Humans as scavengers

[snikers000]

Hey all,

I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me. I
was talking to a friend about the natural diet of humans. It
was my stance that humans have a rather robust digestive
system as compared to most animals, and are capable of eating
food that's considerably ripened beyond that which most
animals can eat. I went on to say that we were gatherers much
more than we were hunters, and that we were scavengers beyond
anything else.

My friend's stance was that we have no tolerance for
semi-rotten meat, and that we hunted far more than we
gathered.

First of all, am I terribly, terribly wrong? Secondly, if I am
in fact correct, could any of you point me towards some
peer-reviewed articles or proof I can use to back up my point?

[Reverend E]

On 10 Jan 2007 08:50:38 -0800, snikers000@hotmail.com wrote:

>First of all, am I terribly, terribly wrong?

Yes.

Sorry, I didn't read any more of your post.
--
.--~~,__
:-....,-------`~~'._.'
`-,,, ,_ ;'~U'
_,-' ,'`-__; '--.
(_/'~~ ''''(;

[Johnwl4@Ao]

snikers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me. I
> was talking to a friend about the natural diet of humans. It
> was my stance that humans have a rather robust digestive
> system as compared to most animals, and are capable of
> eating food that's considerably ripened beyond that which
> most animals can eat. I went on to say that we were
> gatherers much more than we were hunters, and that we were
> scavengers beyond anything else.
>
> My friend's stance was that we have no tolerance for
> semi-rotten meat, and that we hunted far more than we
> gathered.
>
> First of all, am I terribly, terribly wrong? Secondly, if
> I am in fact correct, could any of you point me towards
> some peer-reviewed articles or proof I can use to back up
> my point?

I believe you could find peer reviewed articles on both
sides, or maybe non on either side. Interesting question.
Certainly, people used to hang game until it got 'gamey'.
Might consider that humans need the essential lipid,
linoleic acid, from their diet, and that would probably be
from vegetable sources. OTOH, they also need to 8 essential
amino acids which must be obtained from meat, eggs, or, in
dairy herders, milk, or else by a judicial selection of
various vegetable sources - rice and beans, to name one. So
I think we might conclude they certainly weren't either
obligate herbivores or carnivores, though it would depend
on how fast people adapt. Quite rapidly to developing
lactose tolerance, as was shown wrt a the cattle herders of
Africa. I don't know how long it would take to develop the
ability to form a double carbon bond in fatty acids,
though, for example, which would be necessary to form
linoleic and arachidonic fatty acids. So I'm asking some
people who might know. REgards John GW

P. S. When a crackpot tells you you're wrong, take it as a
compliment.

[Paul Crowl]

<snikers000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168447838.014189.12210@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

> Hey all,
>
> I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me. I
> was talking to a friend about the natural diet of humans. It
> was my stance that humans have a rather robust digestive
> system as compared to most animals,

Where did you get that from? As primates, we are primarily
vegetarians. Which is not to say that we shouldn't eat meat.
(Most chimps hunt small monkeys, and all eat a wide range of
foods, including as much protein as they can find.)

> and are capable of eating food that's considerably ripened
> beyond that which most animals can eat.

There is no sense to comparing us with 'most animals' since
most specialise in one way or the other -- on grass, leaves,
roots, worms or whatever.

A relevant comparison is with carnivores. Most of those can
eat meat that we would find repulsive. Dogs, for example, will
eat almost any old meat.

> I went on to say that we were gatherers much more than
> we were hunters, and that we were scavengers beyond
> anything else.

Exceedingly unlikely. If we ever scavenged to any
significant degree, we'd have adapted to rotten meat to a
much greater extent.

> My friend's stance was that we have no tolerance for
> semi-rotten meat, and that we hunted far more than we
> gathered.

'Gathering' is of plants, and items like seeds, eggs, berries,
snails and sea-food. It is NOT to be confused with
'scavenging'. 'Hunting' is also a bit of a distraction. The
great bulk of food eaten by modern H/G tribes comes from the
_gathering_ of primarily vegetable foods.

> First of all, am I terribly, terribly wrong? Secondly, if
> I am in fact correct, could any of you point me towards
> some peer-reviewed articles or proof I can use to back up
> my point?

Not much chance, I'm afraid. 'Research' in the 'scientific'
journals is driven by politics or by 'political
correctness' and has as much to do with real science as
most 'scientific' work published in the Soviet Union under
Stalin. Authors usually follow the safe course, and say
absolutely nothing at all.

Paul.

[claudiusde]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> <snikers000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168447838.014189.12210@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me. I
> > was talking to a friend about the natural diet of humans.
> > It was my stance that humans have a rather robust
> > digestive system as compared to most animals,
>
> Where did you get that from? As primates, we are primarily
> vegetarians. Which is not to say that we shouldn't eat meat.
> (Most chimps hunt small monkeys, and all eat a wide range of
> foods, including as much protein as they can find.)

Well stated. You have to just about have brain damage to think
there is anything about humans that is consistent with a
scavenging.

>
> > and are capable of eating food that's considerably ripened
> > beyond that which most animals can eat.
>
> There is no sense to comparing us with 'most animals' since
> most specialise in one way or the other -- on grass, leaves,
> roots, worms or whatever.

Again, well stated.

>
> A relevant comparison is with carnivores. Most of those can
> eat meat that we would find repulsive. Dogs, for example,
> will eat almost any old meat.
>
> > I went on to say that we were gatherers much more than
> > we were hunters, and that we were scavengers beyond
> > anything else.
>
> Exceedingly unlikely. If we ever scavenged to any
> significant degree, we'd have adapted to rotten meat to a
> much greater extent.

Of course. This is a good litmus test for diwwittedness.
Anybody that thinks human are in any way consistent with
scavenging is a dimwit.

>
> > My friend's stance was that we have no tolerance for
> > semi-rotten meat, and that we hunted far more than we
> > gathered.
>
> 'Gathering' is of plants, and items like seeds, eggs,
> berries, snails and sea-food. It is NOT to be confused with
> 'scavenging'. 'Hunting' is also a bit of a distraction. The
> great bulk of food eaten by modern H/G tribes comes from the
> _gathering_ of primarily vegetable foods.

Yep.

>
> > First of all, am I terribly, terribly wrong? Secondly, if
> > I am in fact correct, could any of you point me towards
> > some peer-reviewed articles or proof I can use to back up
> > my point?
>
> Not much chance, I'm afraid. 'Research' in the 'scientific'
> journals is driven by politics or by 'political
> correctness' and has as much to do with real science as
> most 'scientific' work published in the Soviet Union under
> Stalin. Authors usually follow the safe course, and say
> absolutely nothing at all.

This too is accurate.

[Paul Crowl]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168660843.942999.270180@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

. . and he provided a good example of modern PA 'thinking'.

> snikers...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me. I
>> was talking to a friend about the natural diet of humans.
>> It was my stance that humans have a rather robust digestive
>> system as compared to most animals, and are capable of
>> eating food that's considerably ripened beyond that which
>> most animals can eat. I went on to say that we were
>> gatherers much more than we were hunters, and that we were
>> scavengers beyond anything else.

> You are quite correct. I don't have anything peer reviewed,

What a surprise!

<snip>

> We also adjust fine to an almost total meat diet, showing we
> would have no trouble as scavengers.

Err . . . how come you cannot provide ONE single example of
human (or hominid) population that lives (or lived) BY
SCAVENGING ?

How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?

It's the classic case of PA "thinking": "We know what we want
to believe -- so that's what we are going to believe -- and to
hell all the evidence staring us in the face."

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

Paul Crowley wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1-
> 168660843.942999.270180@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> . . and he provided a good example of modern PA 'thinking'.
>
> > snikers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for me.
> >> I was talking to a friend about the natural diet of
> >> humans. It was my stance that humans have a rather robust
> >> digestive system as compared to most animals, and are
> >> capable of eating food that's considerably ripened beyond
> >> that which most animals can eat. I went on to say that we
> >> were gatherers much more than we were hunters, and that
> >> we were scavengers beyond anything else.
>
> > You are quite correct. I don't have anything peer
> > reviewed,
>

> What a surprise!

No Crowley, the final site report has not yet been completed
that could very well be an example of what snikers was looking
for, see last paragraph below.

It is no surprise that he is correct, neither hunting OR
scavenging has been refuted for early Homo and plenty of
examples of late Homo scavenging can be given. Most believe
some combination of BOTH were employed, at least of those not
hanging out at the pub for their information.

I don't have anything (at hand) peer reviewed that the earth
is round either, it does not mean peer reviewed work is not
available at the library or is in process.

>
> <snip>
>
> > We also adjust fine to an almost total meat diet, showing
> > we would have no trouble as scavengers.
>
> Err . . . how come you cannot provide ONE single example of
> human (or hominid) population that lives (or lived) BY
> SCAVENGING ?

Reading comp problems again? Go back and read DeVoto's Lewis
and Clark example. They scavenged that whale, end of story.
Where did you ever get the stupid idea that it has been
claimed that populations of humans or lived "BY SCAVENGING"???
Your attempts at wooden man tactics are pathetic and childish.
Cite you source...put up or shut up.

