals
have developed a greater tolerance to "modern" foods, but many find that
a diet of "meat" (animal flesh), non-starchy vegetables, with some nuts
and fruits provides a great health benefit.
>
> Particularly because of one singular fact: in the transition of
> habilis to
> erectines the climbing adaptions were lost. That means no lion
> protection
> by sleeping on trees, thus the need of fire.
> I can't imagine the erectines sitting togetherer in the evening on
> the
> floor, just with wooden sticks and stones in the presence of lions
> and sabbertooth tigers.

Pure obfuscation...  You constantly spin yarns to "prove" that early
humans had no ability to protect themselves, and no ability to catch
"large game."  I think if you look into it, you'll find that the hunting
and offensive capabilities of a group of humans with "only" rocks and
sharp sticks would have been formidable.  You also have repeatedly
ignored, dismissed, and ridiculed the idea that smaller game and insects
would have been (and still are) abundant food sources, which alone could
eliminate any need to even consider "big game" as a primary prey for
early humans.


> >You constantly propose the use of foods which would not have been
edible
> >with no technology beyond the "sharp stick" stage, and when asked to
> >propose a realistic diet (using your theories), in any given
environment,
> >which would have sustained a pre-technological human, you evade.
>
> I thought that it would be clear and pointed out and listed several
> times within the many megabytes. I suppose a diet based on
> vegetables,tubers,fruit, nuts,meat (if sorted by volume)
> or tubers,nuts, fruit, meat, vegetables if sorted by caloric value.

No, Amadeus... you have NEVER made it clear...  You toss out a bunch of
foods, some of which may or may not have been edible without fire.  Worse
than that, you NEVER take into account AVAILABILITY of these foods.
Sure, in a modern supermarket, a modern "paleo-vegetarian" CAN come up
with a regular supply of foods which will approximate human requirements,
but you have yet to propose a realistic environment which could have
provided the necessary foods throughout a typical year.

What you MUST do in order to give your theories ANY validity, is come up
with a realistic environment, or even a reasonable range of environments
for (assuming nomadic habits or seasonal migrations), account for the
types of vegetation present, and then map what foods would be available
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.  Adding up the nutritional contents of your list of
foods is useless unless an appropriate combination would actually have
been available, and in the appropriate ratios, and that they happened to
be eaten that way...


> to me. Data on current day gatherhunters from Cordain, Eades etc.
> regularly go to the upper possible limit of animal food intake -
> around 50%, depending on the fat contents.
> That required optiman hunting with limited eapons however.
>
> Where is your guess?

Oh come now, Amadeus... you know this answer as well as I do...  The
"possible upper limit" of animal food intake is virtually 100%.  I don't
know enough about Inuit culture to be sure, but I would assume that they
eat what vegetation becomes available during the summer, and they might
even have dried berries for a tasty treat during the looong winters, but
you know as well as I do that they mainly lived on animal foods.


> >Therein lies both your errors in facts, and your evasions.
>
> If there's somethin erraneous, I'd look like to see your
> alternatives.

Your errors and evasions are in your failure to provide reasonable
answers to the questions I pose above (and have posed to you several
times in the past).


> >..admitting that no
> >pre-technological human could have long survived that way.
>
> I don't see a limit in surviving for an unlimited time in the same
> way as millions of years allowed hominids to survive before.
> In a relative warm and dry environment.

You don't see a limit, because you refuse to account for the fact that
availability of the "perfect" combination of plant foods would simply not
have been available.

> The obvious limits of high protein diets lie in energy supply.
> This is a real limiting factor in non-arctic environments (where fat
> is rare).

I know that you always try to make it into a joke, but many insects have
a significant fat content.  YOU certainly wouldn't eat them, and due to
long-standing cultural prejudice, neither would I, but the fact remains
that humans DID, and still do eat them.  The fact is that there would
have been an abundant, and constant supply of many kinds of animal foods
in any environment where humans would have lived.  The availability and
assortment of vegetable foods (before agriculture) would not have been
sufficient to support a vegetarian diet.


>
> >...yet you take up
> >an awful lot of bandwidth in the process.
>
> Maybe I should better find an anthropological forum, where what is
> important for me isn't considered "bandwith".

I meant nothing insulting by that word.  It's just an applicable
technological term.  However, I would think that by now you would have
realized that this forum is not particularly appropriate for your
preaching.  My understanding of the purpose of this list is that it's for
the discussion of the practice of a "paleo" diet along the lines of
"Neanderthin," and not particularly for the constant debate of the merits
of that kind of plan.

It's not my place to tell you flat out that you should go elsewhere.  If
it were, I wouldn't do it anyway.  However, I do suggest that you'd fit
in here better if you stopped the constant debate, and just joined in as
someone who wants to follow vegetarian diet as close to "paleo" as
possible.  Even though some cranky folks might still be inclined to say
"it's impossible," IMHO, it would be perfectly within the spirit of the
list.

You simply will never convert anybody here...  You can either spend more
years debating this to death, or you can just join in and participate in
the effort of each of us to follow (or learn about following) the best
approximation of a paleo diet possible for the modern "supermarket
hunter-gatherer."

Peace and happiness in the new year,

Wally
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.