On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:35:57 -0500 Amadeus Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>

> When in India this year, I've seen the natives walk along the beaches with a
> net and a torch, capturing various seafood like crabs. I've been told that
> they also eat smaller and bigger clams from the sands (of course always with
> rice).
> However even though this coast is very rich of fish (with plenty of
> dolphins) the catch was small. Few items for a long walk.
> The fish the tourists get, comes from trawlers.

Of course stocks are today depleted, this says nothing about what it was
like 40, 000 or more years ago.
>
> Mussels, crabs, clams are similar to other wild game, 0.5 to 2% of fat,
> while having about 11% protein. meat has 20%, barley has 13%.
> The problem with the first two is where to get the energy from.
> Fish has more protein, but fat only in cold water cases.
> So energy from plants is a essential part of the diet also for coast
> dwellers.

I didn't state anything regarding proportions, only noted all the marine
resources first.  The fats--well, try bird and fish and insect eggs.  Of
course plants are essential foods for humans.    Nuts and seeds are abundant
in coastal areas, where trees grow well.   Olives, avocados, etc....
>
> Do you think swimming or diving with a "sharp stick" you could hunt amounts
> worth to mention? I know Hans Hass did, only with a spear.

Try nets, traps, and any of the other methods mentioned by Quentin Grady or
jean-claude.   I used to keep an aquarium, it was not difficult to catch the
fish in nets daily to clean the aquarium.  Fish are prolific and easy to
catch.   Shellfish even moreso.  As well, the coastline is rich in
vegetation.   Many trees bearing seeds can be found along waters' edge.  A
mixed diet would be easy in such an environment.

> But with diver eyeglasses and flippers. He could aquire his fish
> "needs" easily, but for selling he had to use "gun" spears (what he hated).

 Early people were fishing only for their own needs, not for selling.  Yet
accounts also show them catching so much that they could afford to trade
with inland people.
>
>>> ..australipithecines, homo habilis, homo erectus
>>> ramapithecus, earlier primates ..
>>> Please explain for which of them you see on the coastline (only).

I did not say that any were 'only' on the coastline (whatever you mean by
'only'), but that the coastline was the primary human habitat.    I give
them a big field to roam, as well as waters to swim.

>>> Or is it annother, none of them?

It is US!  There is no solid evidence that any of the species you mentioned
was an essential step in the line that led to us.  They could all have been
failed offshoots, related to but not US.

>>> And for which time do you assume an aquatic adaption?

For all human time!  We always were and still are adapted to a semi-aquatic
life.    It is so obvious, it is hard for some to see it, like trying to
notice the tip of your nose.

Crawford and Marsh state:  "Man probably first learnt to swim when he was no
bigger than an otter.  It is an obvioius sttement of the necessary
chronology that he must have been swimming and fishing and developing social
groupings at the water's edge long before sea trade would occur to him.
Indeed, the development of tools might just as easily have arisen brom his
desire to make rafts, nets and then boats."  p. 171.
>
> Here they mention a real reason why settlements are often near the sea.
> Where the adaption is, I can't see.

You can't see that man can swim, that man is VERY well suited to a
semi-aquatic life?  Well, then, I guess there is little point in continuing
this discussion, because you are obviously ignoring very basic facts about
mankind and his continuous relationship with the sea.
>
>> At different times it is likely that
>> he would have explored inland regions, and in this way various side shoots
>> may have developed with some, like Australopithecus, suffering as a
> result."
>
> So they see Australopithecines as a side developement only.
> That may be hard to be kept up as there are no artefacts of the
> "aquaticus-pithecus" and its intermediates (like homo erectus) are missing
> too.

As I said, we are the evidence.  Since there are no remaining
Australopithecines, it is most rational to see them as a species that failed
because it was not well adapted to the environment it tried to exploit.
Man on the other hand is still around because he is well adapted to his
natural habitat, which he shows by his preference--the coasts.
>
>>> Which advantage would have sweating in the water?
>>
>> No advantage.   Who said that sweating gave an advantage in water?
>
> Well, if it wasn't an advantage, man wouldn't have developed it, would he?

