Health Topical

Barbeque on the savanna

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an--
old-human-habit.html
Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million
years ago, according to a study of our ancestors' teeth.
In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones
dated at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they were
made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared to have
suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of the
University of Arkansas has revealed that the first members
of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most likely
immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the species
that produced the famous fossil Lucy.
Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of the
cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to consume
tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the crests of
teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than those of
gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves and stems,
but not meat.
Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not
only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly soft
foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar shows
that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than A.
afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is meat,"
says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard University.
Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the surface
as though it were a landscape, using a geographic information
system, he told a symposium on diet and evolution at the
University of Arkansas in August. He had to find a way to
compare teeth already worn by use, because unworn teeth are
extremely rare in fossils. In a previous study on the teeth of
gorillas and chimps, he validated the technique by showing
that the differences between species' teeth remain constant
however much they are worn down (Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, vol 100, p 3874).

^_^:
On Nov 27, 5:29 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...~hotmail.com wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-a-
n-old-huma...

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our
ancestors' teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of
the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first
members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most
likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the
species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not
only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than
A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is
meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use, because
unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a previous
study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he validated the
technique by showing that the differences between species'
teeth remain constant however much they are worn down
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100,
p 3874).
This of course fits nicely with the fact that wet apers can
catch a kudu.
http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%20-
2006.htm Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18
Mario can't out swim a croc, which is just one more nail in
the AAT coffin.
http://home.att.net/~crinaustin/Croc_files/image003.jpg

^_^:
The facts (abstract):
Worn teeth are a bane to paleobiologists interested in the
diets of human ancestors and other fossil primates. Although
worn teeth dominate fossil assemblages, their shapes are
usually not used to reconstruct the diets of extinct species.
The problem is that traditional studies of primate dental
functional anatomy have focused on unworn morphology. This has
limited most functional analyses to only a few
well-represented fossil species. This paper introduces a
method to characterize and compare worn occlusal morphology in
primates using laser scanning and geographic information
systems technologies. A study of variably worn chimpanzee and
gorilla molars indicates that differences between these
species in tooth shape remain consistent at given stages of
wear. Although cusp slope decreases with wear in both taxa,
angularity values remain unchanged. These results indicate
that African ape teeth wear in a manner that keeps them
mechanically efficient for fracturing specific foods. Studies
of changes in tooth shape with wear add a new dimension to
dental functional anatomy, and offer a more complete picture
of dental-dietary adaptations. Also, given how rare unworn
teeth are in the fossil record, the ability to include worn
specimens in analyses opens the door to reconstructing the
diets of many more extinct primate groups, allowing us to
better understand the adaptive radiation of our order.
The savanna interpretation (read: nonsense):
Op 28-11-2007 02:29, in artikel f77eb7b4-5b07-43c7-909b-ccb1f-
6555083~d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-a-
n-old-human-habit.h tml

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our
ancestors' teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of
the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first
members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most
likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the
species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not
only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than
A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is
meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use, because
unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a previous
study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he validated the
technique by showing that the differences between species'
teeth remain constant however much they are worn down
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100,
p 3874).

^_^:
On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...~skynet.be wrote:
The facts (abstract):
Yes, and?
Studies of changes in tooth shape with wear add a new
dimension to dental functional anatomy, and offer a more
complete picture of dental-dietary adaptations. Also, given
how rare unworn teeth are in the fossil record, the ability
to include worn specimens in analyses opens the door to
reconstructing the diets of many more extinct primate
groups, allowing us to better understand the adaptive
radiation of our order.

The savanna interpretation
(read: facts):

Op 28-11-2007 02:29, in artikel f77eb7b4-5b07-43c7-909b-ccb-
1f6555...~d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...~hotmail.com schreef:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is--
an-old-huma... tml

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors'
teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar
of the University of Arkansas has revealed that the
first members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their
most likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus
afarensis, the species that produced the famous fossil
Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are
not only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food
than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate
is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use,
because unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a
previous study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he
validated the technique by showing that the differences
between species' teeth remain constant however much they
are worn down (Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol 100, p 3874).

