Chimpanzee an Man LCA, a banana?

[M3d]

The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and that
Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media misconceptions
of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since our remote
predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had arguably hominid
traits, it can be argued that Man and Chimp(and possibly
others) evolved from proto-hominid ancestor that was more
hominid, than apelike.

Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have in
common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA from
our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
million and more years, is what makes us human.What Chimps in
turn, have added to their LCA DNA, makes them the Chimpanzees.

I would also remind those who still believe the old savannah
hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last 10,000 years
has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
modern "savannah" diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
significant marine DHA content, is injurious to our species.

m3d

[Na Sides]

On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:

>The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and
>that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
>misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since our
>remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had arguably
>hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and Chimp(and
>possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid ancestor that was
>more hominid, than apelike.
>
>Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have in
>common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA from
>our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
>million and more years, is what makes us human.What Chimps in
>turn, have added to their LCA DNA, makes them the
>Chimpanzees.
>
>I would also remind those who still believe the old savannah
>hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last 10,000 years
>has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
>modern "savannah" diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
>significant marine DHA content, is injurious to our species.

Does your claim apply to islanders who did until recently, or
still do, forage for marine items as a major component of
their diets? Do you claim they have brains 8% larger than
those of the rest of humanity?

NAS

>m3d

[Marc Verha]

"m3d" <m3d@lineone.net> spoke wise words in message
news:be3b1e1f.0408021009.1c4f04e3@posting.google.com...
> The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and
> that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
> misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since our
> remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had arguably
> hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and Chimp(and
> possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid ancestor that
> was more hominid, than apelike.
>
> Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have in
> common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA from
> our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
> million and more years, is what makes us human.What Chimps
> in turn, have added to their LCA DNA, makes them the
> Chimpanzees.
>
> I would also remind those who still believe the old savannah
> hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last 10,000 years
> has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
> modern "savannah" diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
> significant marine DHA content, is injurious to our species.
>
> m3d

[Jason Eshl]

In article <gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>, NA
Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
>
>>The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and
>>that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
>>misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since our
>>remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had arguably
>>hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and Chimp(and
>>possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid ancestor that
>>was more hominid, than apelike.
>>
>>Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have in
>>common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA from
>>our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
>>million and more years, is what makes us human.What Chimps
>>in turn, have added to their LCA DNA, makes them the
>>Chimpanzees.
>>
>>I would also remind those who still believe the old savannah
>>hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last 10,000 years
>>has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
>>modern "savannah" diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
>>significant marine DHA content, is injurious to our species.

The "injuries" to our species dont seem to be all that
pronounced in light of the 6 billion or so pople on the
planet. I'm not sure what definition of "injurious" you're
using, but from an evolutionary standpoint, there doesn't
seem to be any "injuries" that make it look like the species
is in peril.

Is there some evidence that lower DHA content leads to
reducced fertility and reporductive success? If not, your
definition of "injurious" is meaningless to evolution.

>
>Does your claim apply to islanders who did until recently, or
>still do, forage for marine items as a major component of
>their diets? Do you claim they have brains 8% larger than
>those of the rest of humanity?
>
>NAS
>
>>m3d

[M3d]

NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
>
> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and
> >that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
> >misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since
> >our remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had
> >arguably hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and
> >Chimp(and possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid
> >ancestor that was more hominid, than apelike.
> >
> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have
> >in common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA
> >from our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the
> >last six million and more years, is what makes us
> >human.What Chimps in turn, have added to their LCA DNA,
> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
> >
> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last
> >10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In
> >other words our modern "savannah" diet of red meat and
> >wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA content, is
> >injurious to our species.

> >m3d
>
> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until recently,
> or still do, forage for marine items as a major component of
> their diets? Do you claim they have brains 8% larger than
> those of the rest of humanity?
>
> NAS

Why,have you discovered, a new species?

m3d

[Michael Cl]

"m3d" <m3d@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:be3b1e1f.0408021407.263e524e@posting.google.com...
> NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> > On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
> >
[spew]
> > >
> > >I would also remind those who still believe the old
> > >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last
> > >10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In
> > >other words our modern "savannah" diet of red meat and
> > >wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA content, is
> > >injurious to our species.
>
> > >m3d
> >
> > Does your claim apply to islanders who did until recently,
> > or still do, forage for marine items as a major component
> > of their diets? Do you claim they have brains 8% larger
> > than those of the rest of humanity?
> >
> > NAS
>
> Why,have you discovered, a new species?

I wonder if you can remain coherent long enough to answer NAS'
questions. Here, I'll rephrase: Have those people who have
managed to retain access to "significant marine DHA content"
~also~ suffered an "8% decrease in brain size"? Confound your
critics! Be the first wet ape on your block to answer a direct
question with something other than a broad sweep of your arm.

> m3d
> >
--
Yada, yada, yada.

[Na Sides]

On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:

>NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
>>
>> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape), and
>> >that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
>> >misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since
>> >our remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had
>> >arguably hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and
>> >Chimp(and possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid
>> >ancestor that was more hominid, than apelike.
>> >
>> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly have
>> >in common with Chimps, is concerned, that is ancestral DNA
>> >from our LCA. What we have added to our LCA DNA over the
>> >last six million and more years, is what makes us
>> >human.What Chimps in turn, have added to their LCA DNA,
>> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
>> >
>> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
>> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last
>> >10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In
>> >other words our modern "savannah" diet of red meat and
>> >wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA content, is
>> >injurious to our species.
>
>> >m3d
>>
>> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until recently,
>> or still do, forage for marine items as a major component
>> of their diets? Do you claim they have brains 8% larger
>> than those of the rest of humanity?
>>
>> NAS
>
>Why,have you discovered, a new species?

