Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

True, Raw Primal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by brahnamin View Post
    Only if they kept dogs. Otherwise it becomes stupid in the extreme to toss bones out of the cave that will only attract local carnivores. Plus, bones burn and burn hot. Fair fuel (once you're done with the marrow and meat) if wood is scarce (or you can't get out and get more wood for weather or whathaveyou).

    Just saying.
    Now that's funny! Exactly where do you think they got 'dogs'?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
      The first reasonably good evidence of cooking is in the form of burned bones and fire altered stones at the Chinese site of Zhoukoudian dating sometime between 780,000 and 400,000 years ago (ie Homo erectus).
      Early Human Evolution: Early Human Culture

      I'd say that there is definitely some "proof". It's the most accepted interpretation of the evidence in the anthropological community anyway. If you'd like to argue with that as a lay person, have at it.
      I'd say that any and almost all discussions in this board concerning "what grok/our ancestors did" is based on arguments put forward by lay persons, regardless if it is backed up by some anthropologist. Just because there was some bones in some old fire doesn't mean the fire was used for cooking. It could be that way, but it is not a proof.

      It is like saying that our ancestors were 3 meters tall due to the hight of the easter island statues. Could it be that way? Probably not, but we have the statues for proof.

      However, this is not the point. I'd say that OP is not so far of with his/hers point: the basic "diet" for humankind are plants (i.e. food you can gather). There are some local exceptions (massai in africa and samis in the northern scandinavia) but most cultures rely on plants/gather foods as a basis (grains not included).

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Gods unborn son View Post
        I'd say that any and almost all discussions in this board concerning "what grok/our ancestors did" is based on arguments put forward by lay persons, regardless if it is backed up by some anthropologist. Just because there was some bones in some old fire doesn't mean the fire was used for cooking. It could be that way, but it is not a proof.

        It is like saying that our ancestors were 3 meters tall due to the hight of the easter island statues. Could it be that way? Probably not, but we have the statues for proof.

        However, this is not the point. I'd say that OP is not so far of with his/hers point: the basic "diet" for humankind are plants (i.e. food you can gather). There are some local exceptions (massai in africa and samis in the northern scandinavia) but most cultures rely on plants/gather foods as a basis (grains not included).
        Then how do you explain the need for an essential nutrient (B-12) that is not available in plant material? Wouldn't a species that relied on vegetation either not need the vitamin, or be able to synthesize it from other food components or gut flora?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nady View Post
          Now that's funny! Exactly where do you think they got 'dogs'?
          There are a lot of possibilities, but before dogs were actually domesticated it is unlikely anyone intentionally *tossed stuff* that might attract carnivores right outside their living area. Even if they wanted to begin enticing wild dogs/wolves to capture/raise it is not likely they would do so outside their own cave/hearth with all those women and children around. Not so safe.

          They might try it near the wolves' den - better chance of actually attracting wolves.

          Or they might simply have been aware of wolves shadowing them on a hunt and leaving unwanted bits of carcass behind for them. Despite popular myth, primitive people - especially on large hunts against large creatures - couldn't always use the whole kill. They selected the *best* parts (ie - fat/meat/offal/hide - whatever was most needed/useful at that time for them) and took as much as they could carry, leaving the rest behind.

          Perhaps over time the wolves learned to hunt *with* men in this fashion to get their share. Perhaps the men learned to lure wolves near with bones or meat and began the partnership that ended in a mutual system of hunting that resulted in hunters ultimately domesticating those packs - or more likely the next generation of those packs.

          It's certainly all speculation, but, erm, no, if there were no domesticated dogs handy, no hunter with any sense is tossing something that enticing to dangerous animals right outside the area where his women and children live. Seriously.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Nady View Post
            Then how do you explain the need for an essential nutrient (B-12) that is not available in plant material? Wouldn't a species that relied on vegetation either not need the vitamin, or be able to synthesize it from other food components or gut flora?
            You can actually get B12 from bacteria in the dirt if you haven't been taught to wash your hands before every meal you prepare and to use antibacterial soap while doing so. Just eating with dirty hands (particularly if they've been in actual dirt like Grok's woulda been) can transfer a lot of B12 loaded microcritters down the gullet where they can thrive and survive. If your dirty tuber digging foraging hands prepared the food you can pass it on to everyone.

            Particularly if washing said food is optional.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Nady View Post
              Now that's funny! Exactly where do you think they got 'dogs'?
              mitochondrial dna suggests wolves and dogs diverged about 135,000 years ago. both are opportunists and somehow some dogs figured out how to not get eaten by grok, but to accompany him instead.

              The Truth About Dogs - 99.07 (Part Two)
              As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

              Ernest Hemingway

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by noodletoy View Post
                mitochondrial dna suggests wolves and dogs diverged about 135,000 years ago. both are opportunists and somehow some dogs figured out how to not get eaten by grok, but to accompany him instead.

