Michael Audette wrote:



>Alot of genetic changes and adaptations have happened in 7000000 years or
>when ever. It would be illogical to think we could survive on the diet of

>our ancestors from that time.
>We are no longer the same animal as then.
If you mention genetic changes then please don't forget, that
despite  7mio years of seperation humans genes have been found to
be very close to gorillas' and even more chimps'.
They are not close to cats genes.
So it might make more senes to mimic
the diet of a chimp than the diet of a cat.

I think its not at all "illogical" that "we could survive
on the diet of our anchestor from" the time 7mio years away.

If the diet of later times was similar to the diet before nothing speaks
against it - but everything speaks for keeping old diets.

>the
>diet we want to mimic is that which humans ate just before the present

>Neolithic.

Neolithicum was the last 10000 years,
Cro Magnon Ice age was the 20000 years before.
What makes you think, that the *last* 10000 years were less important
than the 20000 years before? Should the last 400 generations have had
less influence than the 800 generations before that?

Trying to understand the principles, i think we need to look back further
the 80000 generations of savanne africa
and the 1.5 million generations before that (frugivore/herbivore time).
Isn't the length of the ages *the* main paleolithic argument?

I know as brother of the "neander"-thin author you have to
defend the theory that the neander-thal human branch had
*any* genetic influence on *us* (before they died off).
But however - even this doesn't lengthen the time of known
heavy meat consumation much, compared to the african origins.

Its better to think of what whas the best food for true humans
to proliferate in south africa. IMO.

regards
Amadeus S.





--
Sent through Global Message Exchange - http://www.gmx.net