You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due to a
diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be tested by
comparing brain size of agricultural peoples with those who
still do get most of their calories from seafoods. If those
peoples brains are 8% larger than those of the rest of us,
then your claim is confirmed. It their brains are no larger
than anybody else's, then your claim is falsified.

NAS

>
>m3d

[M3d]

NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
>
> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> >news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape),
> >> >and that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
> >> >misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man. Since
> >> >our remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago had
> >> >arguably hominid traits, it can be argued that Man and
> >> >Chimp(and possibly others) evolved from proto-hominid
> >> >ancestor that was more hominid, than apelike.
> >> >
> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly
> >> >have in common with Chimps, is concerned, that is
> >> >ancestral DNA from our LCA. What we have added to our
> >> >LCA DNA over the last six million and more years, is
> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have added to
> >> >their LCA DNA, makes them the Chimpanzees.
> >> >
> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
> >> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last
> >> >10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In
> >> >other words our modern "savannah" diet of red meat and
> >> >wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA content, is
> >> >injurious to our species.
>
> >> >m3d
> >>
> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as a major
> >> component of their diets? Do you claim they have brains
> >> 8% larger than those of the rest of humanity?
> >>
> >> NAS
> >
> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
>
> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due to a
> diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be tested by
> comparing brain size of agricultural peoples with those who
> still do get most of their calories from seafoods. If those
> peoples brains are 8% larger than those of the rest of us,
> then your claim is confirmed. It their brains are no larger
> than anybody else's, then your claim is falsified.
>
> NAS
>
>
Not my claim, it is something that has been known for some
time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in the last
35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last 10,000 years.

A number of explanations, have been put forward for the
decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a significant
change in the human diet, in other words a switch to
agriculture, and a diet of red meat and wheat. A general lack
of DHA in the diet seems the most obvious explanation.

m3d

[Jason Eshl]

m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote:
>>
>> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> >news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape),
>> >> >and that Chimps are 98% human... are common mass media
>> >> >misconceptions of evolution, as it relates to Man.
>> >> >Since our remote predecessors 6 to 9 million years ago
>> >> >had arguably hominid traits, it can be argued that Man
>> >> >and Chimp(and possibly others) evolved from
>> >> >proto-hominid ancestor that was more hominid, than
>> >> >apelike.
>> >> >
>> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly
>> >> >have in common with Chimps, is concerned, that is
>> >> >ancestral DNA from our LCA. What we have added to our
>> >> >LCA DNA over the last six million and more years, is
>> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have added to
>> >> >their LCA DNA, makes them the Chimpanzees.
>> >> >
>> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
>> >> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the
>> >> >last 10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain
>> >> >size. In other words our modern "savannah" diet of red
>> >> >meat and wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA
>> >> >content, is injurious to our species.
>>
>> >> >m3d
>> >>
>> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
>> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as a
>> >> major component of their diets? Do you claim they have
>> >> brains 8% larger than those of the rest of humanity?
>> >>
>> >> NAS
>> >
>> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
>>
>> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due to a
>> diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be tested by
>> comparing brain size of agricultural peoples with those who
>> still do get most of their calories from seafoods. If those
>> peoples brains are 8% larger than those of the rest of us,
>> then your claim is confirmed. It their brains are no larger
>> than anybody else's, then your claim is falsified.
>>
>> NAS
>>
>>
>Not my claim, it is something that has been known for some
>time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in the last
>35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last 10,000 years.

What samples are being compared here? Who has "known [this]
for some time?" Got a reference?

>A number of explanations, have been put forward for the
>decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a significant
>change in the human diet, in other words a switch to
>agriculture, and a diet of red meat and wheat. A general lack
>of DHA in the diet seems the most obvious explanation.

What "human diet" are you refering to? The Congo Basin?
McDonald's in Manhattan?

Why is this the most obvious explanation? Again, if it's the
most obvious explanation, we should see larger brains in those
individuals who have more DHA in their diets. You haven't
provided any evidence that points to this.

[J Moore]

