> The remaining people practicing such a folkway live on marginal land, the harsh truth of human existence being that if it was rich enough for agriculture, or good for pastoralism, those lifestyles would have won out.
That's a bit too harsh, and I spent a couple weeks living with the Hadza at one point. Even went honey-gathering with them up into a Baobab tree, although I was too scared to stick my hand in. They live in the African savannah, which is where humankind first evolved. Olduvai Gorge, where some of the oldest hominid fossils have been found, is basically next door to the Hadza. So while yes, Intuits are adapted to "extreme" conditions, the Hadza are living in the most "native human" conditions possible. It is anything but marginal, as there has been no evidence or history of famine ever in the Hadza people.
It is true that the area is ill-suited for agriculture, which is why the Hadza have remained, but agriculture is a very recent invention in evolutionary terms. That doesn't make the savannah "marginal". Also, the idea that you're not particularly closely related to the Hadza is obviously false, since we all share an ancestry with the original sub-Saharan hominids. If you're of European descent, for example, you share more with the Hadza than you do with those of East Asian descent -- as they also share more with the Hadza than they would with you.
You're correct in that this might not have much applicability to a modern diet, but it is valuable in puncturing myths such as the idea that "paleo" people never ate anything high in sugar. I do personally wonder if things like honey were common worldwide, though, whether it's berries or saps or syrups or similar.
"If you're of European descent, for example, you share more with the Hadza than you do with those of East Asian descent -- as they also share more with the Hadza than they would with you."
How? Hadza would be about 3/1000th Neanderthal while both Europens and East Asians are about 20/1000th. Because home sapiens mated with them after leaving Africa and there wasn't much gene flow back into Africa. Even if that weren't the case I don't understand the reasoning behind your comment.
In a nutshell it's about genetic diversity. Subsaharan Africans include virtually all of the set of homo sapiens genes (save for mutations that occurred later on elsewhere), while populations outside of Africa have only select subsets of genes, due to the limited diversity in small migratory groups.
So if you're European, for example, nearly all the genes you have can also be found in the Subsaharan African population, but many of your genes can't be found in the East Asian population at all.
(I'm not considering Neanderthal genes at all, as those are a comparatively very small portion of genes.)
I'm not an expert in this and I don't have numbers here, but this is what I was taught in college anthropology at least regarding genetic variation worldwide.
That's true but I don't see how the earlier claim necessarily follows. It seems to be making assumptions around the amount of gene flow between Europe and Asia in the last 30k years, as well as that it was distinct migratory groups that seeded Europe versus seeded Asia.
It could well be true, it's plausible, I tried to google it without much luck, though.
From what I know it based purely on current measurable genetics, it's not making any assumptions at all. It's the genetic evidence that comes first that supports the hypothesis of distinct migratory groups, not the other way around.
to your point, a version of this i learned was that, if you had the magic ability to select two humans with the greatest genetic distance between them on the planet, those two people would both be sub-Saharan Africans.
In the northern hemisphere, only meat could sustain humans through winter. The cold also kept the meat better longer.
I have to imagine that over a few hundred thousand years the savannah changed as well as the world as a whole. We are probably adapted based on our genetics rather substantially to particular diets.
I can imagine gathering berries and honey would be more common in temperate or tropical climates. But in the colder climates milk, cheese, eggs and meat had to be a larger percentage of the diet.
“They live in the African savannah, which is where humankind first evolved”
We have some evidence to suggest that early humans were there but it is a huge assumption and leap of faith to make a statement like this with certainty. This statement is more likely a religious statement than one a good scientist would make.
A good scientist would not make such a bold assumption without putting it in quotes or a star next to it. You cannot make this statement definitively.
Do you believe it is in fact established? Science discovers new ‘facts’ all the time. To say definitively that humans first evolved here in the context of a 4 billion year old planet seems irresponsible at best.
My understanding is that the known fossil record is extremely clear on this, and is additionally quite consistent to the extent where I'm unaware of any competing hypotheses that are taken seriously.
As far as science goes, it seems to be as established as it gets. Again, unless you've got convincing evidence to the contrary. Really not sure what your agenda is here?
Plenty of competing theories on the origins of humanity on a 4 billion year old planet some in which the origins of life came from elsewhere in the universe.
I think this may be the most recent evidence that modern science has discovered.
Perhaps you mean to say we wont dig up any fossils that say otherwise and that the case is closed?
As if the entirety of the fossil record on earth has been exhausted and we have nothing more to discover.
My agenda is to make sure we are being good scientists and not religious about our findings.
The climate and available foods near Olduvai Gorge were quite different when hominids evolved there. I suspect the current Hadza diet is substantially different from that of our ancient ancestors. Temporal distance matters as much as geographic distance.
That's a bit too harsh, and I spent a couple weeks living with the Hadza at one point. Even went honey-gathering with them up into a Baobab tree, although I was too scared to stick my hand in. They live in the African savannah, which is where humankind first evolved. Olduvai Gorge, where some of the oldest hominid fossils have been found, is basically next door to the Hadza. So while yes, Intuits are adapted to "extreme" conditions, the Hadza are living in the most "native human" conditions possible. It is anything but marginal, as there has been no evidence or history of famine ever in the Hadza people.
It is true that the area is ill-suited for agriculture, which is why the Hadza have remained, but agriculture is a very recent invention in evolutionary terms. That doesn't make the savannah "marginal". Also, the idea that you're not particularly closely related to the Hadza is obviously false, since we all share an ancestry with the original sub-Saharan hominids. If you're of European descent, for example, you share more with the Hadza than you do with those of East Asian descent -- as they also share more with the Hadza than they would with you.
You're correct in that this might not have much applicability to a modern diet, but it is valuable in puncturing myths such as the idea that "paleo" people never ate anything high in sugar. I do personally wonder if things like honey were common worldwide, though, whether it's berries or saps or syrups or similar.