Applied Anthropology

Discussion in 'Ancient History and Mythology' started by juantoo3, Jan 24, 2006.

  1. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY

    Kindest Regards, all!

    I am profusely sorry for not being around here nearly as much as I would like. Life gets in the way sometimes.

    Those of you here that know me, know I have a pressing interest in prehistoric humanity. I have long had questions regarding the origins of religion, thought, civilization, morality and the like, and how these things fit into an evolutionary paradigm. Over the course of many discussions I think we have concluded that not all of these questions have ready answers, and what answers there are, are rightfully shrouded in mystery. As with so many disciplines relating to prehistory, a great deal of the answers offered are in truth suggestions. Educated suggestions to be sure, but suggestions just the same.

    Some time back, approaching two years now as I recall, I stumbled on a piece of research that intrigued me concerning the development of agriculture. And that piece of research got set aside before I could do anything with it, and became misplaced. I am happy to report that I have re-found this research, and have taken a little time to look into it.

    The original paper I found is at: The Origins of Agriculture: Rise of Civilization or Defying Evolution?

    Titled “The Origins of Agriculture, Rise of Civilization or Defying Evolution?”, by Promise Partner.

    Ms. Partner presented some intriguing information that has had me thinking from time to time over the last two years.

    It would probably be best to begin with a cursory overview of the traditional view of the development of agriculture. It is surmised that some rare individual realized that if “he” planted and tended a crop instead of migrating with the herds as a nomad (hunter / gatherer), “he” could have a bountiful supply of food and lots of free time for recreation. This led to opportunity to develop things like the wheel, astronomy, mathematics, walled cities and civilization as we know it. A great deal occurred in a relatively short span of time, such as the development of war as an art, the development of iron tools, and shortly was to come codified law. All of this is traditionally associated with the region between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates, the region referred to as the Fertile Crescent, in what is today called Iraq.

    Of course, what those first crops were is open still to question. It is often presented that those crops would have likely been cereals, perhaps wheat, barley or some other cereal grain. (This is usually supported by engravings and writings from Egypt and Sumer / Babylon showing the cultivation and use of grain.) Here is where Ms. Partner’s paper presents some intrigue. It seems cereals are not typical foods for nomads. Now, this takes a bit of reasoning to sink in, so bear with me. Cereal, grain, is not “human” food. Humans have not “evolved” as animals to eat grain. Witness the intense amount of people in the world with allergies, some very severe, to grain products. So if the human body is not equipped to handle grain, why in the world did someone take the time and make the effort to cultivate grain? Remember, this cultural shift was tremendous, this person or persons who decided to cultivate the ground instead of following the herds was making an until then unheard of shift in their thinking and reasoning, developing a brand new cultural design with no blueprint. They were following an uncharted path, definitely the road less traveled. So why did they base this new cultural design on cereal, if cereal is lacking in nutritional value compared to the variety and nutrition offered by the nomadic lifestyle?

    Now, I had heard some other reports elsewhere regarding how certain foods affect us. Indeed, it is said that Hippocrates, the father of medicine himself, admonished all to “let you food be your medicine, and your medicine your food.” Herbalists the world over understand that foods affect our bodies. Of course, this subject can easily carry off into it’s own tangent, about how western civilization is poisoning itself through the food supply via “artificial” ingredients, but I will save that for another day. Closer to the subject at hand, I have heard reports associating the Salem Witch hunts and the French Revolution to Ergot spores on their rye crops. It seems an overly wet year in each instance caused the rye to spoil in the fields. The people, having little else to eat and no other viable choice, ate the spoiled grain in their bread. Trouble is, Ergot is a natural hallucinogen, very closely related to LSD (Lysergic acid Diethalymide, forgive my spelling). So, while we all have the telling of the Witch hunts and the French Revolution fairly well ingrained in our heads, it is interesting to consider that the people involved in these instances of “mass paranoia” were under the influence of a powerful hallucinogen!

    Proceeding with these thoughts in mind, Ms. Partner’s paper suggests that people ate cereals because of the “chemical rewards” grain offered to humans. It appears there are certain chemicals, related to opioids, which are contained in grain. These chemicals trigger mild euphoric feelings in humans, as well as other mental status changes, including addiction. Ms. Partner’s paper suggests what I feel is a very poignant question: if “evidence suggests that health declined with the adoption of agriculture,” why did “we” become agrarian in the first place?