Jason Eshleman <jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
news:cep87g$le9$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
> >> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> >> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a Chimp(Ape),
> >> >> >and that
Chimps
> >> >> >are 98% human... are common mass media misconceptions
> >> >> >of evolution,
as
> >> >> >it relates to Man. Since our remote predecessors 6 to
> >> >> >9 million
years
> >> >> >ago had arguably hominid traits, it can be argued
> >> >> >that Man and Chimp(and possibly others) evolved from
> >> >> >proto-hominid ancestor that was more hominid, than
> >> >> >apelike.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we allegedly
> >> >> >have in common with Chimps, is concerned, that is
> >> >> >ancestral DNA from our LCA. What
we
> >> >> >have added to our LCA DNA over the last six million
> >> >> >and more years,
is
> >> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have added
> >> >> >to their LCA
DNA,
> >> >> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
> >> >> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the
> >> >> >last 10,000 years has
led
> >> >> >to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
> >> >> >modern
"savannah"
> >> >> >diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of significant
> >> >> >marine DHA
content,
> >> >> >is injurious to our species.
> >>
> >> >> >m3d
> >> >>
> >> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
> >> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as a
> >> >> major component of their diets? Do you claim they have
> >> >> brains 8% larger than those of the rest of humanity?
> >> >>
> >> >> NAS
> >> >
> >> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
> >>
> >> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due to
> >> a diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be tested by
> >> comparing brain size of agricultural peoples with those
> >> who still do get most of their calories from seafoods. If
> >> those peoples brains are 8% larger than those of the rest
> >> of us, then your claim is confirmed. It their brains are
> >> no larger than anybody else's, then your claim is
> >> falsified.
> >>
> >> NAS
> >>
> >>
> >Not my claim, it is something that has been known for some
> >time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in the last
> >35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last 10,000 years.
>
> What samples are being compared here? Who has "known [this]
> for some time?" Got a reference?
>
> >A number of explanations, have been put forward for the
> >decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a significant
> >change in the human diet, in other words a switch to
> >agriculture, and a diet of red meat and wheat. A general
> >lack of DHA in the diet seems the most obvious explanation.
>
> What "human diet" are you refering to? The Congo Basin?
> McDonald's in Manhattan?
>
> Why is this the most obvious explanation? Again, if it's the
> most obvious explanation, we should see larger brains in
> those individuals who have more DHA in their diets. You
> haven't provided any evidence that points to this.

There has been a decrease in absolute brain size, but this has
been in parallel with a similar decrease in body size, so it's
just what you'd expect. Pretending that the absolute decrease
is anything like a relative decrease or that it is unexpected
-- since it isn't a relative decrease, it's the opposite of
unexpected -- is either naive or dishonest. A short entry
talking a bit about this can be found on PZ Meyers' blog at
http://pharyngula.org/comments/249_0_1_0_C/. I don't have any
other refs ready to hand on this (keep in mind that if you do
a web search for info about this you'll find a lot of DHA BS).

So in summary -- yes, there is a decrease in absolute brain
size; by far the most likely reason is the accompanying
decrease in body size; this leaves no relative decrease in
brain size; and therefore this absolute decrease is just what
one would expect. Also keep in mind that absolute, or even
relative, brain size alone is not the whole story on
intelligence.

--
JMoore

[Jason Eshl]

In article <be3b1e1f.0408040543.4771e221@posting.google.com>,
m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>"J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<BWVPc.549$M95.480@pd7tw1no>...
>> Jason Eshleman <jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
>> news:cep87g$le9$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
>> > m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>> > >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
>> > >> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
>> > >> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a
>> > >> >> >Chimp(Ape), and that
>> Chimps
>> > >> >> >are 98% human... are common mass media
>> > >> >> >misconceptions of evolution,
>> as
>> > >> >> >it relates to Man. Since our remote predecessors 6
>> > >> >> >to 9 million
>> years
>> > >> >> >ago had arguably hominid traits, it can be argued
>> > >> >> >that Man and Chimp(and possibly others) evolved
>> > >> >> >from proto-hominid ancestor that was more hominid,
>> > >> >> >than apelike.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we
>> > >> >> >allegedly have in common with Chimps, is
>> > >> >> >concerned, that is ancestral DNA from our LCA.
>> > >> >> >What
>> we
>> > >> >> >have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
>> > >> >> >million and more years,
>> is
>> > >> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have
>> > >> >> >added to their LCA
>> DNA,
>> > >> >> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the
>> > >> >> >old savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering
>> > >> >> >over the last 10,000 years has
>> led
>> > >> >> >to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words
>> > >> >> >our modern
>> "savannah"
>> > >> >> >diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of significant
>> > >> >> >marine DHA
>> content,
>> > >> >> >is injurious to our species.
>>
>> > >> >> >m3d
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
>> > >> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as a
>> > >> >> major component of their diets? Do you claim they
>> > >> >> have brains 8% larger than those of the rest of
>> > >> >> humanity?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> NAS
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
>> > >>
>> > >> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due
>> > >> to a diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be
>> > >> tested by comparing brain size of agricultural peoples
>> > >> with those who still do get most of their calories
>> > >> from seafoods. If those peoples brains are 8% larger
>> > >> than those of the rest of us, then your claim is
>> > >> confirmed. It their brains are no larger than anybody
>> > >> else's, then your claim is falsified.
>> > >>
>> > >> NAS
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >Not my claim, it is something that has been known for
>> > >some time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in
>> > >the last 35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last
>> > >10,000 years.
>> >
>> > What samples are being compared here? Who has "known
>> > [this] for some time?" Got a reference?
>> >
>> > >A number of explanations, have been put forward for the
>> > >decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a
>> > >significant change in the human diet, in other words a
>> > >switch to agriculture, and a diet of red meat and wheat.
>> > >A general lack of DHA in the diet seems the most obvious
>> > >explanation.
>> >
>> > What "human diet" are you refering to? The Congo Basin?
>> > McDonald's in Manhattan?
>> >
>> > Why is this the most obvious explanation? Again, if it's
>> > the most obvious explanation, we should see larger brains
>> > in those individuals who have more DHA in their diets.
>> > You haven't provided any evidence that points to this.
>>
>> There has been a decrease in absolute brain size, but this
>> has been in parallel with a similar decrease in body size,
>> so it's just what you'd expect. Pretending that the
>> absolute decrease is anything like a relative decrease or
>> that it is unexpected -- since it isn't a relative
>> decrease, it's the opposite of unexpected -- is either
>> naive or dishonest. A short entry talking a bit about this
>> can be found on PZ Meyers' blog at
>> http://pharyngula.org/comments/249_0_1_0_C/. I don't have
>> any other refs ready to hand on this (keep in mind that if
>> you do a web search for info about this you'll find a lot
>> of DHA BS).
>>
>> So in summary -- yes, there is a decrease in absolute brain
>> size; by far the most likely reason is the accompanying
>> decrease in body size; this leaves no relative decrease in
>> brain size; and therefore this absolute decrease is just
>> what one would expect. Also keep in mind that absolute, or
>> even relative, brain size alone is not the whole story on
>> intelligence.
>
>>
>>
>Thanks for the Pharyngula link. I note that they too relate
>the 10% decrease in brain size over the last 30,000 years to
>a richer meat based diet, this is similar to the conclusion
>Trinkaus came too in "Body Mass and Encephalization in
>Pleistocene Homo"(C. B. Ruff, E. Trinkaus, and T. W.
>Holliday,).
>
>Would certainly agree with you that relative, brain size
>alone is not the whole story on intelligence, however my
>original point though was that the diet we have adopted in
>the last 30,000 years, may be doing us more harm than good.

