On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:03:41 -0500, Ray Audette <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Amadeus Schmidt
>> Cordain mentioned the megafauna of northern latitudes.
>> Northern latitudes weren't reached by anatomical modern humans
>> before 40000 years ago.
>
>Remains of Humans dated at 1,700,000 years old have been found in Turkey.
>At the time this was part of the steppe tundra which was a wet grassland
>that covered much of what is considered southern regions today.

Turkey isn't a very northern latitude.
Cordain mentioned megafauna of northern latitudes to have had a higher
fat percentage to be able to obtain much calories from animal food
(like Inuit are able to find).

So, if in Turkey there were big herbivore abundant it doesn't tell us
that
they were fat. Animals in abundance of food use to grow instead of
becomeing
fat, except they need fat to overcome winters or for insulation.
Or which wet grassland dweller was that fat?
Btw. today, wet grasslands are not very productive.

1.7 mio year old hominids will probably be homo erectus.
This is a hominid who's remains have been found associated with animal
bones, also with such that have cut marks from stone tools.
Microscopic examination reveals, that these cut marks are often above
other cut marks from teeth of carnivores.
Scavenged bones, cut to bring out the marrow.

Marrow is fat enough to serve as a dense caloric source,
it is left over by the predators, and Hyenas come at night.

Bogin says in http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/ANTAO1/Projects/Bogin.html
under topic "ARCHAEOLOGY AND FOSSIL STUDIES":
<<Early speculation by Dart (1957) that the bone accumulations at the
South
African cave sites of Australopithecus represented hominid hunting
activity
are now considered incorrect. Rather, Brain (1981) argues that the
fossil
remains, including the hominids, represent the activity of nonhominid
carnivores, especially leopards, and geological forces.
...
The new evidence is based on analyses of bone and stone tool material
associated with early hominids. Potts and Shipman (1981) used scanning
electron microscope images of mammalian long bones dating to 1.7
million
years ago to show that cut marks produced by stone tools were incised
above
those made by carnivore teeth and the teeth of known scavengers, such
as
porcupines. Assuming that the order of markings reflects the order of
use
by hunters and scavengers, the hominids were the last to have at the
bones-even after porcupines. Subsequent analysis shows that hominids
may have been collecting bones for their marrow and brain tissue
rather than
for any meat still remaining on the surface of the bone (Binford
1987). Mar-
row and brain are high in fat and protein, ...
During the H. erectus period of occupation (250,000 to 450,000 years
B.P.),
both sites show evidence of the gathering of plant foods and
scavenging,
rather than hunting. ... Binford (1984) states that convincing
evidence for
the regular hunting of big game does not appear in the fossil record
until
90,000 years B.P. at the earliest.
>>citation end

This all looks like erectines were also not that big hunters.
Modern humans are very good hunters and hunting populations  have
invaded
big parts of the iced world. This shows us that such a lifestyle is
possible
(stone age proof for 30k years) for humans.

But the fossil record indicates that this time was (probable) only a
few
generations compared to human evolution time of 2-3 million years and
100,000 generations.

I do see some advantages of basing ones diet onto meat, primarily in
avoiding allergen-prone foodstuffs like gluten (what you call alien
protein).
I also consider it promising to fight diabetes by a high fat diet.
Both was your personal experience, as you wrote in your book.

But i can't see a basis for a reasoning that humans would be
especially
*adapted* (long term) to be predators.
Rather I see the danger of displacement of low-density, high fiber,
high
vitamin and high phytochemical food items.
Which primates and humans are adapted to, quite undisputed.

>>... sabbertooth tiger, a lion, a horse (or hipparion), a wholly
>> rhinoceros , mammouth, bison...
>> They will have done what *you* would do in the situation. Run.

Ray:
>I'm from Texas - I don't run;).  Even pigmies kill elephants with their
>little sharp sticks.  ...

You may, if equipped with appropiate technology,
like a gun or poisoned arrows.
If you won't run, then the Lion would probably resolve the situation
like
evolution did with homo erectus and neanderthals.
;-)

Amadeus