    A closely related tangent suggests the reason was alcohol. Now, to be sure, fruit ferments on its own in nature, and I have read of instances of chimpanzees and giraffes getting drunk on fermented fruit. So it is not unreasonable to presume that prehistoric humans likely got drunk from time to time eating fermented fruit. At some point, as suggested by certain ancient religious texts, “man” figured out how to control and maintain the process of fermentation, providing better quality and quantity of product. Especially considering the adoption of growing grain as a nutritional resource, it seems to make sense that the reason for doing so, initially or incidentally, was for the purpose of fermenting beer. Keep in mind, fermented grain still has the “opioid” chemicals intact in the brew. This seems to me to suggest why some people become addicted, not just to alcohol, but to carbohydrates in the form of bread and cereal as well.

    Civilization did not grow from nomadic cultures. Every culture that has developed to the point of influential significance has grown from an agrarian base, I can think of no exceptions. Cultures that have remained nomadic through the centuries have been those we “civilized” peoples have looked down upon as uncivilized, brutish, backward and barbarian. It seems a major component of civilization is an addiction to opioid neuro-chemicals found in grain and grain products. Civilization is born from a bunch of drug addicts, and we are still addicted some ten thousand or so years later!

    Interesting stuff to consider. Comments, anyone?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2008
  2. InquisitiveInHalifax

    InquisitiveInHalifax New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the post Juantoo3!!

    WOW, is the first thing that comes to mind. That's a lot to 'digest' in one sitting (pardon the pun). The first thing that comes to my mind is 'What would our societal values be if we weren't all on opiates?' It's not the first time I've heard that grains are not 'human food', we aren't cattle afterall. Previously I'd assumed that any negative effects we would get from eating them would only be related to physical health such as cancer or obesity but the brain is a physical organ and we often overlook how it's effected by our environment and what we put into our bodies. If the first aggragated (sp?) food was not grain the whole theory falls apart though it seems likely that is was. I can't help but think that this explains some of the basic problems with human culture like anxiety disorders (maybe even greed). ;)
     
  3. harticulate

    harticulate New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Juantoo3,

    I am just finishing "Neanderthal" by John Darnton. It is a novel...supposedly based on actual research. It definetly has a mythical storyline.....which has had me up at night reading on to the next page.

    I too am completely enthralled with learning about our ancient history and evolution.

    Have you read the above book? Any book suggestions? I am enjoying the novel.........but I am really interested in actual research. The novel is helping me picture our ancient ancestors, it is so "fiction" though that I don't want to get muddled in non factual info.......

    When I have more time ........I plan to check out your posts to catch up.

    Thanks for these posts!:)
     
  4. E99

    E99 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Juantoo3


    Thankyou for the links regarding this subject. They are interesting articles. Unfortunately the link to the carbon dioxide one won't show.

    I couldn't help but notice in these articles the similarity of opioid effects from cereal products relating to a fairly common ailment. It is very similar to the effects of dairy casein and gluten product from wheat, cereals etc. with the disorder of autism. The following research into these effects are not 100% confirmed though.

    My little son is mildly autistic, and for his benefit I researched into this so as to give him a correct diet and to give comfort for his condition. Autism is a developmental brain disorder and is said to be diet related, or rather the effects are induced and heightened by diet, mainly due to their sensitivity to casein dairy and gluten products.

    In some ways the opioid affects in autism seems to differ from the halluceogenic opioid effects from the neuro-chemicals found in grain products, whereas in autistic people it is more so to do with the way food is undigested from the gluten and casein rather than the affects from the molecular chemical structures of hallucigens. In autism it seems to be toxicological rather than allergic. The opioid effects come about because of incomplete breaking down of these food types from the digestive processes in the gut. But basically the article in link no.5 is talking about one and the same opioid influence.



    Opioid effects were first observed in morphine induced animals and a similarity between them and the symptoms of autism was noticed. The conclusion made was that both had elevated endorphins (Also produced naturally in the central nervous system). It was later found that there were higher levels of endorphin related substances within a high percentage of people with autism.


    They researched further and gave a more indepth analysis to why this is so, and what is possibly happening.