                The Truth About Dogs - 99.07 (Part Two)
                Very interesting! But as long as dogs and wolves can cross breed and produce fertile offspring, they're not so 'separate'~

                Comment


                • #53
                  nope. their gene sequence differs by only about 1%, but that was enough to get rover inside the cave and keep wolfie in the woods.
                  As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

                  Ernest Hemingway

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Have you ever read about the whales that cooperated with humans to hunt other whales in Australia? Wikipedia has a minimal description of it. Killer whales of Eden, Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think that cooperation between humans and animals isn't all that terribly rare.

                    I think modern humans like to imagine the world before modernization as a brutal, fierce place full of wild animals, a place where humans are threatened often by predators. It's kind of a cultural filter we have because of how we believe we are separate from nature and that nature is a dangerous place. It is entirely possible there were many cultures that forged alliances with more powerful predators than themselves. It's not like you don't see this among animals as well.

                    I think the desire to believe we were plant-based people is sort of another facet to this same belief system of man being separate from nature. There's the wild, scary nature full of toothy predators and then there's the idyllic nature of romantic environmentalism full of wildflowers and butterflies.

                    Vegetarians want to put us back in that romantic vision. Back to the Garden of Eden. They think we've fallen away from kindness of nature and have become separate because of our meat eating. Primal/paleo sometimes has a tendency to try to figure out how we could have survived a brutal nature full of predators and fill their visions with man the hunter fantasies. I think the truth is something completely else.
                    Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Really, I think the fact that humans hunted to extinction a majority of the worlds Mega Fauna is a pretty good indicator that we have always liked us some meat. You don't rid entire continents of large, fatty animals if you really would just love to sit down and eat a salad, ya know?
                      SW: 324.6 ----- CW: 310
                      Primal Journal

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Inksplat View Post
                        Really, I think the fact that humans hunted to extinction a majority of the worlds Mega Fauna is a pretty good indicator that we have always liked us some meat. You don't rid entire continents of large, fatty animals if you really would just love to sit down and eat a salad, ya know?
                        Even with how commonly available salad was year-round in the regions where megafauna thrived?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by brahnamin View Post
                          Even with how commonly available salad was year-round in the regions where megafauna thrived?
                          Well, even if you wanted to spin it that way, its pretty much believed that the mega fauna were exterminated because they didn't know enough to get the hell out of dodge. African wildlife evolved alongside the walking monkeys, and their advancing hunting techniques. They evolved specifically to fear humans--that is what kept them alive.

                          The rest of the world (Asia, Australia, Europe, the Americas), didn't have that benefit. So, when humans showed up, the animals didn't have any instinctual fear, and so it was easy pickings.

                          With that in mind, then it is likely that once the migration started, human diets were probably ridiculously high in meat, because it was easier to kill a huge animal than it was to gather enough plants to even momentarily sate your tribe.

                          I mean, the dodo, for example, got annihilated because it would pretty much just stand there and let people walk up and hit it in the head with a rock.

                          Seems like a pretty easy choice to me.
                          SW: 324.6 ----- CW: 310
                          Primal Journal

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                            Have you ever read about the whales that cooperated with humans to hunt other whales in Australia? Wikipedia has a minimal description of it. Killer whales of Eden, Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think that cooperation between humans and animals isn't all that terribly rare.

                            I think modern humans like to imagine the world before modernization as a brutal, fierce place full of wild animals, a place where humans are threatened often by predators. It's kind of a cultural filter we have because of how we believe we are separate from nature and that nature is a dangerous place. It is entirely possible there were many cultures that forged alliances with more powerful predators than themselves. It's not like you don't see this among animals as well.
                            A reason most humans have symphathy with other animals and actually want to help them, could exactly be that we are dependent on their survival as species (so we can eat them f.ex.). If they extinct, we have less chance of surviving too.

                            About the bones in the fire... Why do cooked meat taste so freaking good to us if we are not "supposed" to eat it that way?
                            Take a walk on the wild side.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by brahnamin View Post
                              You lost me with fire as part of the fossil record (as opposed to, I dunno, maybe the *archaeological* record). Particularly as a proof of something being recent.

                              Where can I get my own fossilized fire to wear around my neck to show how primal I REALLY am?

                              Because in a world where survival hangs by a thread and every single calorie counts towards keeping me alive, you can keep that hump of fat from the Aurochs' shoulders! Give me a small the lean inner cut of tenderloin to go with these insoluble green frond's I've found!

                              Officially invoking Formosa.
                              Lol Nice!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ToldUzo View Post
                                About the bones in the fire... Why do cooked meat taste so freaking good to us if we are not "supposed" to eat it that way?
                                Flawed logic.... A brownie and hot fudge sunday takes so freaking good too.
                                I Kettlebell therefore I am.

                                My Journal
                                My Journal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X