What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
sufficient for the population to explode such that we're at 6
billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't seem
to be impacting reproductive success. There are other measures
of "harm" but you need to be rather clear on what it is you
mena when you make a statement like that.

[M3d]

"J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<BWVPc.549$M95.480@pd7tw1no>...
> Jason Eshleman <jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> news:cep87g$le9$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> > m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
> > >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
> > >> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> > >> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a
> > >> >> >Chimp(Ape), and that
> Chimps
> > >> >> >are 98% human... are common mass media
> > >> >> >misconceptions of evolution,
> as
> > >> >> >it relates to Man. Since our remote predecessors 6
> > >> >> >to 9 million
> years
> > >> >> >ago had arguably hominid traits, it can be argued
> > >> >> >that Man and Chimp(and possibly others) evolved
> > >> >> >from proto-hominid ancestor that was more hominid,
> > >> >> >than apelike.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we
> > >> >> >allegedly have in common with Chimps, is concerned,
> > >> >> >that is ancestral DNA from our LCA. What
> we
> > >> >> >have added to our LCA DNA over the last six million
> > >> >> >and more years,
> is
> > >> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have added
> > >> >> >to their LCA
> DNA,
> > >> >> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the old
> > >> >> >savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the
> > >> >> >last 10,000 years has
> led
> > >> >> >to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
> > >> >> >modern
> "savannah"
> > >> >> >diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of significant
> > >> >> >marine DHA
> content,
> > >> >> >is injurious to our species.
>
> > >> >> >m3d
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
> > >> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as a
> > >> >> major component of their diets? Do you claim they
> > >> >> have brains 8% larger than those of the rest of
> > >> >> humanity?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> NAS
> > >> >
> > >> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
> > >>
> > >> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8% due
> > >> to a diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be tested
> > >> by comparing brain size of agricultural peoples with
> > >> those who still do get most of their calories from
> > >> seafoods. If those peoples brains are 8% larger than
> > >> those of the rest of us, then your claim is confirmed.
> > >> It their brains are no larger than anybody else's, then
> > >> your claim is falsified.
> > >>
> > >> NAS
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Not my claim, it is something that has been known for
> > >some time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in
> > >the last 35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last 10,000
> > >years.
> >
> > What samples are being compared here? Who has "known
> > [this] for some time?" Got a reference?
> >
> > >A number of explanations, have been put forward for the
> > >decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a
> > >significant change in the human diet, in other words a
> > >switch to agriculture, and a diet of red meat and wheat.
> > >A general lack of DHA in the diet seems the most obvious
> > >explanation.
> >
> > What "human diet" are you refering to? The Congo Basin?
> > McDonald's in Manhattan?
> >
> > Why is this the most obvious explanation? Again, if it's
> > the most obvious explanation, we should see larger brains
> > in those individuals who have more DHA in their diets. You
> > haven't provided any evidence that points to this.
>
> There has been a decrease in absolute brain size, but this
> has been in parallel with a similar decrease in body size,
> so it's just what you'd expect. Pretending that the absolute
> decrease is anything like a relative decrease or that it is
> unexpected -- since it isn't a relative decrease, it's the
> opposite of unexpected -- is either naive or dishonest. A
> short entry talking a bit about this can be found on PZ
> Meyers' blog at http://pharyngula.org/comments/249_0_1_0_C/.
> I don't have any other refs ready to hand on this (keep in
> mind that if you do a web search for info about this you'll
> find a lot of DHA BS).
>
> So in summary -- yes, there is a decrease in absolute brain
> size; by far the most likely reason is the accompanying
> decrease in body size; this leaves no relative decrease in
> brain size; and therefore this absolute decrease is just
> what one would expect. Also keep in mind that absolute, or
> even relative, brain size alone is not the whole story on
> intelligence.