    Normally proteins are digested by enzymes in the intestines, being broken down into amino acids for easy assimilation into the body, sometimes this is incomplete and they remain short chain amino acids (peptides) and can still be biologically active. Most of these peptides will pass through as waste, but some will pass through the gut membrane into the body. Its possible that yeast enzymes may break down the gut linings and membranes itself, increasing permeability. If this is so then the partially digested peptide portions of gluten and casein as opioid compounds, gluteomorphines and caseomorphines, will pass through into the body easily, and onto the brain where they interfere with the normal brain activity, its not clear how, but its possible that they attach themselves to enzymes or by abnormal protein binding affecting the neuron connections, or reacting with naturally produced endomorphins in our body.

    Although endorphins give a sense of well being, autism and similar disorders regarding opioid affects certainly have more detrimental points about them. One of the articles (link no. 5) goes into the specific affects of exomorphins and they say that the rise of agriculture could have been because of the 'pleasant' rewards of these exomorphins, I dispute this, I'd say that overall they are not rewarding but confusing. I don't think that they quite understand the negative side to the behaviour of individuals by the means of exomorphins from incomplete digestion of morphine type compounds. Its not all 'happy hours'. Also I don't think that early man would have spent so much hard labour tilling the soil for the purpose of getting 'semi-high'. The need for food is generally the primary reason for survival purposes in hard environments where there were no supermarkets around.


    Gluten seems to be a no go area regarding diet, autism or not. The conclusion from this is to take out gluten from the diet, which isn't easy if you've ever been faced with gluten free bread that is tasteless and looks like a large lump of hardening putty.


    Statistically there is said to be around 1 in 500 people with autism in the U.K. It is a spectrum disorder ...from very mild to extreme, some have said that everyone has it, but it is barely detectable in some. If this is so is it therefore wholely related to the 'unhuman' diet of cereal products ?


    There was an increase in cereal production for the need to feed an ever growing population in the late 18th century. Its a main diet. Is it an exomorphic induced disorder of today or was it resultant from the first cultivation of cereal crops in mans early history ?
    There are obvious hallucigenic affects from cereal products, but are there also insidious effects ?


    It seems from the very start of cereal production, it has affected our bodies, it is unatural to us and the production of this poor diet doesn't tie in with the way man evolves, so please consider another view........


    The alternative view to the evolutionary one....from the perspective from a creationist biblical Genesis outlook, this seems to imply that the rise of cereal agriculture and the consequence of opioid substances resulting from the cereal crop is circumstantial to the farming process that man had to do.

    The linked articles try to fit it into the evolutionary existance of man, where in reality it does not fit too well, so they hypothesise, and admit to a certain extent that they are unsubstantiated speculations on a theme. The Genesis account gives direct reasonings why we turned to agriculture or rather, we had to.

    The ground was 'cursed' in Genesis and instead of man having God provide the goods easily from a forthcoming cultivated earth as illustrated in Eden, man through his sin was to till the soil with great difficulty. The response to mans sin was immediate....

    Genesis 3: 17- 19 And to Adam he said: "Because you listened to your wife’s voice and took to eating from the tree concerning which I gave you this command, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground on your account. In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life. 18 And thorns and thistles it will grow for you, and you must eat the vegetation of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return."

    The main points here are that man was now to labour hard to get the produce from the soil...The vegetation of the land...He was to use the process of agriculture. Interestingly in verse 19 it says that man will eat bread (Hebrew:Iechem) yet Adam and Eve had not yet touched on cultivating the land to produce wheat or barley for bread as they were still in Eden, not unless their cultivating of the garden of Eden encompassed wheat production. In this sense bread could have been unkown to them. It seems to be more so a prophetic statement, although bread is generally referring to food as a whole in the scriptures, as in the 'Lords' prayer. Therefore, was the production of bread a part of the pain of the produce in Genesis 17 ? Was it an unsuitable food product that man was to produce from the 'cursed' (or unproductive) soil resulting from his sin ?









     
  5. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    which now brings me to wonder why some leavened & some unleavened bread. too much leaven in the diet cause problems.

    does grain spoil at the same rate of veggies & fruit? pasta seems like it can keep for a long time.

    i wont argue that:)
     
  6. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, all! Thank you for the replies!

    Welcome to CR, InquisitiveInHalifax!

    Hmmm...interesting question. Then again, were we deliberately enticed with these opiates?

    I don't think so, grain was cultivated early enough in the process that whether or not it was first is irrelevent. What is relevent is how pervasive the grain diet has become around the world in all major cultures.