The question that you so ignorantly ignored was about our
tolerance for somewhat-rancid meat. The issue about scavenging
has not been completely resolved in the literature, and is a
totally different issue. A group could, for instance, kill an
animal by hunting and feed on it until it did turn rancid. A
group could kill an animal one week and scavenge an animal the
next, thus mixing hunting with scavenging, just EXACTLY as
other predators do. There is nothing unusual about this
scenario at all, it is the norm, not the exception.

I notice you did not provide one solitary example, peer
reviewed or otherwise, to refute the examples given. What's
the matter, the lads down at the pub stop feeding you
information?

>
> How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
> population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?

Snikers said; "beyond anything else". He didn't say ONLY. Your
inability to read demonstrates how you continually come up
with hysterically funny ideas like "chimps can't dig". And
what difference would it make, rotten is rotten, scavenged or
not. Where did you get this wooden-population idea that man
is/was some sort of scavenger ONLY (do you believe everything
you hear down at the pub?)?

Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or
scavenging. The question was, again, about eating
something rancid, how it was obtained has not been fully
resolved or REFUTED.

> It's the classic case of PA "thinking": "We know what we
> want to believe -- so

You are delusional, hard evidence was given, and no evidence
has been given by you or anyone else to refute the examples.

> that's what we are going to believe -- and to hell all the
> evidence staring us in the face."

So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly total
meat diet and anyone who was brought up on eating rancid
items (and some who weren't) can do just fine and this can't
be refuted. The only thing there is to believe is the cold
hard facts.

To review. The largest animals with stone tool-cut marks are
hippos and elephants. It is hardly likely these were killed by
early Homo, therefore, as snikers suggested, scavenged. Only
much later is there evidence for the killing of large animals.
The smaller animals were probably hunted. There is nothing
inconsistent with what snikers claimed. Many ethnographic
accounts prove we can and do eat rancid food.

Marc cited an example of tools and a whale being found
together on an African beach. No one is suggesting early Homo
(of over 1 million years ago) had the technology to hunt
whales in open water. If it turns out, when the final site
report is released, the whale bones have stone tool cut marks
on them, this will be a peer-reviewed example (scavenging)
that snikers is looking for.

>
>
> Paul.

[Nickname]

Lee Olsen wrote:
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> > "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote in message news-
> > :1168660843.942999.270180@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > . . and he provided a good example of modern PA
> > 'thinking'.
> >
> > > snikers...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> I was wondering if you could resolve an argument for
> > >> me. I was talking to a friend about the natural diet of
> > >> humans. It was my stance that humans have a rather
> > >> robust digestive system as compared to most animals,
> > >> and are capable of eating food that's considerably
> > >> ripened beyond that which most animals can eat. I went
> > >> on to say that we were gatherers much more than we were
> > >> hunters, and that we were scavengers beyond anything
> > >> else.
> >
> > > You are quite correct. I don't have anything peer
> > > reviewed,
> >
>
> > What a surprise!
>
> No Crowley, the final site report has not yet been completed
> that could very well be an example of what snikers was
> looking for, see last paragraph below.
>
> It is no surprise that he is correct, neither hunting OR
> scavenging has been refuted for early Homo and plenty of
> examples of late Homo scavenging can be given. Most believe
> some combination of BOTH were employed, at least of those
> not hanging out at the pub for their information.
>
> I don't have anything (at hand) peer reviewed that the earth
> is round either, it does not mean peer reviewed work is not
> available at the library or is in process.
>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > We also adjust fine to an almost total meat diet,
> > > showing we would have no trouble as scavengers.
> >
> > Err . . . how come you cannot provide ONE single example
> > of human (or hominid) population that lives (or lived) BY
> > SCAVENGING ?
>
> Reading comp problems again? Go back and read DeVoto's Lewis
> and Clark example. They scavenged that whale, end of story.
> Where did you ever get the stupid idea that it has been
> claimed that populations of humans or lived "BY
> SCAVENGING"??? Your attempts at wooden man tactics are
> pathetic and childish. Cite you source...put up or shut up.
>
> The question that you so ignorantly ignored was about our
> tolerance for somewhat-rancid meat. The issue about
> scavenging has not been completely resolved in the
> literature, and is a totally different issue. A group could,
> for instance, kill an animal by hunting and feed on it until
> it did turn rancid. A group could kill an animal one week
> and scavenge an animal the next, thus mixing hunting with
> scavenging, just EXACTLY as other predators do. There is
> nothing unusual about this scenario at all, it is the norm,
> not the exception.
>
> I notice you did not provide one solitary example, peer
> reviewed or otherwise, to refute the examples given. What's
> the matter, the lads down at the pub stop feeding you
> information?
>
> >
> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
> > population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?
>
> Snikers said; "beyond anything else". He didn't say ONLY.
> Your inability to read demonstrates how you continually come
> up with hysterically funny ideas like "chimps can't dig".
> And what difference would it make, rotten is rotten,
> scavenged or not. Where did you get this wooden-population
> idea that man is/was some sort of scavenger ONLY (do you
> believe everything you hear down at the pub?)?
>
>
> Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or
> scavenging. The question was, again, about eating something
> rancid, how it was obtained has not been fully resolved or
> REFUTED.
>
> > It's the classic case of PA "thinking": "We know what we
> > want to believe -- so
>
> You are delusional, hard evidence was given, and no evidence
> has been given by you or anyone else to refute the examples.
>
>
> > that's what we are going to believe -- and to hell all the
> > evidence staring us in the face."
>
> So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
> Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly total
> meat diet and anyone who was brought up on eating rancid
> items (and some who weren't) can do just fine and this can't
> be refuted. The only thing there is to believe is the cold
> hard facts.

If the Inuit ate only meat they would die. It's the blubber,
skin and offal that gives them the critical nutrients to
survive, the meat is just protein. Same for arctic wolves and
polar bears.

>
> To review. The largest animals with stone tool-cut marks are
> hippos and elephants. It is hardly likely these were killed
> by early Homo, therefore, as snikers suggested, scavenged.
> Only much later is there evidence for the killing of large
> animals. The smaller animals were probably hunted. There is
> nothing inconsistent with what snikers claimed. Many
> ethnographic accounts prove we can and do eat rancid food.
>
> Marc cited an example of tools and a whale being found
> together on an African beach. No one is suggesting early
> Homo (of over 1 million years ago) had the technology to
> hunt whales in open water. If it turns out, when the final
> site report is released, the whale bones have stone tool
> cut marks on them, this will be a peer-reviewed example
> (scavenging) that snikers is looking for.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Paul.

[Jois]

"johnwl4@aol.com" <jgissw@pwi.net> wrote in message
news:1168660072.824626.166300@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, Pete, Guess I'll top post, since my only remark is,
> "There's no disputing tastes." Have you ever had palola
> worms? REgards John GW
>
>
[snip]
>>
>> I wonder how much of our ability to digest things is
>> dependent simply on what we are exposed to in infancy.
>> Perhaps our digestive systems are very flexibly
>> programmable when you start early enough.
>>
>> At any rate, it still happens now and then that the local
>> indians screw up with their sauce making, and a family will
>> come near to being completely wiped out. The current
>> revision of the recipe, by the way, involves `pour into a
>> black plastic garbage bag, place inside a plastic bucket,
>> and bury in the back yard for three months' and does not at
>> any point call for cooking.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ==========================================================================

>> vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
>> Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

That's a lot of icky stuff!

I suppose our taste for certain foods would depend on what we
are exposed to - early infancy or not. Children certainly have
food preferences which change as they grow older. You must
remember seeing little kids who want their food separated and
don't want the meat, potatoes, and veggies to be mixed
together or maybe not even touch? Most kids like milk
chocolate while many grown-ups like the dark chocolate.

People in some of the third world countries have bacteria in
their upper digestive system where people in developed
countries do not. This bacteria may help digestion for the
foods they do eat, I don't know. The bacteria does interfere
with the oral "vaccines" that health care people would like to
give them for the various communicable diseases we now rarely
see in developed countries. These vaccines can be given by
injection but this requires antiseptic preparation, qualified
people to dispense, it is slow, and there are probably other
problems I can't think of now. I think there are several
groups in the US and other places working on special oral
vaccines for third world countries now that would survive
upper digestive tract bacteria. Anyway, it may be that ancient
humans who scavenged had the same distribution of bacteria as
some third world peoples do today.

Jois

--
My dogs are not my children. At least that is what their piano
teacher says.