>
>
Thanks for the Pharyngula link. I note that they too relate
the 10% decrease in brain size over the last 30,000 years to a
richer meat based diet, this is similar to the conclusion
Trinkaus came too in "Body Mass and Encephalization in
Pleistocene Homo"(C. B. Ruff, E. Trinkaus, and T. W.
Holliday,).

Would certainly agree with you that relative, brain size alone
is not the whole story on intelligence, however my original
point though was that the diet we have adopted in the last
30,000 years, may be doing us more harm than good.

m3d

[Jason Eshl]

m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
>news:<cer16h$8ji$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...

>> What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
>> sufficient for the population to explode such that we're at
>> 6 billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
>> evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't
>> seem to be impacting reproductive success. There are other
>> measures of "harm" but you need to be rather clear on what
>> it is you mena when you make a statement like that.

>http://www.who.int/en/ Keywords: IDD Micronutrient
>deficiencies Malnutrition

Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I was getting at. You
seem to be suggesting that the whole of our species is somehow
malnourished and suffering as a result. In evolutionary terms,
we're not suffering from a collective DHA deficiency. The
population continues to grow. If our brains are 9% smaller,
it's not "injurious" to the species in terms of decreased
reproductive success. The web link still doesn't make it clear
what you mean by 'injurious to our species.' What measure are
you using or is the 9% difference sufficient for you to
conclude an "injury" that we have to deal with?

[M3d]

jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
news:<cer16h$8ji$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> In article
> <be3b1e1f.0408040543.4771e221@posting.google.com>, m3d
> <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
> >"J Moore" <anthrosciguy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<BWVPc.549$M95.480@pd7tw1no>...
> >> Jason Eshleman <jae@vidi.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:cep87g$le9$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu...
> >> > m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
> >> > >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<k8bvg0tktve9cvpggqkvinior8crh0dtmr@4ax.com>...
> >> > >> On 2 Aug 2004 15:07:14 -0700, m3d@lineone.net (m3d)
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >NA Sides <nas@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:<gl1tg0ts6aekts7du1sjl8a8dv2c0j4h5m@4ax.com>...
> >> > >> >> On 2 Aug 2004 11:09:57 -0700, m3d@lineone.net
> >> > >> >> (m3d) wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> >The notion that our LCA ancestor... was a
> >> > >> >> >Chimp(Ape), and that
> Chimps
> >> > >> >> >are 98% human... are common mass media
> >> > >> >> >misconceptions of evolution,
> as
> >> > >> >> >it relates to Man. Since our remote predecessors
> >> > >> >> >6 to 9 million
> years
> >> > >> >> >ago had arguably hominid traits, it can be
> >> > >> >> >argued that Man and Chimp(and possibly others)
> >> > >> >> >evolved from proto-hominid ancestor that was
> >> > >> >> >more hominid, than apelike.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >Moreover, as far as that 98% of our DNA we
> >> > >> >> >allegedly have in common with Chimps, is
> >> > >> >> >concerned, that is ancestral DNA from our LCA.
> >> > >> >> >What
> we
> >> > >> >> >have added to our LCA DNA over the last six
> >> > >> >> >million and more years,
> is
> >> > >> >> >what makes us human.What Chimps in turn, have
> >> > >> >> >added to their LCA
> DNA,
> >> > >> >> >makes them the Chimpanzees.
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >> >I would also remind those who still believe the
> >> > >> >> >old savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering
> >> > >> >> >over the last 10,000 years has
> led
> >> > >> >> >to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words
> >> > >> >> >our modern
> "savannah"
> >> > >> >> >diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
> >> > >> >> >significant marine DHA
> content,
> >> > >> >> >is injurious to our species.
>
> >> > >> >> >m3d
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Does your claim apply to islanders who did until
> >> > >> >> recently, or still do, forage for marine items as
> >> > >> >> a major component of their diets? Do you claim
> >> > >> >> they have brains 8% larger than those of the rest
> >> > >> >> of humanity?
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> NAS
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Why,have you discovered, a new species?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> You claimed that human brain size has declined 8%
> >> > >> due to a diet lacking DHA content. That claim can be
> >> > >> tested by comparing brain size of agricultural
> >> > >> peoples with those who still do get most of their
> >> > >> calories from seafoods. If those peoples brains are
> >> > >> 8% larger than those of the rest of us, then your
> >> > >> claim is confirmed. It their brains are no larger
> >> > >> than anybody else's, then your claim is falsified.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> NAS
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >Not my claim, it is something that has been known for
> >> > >some time. In essence there has been a 10% decrease in
> >> > >the last 35,000 years, of which 8% was in the last
> >> > >10,000 years.
> >> >
> >> > What samples are being compared here? Who has "known
> >> > [this] for some time?" Got a reference?
> >> >
> >> > >A number of explanations, have been put forward for
> >> > >the decrease. However, as the decrease parallels a
> >> > >significant change in the human diet, in other words a
> >> > >switch to agriculture, and a diet of red meat and
> >> > >wheat. A general lack of DHA in the diet seems the
> >> > >most obvious explanation.
> >> >
> >> > What "human diet" are you refering to? The Congo Basin?
> >> > McDonald's in Manhattan?
> >> >
> >> > Why is this the most obvious explanation? Again, if
> >> > it's the most obvious explanation, we should see larger
> >> > brains in those individuals who have more DHA in their
> >> > diets. You haven't provided any evidence that points to
> >> > this.
> >>
> >> There has been a decrease in absolute brain size, but
> >> this has been in parallel with a similar decrease in body
> >> size, so it's just what you'd expect. Pretending that the
> >> absolute decrease is anything like a relative decrease or
> >> that it is unexpected -- since it isn't a relative
> >> decrease, it's the opposite of unexpected -- is either
> >> naive or dishonest. A short entry talking a bit about
> >> this can be found on PZ Meyers' blog at
> >> http://pharyngula.org/comments/249_0_1_0_C/. I don't have
> >> any other refs ready to hand on this (keep in mind that
> >> if you do a web search for info about this you'll find a
> >> lot of DHA BS).
> >>
> >> So in summary -- yes, there is a decrease in absolute
> >> brain size; by far the most likely reason is the
> >> accompanying decrease in body size; this leaves no
> >> relative decrease in brain size; and therefore this
> >> absolute decrease is just what one would expect. Also
> >> keep in mind that absolute, or even relative, brain size
> >> alone is not the whole story on intelligence.
>
> >>
> >>
> >Thanks for the Pharyngula link. I note that they too relate
> >the 10% decrease in brain size over the last 30,000 years
> >to a richer meat based diet, this is similar to the
> >conclusion Trinkaus came too in "Body Mass and
> >Encephalization in Pleistocene Homo"(C. B. Ruff, E.
> >Trinkaus, and T. W. Holliday,).
> >
> >Would certainly agree with you that relative, brain size
> >alone is not the whole story on intelligence, however my
> >original point though was that the diet we have adopted in
> >the last 30,000 years, may be doing us more harm than good.
>
> What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
> sufficient for the population to explode such that we're at
> 6 billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
> evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't seem
> to be impacting reproductive success. There are other
> measures of "harm" but you need to be rather clear on what
> it is you mena when you make a statement like that.