    Indeed.

    Welcome to CR, Harticulate!

    I'm afraid I am not into novels, very rarely. I do hear that the "Clan of the Cave Bear" series are quite good in this regard.

    Well, if you prefer novels, I don't know of much else to recommend. As for scholarly research, there is plenty out there. That's where I tend to do my digging. A favorite scholar I have referenced quite a few times is Glen Morton. I snag tidbits from an assortment of places, usually starting with some little story that comes across the evening news or an old science magazine.

    Why thanks, I would be honored. :) I have had a great deal of help and discussion with quite a few people around here, many very knowledgeable in the field. Some old threads to look for deal with the evolution / science debate, and a couple of favorites of mine in the philosophy section deal with morality in evolution and the earth was of one language.

    Good to hear from you again, E99!

    I am sorry to hear of your sons troubles, but it sounds like he has an understanding parent. I have no doubts that makes an incredible difference in his quality of life. :)

    Thank you for the run down on how these chemicals operate.

    You managed to touch on an important point I hoped would not be overlooked, in that ha-Adam was created to till the soil. The man Adam, according to the Bible, was the first gardener, the first farmer, the first tiller of the soil. By extension, it is through him that agriculture was brought into the world. Whether or not this is symbolic / myth, or a real identifiable person, the Old Testament virtually opens with the introduction of the agrarian lifestyle...and all that entails!

    You hit another good point discussing bread. Were we not meant to eat bread, why is it such a staple as to represent food in general? Indeed, similar opioids (according to one of the referenced articles attached to the original I referenced above) are found in milk. Yet, the Promised Land flows with "milk and honey!" Not to seem heretical, but did G-d intend for us to be "hooked" on these particular opioids? It would seem, with the progression of civilization, that may be the case. That is, if one is of the mind that civilization is a good thing, a "blessing."

    My good friend Bandit!

    How very astute!

    I like what E99 brought out about yeast. I understand there to be some nutritional value in yeast. But G-d obviously did not intend for His followers to eat yeast consistently without an occasional (yearly) break from it. I am certain you were headed in this direction, especially considering your Bible study in the other thread. In the case of yeast, could it be that G-d "allowed" us something that was not entirely good for us, provided we take a break from it from time to time? I bet BB or Dauer have some ideas on this, I wonder if either would be kind enough to chime in and clarify.

    I guess a lot depends which fruits and veggies and what conditions are like. Root cellers were in every home (in rural America) prior to refrigeration. Apples (and thier kind), and potatoes and other root crops, keep pretty well. Under ideal (cool, not freezing, no sunlight, etc.) conditions, these crops can keep for months. As for pasta, I guess it depends on preservatives and / or packaging. Plain pasta keeps pretty well in an airtight container in the fridge. Raw grain, properly dried and stored, keeps for a good long while. Even Pharoah had granaries. (The story of Joseph) That has long been the traditional argument about why agriculture began, an abundant crop could insure a "tribe" against hunger for a long time, provided it was properly stored. Come to think of it, have you ever heard of red wheat? It seems while looking into one of the Pharoah's tombs, some wheat kernals were found. As I recall the story, about five of them were still viable, after several thousand years of being locked away in a tomb. From those five kernals, red wheat was resurrected and made an economic crop (once again!).

    *******

    BTW, another interesting tidbit I learned of recently, and want to include here for discussion, has to do with skin pigmentation.

    Right after Christmas, when no one was really paying any attention, it was announced in the news that the gene for skin color had been discovered, by comparing with the lowly little zebrafish, the same one you can find in pet stores for aquariums. It seems that "Caucasians" are mutants. That is, European fair skinned people have a mutated gene when compared with African darker skinned people. Which, of course, supports the "out of Africa" camp in the development of Homo Sapiens.

    Trouble is, this gene is not the explanation for Oriental fair skinned peoples...they haven't figured that one out just yet!

    What were we saying a while back about the common source of languages, the Aryan / Semitic source for most of the world...except the Orient? Where skin goes, so also goes language! :D
     
  7. harticulate

    harticulate New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Juantoo3:

    Besides the enthralling specials I have watched about archeology/anthropology on History Channel, National Geographic, etc..............I have started to do a little of my own research. I am still very naive and just starting on my journey, but something compels me to want to know more. Besides the one novel I have read, these are the non-fiction I have read/reading: I started with "In The Footsteps of Eve" by Lee R. Berger and am now moving on to "Ancestral Passions" about the Leakeys.

