Man the Scavenger like a Vulture?

[goodsamaritan]

Lately the topic of the benefits of fermenting foods has cropped up, the benefits of bacteria, maybe humans evolved from scavengers.

Anybody looked into the Man is like a Vulture Scavenger thing?

[Hannibal]

Anybody looked into the Man is like a Vulture Scavenger thing?

There are quite many proofs that Man evolved as a scavenger - at the beginning he ate primarily brain and marrow from carrions, that were left by some other predators

[William]

There is no proof that Man evolved.

Waste of time, red herring, off topic.

Rawpaleofood is the way, we have proven this and whatever happened before that is useless.

[PaleoPhil]

There are quite many proofs that Man evolved as a scavenger - at the beginning he ate primarily brain and marrow from carrions, that were left by some other predators

Check out my posts about chimps using group-cooperative-hunting (I included a link to an excellent video) and spear-hunting (see my avatar) and about fishing orang-utans. Just like these other primates, the ancestors of humans were likely hunting and fishing BEFORE they knew how to crack open bones to access bone and marrow. If chimps and orang-utans can hunt and fish, then the very first homo sapiens must have hunted and fished as well as scavenged. To consider otherwise would mean that early homo sapiens were less intelligent than chimps, which I find hard to believe, don't you?

[Raw Kyle]

There is no proof that Man evolved.

All living things are constantly evolving.

[William]

All living things are constantly evolving.

The fact that we bother to discuss this off-topic irrelevancy is proof that we, neolithic man, have devolved.
Shrunken in body and mind indeed.

[invisible]

All living things are constantly evolving.

What do you mean by evolving? Man's DNA is not changing. And evolution is just a theory at this point?

[RawZi]

    I have thought we were like vultures, which is a good thing.  What would happen if there were no vulture path animals around?  Bodies would lie around in the deserts, seas and forests turning into mush and mummies.  I think it's better the way it is.  I never read anything about us being like vultures, except that our first tools may have been for scraping off meat leftover on bones from kills from other animals.  I do know that I do very well with food that has as many bacteria as possible, and that dogs like that too.  When I feed meat to cats, they prefer as fresh as possible, or they'll intentionally go without food until fresh meat is available.

    I just gathered some links.  Is there any reading you'd recommend?
http://books.google.com/books?id=6mxZ1hNBHgkC&source=gbs_navlinks_s
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7015/full/nature03052.html http://www.howcomyoucom.com/Descent.htm
http://tinyurl.com/mh7mhx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/food_for_thought1.shtml http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2107hum2.html
http://www.evoyage.com/ManInTheMist/ChapterThreeMist.htm

[SuperInfinity]

The fact that we bother to discuss this off-topic irrelevancy is proof that we, neolithic man, have devolved.
Shrunken in body and mind indeed.

Off-topic irrelevancy? Haahahahaha... it's crazy how warped some people's thinking is on things like this.

"Rawpaleofood is the way", how can you say that when you have no clue what rawpaleofood is?

You're only going by what you've been told paleo food is, but where did you get that information? Who TOLD you it? And where did they get it from? Do researchers know better now? Did they obfuscate or had they interests in what they were telling you for some reason?

Proof that we have "devolved"? Firstly, "devolved" is a horribly stupid word because even if we do have less brains that our ancestors (certainly we have significantly less than some branches of the Homo genus such as the neanderthals)... we still evolved to have smaller brains. Smaller brains gave us an advantage in some way. Bigger brains =/= better, even though many use them transparently to try to say we're superior to animals and in today's world they can come in very useful. Bigger brains also doesn't mean "being right" or superior in any way.
 
Secondly, are you mad or joking or what? We're the guys looking at the evidence and you consider that to show lesser intelligence? You're the person just putting his hands over his ears saying: "WAA WAAA IT SAYS IT IN A BOOK SO IT *MUST* BE TRUE. YOU ARE ALL STUPID FOR EVEN QUESTIONING IT!!!".... even though I don't agree with Paleophil a lot of the time at least he's sensible and smart enough to know better than that. 

[SkinnyDevil]

There is no proof that man evolved

...and...

The fact that we bother to discuss this off-topic irrelevancy is proof that we, neolithic man, have devolved.
Shrunken in body and mind indeed.

This is a joke - right?