http://www.who.int/en/ Keywords: IDD Micronutrient
deficiencies Malnutrition

[Jason Eshl]

In article <be3b1e1f.0408080242.3a43d9e0@posting.google.com>,
m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>jae@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
>news:<cf0o9e$a2j$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>> m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>> >jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
>> >news:<cer16h$8ji$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>>
>> >> What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
>> >> sufficient for the population to explode such that we're
>> >> at 6 billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
>> >> evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't
>> >> seem to be impacting reproductive success. There are
>> >> other measures of "harm" but you need to be rather clear
>> >> on what it is you mena when you make a statement like
>> >> that.
>>
>> >http://www.who.int/en/ Keywords: IDD Micronutrient
>> >deficiencies Malnutrition
>>
>> Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I was getting at.
>> You seem to be suggesting that the whole of our species is
>> somehow malnourished and suffering as a result. In
>> evolutionary terms, we're not suffering from a collective
>> DHA deficiency. The population continues to grow. If our
>> brains are 9% smaller, it's not "injurious" to the species
>> in terms of decreased reproductive success. The web link
>> still doesn't make it clear what you mean by 'injurious to
>> our species.' What measure are you using or is the 9%
>> difference sufficient for you to conclude an "injury" that
>> we have to deal with?
>
>
>That is a valid argument, taking into account levels of
>cardiovascular problems, obesity and allergies it can be
>argued that the majority of our species is malnourished…
>
>Why do you see it only in terms of reproduction? IDD
>results in eighteen million babies born mentally impaired
>each year, are they not harmed? Is it acceptable, that IDD
>is estimated to have lowered the intellectual capacity of
>tens of millions, by as much as 10 to 15 percentage points?
>Is it acceptable 740 million are effected by IDD… two
>billion by VAD?

In terms of the "health of the species," in terms of the
ability of the species to persist, reproduction is the only
currency that matters. You are confusing the well-being and
happiness and quality of life of members of a species with the
success of the species.

[M3d]

jae@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
news:<cf0o9e$a2j$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
> m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
> >jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
> >news:<cer16h$8ji$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>
> >> What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
> >> sufficient for the population to explode such that we're
> >> at 6 billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
> >> evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't
> >> seem to be impacting reproductive success. There are
> >> other measures of "harm" but you need to be rather clear
> >> on what it is you mena when you make a statement like
> >> that.
>
> >http://www.who.int/en/ Keywords: IDD Micronutrient
> >deficiencies Malnutrition
>
> Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I was getting at.
> You seem to be suggesting that the whole of our species is
> somehow malnourished and suffering as a result. In
> evolutionary terms, we're not suffering from a collective
> DHA deficiency. The population continues to grow. If our
> brains are 9% smaller, it's not "injurious" to the species
> in terms of decreased reproductive success. The web link
> still doesn't make it clear what you mean by 'injurious to
> our species.' What measure are you using or is the 9%
> difference sufficient for you to conclude an "injury" that
> we have to deal with?

That is a valid argument, taking into account levels of
cardiovascular problems, obesity and allergies it can be
argued that the majority of our species is malnourished…

Why do you see it only in terms of reproduction? IDD results
in eighteen million babies born mentally impaired each year,
are they not harmed? Is it acceptable, that IDD is estimated
to have lowered the intellectual capacity of tens of millions,
by as much as 10 to 15 percentage points? Is it acceptable 740
million are effected by IDD… two billion by VAD?