    In reading "Footsteps" it became apparent that even in such professional positions the ego gets in the way and the field of anthropology is very competitive. I thought maybe intelligent minds at this level would be working together, but was sad to see that this sort of rivalry exists in all area's. Now I am not sure who's research to follow. But I think I will research from all angles and take it all in............and understanding that with all knowledge you have to find your own truth. I am so happy to find others that are interested in this same subject matter.

    Thanks Again!
     
  8. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, harticulate!

    Thank you for the reply!

    Sounds like a good plan to me... :D

    Regarding the skin pigmentation gene, I had been looking online for the research paper by Dr. Keith Cheng and crew from Pittsburg State University, and I finally managed to find it:

    http://www.hmc.psu.edu/pathology/residency/experimental/cheng.htm

    This is a PDF file under link "Science Paper 16 Dec 2005" on right of page gives research paper.

    Should this be a bit intimidating, here are a couple of links to articles written to announce the paper:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728_pf.html

    News release

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055391

    News release

    Sorry this is so short, I am pressed for time. I wanted to make this available for discussion.
     
  9. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    that kind of explains why my IPU has red & white zebra stripes instead of all pink. i bought a zebra fish last month but it died. but my fancy tail goldfish are really cool & the spotted ones keep changing colors with white, black & orange.
    probably, when they figure out the oriental skin, they will have to cojitate the zebra skinned people.
     
  10. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, all!

    This is really just a bump so I don't forget this thread. The skin gene was presented on network news about a week ago, the previous announcement on PBS.

    PBS also had an interesting piece dealing with African-American geneology, and being able to trace "roots" back to Africa. I haven't had the opportunity yet to pursue the matter, but it seems the genetic map of African peoples is helping academics understand how the various tribes migrated around the continent. Specifically mentioned was a migration by the Bantu people.

    The PBS website is disturbingly sparse, considering how other subjects have been treated, with large amounts of reference. I was hoping to get more on the African migrations. I did find some interesting info that corresponds with MtDNA, in that there is also a "paternal" lineage that can be traced. (Hooray for fatherhood!) Just as there can be shown a "common ancestral mother," there is also a common ancestral father...Adam and Eve anyone?

    So, way back when, the vast majority of us shared an ancestral grandmother and grandfather.

    It was interesting the way the program also noted how prevalent it is for an African-American person to have a significant percentage of "white, European" genetics. It is far more common than I realized.

    Also announced recently, although a bit to the side of the subject, is a previously unexplored "garden of eden" in the jungles of New Guinea I believe it was, where scientists found all kinds of plants and animals not seen before in the West. Gonna make somebody's career...!
     
  11. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think it is all rather interesting Juan. i can think of many questions on all of this so it will make for good application through the whole year.

    just letting you know i think it is a good topic, even if i dont know much on it.
     
  12. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Thanks Bandit!
     
  13. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    hey Juan:)
    i wanted to reply to this here. this topic means a lot to me.
    i am starting to see where this is headed, from several logical perspectives & your research is well thought out. i dont know if it is true, but i am following what you have been saying. it has taken about a year for it to sink in. between this, the language thread & a couple of others around.
    just wanted to note that you have been a real blessing for me & allowed me to enter a new cavern & thank you for doing that.
    i have gained a real interest in this applied anthropology & hope to contribute a little as i have time to study.
     
  14. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hi Juan,

    Interesting thread! I would like to point out some anatomical issues for your consideration.

    Man's gastorintestinal tract is consistent in design with that of an herbivore. Muscular mouth and small opening for the oral cavity combined with an agile tongue and a mandible that can move forward to utilize the incisors as well as side ways to crush and grind, is inconsistent with that of a true carnivore's. Man's teeth are flat and abut together (with the exception of canine teeth). Man's saliva contains salivary amylase (an enzyme used in the coversion of starch to sugar). The esophogus is narrow and suited for passing thuroughly chewed foodstuffs. Subsequently any attempt for man to gulp down his food like a carnivore, usually results in choking.