Okay, here is the advantage:  In a humid environment, around and ingesting
lots of water, an animal needs to be able to get rid of water, to prevent
water intoxication.  So humans not only piss, they also sweat.    Sweating
is needed to prevent water intoxication.  Savannah animals would explode if
they ingested water the way man can/does.
>
>> The
>> point is that man loses water easily, not a good trait for an animal in an
>> arid region.
>
> I think exactely the point that man does loose water is a good trait for the
> arid region. Because it provides for enhanced cooling.
> Sweet water resources are found sufficiently everywhere man lives.
> Such a Savannah, or galery wood must have had enough water to drink, anyway.

Amazing your mind.  You argue that the coastline is not desireable claiming
that there are not enough food resources to support a sufficiently large
human population for your taste.  Then you turn around and argue that the
savannah is an ideal place for humans, ignoring the fact that savannah water
resources are so scarce that it puts a severe limit on human population
size.

Water is available on a savannah, and humans can find it if necessary.  But
the water resources are limited, putting a severe limit on the number of
humans that can inhabit the area.  Thus, arid areas are sparsely populated,
and coastlines (sea, lake, and river) are heavily populated.    If you want
to grow a larger population of humans, look for a coastline, not a savannah.
>
> Was paleo Sydney more important than paleo Alice Springs?
> Obviously these coastal cicies developed so well because of their *harbours*
> and the importance of navigation since greek times.

And just why is navigation important to man?  Why would navigation be
important in the evolution of any animal whose natural habitat was a
savannah?   The fact that navigation has for so long been important to
humans is more evidence that man is a semi-aquatic animal.
>
>
>> This
>> makes perfect sense if humans originated as coastal dwelling, fish eaters.
>
> Or that fish is simply healthier than meat.
> In the aspect of fats (omega3/6 and PUFA) they can equal out the omega-6
> overload and other shortcomings of cereal grain based nutrition.

WHY would fish be healthier than meat for humans?  Simple, because fish is
in harmony with human biochemistry.  Why?  Because human biochemistry is
well adapted to fish.
>
>> (In contrast, eating red meat from land animals has in many studies been
>> related to degenerative diseases. Yes modern meat is different, but even
>> wild red meat is different from fish.)
> Do you have some special properties in your mind?

Yes.  For one, fish protein has a higher biological value for humans than
land animal protein or vegetable protein.   Fish protein is more digestible.
Fish has a higher n-3 to n-6 ratio than wild meat.  Fish oils are higher in
vitamin D than land animal fats.  Fish (and seaweeds) provide iodine,
essential for development of intelligence.  Fish do not harbor viruses,
bacteria (e.g. e-coli, salmonella), etc. that are adapted to living on
mammalian or land animal flesh.

That's all I have off the top of my head right now.

Also:  Fish can be roasted on a fire without a hearth.   Fish are easily
dried.  Fish do not need as much processing.
>
> It came to my mind that *raw* fish is dangerous to eat, because it contains
> thiaminases, which wipe out thiamin which is a critical and shortlived
> vitamin.

You exaggerate the importance of these compounds, as some do about biotin
inhibitors in egg whites.   Asians eat lots of fish, including raw fish, but
thiamin deficiency was no problem there until after people became dependent
on white rice.  I haven't heard of any recent beri-beri epidemics in Japan,
though the people eat raw fish frequently.  So these thiaminases appear to
be no problem if the diet is more than adequate in thiamin from other
sources--seeds, nuts, vegetables--or if the fish is cooked.

From Crawford and Marsh:  "The idea of an upright primate scoring by being
able to peer over the tops of grasses is an appealing one--to anyone sho has
no experience of hunting.   In reality the main difficulty facing any hunter
is not spotting his prey but preventing his prey from spotting him.  The art
lies in stalking....If you watch a cat stalk a bird, it squeezes its body as
close as possible to the ground.....A hunter stalking antelopes or wild pigs
witha modern rifle will do his best to emulate the Tasmanian and the cat.
Creeping about the savannah on your stomach is extremely uncomfortable but
unless you want your target to spot you first it is what you had better do,
even if if means that for much fo the time you cannot see the animal you are
stalking.  Beginners who attempt this method, or still worse try to move
crouching on all fours, often betray their presence by their give-away rear
end protruding above the grass.  Anyone trying it will soon be left in no
doubt that the human anatomy, with its upright stance, is not designed for
stalking prey [on a savannah]."  pp. 156-157.

However, our anatomy and abilities make hunting and gathering
seafoods--along with coastal land foods--a rather simple task.

Don