[Jois]

"pete" <vincent@triumfunspam.ca> wrote in message
news:eo9h4p$l1j$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
> on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:25:22 -0500, Jois
> <firstjois@hotmail.com> sez:
>
>>Your post reminded me to check on the differences between
>>Turkey Vultures (in the US) and Buzzards
>
>>http://vulturesociety.homestead.com/
>
>>http://www.desertusa.com/magdec97/dec_pap/du_tkvulture.html
>>"Unlike most birds, vultures have a keen sense of smell. The
>>Turkey Vulture's olfactory sense is estimated to be 3 times
>>that of the smaller Black Vulture, which is also found in
>>the North American Deserts. The California Condor, now
>>almost extinct, is the third member of the Cathartidae
>>Family, referred to as the American Vultures. Vultures are
>>sometimes mistakenly called buzzards, the British name for
>>buteos -- hawks of the Buteo genus."
>
>
>>If you have lived in Western USA you might have grown up
>>using "buzzard" as the general term for all of these birds.
>>I did and I have to remind myself to separate them in
>>general use.
>
> All of them? In my part of the woods, buzzard seems too have
> devolved to a sort of uneducated (sometimes deliberately, as
> an emphasis of proletarian origin - you know, part of
> reverse snobbery) term reserved exclusively for vultures; in
> fact often heard in the term "turkey buzzard", (or in
> "buzzards are circling").
>
> Note also that the prime north american archetype for buteos
> is the red-tailed hawk, a brawny, broad winged,
> bushy-feathered bird quite at the other pole among raptors
> from the turkey vulture.
>
Pete, as a kid in Texas or California, if something was up
there circling it was a buzzard. "Turkey buzzard" doesn't
sound quite right, probably didn't hear it very often and I
only found out about hawks when I started to see them picking
song birds of bird feeders in the back yard in Virginia. I
think I've seen red-tailed hawks on telephone wires.

Location, location, location

Jois

[Rmacfarl]

Jois wrote: ...
>
> That's a lot of icky stuff!
>
> I suppose our taste for certain foods would depend on what
> we are exposed to - early infancy or not. Children certainly
> have food preferences which change as they grow older. You
> must remember seeing little kids who want their food
> separated and don't want the meat, potatoes, and veggies to
> be mixed together or maybe not even touch? Most kids like
> milk chocolate while many grown-ups like the dark chocolate.
>
> People in some of the third world countries have bacteria
> in their upper digestive system where people in developed
> countries do not. This bacteria may help digestion for the
> foods they do eat, I don't know. The bacteria does
> interfere with the oral "vaccines" that health care people
> would like to give them for the various communicable
> diseases we now rarely see in developed countries. These
> vaccines can be given by injection but this requires
> antiseptic preparation, qualified people to dispense, it is
> slow, and there are probably other problems I can't think
> of now. I think there are several groups in the US and
> other places working on special oral vaccines for third
> world countries now that would survive upper digestive
> tract bacteria. Anyway, it may be that ancient humans who
> scavenged had the same distribution of bacteria as some
> third world peoples do today.

Jugged hare...

Ross Macfarlane

[Jois]

"rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:1168749869.534104.179830@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jois wrote: ...
>>
>> That's a lot of icky stuff!
>>
>> I suppose our taste for certain foods would depend on what
>> we are exposed to - early infancy or not. Children
>> certainly have food preferences which change as they grow
>> older. You must remember seeing little kids who want their
>> food separated and don't want the meat, potatoes, and
>> veggies to be mixed together or maybe not even touch? Most
>> kids like milk chocolate while many grown-ups like the dark
>> chocolate.
>>
>> People in some of the third world countries have bacteria
>> in their upper digestive system where people in developed
>> countries do not. This bacteria may help digestion for the
>> foods they do eat, I don't know. The bacteria does
>> interfere with the oral "vaccines" that health care people
>> would like to give them for the various communicable
>> diseases we now rarely see in developed countries. These
>> vaccines can be given by injection but this requires
>> antiseptic preparation, qualified people to dispense, it is
>> slow, and there are probably other problems I can't think
>> of now. I think there are several groups in the US and
>> other places working on special oral vaccines for third
>> world countries now that would survive upper digestive
>> tract bacteria. Anyway, it may be that ancient humans who
>> scavenged had the same distribution of bacteria as some
>> third world peoples do today.
>
> Jugged hare...
>
> Ross Macfarlane
>

That's right up there in the double "ick" class!

I'm hearing a lot about stuffing a turkey with a duck and the
duck with a chicken. I guess they cook it. I suppose you
Aussie guys would eat that mess, too!

Geesh!

Jois

[Paul Crowl]

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:87wt3plpnj.fld@apaflo.com...

> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
>>> > population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?
>
> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US, and
> is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of Texans??? ;-)

That's always fresh meat, and hardly constitutes 'scavenging'.

> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of
> this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and whales
> that wash up dead on shore. They are *very* careful about
> what part is scavanged and what is not. A "stinker" is a
> whale that is found floating (sometimes underneath the ice).
> The blubber is typically edible, the meat is not.

The Eskimo experience is of little relevance to that of our
African ancestors -- and our evolution. Meat and blubber under
ice, or in similar temperatures, will 'keep' for a very long
time by comparison with that in tropical conditions.

>>> To review. The largest animals with stone tool-cut marks
>>> are hippos and elephants. It is hardly likely these were
>>> killed by early Homo,

Our ancestors in Africa would certainly have taken what meat
they could find from a fresh kill. But it would not have
stayed fresh long in those temperatures.

> What, no whales with stone tool-cut marks?

They might even have taken meat and blubber from a freshly
stranded whale. But that is very much 'might'. It would
rapidly die and start to smell too much.

>>> therefore, as snikers suggested, scavenged. Only much
>>> later is there evidence for the killing of large animals.
>>> The smaller animals were probably hunted. There is nothing
>>> inconsistent with what snikers claimed. Many ethnographic
>>> accounts prove we can and do eat rancid food.

Most cats do not scavenge -- in the sense that they will only
eat fresh meat. They will steal fresh kills but, unlike most
carnivores, they ignore meat older than a day or two. There is
clearly a significant cost to evolving stomach acid capable of
dealing with older or rotting meat. Humans are, in this
respect, identical. That is hardly surprising. Cats have a
nearly 100% meat diet and, in the wild, cannot adapt to other
foods. The benefits to them of being able to consume older
meat would seem to be substantial -- yet they do not incur the
cost. The benefits to humans would be much less, since they
eat a wide range of foods; also they would hardly encounter
decomposing meat with the same frequency as cats.

The notion that human ancestors -- living in the tropics --
became adapted to scavenging rotting meat is one of the more
absurd . . from a wide range of highly absurd fantasies.

Paul.

[Rmacfarl]

Jois wrote:
> "rmacfarl" <rmacfarl@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message new-
> s:1168749869.534104.179830@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> > Jugged hare...
> >
> > Ross Macfarlane
> >
>
> That's right up there in the double "ick" class!
>
> I'm hearing a lot about stuffing a turkey with a duck and
> the duck with a chicken. I guess they cook it. I suppose you
> Aussie guys would eat that mess, too!

Meat on meat on meat! Sounds yummy!

Not that I could come at jugged hare. Nor yet that staple of
my forebears, haggis. And when in the year I spent in Iowa I
was offered Rocky Mountain Oysters, I politely refused. (But
the 'coon & terrapin were OK!)

Hmm, time I went home for dinner. Tonight's menu: Kanga Bangas
(truly!) Triple yum!!

Ross Macfarlane :-)

[Lee Olsen]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
> >> > population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?
>
> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US, and
> is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of Texans??? ;-)
>
> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of
> this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and whales
> that wash up dead on shore. They are *very* careful about
> what part is scavanged and what is not. A "stinker" is a
> whale that is found floating (sometimes underneath the ice).
> The blubber is typically edible, the meat is not.

Reference point for much of what silliness? It would help if
you used attribution marks so the group would know what you
are talking about. If Eskimos are *very* carefull about what
they take, it only goes to show Eskimos used a quite different
approach than the Chinook, proving different people at
different times processed beached whales differently. So what
was your point?

>
> ...
> >> Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or
> >> scavenging. The question was, again, about eating
> >> something rancid, how it was obtained has not been fully
> >> resolved or REFUTED.
>
> I would question most people's definition of "rancid" too.

Most people and my dictionary.

> There are various different ways that meat ages. Bacterial
> action is "rot". Enzyme action is "aging". Fermented meat is
> commonly eaten in many cultures, and typically is referred
> to as "rotten" or "rancid" by anyone else.

So, humans eat rotten and fermented meat.

>
> ...
> >> So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
> >> Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly
> >> total meat diet and anyone who
>
> I don't know that Eskimo people ever typically functioned
> just fine on a nearly total meat diet. I see people who
> claim that all the time, but they don't have a clue what
> they are talking about.