^_^:
On Nov 27, 5:29 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...~hotmail.com wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-a-
n-old-huma...

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our
ancestors' teeth.
Makes sense.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of
the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first
members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most
likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the
species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.
Interesting, I think this makes a lot of sense.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are not
only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food than
A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate is
meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use, because
unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a previous
study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he validated the
technique by showing that the differences between species'
teeth remain constant however much they are worn down
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100,
p 3874).
Very interesting.
I will comment on this later.

^_^:
On Nov 27, 8:14 pm, claudiusd...~sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Nov 27, 5:29 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...~hotmail.com wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is--
an-old-huma...
[...]
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100,
p 3874).

Very interesting.

I will comment on this later.
Oh, Lovely! I'm sure everyone here is perched on the edge of
their seats in breathless anticipation. And thank you again
for the wonderful .sig;
"I will comment on this later." --Dimmy 11/27 2007
"Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. It actually has
no meaning at all." --Dimmy, 12/10/2005

^_^:
On Nov 27, 8:28 pm, mclark <mbclar...~comcast.net wrote:
On Nov 27, 8:14 pm, claudiusd...~sbcglobal.net wrote:

On Nov 27, 5:29 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...~hotmail.com
wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-i-
s-an-old-huma...
[...]
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol
100, p 3874).

Very interesting.

I will comment on this later.

Oh, Lovely! I'm sure everyone here is perched on the edge of
their seats in breathless anticipation.
You just sit tight there little guy, Try not to piss yourself.
Maybe you'd better leave this to us adults.
And thank you
again for the wonderful .sig;

"I will comment on this later." --Dimmy 11/27 2007

"Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. It actually
has no meaning at all." --Dimmy, 12/10/2005

^_^:
On Nov 27, 11:21 pm, claudiusd...~sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Nov 27, 8:28 pm, mclark <mbclar...~comcast.net wrote:

[...]
I will comment on this later.

Oh, Lovely! I'm sure everyone here is perched on the edge
of their seats in breathless anticipation.

You just sit tight there little guy, Try not to piss
yourself.

Maybe you'd better leave this to us adults.
Which "adults" would those be, Dimmy?
And thank you again for the wonderful .sig;

"I will comment on this later." --Dimmy 11/27 2007

"Genetic drift is a pseudo-scientific notion. It actually
has no meaning at all." --Dimmy, 12/10/2005- Hide quoted
text -

"And the, if your are extremely honest and work at if very
hard, you have some chance of defeating the delusions that
dictate your incompetence." --Dimmy 12/02/2005

^_^:
http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%20-
2006.htm Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17584912/ "Just because humans
have long legs doesn't make us less aggressive. Rather, the
longer legs are a product of humans' specialization for
distance running."

^_^:
On Nov 28, 8:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...~skynet.be wrote:
Savanna fantasts keep confusing facts & fiction.
Says the nut case who thinks mountain beavers are semi
aquatic.

^_^:
My little little boy, that tropical humans are generally
leaner than non-tropical ones in no way proves that the
Nariokotome boy was a kudu runner. Got it?
Savanna believers are stupid stupid stupid.
_____
Op 28-11-2007 02:48, in artikel f15aa052-4503-47ca-a8c9-b3cb3-
1a674a4~d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
On Nov 27, 5:29 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...~hotmail.com wrote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is--
an-old-huma...

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our
ancestors' teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of
the University of Arkansas has revealed that the first
members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their most
likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis,
the species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are
not only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food
than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate
is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use, because
unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a previous
study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he validated the
technique by showing that the differences between species'
teeth remain constant however much they are worn down
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 100,
p 3874).


This of course fits nicely with the fact that wet apers can
catch a kudu.

http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%-
202006.htm Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18

Mario can't out swim a croc, which is just one more nail in
the AAT coffin.
http://home.att.net/~crinaustin/Croc_files/image003.jpg

^_^:
Savanna fantasts keep confusing facts & fiction. Savanna
believers are stupid stupid stupid.
______
Op 28-11-2007 03:04, in artikel a9202f23-e798-4b45-86c0-4c65d-
7f02655~a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
On Nov 27, 5:52 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...~skynet.be wrote:
The facts (abstract):

Yes, and?

