Hans wrote:

>But what if we inherit from the north african savanna, and did not
>emigrate from there until some 70-100 kya (which is the most agreed
>scenario, I think)? Then we have very little ancestry in the population
>groups You seem to mainly refer to for a high fat diet.
Thats right, and i think so too.
But high fat diets at first restrict intake of refined carbohydrates
which are IMO one main cause for diseases in western countries.

Thats good.

Don Matesz wrote:
>>Horses sweat profusely too.
>But zebras, savanah animals, don't...anyway the same point still
>applies an animal that weats profusely is at a disadvantage in a
>dry hot climate such as the savannah...your oint only suggests
>that horses also originated in an area having an abundance of
>water...if so then it would have increased the chances of man and
>horse becoming friends s they are.

What advantage would have had sweating while swimming?

But our sweating is exactely what *enables* us to live in
hotter temperatures while *not* stopping any physical activity.
In hot sun most animals (like lions) stop must of their activity.
Sweating is a cooling mechanism that enables us (especially the
nervous system , the brain) to work well in hours of the day that
wouldn't be useable otherwise.
Similarly *not* hcaving a fur but a blank skin
decreases a permanent isolation and enhances cooling.

Sure, sweating needs water, so water supplies are necessary and
humans and humanoids (surely!) have been living near sweet water
resources. I can't see an evolutionary disadvantage from that.
To the opposite (see above).

>"5.  Humans are the only primates capable of producing tears, ....
Tears are especially useful and necessary for a very much
visual oriented animal or a human.
Tears can clear the eyes from dust.
Quite useful in a dusty savannah, aren't they?
What advantage would have tears for swimmers?
In sweet water? In the sea?

>"8. ....dogs and puppies..
rth
Dogs (i know of) swim so poorly that i can't imagine a swimming dog
catching a trout. Not even harvesting a mussel.

I personally assume that early humans will have taken advantage of
coastal food resources (like *any* available resources)
*if* living near the coast. But i can't discover a must or need
in your (also the cited) arguments.

regards
Amadeus

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