There may be a misunderstanding here. "on a nearly total meat
diet."? Literally? I cited numerous examples in my post that
stated just the opposite, that H/G were eating all parts of
animals, NOT just the meat (dictionary: "especially muscle"
but not limited to only muscle) and some of these products
quite rotten. That is what snikers asked for, proof or
peer-reviewed examples. A better choice of words on my part
would have been on nearly total animal products. Do you still
have a problem worded in this way?
>
> >> was brought up on eating rancid items (and some who
> >> weren't) can do just fine and this can't be refuted. The
> >> only thing there is to believe is the cold hard facts.
> >
> >If the Inuit ate only meat they would die. It's the
> >blubber, skin and offal that gives them the critical
> >nutrients to survive, the meat is just protein. Same for
> >arctic wolves and polar bears.
>
> Offal??? Sounds like bullshit to me...
>
> Whatever, wolves indeed eat more than just the meat. They
> also eat fat and the intestinal contents.
>
> Polar bears are entirely different though. They eat
> *blubber*, period. Only a *very* hungry polar bear will eat
> meat or anything other than blubber. A typical seal killed
> by a polar bear provides the bear with blubber, and several
> birds and foxes with meat and other remains that the bear
> won't eat.
>
> >> To review. The largest animals with stone tool-cut marks
> >> are hippos and elephants. It is hardly likely these were
> >> killed by early Homo,
>
> What, no whales with stone tool-cut marks?
>
> >> therefore, as snikers suggested, scavenged. Only much
> >> later is there evidence for the killing of large animals.
> >> The smaller animals were probably hunted. There is
> >> nothing inconsistent with what snikers claimed. Many
> >> ethnographic accounts prove we can and do eat rancid
> >> food.
>
> That appears to be a reasonable statement.
>
> >> Marc cited an example of tools and a whale being found
> >> together on an African beach. No one is suggesting early
> >> Homo (of over 1 million years ago) had the technology to
> >> hunt whales in open water. If it turns out, when the
> >> final site report is released, the whale bones have
> >> stone tool cut marks on them, this will be a
> >> peer-reviewed example (scavenging) that snikers is
> >> looking for.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

[Lee Olsen]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of
> >> >> > human population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten
> >> >> > meat ?
> >>
> >> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US,
> >> and is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of
> >> Texans??? ;-)
> >>
> >> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much
> >> of this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and
> >> whales that wash up dead on shore. They are *very*
> >> careful about what part is scavanged and what is not. A
> >> "stinker" is a whale that is found floating (sometimes
> >> underneath the ice). The blubber is typically edible, the
> >> meat is not.
> >
> >Reference point for much of what silliness? It would help
> >if you used attribution marks so the group would know what
> >you are talking about.
>
> I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in
> detail insignificant volumes of text. The attribution marks
> are there, what is your problem?

"Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of this
silliness,...." Again, what "silliness" are you referring to?
I see your comments, but nothing directly to what you are
commenting about. It comes as no surprise that Eskimo's
scavenge, did someone say they didn't?

>
> >If Eskimos are *very* carefull about what they take, it
> >only goes to show Eskimos used a quite different approach
> >than the Chinook, proving different people at different
> >times processed beached whales differently. So what was
> >your point?
>
> I have no way to reference what the Chinook did or didn't,
> but given what you have said in this article I see no reason
> to assume you are correct in the above statement.

DeVoto (1963) page 306..... "I don't any feel a need to either
quote or summarize in detail" significant "volumes of text."

>
> >> ...
> >> >> Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or
> >> >> scavenging. The question was, again, about eating
> >> >> something rancid, how it was obtained has not been
> >> >> fully resolved or REFUTED.
> >>
> >> I would question most people's definition of
> >> "rancid" too.
> >
> >Most people and my dictionary.
>
> Rancid is not the same as rotton.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rancid Main Entry:
rancid Part of Speech: adjective Definition: rotten

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Rancid rancid Having
a smell or taste, from chemical change or decomposition.

decomposition: noun: the organic phenomenon of rotting

>
> >> There are various different ways that meat ages.
> >> Bacterial action is "rot". Enzyme action is "aging".
> >> Fermented meat is commonly eaten in many cultures, and
> >> typically is referred to as "rotten" or "rancid" by
> >> anyone else.
> >
> >So, humans eat rotten and fermented meat.
>
> It *is* confusing. Bacterial action is what actually makes
> something rotten. Enzymes and fermentation do not make it
> rotten. But in all cases is might have significant odor,
> which means it is technically "rancid".

My comment was not the least bit confusing, humans eat rotten
animal products...end of story.

>
> Humans are culture centric. They will have a specific name
> for any food prepared by fermentation or enzymes that *they*
> eat, but will refer to anything made by a different culture
> as "rotten".
>
> Hence *you* keep claiming the Eskimos eat "rotton" meat.
> They don't think so. But to them, you eat rotton milk and
> cream, which they don't... ;-)

Floyd above: "The attribution marks are there, what is your
problem?" My problem is your misquoting me. I don't like to be
misquoted any more than you do. Cite where I ever stated
Eskimos ate rotten or even rancid meat. I cited Lewis and
Clark, they didn't mention if the whale they saw was rotten or
rancid. I cited an example of NAs eating a rotten monkey, do
Eskimos eat monkeys (generally)? I think of Alaska as a place
where mammoths remain frozen solid for 30,000 years, and maybe
some human brains up there may be frozen also :-).

What's more, just because Eskimos don't normally eat
"semi-rotten" (from snikers original post) meat, doesn't mean
they couldn't. The topic (one of them) of this thread is to
falsify sniker's: "It was my stance that humans have a rather
robust digestive system as compared to most animals, and are
capable of eating food that's considerably ripened beyond that
which most animals can eat." This has not yet been done. What
you need to do now is go back and reread where you *think* I
claimed Eskimos ate "rotton" meat.... I will be waiting
patiently for your apology. May I remind you.... you started
off in this thread by misquoting nickname, he didn't say that,
Crowley did.

>
> >> ...
> >> >> So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
> >> >> Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly
> >> >> total meat diet and anyone who
> >>
> >> I don't know that Eskimo people ever typically functioned
> >> just fine on a nearly total meat diet. I see people who
> >> claim that all the time, but they don't have a clue what
> >> they are talking about.
> >
> > There may be a misunderstanding here. "on a nearly total
> > meat diet."? Literally? I cited numerous examples in my
> > post that stated just the opposite, that H/G were eating
> > all parts of animals, NOT just the meat (dictionary:
> > "especially muscle" but not limited to only muscle) and
> > some of these products quite rotten. That is what snikers
> > asked for, proof or peer-reviewed examples. A better
> > choice of words on my part would have been on nearly total
> > animal products. Do you still have a problem worded in
> > this way?
>
> I do not know of any Eskimo culture ever purposely
> subsisting on a diet that was essentially "nearly total
> animal products".
>
> They eat a significant amount of plants. Berries, tubers,
> grasses, and green leefy plants were all gathered and
> eaten daily.

"I have no way to reference" if they did or didn't..... "but
given what you have said in this article I see no reason to
assume you are correct in the above statement."

>
> The significance of a traditional Eskimo diet was a *higher*
> meat portion, and in particular a higher animal fat portion.
> The fat, however, was virtually all from either cold water
> fish or marine mammals, which is significantly diffferent
> than fat from typical farm animals found in temperate zones.

>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

[Floyd L. D]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of
>> >> > human population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten
>> >> > meat ?
>>
>> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US, and
>> is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of Texans??? ;-)
>>
>> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much
>> of this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and whales
>> that wash up dead on shore. They are *very* careful about
>> what part is scavanged and what is not. A "stinker" is a
>> whale that is found floating (sometimes underneath the
>> ice). The blubber is typically edible, the meat is not.
>
>Reference point for much of what silliness? It would help if
>you used attribution marks so the group would know what you
>are talking about.

I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in detail
insignificant volumes of text. The attribution marks are
there, what is your problem?

>If Eskimos are *very* carefull about what they take, it only
>goes to show Eskimos used a quite different approach than the
>Chinook, proving different people at different times
>processed beached whales differently. So what was your point?

I have no way to reference what the Chinook did or didn't, but
given what you have said in this article I see no reason to
assume you are correct in the above statement.

>> ...
>> >> Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting or
>> >> scavenging. The question was, again, about eating
>> >> something rancid, how it was obtained has not been
>> >> fully resolved or REFUTED.
>>
>> I would question most people's definition of "rancid" too.
>
>Most people and my dictionary.

Rancid is not the same as rotton.

>> There are various different ways that meat ages. Bacterial
>> action is "rot". Enzyme action is "aging". Fermented meat
>> is commonly eaten in many cultures, and typically is
>> referred to as "rotten" or "rancid" by anyone else.
>
>So, humans eat rotten and fermented meat.

It *is* confusing. Bacterial action is what actually makes
something rotten. Enzymes and fermentation do not make it
rotten. But in all cases is might have significant odor, which
means it is technically "rancid".

Humans are culture centric. They will have a specific name
for any food prepared by fermentation or enzymes that *they*
eat, but will refer to anything made by a different culture
as "rotten".

Hence *you* keep claiming the Eskimos eat "rotton" meat. They
don't think so. But to them, you eat rotton milk and cream,
which they don't... ;-)

>> ...
>> >> So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
>> >> Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly
>> >> total meat diet and anyone who
>>
>> I don't know that Eskimo people ever typically functioned
>> just fine on a nearly total meat diet. I see people who
>> claim that all the time, but they don't have a clue what
>> they are talking about.
>
> There may be a misunderstanding here. "on a nearly total
> meat diet."? Literally? I cited numerous examples in my post
> that stated just the opposite, that H/G were eating all
> parts of animals, NOT just the meat (dictionary: "especially
> muscle" but not limited to only muscle) and some of these
> products quite rotten. That is what snikers asked for, proof
> or peer-reviewed examples. A better choice of words on my
> part would have been on nearly total animal products. Do you
> still have a problem worded in this way?