Modern man is not "neolithic" man. The neolithic period was the last part of the stone age. It ushered in the first agricultural age - this was the so-called Neolithic Revolution - that saw the end of the paleolithic period.

The neolithic period was roughly (very roughly, since it depends upon region) 12000 BC to 1000 BC.

Evolution is not a "theory" in the layman's sense of the word. "Theory", as used by science, is not "theory" as used by everyone else. The misunderstanding is a linguistic one.

Evolution is a scientific model (let's say "Theory" with a capital T), not a small t "theory" like someone's opinion. As a model (formal structure designed based on severe rules of logic to explain empirical data/observations) it is EXTREMELY successful. More so than most...even those that give rise to things like, say, watching TV live via satellite or landing a ship on the moon or building a nuclear bomb. Science uses models (rather than stating "facts") because scientific proof is not concrete, but provisional (Newtonian mechanics works damn well, but Relativistic mechanics works in areas where the Newtonian model breaks down).

It is as close to "fact" as science gets, and science works.

In short, you can take it to the bank...right along with the "theory" that you need to breath air to live.

[goodsamaritan]

"WAA WAAA IT SAYS IT IN A BOOK SO IT *MUST* BE TRUE. YOU ARE ALL STUPID FOR EVEN QUESTIONING IT!!!" 

Superinfinity... this is what I've talked about in your previous posts.  Be polite and do not call /write people "ALL STUPID".  There is such a thing as different points of views, different countries, different cultures, different ways of thinking, different religions, different beliefs.

TO ALL:

Raw paleo practitioners are very few in this world so we should exercise a bit more tolerance and open mindedness with one another.

[SuperInfinity]

Superinfinity... this is what I've talked about in your previous posts.  Be polite and do not call /write people "ALL STUPID".  There is such a thing as different points of views, different countries, different cultures, different ways of thinking, different religions, different beliefs.

TO ALL:

Raw paleo practitioners are very few in this world so we should exercise a bit more tolerance and open mindedness with one another.

I didn't call people stupid, HE called people "stupid" and said they had smaller brains because they "devolved".

[William]

...and...
This is a joke - right?

Modern man is not "neolithic" man. The neolithic period was the last part of the stone age. It ushered in the first agricultural age - this was the so-called Neolithic Revolution - that saw the end of the paleolithic period.

The neolithic period was roughly (very roughly, since it depends upon region) 12000 BC to 1000 BC.

Evolution is not a "theory" in the layman's sense of the word. "Theory", as used by science, is not "theory" as used by everyone else. The misunderstanding is a linguistic one.

Wrong - no joke.

The neolithic age began when man stupidly began to eat agricultural products. It has not ended, nor has the stupidity.

True, evolution is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, which is a story unsupported by evidence.

[SkinnyDevil]

William,

If you choose to disbelieve in evolution (or relativity or Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics or the germ theory of disease or the Copernican heliocentric model or...) or even in the scientific method, that's your business.

However, words have meanings. If you we wish to engage in meaningful discussion with each other, to exchange information and ideas, then we need to use words properly. It is destructive to a productive exchange of ideas if you decide unilaterally to redefine words - words like "neolithic" and "evolution".

[Raw Kyle]

What do you mean by evolving? Man's DNA is not changing. And evolution is just a theory at this point?

Evolution is the reproduction of genes that are successful within an environment. Genes staying the same is, as far as nature is concerned, just as significant an evolution as genes rapidly changing. And man's DNA has changed, if just a little. I would hazard a guess that salivary amylase came about recently from the introduction of a high starch diet.

[Raw Kyle]

The fact that we bother to discuss this off-topic irrelevancy is proof that we, neolithic man, have devolved.
Shrunken in body and mind indeed.

You're saying in one part of the first sentence there that it's ridiculous to consider evolution, and in the second part saying that evolution was what led to me being stupid enough to consider the ridiculous concept of evolution. That's a rather obtuse statement. Also, evolution is not "good" and devolution is not "bad," nor is it a word. Evolution in the scientific sense is the end result, the only result, of living things dying and reproducing. Unless every thing that ever lived reproduced the same number with the same genes and there was never a different in population, everyone had one kid that was their clone to replace them when they died, etc...then evolution is happening.

