http://www.newscientist.com/article...ine-dining.html


http://www.plosone.org/article/info...al.pone.0023768

I think that's a misrepresentation of the "view". It's not that they couldn't spear fish or catch birds, but that they wouldn't waste their time with fish and birds when big game was plentiful even if they lived near the coast. Just recently I watched a show that explained it exactly like that.

But I see a potential problem with that view anyway. This waste of time implies that fish or birds would not supply lots of meat, i.e. small fish small birds. I'd understand small birds, but not small fish. Fish today is very small but I remember watching archive films of fishermen catching fish with nets. The fish were tuna, gigantic 1000 lbs tuna. And they were plentiful. Then again, maybe big game was so plentiful and so easy to hunt in comparison that even if there was very large fish, they still wouldn't consider that worthwhile. That would make sense. Natural selection works when there is pressure like food scarcity, not when food is plentiful.

Are Neanderthals still considered our "cousins" since they found Neanderthal DNA in Europeans and Asians?

I think us and neanderthals are both thought to have evolved from Homo heidelbergensis - so we're cousins in that respect. The DNA in europeans and asians is part of a different debate - did we wipe them out, or did we interbreed?

If we interbred, its likely that homo sapien dominant genetics would have given an advantage in the changing landscape, causing another round of natural selection - hence homo sapiens with a little neanderthal mixed in.

Its also thought that we interbred with other extinct homo species.

Lee

Not everyone would hunt in a typical tribe. Typically it would be the young fit men of the tribe (maybe women too who knows). But what about all the children too young to participate in the hunt, the women pregnant, or breastfeeding, the old men and women. They wouldn't just sit around picking their noses. They would gather, and gathering involves small game, fish, eggs, insects, seafood (if near the coast). I think even if they lived near an area rich in game, they would still do this.

I don't know, Rawnut. I still consider them our cousins even if it may not be the official position.

Angeline, that show I watched explained that our bone composition tells us where our food came from: Land animals, fish, plants. And for Neanderthals, it was all land animals, big game. So even if they did gather, they didn't do it for food.

Remember the show I Caveman? Well, I think that's very representative of the choice. It's just too obvious that small game, fish and bird would only have been hunted when big game weren't available. And forget about plants for food, that's just fantasy.

Robb's wolf comments on the show were interesting



I pretty much came to that conclusion watching the show. I can't see our ancestor collecting much in the way of plants, except for medicinal purposes or for flavor. It simply could not have represented a large percentage of their calories. Well except for tubers, where they were available, and that varied a lot. Some tubers were very very labour intensive to prepare. Take the North American acorns for example.

But still, there would have hunted for other good protein sources whenever these were available. I can't image hunter gatherers turning up their nose at small game, foraged eggs, fish, ect. But maybe Neanderthals were different. It could help explain why they didn't survive as a race. If they were wholly dependant on big game, they would have been vulnerable to changes in the big game population. One of the reasons modern humans are so successful, was their ability to adapt to pretty much any environment they happened to live in.

Tubers are only about 18% carbs (glucose), and glucose doesn't convert anywhere near 100% fat to be stored for later use, which is how our physiology deals with fuel. And I doubt tubers were plentiful anyway. Consider how much energy we use to gather tubers, and it's easy to see that tubers did not constitute any significant part of our diet. If we did gather tubers, it was probably for other uses besides food. We do use starch for other uses besides food today, why not back then?

As for being dependent on big game, I agree with you. If that was the case, and if big game became scarce, then neanderthals would die of starvation, or die off altogether. That's basically how natural selection works. Those who can't deal with the new conditions die off. Those who can, live and reproduce. I'm betting we are the descendants of those who lived and reproduced.

No one admits to knowing me. I'm glad you and Angeline are posting again!

I want to see I Caveman! I came to the same conclusions just from hearing it from you all. We most likely ate animals because they were the easiest to get!