    The stomach is single chambered and mildly acidic, but only consists of approximately 20% of the GI tract (unlike the 50-60% for a carnivore). Wherein a carnivore's PH balance is normal at 1-2%, a man is in trouble if his stomach's PH balance falls to 4-5% with food in it. Like other herbivores man's small intestine is about 30 feet in length or 10 times the body length (compared to the carnivore's five times the body length). The large intestine (colon) is large, pouched and expandable (like the herbivor's), and absorbs water, electrolytes, produces and absorbs vitamins (wherein the carnivore's colon aborbs only water and salt). Bacterial fermentation of fibrous plant materials along with the ability to absorb fatty acids also align's man's GI with that of an herbivore.

    Carnivores can not live on a plant diet, due to the inability to draw nutrients from the plant fibers. Though man can live on a meat diet, he too does not receive all the nutrients his body needs through meat. And man's GI does not digest meat anywhere near as efficiently.

    Hence it appears that man's GI is that of a straight herbivore (it does not contain mixed features as those of an omnivore, such as a bear or raccoon), and is drastically different in design and purpose than that of a carnivore. The exception to the rule I opine, would be the canine teeth, possibly the appendix (which we still aren't quit certain of its original purpose), and the single chambered stomach.

    Perhaps the problem with eating cereals is simply that man eats too much of it. His systems requires more fibrous plant material than starch (man can not live on bread alone, seems to have a deeper meaning than most realize). And eating meat is an inefficient way of drawing required nutrients.

    my thoughts

    v/r

    Q
     
  15. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, Bandit!

    Thank you very much for your support!

    I did want to say a little something though...

    I was taught that a scholar does not begin with presumptions and then molds the findings to a preset conclusion. I guess what I am trying to say, in all of this I have presented, is that I am not "headed" anywhere. I am actually trying to follow where the "evidence" leads to.

    It is a pleasant coincidence, that while the evidence does not explicitly lead to where I would like, it does to a very significant degree seem to support what I have long believed:

    Why would humanity in pre-historic times universally acknowledge something greater than itself if there were nothing there to acknowledge? IOW, there must be something "out there" that we all intuit, but cannot grab ahold of (even if "out there" may actually be "in here"). After looking at (and continuing to look at) the evidence, I cannot see why pre-historic humanity would waste their collective time and effort on something that was not "real."
     
  16. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, Q!

    Yes, I do see a number of physiological inconsistencies regarding human development compared with, say, chimpanzees. While an interesting argument is laid out as to how "man" developed on the savannas of Africa in the book "the Naked Ape," one thing continues to puzzle me.

    Why, if we are "carnivores," have our canine teeth grown smaller, while "herbivore" (or at best omnivore) chimpanzees have canine teeth that rival many dogs, and could rip us to shreds. I have long thought that a curious "evolutionary" development.
     
  17. Käthe

    Käthe Kitchen Witch

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    juantoo3,

    Thanks for referring me to this topic. I don't have what it takes right this sec to reply in the kind of thoughtful manner that it deserves. Rest assured I'll be putting some brain-sweat into this topic and will get back to it once the ideas have jelled.
     
  18. Käthe

    Käthe Kitchen Witch

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I'll search out the "morality in evolution" thread, too. The title alone has me intrigued. :)
     
  19. Käthe

    Käthe Kitchen Witch

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have just a moment here, but I recall reading fairly recently in a book about the development of agriculture, that animals were domesticated before grains were. that is, that we humans thought to pen and breed animals before we thought to purposefully raise grain to feed to them.

    I believe this book also said that grain was raised largely for animal feed for a quite a while, and was only incidently in the human diet for a long time.

    Dang. Cannot for the life of me remember which book that was, and scanning my shelves doesn't help.

    Of course, fruit and nuts and vegetables were a part of our diet too, not just meat, and that might explain our dentation; crushers for the vegetative stuff.
     
  20. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,379
    Likes Received:
    130
    Kindest Regards, Kathe!
    Thank you for your post!
    It could be interesting to find this book. I think anthropologists are a lot like Rabbis, in that you can ask 5 of them a question and get six different answers. I don't think we really know exactly how agriculture, or animal husbandry, actually got started. I do know there are many examples of Egyptian and Sumerian (Accadian? and some other major fortress town whose name escapes me just now) art showing cereal crops. Whether cereal was the first crop or not, it pretty obviously became a major player early on.

    I really do suspect that fermentation of beer was a motivating factor. Mead and ale and other fermented goodies have been a staple for a very long time. :) <*hic*> :D
     

Share This Page