I do not know of any Eskimo culture ever purposely subsisting
on a diet that was essentially "nearly total animal products".

They eat a significant amount of plants. Berries, tubers,
grasses, and green leefy plants were all gathered and
eaten daily.

The significance of a traditional Eskimo diet was a *higher*
meat portion, and in particular a higher animal fat portion.
The fat, however, was virtually all from either cold water
fish or marine mammals, which is significantly diffferent than
fat from typical farm animals found in temperate zones.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

[Paul Crowl]

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:871wlvhbun.fld@apaflo.com...

> "How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
> population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?"
>
> As was quoted in each of your responses, including the
> article to which I am replying. As we have noted, the
> definition of "rotten" is open to debate, but I don't think
> Crowley intended that to be the sticking point.

It is the sticking point. Some (or most) of the predators in
Africa scavenge on carcases eating meat that would be inedible
to humans (no matter how 'culturally adapted' they could
become). Crocodiles and vultures are probably the most extreme
examples, with hyenas and dogs not too far behind them.

The question is why humans are not closer to (say) dogs in
this respect, IF they evolved to be scavengers.

In fact, in this respect, they have scarcely moved from the
chimp level. In other words, there has been NO selection in
the direction of a capacity to consume "older meat". The
'scavenging hypothesis' is defeated.

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> "Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> >> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of
> >> >> >> > human population that DOES ANY scavenging of
> >> >> >> > rotten meat ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US,
> >> >> and is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of
> >> >> Texans??? ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for
> >> >> much of this silliness, and they scavange both walrus
> >> >> and whales that wash up dead on shore. They are *very*
> >> >> careful about what part is scavanged and what is not.
> >> >> A "stinker" is a whale that is found floating
> >> >> (sometimes underneath the ice). The blubber is
> >> >> typically edible, the meat is not.
> >> >
> >> >Reference point for much of what silliness? It would
> >> >help if you used attribution marks so the group would
> >> >know what you are talking about.
> >>
> >> I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in
> >> detail insignificant volumes of text. The attribution
> >> marks are there, what is your problem?
> >
> >"Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much of this
> >silliness,...." Again, what "silliness" are you referring
> >to? I see your comments, but nothing directly to what you
> >are commenting about. It comes as no surprise that Eskimo's
> >scavenge, did someone say they didn't?
>
> More silliness.
>
> "How come you cannot provide ONE single example of
> human population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten
> meat ?"
>
> As was quoted in each of your responses, including the
> article to which I am replying. As we have noted, the
> definition of "rotten" is open to debate, but I don't think
> Crowley intended that to be the sticking point.

I have some bad news for you, there certainly wasn't
"silliness" in anything I said in each of my responces. That
maybe what you claimed, but you forgot just one thing,
proof......Oh yes, we forgot, lip-sevice accusations from
Floyd is proof, why?, because Floyd said so... everyone
recognize the circular reasoning here from Floyd?

Floyd Davidson: "but I don't think Crowley intended that to be
the sticking point." That wasn't what was asked Mr. Evasive,
do you always ignore what was asked and reply to what wasn't?
Talk about dishonesty....

Floyd Davidson: "Eskimos seem to be the reference point for
much of this silliness,...."?????? Do you see anything at all
about "Eskimos" in Crowley's question? Twice I asked a civil
question and twice I got evasiveness back. And you have the
balls to call me dishonest?

>
> >> >If Eskimos are *very* carefull about what they take, it
> >> >only goes to show Eskimos used a quite different
> >> >approach than the Chinook, proving different people at
> >> >different times processed beached whales differently. So
> >> >what was your point?
> >>
> >> I have no way to reference what the Chinook did or
> >> didn't, but given what you have said in this article I
> >> see no reason to assume you are correct in the above
> >> statement.
> >
> >DeVoto (1963) page 306..... "I don't any feel a need to
> >either quote or summarize in detail" significant "volumes
> >of text."
>
> Lee, you need to learn to be polite, and honest. If you have
> something that is important, please to provide a reference,
> or better yet a quote when you have something that is not
> available on the Internet.

Unbelievable, Floyd gets to cite himself (as an authority on
nothing), and Lee gets to cite from the literature, now that's
fair, right?

What arrogance, particularly from a dishonest person who
doesn't know what he is talking about. Your evasisiness to my
question was duly noted and shoved back in your face. You got
back just exactly what you dished out and now you are whinning
like a spoiled brat. Secondly, DeVoto was cited long before
you came into this conversation, your ignorance of the
literature is hardly anyone else's problem, particularly
cominig from a guy who claims: "I clearly have been living
with Eskimos for decades and don't need to reference another
primary source for my observations about what Eskimos have
taught me."

>
> What I said was this (note the significant difference from
> what you have above):
>
> "I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in
> detail insignificant volumes of text. The attribution
> marks are there, what is your problem?"

That is exactly why I changed it. Somehow you decided on your
own that what I was asking for something "insignificant" That
was your opinion maybe, but not mine. The attribution marks
may have been there, but they clearly did not reference to
what I asked, see above. Silliness from Crowley maybe, but not
silliness about Eskimos.

>
> You make an effort to be impolite, and use dishonest means
> to support a poor practice.

Floyd Davidson: "I see people who claim that all the time, but
they don't have a clue what they are talking about." That was
an insult and very impolite, get your own house in order
before making impolite accusations about others.

>
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> Meat turns rancid whether it is killed by hunting
> >> >> >> or scavenging. The question was, again, about
> >> >> >> eating something rancid, how it was obtained has
> >> >> >> not been fully resolved or REFUTED.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would question most people's definition of "rancid"
> >> >> too.
> >> >
> >> >Most people and my dictionary.
> >>
> >> Rancid is not the same as rotton.
> >
> >http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rancidMain Entry:
> >rancid Part of Speech: adjective Definition: rotten
> >
> >http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Rancidrancid
> >Having a smell or taste, from chemical change or
> >decomposition.
>
> That one is correct. It can be smell or taste from *any*
> form of decomposition, as opposed to only that caused by
> bacterial action.
>
> Yes, I am aware of the technical definitions, which vary
> all over the place. My point was and has to do with the
> connotation that use of these various words will have for
> the readers.

Snikers: "It was my stance that humans have a rather robust
digestive system as compared to most animals, and are capable
of eating food that's considerably ripened beyond that which
most animals can eat."

Chimps do not eat rotten/rancid food. They smell it, and if it
smells bad, they reject it. We do not, in many cases we can
eat it even if we don't like it, and that is the issue. Your
smoke and mirrior BS about differences between "rotton" and
rancid was just that, smoke. Your tunnel vision about what you
have claimed to have learned from your one generation of
living with Eskimos has nothing at all to do with the question
posed by snikers. Nobody gives a rats ass what the Eskimo
cultural preferences are, it is only on an evolutionary scale
that it is relevant.

>
> >decomposition: noun: the organic phenomenon of rotting
> >>
> >> >> There are various different ways that meat ages.
> >> >> Bacterial action is "rot". Enzyme action is "aging".
> >> >> Fermented meat is commonly eaten in many cultures, and
> >> >> typically is referred to as "rotten" or "rancid" by
> >> >> anyone else.
> >> >
> >> >So, humans eat rotten and fermented meat.
> >>
> >> It *is* confusing. Bacterial action is what actually
> >> makes something rotten. Enzymes and fermentation do not
> >> make it rotten. But in all cases is might have
> >> significant odor, which means it is technically "rancid".
> >
> >My comment was not the least bit confusing, humans eat
> >rotten animal products...end of story.
>
> Just don't refer to aged or fermented meat as "rotten animal
> products", especially if you are talking about food common
> in a culture other than your own.

Irrelevant 99% of the time in Africa were we evolved our guts.
Aging requires coolness to work best. How much aging and how
often does it happen in 120 heat on the savanna? You are being
trivial beyond any sense of reality for this topic.

>
> >> Humans are culture centric. They will have a specific
> >> name for any food prepared by fermentation or enzymes
> >> that *they* eat, but will refer to anything made by a
> >> different culture as "rotten".
> >>
> >> Hence *you* keep claiming the Eskimos eat "rotton" meat.
> >> They don't think so. But to them, you eat rotton milk and
> >> cream, which they don't... ;-)
> >
> >Floyd above: "The attribution marks are there, what is your
> >problem?" My problem is your misquoting me. I don't like to
> >be misquoted any more than you do. Cite where I ever stated
> >Eskimos ate rotten or even rancid meat.
>
> I didn't quote you, therefore I can't have misquoted you.

Bullshit. Floyd Davidson: *you*......"rotton". What are the
quotation marks doing around the word "rotton" then? Do you
know what " " are?