[Firstjois]

m3d wrote:
>> jae@vici.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
>> news:<cf0o9e$a2j$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>>> m3d <m3d@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>> jae@veni.ucdavis.edu (Jason Eshleman) wrote in message
>>>> news:<cer16h$8ji$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
>>>
>>>>> What exactly does this mean? In terms of the diet being
>>>>> sufficient for the population to explode such that we're
>>>>> at 6 billion people and growing, the diet's fine. In an
>>>>> evolutionary sense, there's no harm as the diet doesn't
>>>>> seem to be impacting reproductive success. There are
>>>>> other measures of "harm" but you need to be rather clear
>>>>> on what it is you mena when you make a statement like
>>>>> that.
>>>
>>>> http://www.who.int/en/ Keywords: IDD Micronutrient
>>>> deficiencies Malnutrition
>>>
>>> Perhaps you didn't quite understand what I was getting at.
>>> You seem to be suggesting that the whole of our species is
>>> somehow malnourished and suffering as a result. In
>>> evolutionary terms, we're not suffering from a collective
>>> DHA deficiency. The population continues to grow. If our
>>> brains are 9% smaller, it's not "injurious" to the species
>>> in terms of decreased reproductive success. The web link
>>> still doesn't make it clear what you mean by 'injurious to
>>> our species.' What measure are you using or is the 9%
>>> difference sufficient for you to conclude an "injury" that
>>> we have to deal with?
>>
>>
>> That is a valid argument, taking into account levels of
>> cardiovascular problems, obesity and allergies it can be
>> argued that the majority of our species is malnourished.
>>
>> Why do you see it only in terms of reproduction? IDD
>> results in eighteen million babies born mentally impaired
>> each year, are they not harmed? Is it acceptable, that IDD
>> is estimated to have lowered the intellectual capacity of
>> tens of millions, by as much as 10 to 15 percentage points?
>> Is it acceptable 740 million are effected by IDD. two
>> billion by VAD?

Holy Cow! Does Pauline know about this? I think she'd
disagree.

Jois

[Pauline M]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:59:59 -0400, "firstjois"
<firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>[m3d] IDD results in eighteen million babies born mentally
>>> impaired each year, are they not harmed? Is it
>>> acceptable, that IDD is estimated to have lowered the
>>> intellectual capacity of tens of millions, by as much
>>> as 10 to 15 percentage points? Is it acceptable 740
>>> million are effected by IDD. two billion by VAD?
>
>Holy Cow! Does Pauline know about this? I think she'd
>disagree.

Not at all. What you are talking about here is a deficiency
of an essential nutrient, which is bound to cause real
physical problems.

The bone of contention in our infant fat discussion was
whether an episode of general malnutrition in childhood causes
significant, permanent brain damage, and whether infant fat
offers any protection against that. I would say that the
evidence is not compelling.

--
Pauline Ross

[Paul Crowl]

"Pauline M Ross" <pmross@ross-software.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45cch05qe44ajpv7lpgmg87c5saboj2clt@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:59:59 -0400, "firstjois"
> <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>[m3d] IDD results in eighteen million babies born
> >>> mentally impaired each year, are they not harmed?
> >>> Is it acceptable, that IDD is estimated to have
> >>> lowered the intellectual capacity of tens of
> >>> millions, by as much as 10 to 15 percentage points?
> >>> Is it acceptable 740 million are effected by IDD.
> >>> two billion by VAD?
> >
> >Holy Cow! Does Pauline know about this? I think she'd
> >disagree.
>
> Not at all. What you are talking about here is a deficiency
> of an essential nutrient, which is bound to cause real
> physical problems.
>
> The bone of contention in our infant fat discussion was
> whether an episode of general malnutrition in childhood
> causes significant, permanent brain damage, and whether
> infant fat offers any protection against that. I would say
> that the evidence is not compelling.

Another issue is whether or not there are any evolutionary
mechanisms whereby infant fat could have evolved for such a
purpose. This is a little technical, and quite beyond the
capacity of all those whose understanding of evolution is
fragile (a category that includes pretty nearly every
professional PA).

The theory that infant fat exists _in_case_ there may be an
episode of malnutrition, requires that evolution create a
feature unknown in any other species -- what could be called a
'might-sometimes-be- needed' feature -- one for a
might-sometimes- happen event. Those who first proposed this
theory did not know that this was unknown in nature -- and
nearly all those who support the theory (being PA types) don't
know it either.

While that greatly undermines its credibility, it does not
necessarily mean that it's false. However, other arguments
against it are overwhelming. The feature has to be selected by
mechanism that will operate some 20+ years AFTER the feature
has ceased to exist. Such an enormous gap in time between
cause and effect is also unknown elsewhere in nature. Again,
those who first proposed this theory did not know that this
was unknown in nature -- and nearly all those who support the
theory (being PA types) don't know it either.

The number of evolutionary oddities and absurdities in this
theory is large. No one in the discipline comments upon them,
because, it would seem, a knowledge of evolutionary principles
has ceased to have any relevance. Indeed, ignorance is now a
necessary qualification.

Like nearly all theories that attain 'official' or
'semi-official' status within the discipline, its origins
are rooted deep in an evolutionary illiteracy. No biologist
would think of proposing a theory remotely like this for any
other species.

Paul.


Paul.