[goodsamaritan]

If further replies are on their beliefs / theories / hypothesis about human origins, I suggest they be taken to http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/human-creation-evolution-quantavolution-alien-origins-etc/

[SuperInfinity]

You're saying in one part of the first sentence there that it's ridiculous to consider evolution, and in the second part saying that evolution was what led to me being stupid enough to consider the ridiculous concept of evolution. That's a rather obtuse statement. Also, evolution is not "good" and devolution is not "bad," nor is it a word. Evolution in the scientific sense is the end result, the only result, of living things dying and reproducing. Unless every thing that ever lived reproduced the same number with the same genes and there was never a different in population, everyone had one kid that was their clone to replace them when they died, etc...then evolution is happening.

Even though I agree with you in principle this time Raw Kyle, "devolution" actually is a proper word (unfortunately, and notice that I didn't contradict that it is a word, I just said it's a pretty ridiculous word and doesn't make sense especially with how people usually use it to somehow say more like an ape and similar nonsense). I'm not alone on this view of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)?

[SkinnyDevil]

If further replies are on their beliefs / theories / hypothesis about human origins, I suggest they be taken to http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/human-creation-evolution-quantavolution-alien-origins-etc/

Goodsamaritan,

Evolution and human origins are not the same topic. Little green men tossing people on this planet only says how we originally got here, not about our development since that time.

[Raw Kyle]

Even though I agree with you in principle this time Raw Kyle, "devolution" actually is a proper word (unfortunately, and notice that I didn't contradict that it is a word, I just said it's a pretty ridiculous word and doesn't make sense especially with how people usually use it to somehow say more like an ape and similar nonsense). I'm not alone on this view of the term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biological_fallacy)?

I consider devolution a non-word like decceleration. The reason is because both evolution and acceleration describe their various associated measured phenomena in both positive and negative terms. As in, the car accelerated in the negative direction. Devolution is even more pointless because of the lack of sense in the concept that evolution denotes direction at all, other than change in time.

[TylerDurden]

The way I see it, devolution is simply the lack of evolution, not necessarily a change in reverse, just resulting in non-beneficial traits appearing.

[Raw Kyle]

The way I see it, devolution is simply the lack of evolution, not necessarily a change in reverse, just resulting in non-beneficial traits appearing.

That is akin to using the word "descending" to mean "a lack of ascending." We all know that descending is actually the reverse of ascending, just like devolution should be the reverse of evolution. Again to reiterate though, evolution, unlike ascension, does not denote direction and therefore cannot be reversed, it can only continue. Every time a living thing either A)passes on it's genes; or B) doesn't pass on it's genes; then evolution is occurring.

[invisible]

Certainly the idea of 'survival of the fittest' no longer exists with humans, everyone is given a chance.

But can genetics change once one is born? If someone is born unadapted to modern foods for example then these genetics are passed on to the next generation who would also then be unadapted to the foods. The exposure to the foods after their genetics/DNA has been determined doesn't help future generations. There would need to be a group of people with just a lucky set of genes/DNA that made them better adapted to these foods, and for them to reproduce more while standard people reproduce less. Man's DNA is the same as it was 10, 000 years ago. We are virtually just as unadapted to modern foods as the first people who ever ate them, perhaps a bit of natural selection but since agriculture emerged very little. Any type of natural selection has probably been more related to wealth than health, and today virtually none.

Is it evolution if nothing is changing?

[goodsamaritan]

In today's world, we can study demographics statistics freely.
For example fertility rates worldwide on a decade to decade basis.
The future belongs to people who choose to and have the ability to reproduce.

A lot of us here are in raw paleo because the current SAD diet failed us.  So we live on and continue to have the ability to reproduce.  In fact, most of us look more desirable than we used to look on SAD.

Maybe our nitch, the raw paleo blooded people's nitch have our own future.

[William]

Certainly the idea of 'survival of the fittest' no longer exists with humans, everyone is given a chance.

SAD and city life act like a filter, so that paleofoodies and country folk breed better - both of the farmers where I've gotten beef have 8 children. A historical study showed that city folk will probably never see their grandchildren, so that over millennia the population movement is into the city, rarely does anyone escape.

Is it evolution if nothing is changing?

IMHO no. Those who can eat off (or liveon) the land survive, in cities the generations disappear.