>
> What you mean to claim is that I mis-summarized what you

No, "rotton" is a direct quote that was wrong.

> actually did say. I don't agree. You have twice implied very
> strongly, though not specifically claimed, that Eskimos eat
> rotten meat.

IOW, you can't cite were I ever said: *you* keep claiming the
Eskimos eat "rotton" meat. "*you* keep claiming" is plural,
which is nothing more than a fabricated lie. Not only can you
not quote once where I said: "Hence *you* keep claiming the
Eskimos eat "rotton" meat." let alone twice. The only thing
you can do is put words into my mouth with your flawed
interpretation of what I said. Another example of your
dishonesty.

>
> "So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit (and probably most
> Neandertals) can/could function just fine on a nearly
> total meat diet and anyone who was brought up on eating
> rancid items (and some who weren't) can do just fine ..."
>
> Who else would you be saying are these people "brought up on
> eating rancid items"?

Wrong. I said "anyone who" ( That is not the same as WERE
brought up on) which was a true statement of fact, which I
notce you are carefull not to challenge. You only seem
interested in arguing semantics, not facts (I wonder why?).
Just exactly who I meant I cited twice and you so
dishonestly ignored twice: " NAs eating monkeys" Do Eskimos
eat monkeys? How many times does this have to be repeated
before you get it? Talk about childish and
dishonest......you are the champ Davidson.

More dishonesty from you. I notice you snipped my qualifier
about who I meant (NAs and monkeys) and did not have the
decency to write in <snip> No wonder you ask again: "Who else
would you be saying are these people "brought up on eating
rancid items"?" You just snipped the answer out.

>
> And when you replied to my statement, "I don't know that
> Eskimo people ever typically functioned just fine on a
> nearly total meat diet. ...",
>
> "There may be a misunderstanding here. "on a nearly total
> meat diet."? Literally? I cited numerous examples in my
> post that stated just the opposite, that H/G were eating
> all parts of animals, NOT just the meat (dictionary:
> "especially muscle" but not limited to only muscle) and
> some of these products quite rotten."
>
> The same inference is extremely strong. If you are now
> claiming that is not what you intended to imply, fine. But
> it clearly is the obvious interpretation one would get from
> reading that. And I have no idea why you would believe that
> what you said would not apply specifically to Eskimos.

Only in your imagination, particularly when you take the
liberty to snip out explanations. I specifically qualified my
position with " NAs eating monkeys" Do Eskimos eat monkeys?
That is who I said and that is who I meant. If you want to
read something else into those words too bad, that is your
delusion. The fact remains, you can not quote where I ever
said: " *you* keep claiming the Eskimos eat "rotton" meat."

>
> >a place where mammoths remain frozen solid for 30,000
> >years, and maybe some human brains up there may be frozen
> >also :-).
>
> It seems that thinking of Alaska freezes whatever brains
> exist in people that don't live here. ;-)
>
> Don't you think exchanging childish insults is childish?

Floyd Davidson: "Typically that is referred to as "roadkill"
in the US, and is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of
Texans??? ;-)" Look in the mirror, hypocrite.

>
> >topic (one of them) of this thread is to falsify
> >sniker's: "It was my stance that humans have a rather
> >robust digestive system as compared to most animals, and
> >are capable of eating food that's considerably ripened
> >beyond that which most animals can eat." This has not yet
> >been done.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of such statements. Different
> animals have different means of digestion, and I don't see
> that as being more or less "robust" in the obvious cases. A
> moose can eat bark and leaves off a tree, as well as cabbage
> from a garden. They also will eat hay meant for cows and
> will eat artificial Christmas tree ornaments, both of which
> tend to kill the moose. Does that make them more or less
> robust that a human? Or than a cow which can't eat the bark
> and leaves?
>
> Or how about wolves and other canines... They "wolf down"
> raw meat, but require all the nutrients in the intestinal
> tract to survive too. But while a bear will get fat eating
> raw salmon all day long, a canine is all but unable to
> digest it! Of course if you do almost *anything* to fish
> protein, it becomes just about the most digestible protein
> there is for a canine. Anything can consist of leaving it in
> water (even at just above freezing temperature) for 2-3
> days. The canine can then digest
> it.
>
> But humans can't! Or at least we can't without eating other
> food with it. But while 2-3 days in water will make it
> digestible for your family dog, it takes 15-20 days of
> fermenting to make it suitable for you to eat!
>
> On the other hand, if you feed something like a small pickle
> (cucumber pickle) or a green pepper to a dog, it will go
> straight through without any visible decomposition. You eat
> the same thing, and it will be totally decomposed.
>
> I just can't get excited about claiming any of these
> digestive tracks are more robust than another. They are all
> specialized to some degree, and none of them can handle just
> any sort of "food".

Topic (one of them) of this thread is to falsify sniker's: "It
was my stance that humans have a rather robust digestive
system as compared to

most animals, and are capable of eating food that's
considerably ripened beyond that which most animals can eat."
This has not yet been done. Still waiting.....

>
> >your apology. May I remind you.... you started off in
> >this thread by misquoting nickname, he didn't say that,
> >Crowley did.
>
> No apology necessary, IMHO. But where do you get off
> claiming I

No apology necessary says the snipper. The fact then remains,
you can not quote the alleged quote: " Eskimos eat "rotton"
meat " You owe an apology.

> misquoted nickname? Don't you know how to read
> attributions???

Crowley's name doesn't appear above the question you answered,
nickname's does.

>
> >> I do not know of any Eskimo culture ever purposely
> >> subsisting on a diet that was essentially "nearly total
> >> animal products".
> >>
> >> They eat a significant amount of plants. Berries, tubers,
> >> grasses, and green leefy plants were all gathered and
> >> eaten daily.
> >
> > "I have no way to reference" if they did or didn't.....
> > "but given what you have said in this article I see no
> > reason to assume you are correct in the above statement."
>
> Not much to compare when it comes to your credibility about
> Chinook culture and any references I might make to Eskimo
> culture. You clearly *had* to get your information from some
> primary source.

Floyd "said so" is not a reference, no matter how in love you
are with your own self-perceived greatness. Science is
verification, you don't get a free pass.

>
> I clearly have been living with Eskimos for decades and
> don't need to reference another primary source for my
> observations about what Eskimos have taught me. Probably
> more than 50% of the comments that I make about Eskimo
> culture are *not* from data recorded anywhere in particular.
> It's just a matter of adding *perspective* to what others do
> find in various printed/web references.

What others find seems to be just the opposite of your 'Floyd
said' claims, at least in some cases that I just looked at.
Somebody may be wrong, but that doesn't make the issue
"silliness" as your insult directed at me claimed. Your
observations are based on such a miniscule percent of all
Eskimos as to be almost worthless. You are suffering from a
bad case of tunnel vision or do you claim to have personal
knowledge of every Eskimo group that ever lived? For instance,
if the point came up (which I'm not implying it will) how
could a person claim no group of Eskimos ever ate rotten meat?
How could a person claim all groups "eat a significant amount
of plants" without reference to some other study or
ethnographic data? Controversy is not "silliness" as you so
ignorantly claimed. You demand civility for yourself, but do
not grant it to others. Your particular observations are
flawed because knowledge of a few groups is not knowledge of
all groups.

>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

[Floyd L. D]

"Lee Olsen" <paleocity@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>> As was quoted in each of your responses, including the
>> article to which I am replying. As we have noted, the
>> definition of "rotten" is open to debate, but I don't think
>> Crowley intended that to be the sticking point.
>
>I have some bad news for you, there certainly wasn't
>"silliness" in anything I said in each of my responces. That
>maybe what you claimed,

I did *not* say that the silliness was yours. I was referring
the entire thread, not just what you wrote (which probably was
silly, but I'm not going to go back and check what was and
what wasn't.

>> >DeVoto (1963) page 306..... "I don't any feel a need to
>> >either quote or summarize in detail" significant "volumes
>> >of text."
>>
>> Lee, you need to learn to be polite, and honest. If you
>> have something that is important, please to provide a
>> reference, or better yet a quote when you have something
>> that is not available on the Internet.
>
>Unbelievable, Floyd gets to cite himself (as an authority on
>nothing), and Lee gets to cite from the literature, now
>that's fair, right?

Personal observations are fine. The point is that when you are
indeed referring to someone else's observations, you really
should tell us who, where, what, when, etc.

If *you* happen to have talked directly to Chinook elders for
the past few decades, I think it would be wonderful to hear
what your impressions are. But you haven't...

>What arrogance, particularly from a dishonest person who
>doesn't know
...

>> What I said was this (note the significant difference from
>> what you have above):
>>
>> "I don't any feel a need to either quote or summarize in
>> detail insignificant volumes of text. The attribution
>> marks are there, what is your problem?"
>
>That is exactly why I changed it. Somehow you decided on
>your own that

You have a lot of nerve calling me dishonest.

I don't see much value in this exchange, and won't be
continuing unless you manage to post something of value.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

[Paul Crowl]

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:874pqrf52a.fld@apaflo.com...