[Firstjois]

Pauline M Ross wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2004 08:59:59 -0400, "firstjois"
>> <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> [m3d] IDD results in eighteen million babies born
>>>>> mentally impaired each year, are they not harmed?
>>>>> Is it acceptable, that IDD is estimated to have
>>>>> lowered the intellectual capacity of tens of
>>>>> millions, by as much as 10 to 15 percentage
>>>>> points? Is it acceptable 740 million are effected
>>>>> by IDD. two billion by VAD?
>>>
>>> Holy Cow! Does Pauline know about this? I think she'd
>>> disagree.
>>
>> Not at all. What you are talking about here is a deficiency
>> of an essential nutrient, which is bound to cause real
>> physical problems.
>>
>> The bone of contention in our infant fat discussion was
>> whether an episode of general malnutrition in childhood
>> causes significant, permanent brain damage, and whether
>> infant fat offers any protection against that. I would say
>> that the evidence is not compelling.
>>
>> --
>> Pauline Ross

Naturally.

[Ray Audett]

m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote in message
news:<be3b1e1f.0408021009.1c4f04e3@posting.google.com>...
> I would also remind those who still believe the old savannah
> hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last 10,000 years
> has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In other words our
> modern "savannah" diet of red meat and wheat, devoid of
> significant marine DHA content, is injurious to our species.
>
Acording to bone anyalis, red meat consumption declined
significantly during the last 10,000 years. see: "Who ate what
when." Oceans (June 1988) 72. or: Bower, B., "The
2-million-year-old meat and marrow diet resurfaces." Science
News (Jan. 3, 1987) 7.

Today, lack of red meat is considered the most common cause of
mental retardation in the world today. see: Scrimshaw, Nevin
S., "Iron Deficiency." Scientific American (Oct. 1991) 46-52.

Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com
[references from bibliography at web site]

[M3d]

rso456@airmail.net (Ray Audette) wrote in message
news:<75a01e37.0408112015.42d1020f@posting.google.com>...
> m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote in message
> news:<be3b1e1f.0408021009.1c4f04e3@posting.google.com>...
> > I would also remind those who still believe the old
> > savannah hypothesis, that hunter-gathering over the last
> > 10,000 years has led to an 8% decrease in brain size. In
> > other words our modern "savannah" diet of red meat and
> > wheat, devoid of significant marine DHA content, is
> > injurious to our species.
> >
> Acording to bone anyalis, red meat consumption declined
> significantly during the last 10,000 years. see: "Who ate
> what when." Oceans (June 1988) 72. or: Bower, B., "The
> 2-million-year-old meat and marrow diet resurfaces." Science
> News (Jan. 3, 1987) 7.
>
>
> Today, lack of red meat is considered the most common cause
> of mental retardation in the world today. see: Scrimshaw,
> Nevin S., "Iron Deficiency." Scientific American (Oct.
> 1991) 46-52.
>
> Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com
> [references from bibliography at web site]

It is not the lack of red meat that is the problem; it is its
deficiently in micronutrients that results health problems.

Nevertheless, if it is your contention that our old omnivore
(Paleolithic) diet, was more balanced and healthier than our
current savannah (Neolithic) diet, then I would agree.

m3d

[Ray Audett]

m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote in message > rso456@airmail.net
(Ray Audette) wrote in message
news:<75a01e37.0408112015.42d1020f@posting.google.com>...
>> > Today, lack of red meat is considered the most common
>> > cause of
mental
> > retardation in the world today. see: Scrimshaw, Nevin S.,
> > "Iron Deficiency." Scientific American (Oct. 1991) 46-52.
> It is not the lack of red meat that is the problem; it is
> its deficiently in micronutrients that results health
> problems.
>

The article states that without the other substances found
in animal food sources and highest in red meat, the human
body cannot absorb iron - even from vegetable sources high
in this mineral.

It's a really good article. I'm sure your public library can
provide you with a copy.

Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com

[M3d]

rso456@airmail.net (Ray Audette) wrote in message
news:<75a01e37.0408132027.64024223@posting.google.com>...
> m3d@lineone.net (m3d) wrote in message > rso456@airmail.net
> (Ray Audette) wrote in message
> news:<75a01e37.0408112015.42d1020f@posting.google.com>...
> >> > Today, lack of red meat is considered the most common
> >> > cause of
> mental
> > > retardation in the world today. see: Scrimshaw, Nevin
> > > S., "Iron Deficiency." Scientific American (Oct. 1991)
> > > 46-52.
> > It is not the lack of red meat that is the problem; it is
> > its deficiently in micronutrients that results health
> > problems.
> >
>
> The article states that without the other substances found
> in animal food sources and highest in red meat, the human
> body cannot absorb iron - even from vegetable sources high
> in this mineral.
>
> It's a really good article. I'm sure your public library can
> provide you with a copy.
>
> Ray Audette Author "NeanderThin" www.NeanderThin.com

Correct... in combination with vegetables, eating red meat can
increase iron uptake fourfold. In other words, a healthy diet
is to eat a combination of iron rich foods, high in both hemo
iron (red meat, fish, poultry) and non-hemo iron (fruits,
vegetables, nuts and eggs).

Have read several of Scrimshaw's articles on iron
deficiency (IDA).

However, my point was that red meat, today, is deficient in
micronutrients.

m3d