Studies of changes in tooth shape with wear add a new
dimension to dental functional anatomy, and offer a more
complete picture of dental-dietary adaptations. Also, given
how rare unworn teeth are in the fossil record, the ability
to include worn specimens in analyses opens the door to
reconstructing the diets of many more extinct primate
groups, allowing us to better understand the adaptive
radiation of our order.

The savanna interpretation

(read: facts):

Op 28-11-2007 02:29, in artikel f77eb7b4-5b07-43c7-909b-cc-
b1f6555...~d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleoc...~hotmail.com schreef:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-
-an-old-huma... tml

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became
meat-eaters at the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5
million years ago, according to a study of our ancestors'
teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated
at around
2.5 million years old. But no one could be sure that they
were made by meat-eating hominids, because none appeared
to have suitable teeth. Now an analysis by Peter Ungar
of the University of Arkansas has revealed that the
first members of Homo had much sharper teeth than their
most likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus
afarensis, the species that produced the famous fossil
Lucy.

Eating meat requires teeth adapted more to cutting than to
grinding. The ability to cut is determined by the slope of
the cusps, or crests. "Steeper crests mean the ability to
consume tougher foods," Ungar says. He has found that the
crests of teeth from early Homo skeletons are steeper than
those of gorillas, which consume foods as tough as leaves
and stems, but not meat.

Ripe fruit But the crests of teeth from A. afarensis are
not only shallower than those of early Homo, they are also
shallower than those of chimpanzees, which consume mostly
soft foods such as ripe fruit, and almost no meat. "Ungar
shows that early Homo had teeth adapted to tougher food
than A. afarensis or [chimpanzees]. The obvious candidate
is meat," says anthropologist Richard Wrangham of Harvard
University.

Ungar used a laser to scan each tooth and mapped the
surface as though it were a landscape, using a geographic
information system, he told a symposium on diet and
evolution at the University of Arkansas in August. He had
to find a way to compare teeth already worn by use,
because unworn teeth are extremely rare in fossils. In a
previous study on the teeth of gorillas and chimps, he
validated the technique by showing that the differences
between species' teeth remain constant however much they
are worn down (Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol 100, p 3874).


^_^:
Op 28-11-2007 18:49, in artikel 11609939-f8e7-424d-8cd0-b1bf2-
82d659e~d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
http://www.marathonkasterlee.be/Uitslag%20Halve%20Marathon%-
202006.htm Mario Vaneechoutte 01:39:18

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17584912/ "Just because humans
have long legs doesn't make us less aggressive. Rather, the
longer legs are a product of humans' specialization for
distance running."
:-D If you want to know why human ancestors got long legs,
:just look at
other animals with long legs (giraffes, ostriches, flamingoes,
indris...) instead of producing just-so nonsense.
Savanna believers are stupid stupid stupid.

^_^:
Op 28-11-2007 18:57, in artikel 7ddca7d6-9306-4450-b726-b829a-
62ed310~d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
On Nov 28, 8:49 am, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...~skynet.be wrote:

Savanna fantasts keep confusing facts & fiction.

Says the nut case who thinks mountain beavers are semi
aquatic.
My little boy: you're repeating this mantra so often that it
must be the only "argument" you netloon have. :-D Savanna
believers are stupid stupid stupid.

^_^:
Typical savanna believers' argumentation:
Op 29-11-2007 01:28, in artikel 5012a2d8-7969-445a-8719-278e5-
5e35017~s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<paleocity~hotmail.com schreef:
On Nov 28, 12:14 pm, Marc Verhaegen
<m_verhae...~skynet.be wrote:


:-D If you want to know why human ancestors got long legs,
:just look at
other animals with long legs (giraffes, ostriches,
flamingoes, indris...) instead of producing just-so
nonsense.


Doughboy: you're repeating this mantra so often that it must
be the only "argument" you netloon have. :-D


Wet apers are stupid stupid stupid.





More Topical:





copyright 2012 www.healthtopical.com

Home

Body challenges

Diet

Fitness

General discussion

Healthy living

Learn maintenance

Lose weight

Nutrition