>>In fact, in this respect, they have scarcely moved from the
>>chimp level. In other words, there has been NO selection in
>>the direction of a capacity to consume "older meat".
>
> Is that of any particular significance?
>
>>The 'scavenging hypothesis' is defeated.
>
> It doesn't appear to me that a "scavenging hypothesis"
> requires the ability to eat meat that has been decomposing
> due to bacterial action.

The 'scavenging hypothesis' is never set out clearly by its
proponents. (This being PA, nothing is ever set out clearly.)
But we must assume it proposes that early hominids routinely
gathered a significant part of their diet from meat: i.e.
substantially more than chimps. It is NOT a 'hunting
hypothesis'. It assumes that some other predator has made the
kill, and the band of hominids arrive at the kill site, or
find the kill before other predators / scavengers have removed
or consumed it.

Firstly, all other predators / scavengers of this nature,
have evolved to locate and consume meat that is not fresh, so
we would need a good reason for why hominids did not go down
that route.

Secondly, the kills that would take longest to be consumed (by
the killing predator or by others that rob them) would be the
large ones: elephant, buffalo, giraffe. The meat on such
animals is often too much for the predators to consume. But
they usually stay around the kill, keeping others (including
the vultures) at bay. In the African sun, such kills rapidly
go rotten. If hominids were in the business of consuming such
kills, there would be strong selective pressure towards
developing stomachs that could cope with such meat.

> The fact that humans are able to eat a much greater variety
> of food types than are carnivores is what restricts humans
> from eating bacterial processed food. That is assisted by
> human intelligence, which allows food to be processed by
> other than bacterial action.
>
> If evolution has occurred, it would have been away from
> bacterial processing since the time that humans began to use
> fire as a tool, at least.

I can't see how fire is directly relevant. It makes a wider
variety of foods available, but if scavenging had been a
significant part of the diet, then it would remain so.

> How long has that been?

Estimates vary widely. About one million years ago is (I
think) common -- if highly controversial. The first
inhabitants of northern latitudes would seem to have probably
needed it. That could date it even earlier.

> And even before that humans might have had the intelligence
> to store meat in ways that would cause processing for easier
> digestion.

Not really relevant, in that if they had already worked out
how to exploit a common resource (competing against numerous
other animals) they would not have abandoned it.

> Various animals do that, though most of them in ways that
> encourages bacterial action rather than not. But it is
> entirely possible that humans at a very early stage would
> have been storing food in ways that encouraged fermenting,
> drying, or enzyme action rather than bacterial action. That
> too would have been a starting point for evolution away from
> the ability to tolerate bacterial toxins.

Animals do not 'evolve away' from a form of life. It is very
difficult to acquire all the abilities, characteristics and
morphology to exploit a new resource. Once acquired, it is not
readily abandoned -- or not without some very good reasons.

In fact, under the scenario, you vaguely outline, two hominid
species could emerge
(a) the scavenging hominids of the wide savannas; and (b)
the fire-using hominids elsewhere. Both should still
be with us.

Paul.

[Lee Olsen]

pete wrote:
> on 16 Jan 2007 12:15:43 -0800, Lee Olsen
> <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez:
>
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't you think exchanging childish insults is childish?
>
> >Floyd Davidson: "Typically that is referred to as
> >"roadkill" in the US, and is not uncommon. (Do they have an
> >studies of Texans??? ;-)"
>
> >Look in the mirror, hypocrite.
>
> Lee, once again you are misdirecting abuse. Anyone with a
> smidgeon

says the person bent on doing some misdirected abusing of
his own....

> of wit can see there is nothing hostile in the sentence you
> quote above, and anyone with a trace of intelligence can go
> back and review the thread and see quite plainly that it
> wasn't directed at you, anyway. You also seem to have a hard
> time with the notion of humour - there was a smiley on that
> sentence, and you even quoted it.
>
> At first, I thought that you must have some sort of
> personality disorder that makes you hypersensitive with a
> need to lash out at misperceived slights, but you recently
> made an aside that you are paid to discuss things here. I
> don't understand how that's possible, but it provides the
> alternative explanation that you are seeking to create
> arguments where none exist in order to expand the text
> volume here.

A person with one brain cell left in his foolish head could
see that I wasn't referring to anything "hostile" at all in
that paragraph, because you are right, there wasn't any. The
fact being that I also used a smiley face in a reply and Floyd
deliberatly ignored mine, just as you have done now. You guys
are two peas in a pod, so you have now proved you certainy
need some help with your personality disorder. The very fact
that you do not critized Floyd for the transgressions he
clearly started, i.e., snipping explanations for one (a very
dirty debating tactic in any ones book) reveals your true
intentions. I don't think Floyd had anything to do with your
reply here at all, no, more like some smoldering previous
grudge you have against me personally and any tripe excuse to
pull it out would do.

>
> In either case, I find your demeanour unjustifiably
> antagonistic;

The very fact you have cut 90% of my exchange with Floyd where
he was clearly out of line and only attacked me where you
completely misunderstood what the issue was about, proves you
are waging some sort of hostile vendetta against me
personally. Floyd uses a smiley, it counts, Lee uses one it
doesn't. Your sense of justice is on par with the KKK, pretty
shallow ploy on your part don't you think?

> you shoot from the hip, and seem to have a hard time keeping
> track of an argument - at one point in your quibblings with
> Denk/McGinn, you actually mistook one of your own abusive
> sentences for one of his, and proceeded to argue against
> yourself for a few lines.

You are actually taking my "quibblings" with McG seriously?
I'm honored that someone is taking them a lot more seriously
than I am. And you are lecturing me on: "You need to step back
and relax a bit, and don't take things quite so seriously.
Life is too short."? You should contribute more often to this
list, you are even funnier than Jim.

>
> I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here,
> but if it is actually to establish and defend a position in
> regard to paleoanth insights, your choice of debating style
> is shooting yourself in the foot. You need to step back and
> relax a bit, and don't take things quite so seriously. Life
> is too short.

My advice to Floyd applies equally to you....look in the
mirror hypocrite.

>
>
>
> --
> ==========================================================================

> vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
> Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.

[Rmacfarl]

pete wrote:
> on 16 Jan 2007 12:15:43 -0800, Lee Olsen
> <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez:
>
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't you think exchanging childish insults is childish?
>
> >Floyd Davidson: "Typically that is referred to as
> >"roadkill" in the US, and is not uncommon. (Do they have an
> >studies of Texans??? ;-)"
>
> >Look in the mirror, hypocrite.
>
> Lee, once again you are misdirecting abuse.

Lee has a lot of knowledge & access to good information, but
he has a bad habit of getting himself into cycles of vitriol
over minor issues of interpretation. All very well when he's
yelling at Marc or Jimbo, but he gets this way even with
reasonable and intelligent people at times. Best to leave him
alone & talk to someone else until he calms down.

Ross Macfarlane

[Lee Olsen]

rmacfarl wrote:
> pete wrote:
> > on 16 Jan 2007 12:15:43 -0800, Lee Olsen
> > <paleocity@hotmail.com> sez:
> >
> > >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Don't you think exchanging childish insults is
> > >> childish?
> >
> > >Floyd Davidson: "Typically that is referred to as
> > >"roadkill" in the US, and is not uncommon. (Do they have
> > >an studies of Texans??? ;-)"
> >
> > >Look in the mirror, hypocrite.
> >
> > Lee, once again you are misdirecting abuse.
>
> Lee has a lot of knowledge & access to good information, but
> he has a bad habit of getting himself into cycles of vitriol
> over minor issues of interpretation. All very well when he's
> yelling at Marc or Jimbo, but he gets this way even with
> reasonable and intelligent people at times. Best to leave
> him alone & talk to someone else until he calms down.
>

Ross has reading comp problems at times also.....

> Ross Macfarlane

[Deowll]

"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiutiuytciuyik@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote
in message news:5Cyqh.17471$j7.339493@news.indigo.ie...
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:87wt3plpnj.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>> "nickname" <alas_my_loves@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> > How come you cannot provide ONE single example of human
>>>> > population that DOES ANY scavenging of rotten meat ?
>>
>> Typically that is referred to as "roadkill" in the US, and
>> is not uncommon. (Do they have an studies of Texans??? ;-)
>
> That's always fresh meat, and hardly constitutes
> 'scavenging'.
>
>> Whatever, Eskimos seem to be the reference point for much
>> of this silliness, and they scavange both walrus and whales
>> that wash up dead on shore. They are *very* careful about
>> what part is scavanged and what is not. A "stinker" is a
>> whale that is found floating (sometimes underneath the
>> ice). The blubber is typically edible, the meat is not.
>
> The Eskimo experience is of little relevance to that of our
> African ancestors -- and our evolution. Meat and blubber
> under ice, or in similar temperatures, will 'keep' for a
> very long time by comparison with that in tropical
> conditions.
>
>>>> To review. The largest animals with stone tool-cut marks
>>>> are hippos and elephants. It is hardly likely these were
>>>> killed by early Homo,
>
> Our ancestors in Africa would certainly have taken what meat
> they could find from a fresh kill. But it would not have
> stayed fresh long in those temperatures.
>
>> What, no whales with stone tool-cut marks?
>
> They might even have taken meat and blubber from a freshly
> stranded whale. But that is very much 'might'. It would
> rapidly die and start to smell too much.
>
>>>> therefore, as snikers suggested, scavenged. Only much
>>>> later is there evidence for the killing of large animals.
>>>> The smaller animals were probably hunted. There is
>>>> nothing inconsistent with what snikers claimed. Many
>>>> ethnographic accounts prove we can and do eat rancid
>>>> food.
>
> Most cats do not scavenge -- in the sense that they will
> only eat fresh meat. They will steal fresh kills but,
> unlike most carnivores, they ignore meat older than a day
> or two. There is clearly a significant cost to evolving
> stomach acid capable of dealing with older or rotting meat.
> Humans are, in this respect, identical. That is hardly
> surprising. Cats have a nearly 100% meat diet and, in the
> wild, cannot adapt to other foods. The benefits to them of
> being able to consume older meat would seem to be
> substantial -- yet they do not incur the cost. The benefits
> to humans would be much less, since they eat a wide range
> of foods; also they would hardly encounter decomposing meat
> with the same frequency as cats.
>
> The notion that human ancestors -- living in the tropics --
> became adapted to scavenging rotting meat is one of the more
> absurd . . from a wide range of highly absurd fantasies.
>
>
> Paul.
>
>

In any event studies of several very ancient African locations
seem to indicate that the beings who lived there who were at
best border line for homo were getting plenty of meaty cuts
and not trying to extract the last scraps of nutrient from the
scraps left by others based on the studies of the bones left
at the sites.

That was read a few years back and is my best data on
the topic.

It isn't an opinion and there is nothing more for me to say on
the topic.

Have fun.

[Nickname]

DD: If the Inuit ate only meat they would die.

Lee: Nobody said they ate ONLY meat.

Lee: "So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit...can/could function
just fine on a nearly total meat diet"

DE: Gee whiz, Lee, I guess you are only nearly right again. ;)
Better luck next time!

[Nickname]

> >If the Inuit ate only meat they would die. It's the
> >blubber, skin and offal that gives them the critical
> >nutrients to survive, the meat is just protein. Same for
> >arctic wolves and polar bears.

Offal??? Sounds like bullshit to me...

Guts and contents, internal organs & fat. Not just meat.

>
> Whatever, wolves indeed eat more than just the meat. They
> also eat fat and the intestinal contents.

Yes they have to.

> Polar bears are entirely different though. They eat
> *blubber*, period. Only a *very* hungry polar bear will eat
> meat or anything other than blubber.

I doubt that a hungry polar bear will only eat the blubber. DD

A typical seal killed by a polar

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 25, 1:17 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> DD: If the Inuit ate only meat they would die.
>
> Lee: Nobody said they ate ONLY meat.
>
> Lee: "So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit...can/could function
> just fine on a nearly total meat diet"

Jan 15 Lee: "... A better choice of words on my part would
have been on nearly total animal products. ..."

>
> DD: Gee whiz, Lee, I guess you are only nearly right again.
> ;) Better luck next time!

Nice try, but thanks for playing. ;) Better luck next time!

[Nickname]

On Jan 25, 4:08 pm, "Lee Olsen" <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 1:17 pm, "nickname"
> <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > DD: If the Inuit ate only meat they would die.
>
> > Lee: Nobody said they ate ONLY meat.
>
> > Lee: "So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit...can/could function
> > just fine on a nearly total meat diet"Jan 15
> Lee: "... A better choice of words on my part would have
> been on nearly total animal products. ..."

Yes in autumn, winter and spring, but remember those animal
products contain vegetable matter as well in the guts.

> > DD: Gee whiz, Lee, I guess you are only nearly right
> > again. ;) Better luck next time!Nice try, but thanks
> > for playing. ;) Better luck next time!

No play, no prey ;) Ask any wild cat. But play is for
young'uns, adults just get the job done and then take a
cat nap. DD

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 25, 4:33 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:08 pm, "Lee Olsen"
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 25, 1:17 pm, "nickname" <alas_my_lo...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > DD: If the Inuit ate only meat they would die.
>
> > > Lee: Nobody said they ate ONLY meat.
>
> > > Lee: "So, the fact that Eskimos/Inuit...can/could
> > > function just fine on a nearly total meat diet"Jan 15
> > Lee: "... A better choice of words on my part would have
> > been on nearly total animal products. ..."Yes in autumn,
> > winter and spring, but remember those animal products
> contain vegetable matter as well in the guts.

So what then is the problem? http://www.angelfire.com/realm/s-
hades/nativeamericans/inuitcountryfood.htm The eyes of seals,
the meat inside the nose of caribou, plants found in the
stomach of caribou and already-shelled clams found in the
stomach of are still considered delicacies, at least for many
older people. Findings show that an average serving of meat or
fish from the land can supply all the recommended daily
requirements of a number of essential nutrients. The
importance of country food is not declining, demomstrated by
the results of detailed and long term research to determine
harvest levels. This research has been carried out on a
community-by-community basis in most of the regions, and shows
harvesting wildlife resources can produce as much as 2.2 kg of
edible food per person per day. The amount of country food
consumed in the north is estimated to be 90 to 300 kg per
person every year. Most of this is meat and fish.

>
> > > DD: Gee whiz, Lee, I guess you are only nearly right
> > > again. ;) Better luck next time!Nice try, but thanks
> > > for playing. ;) Better luck next time!No play, no
> > > prey ;) Ask any wild cat. But play is for young'uns,
> > > adults
> just get the job done and then take a cat nap.

What job is that?

> DD

[Rich Travs]

Jois wrote:
>
> "johnwl4@aol.com" <jgissw@pwi.net> wrote in message news:11-
> 68660072.824626.166300@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi, Pete, Guess I'll top post, since my only remark is,
> > "There's no disputing tastes." Have you ever had palola
> > worms? REgards John GW
> >
> >
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I wonder how much of our ability to digest things is
> >> dependent simply on what we are exposed to in infancy.
> >> Perhaps our digestive systems are very flexibly
> >> programmable when you start early enough.
> >>
> >> At any rate, it still happens now and then that the local
> >> indians screw up with their sauce making, and a family
> >> will come near to being completely wiped out. The current
> >> revision of the recipe, by the way, involves `pour into a
> >> black plastic garbage bag, place inside a plastic bucket,
> >> and bury in the back yard for three months' and does not
> >> at any point call for cooking.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ==========================================================================

> >> vincent@triumf[munge].ca Pete Vincent
> >> Disclaimer: all I know I learned from reading Usenet.
>
> That's a lot of icky stuff!
>
> I suppose our taste for certain foods would depend on what
> we are exposed to - early infancy or not. Children certainly
> have food preferences which change as they grow older. You
> must remember seeing little kids who want their food
> separated and don't want the meat, potatoes, and veggies to
> be mixed together or maybe not even touch? Most kids like
> milk chocolate while many grown-ups like the dark chocolate.
>
> People in some of the third world countries have bacteria
> in their upper digestive system where people in developed
> countries do not. This bacteria may help digestion for the
> foods they do eat, I don't know. The bacteria does
> interfere with the oral "vaccines" that health care people
> would like to give them for the various communicable
> diseases we now rarely see in developed countries. These
> vaccines can be given by injection but this requires
> antiseptic preparation, qualified people to dispense, it is
> slow, and there are probably other problems I can't think
> of now. I think there are several groups in the US and
> other places working on special oral vaccines for third
> world countries now that would survive upper digestive
> tract bacteria. Anyway, it may be that ancient humans who
> scavenged had the same distribution of bacteria as some
> third world peoples do today.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-5.html

Meat is a vital part of a child's diet, according to a
two-year study of Kenyan schoolkids. Without it, children
grow up smaller, less strong and less intelligent, the
results suggest. ... The 544 children in the study, who had
an average age of seven years, were given two spoonfuls
(about 60 grams) of minced beef each day to supplement their
ordinary diet. Other groups were given a cup of milk, an
equivalent amount of energy as vegetable oil, or no
supplement at all.

Over two years, kids given food supplements gained an average
of 400 grams more than those without, Allen told the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science in Washington DC on 20 February. Those given meat
showed the biggest benefits.

Children in the meat-supplemented group showed up to an
80% greater increase in upper-arm muscle compared with
the non-supplemented children; for milk drinkers, this
figure was 40%1.

Kids who were fed meat also outperformed their peers in tests
of intelligence, problem solving and arithmetic. "The group
that received the meat supplements were more active in the
playground, more talkative and playful, and showed more
leadership skills," Allen said. ... Luci Daniels, a
paediatric dietitian and former chairwoman of the British
Dietetic Association, says, "It's unsurprising that adding
meat to a child's diet improves their development." Daniels
says that the effect seen by Allen may be caused by the
protein content of the meat, or the vitamins or minerals
present. ...