Flat teeth are not "herbivore teeth"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Dog's molars are bladed and sharp, Alien. They don't look like anything like ours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Providing examples of a dog chewing a bone isn't an argument that it wants the bone's marrow, nor is it an argument that the ancestors of humans wanted marrow either. My two jack russell terriers eat grass off the ground. That isn't an argument that humans once thrived on grass.

I'd be impressed with these ideas if they were actually new and intelligent, alien. But they're old theories that are turned upside down in ways to make them appear ludicrous, just like your idea that humans are descended from monkey brain eaters with large jaws.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it was directed at the person you were quoting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this is based on what? Your sheer speculation?

Our ancestors may well have been drawn to spicy "seasoning" plants, and perhaps even for the reasons that you described. Sounds plausible. However, there is zero evidence to suggest that this is the only leafy plant material that they ate. The weight of evidence points to the contrary.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they probably ate anything they could. learning from animals. grass, tree bark etc were tried and if it worked and was acceptable then they kept on consuming it.

 

This is all speculation.

More than plausible, actually. Things like dandelion, for example, would have served the purposes I am describing.

I have not stated that this is "the only plant material that they ate." I have stated that these are the kinds of foliage and roots they would have reached for, and I have suggested plausible reasons that they would do so. Furthermore, our own behavior mirrors this.

 

That's a bunch of nonsense. Primitive human cultures have a very different sense of what's good than urban humans, who are spoiled on exotic spices. Our ancestors were drawn to the edible, and they probably didn't live long enough to care about cavities. Also, they didn't eat sugar, so they probably didn't get as many. One should be very careful not to impose modern thinking on the past. We did the same thing when we characterized early mankind as savage, such as the view portrayed in the beginning of "2001, A Space Odyssey".

 

Well, dogs are more closely related than we are to fucking cows, but I would hardly call their teeth "bladed and sharp." I own dogs, and their rear teeth are not sharp to the touch if they are being fed on a healthy diet. There are also a number of close relatives of Canis lupus, such as Canis latrans, that also eat large quantities of nuts, fruits, and anything else it can scavenge. The diet of canis lupus is highly flexible as well, especially that of subspecies Canis lupus familiaris.

Look, odds are very high that early hominids lived on a diet very similar to that of most earchontoglires. Like rats, humans would have thrived on a highly varied diet. For that matter, if you take our modern eating patterns as a sign of what our ancestors actually ate, they probably fed more on grains than anything else, and that's probably the greatest use those molars actually saw, not chewing fucking fibrous leaves like some fucking cow. We were probably wandering around in the prehistoric, fucking Middle East, rubbing wheat in our fucking hands. It metablizes into opioids in the human body, so we would have fucking loved it. Teeth that are very high in enamel would have protected their teeth against erosion from the kinds of opportunistic bacteria that result from a diet rich in carbohydrates.

Dogs chew on bones, even bones they cannot bite into, because this activity pacifies them. There is a group of nerve endings in and around the palate that stimulate the release of oxytocin in the brain, resulting in anxiolysis.

Dogs probably eat grass for the same reasons that our primitive ancestors would have eaten sharply bitter greens (which actually taste good to humans, unlike fucking fibrous fucking leaves): the alkylizing effect would have balanced the acidity on their palates, leaving them feeling clean and fresh. Dogs who eat grass and then throw up may be suffering from acid reflux because of an imbalance in their diet.

Humans are not cows. We cannot digest cellulose. We don't have this capability. A diet of nothing but leaves, particularly for children because children need much higher quantities of protein, can cause a whole lot of really stupid diseases that you don't want to have. You can't live on leaves, period. If nothing else, get some fucking Quaker oats or something. That would give you at least some protein. Maybe a little extra thiamine would help reduce your chances of losing your fucking mind later in life.

 

Look, the idea is mechanically sound. Perhaps the jaws of modern humans could not have been used in this way, but our ancestors had much stronger jaws. The human jaw actually would serve well as a kind of vice for holding things still, and I think this would explain why our teeth are generally even. It's mechanically sound.

 

Then I guess that just leaves you with the problem of explaining our longer than normal for a carnivore intestine, weaker stomach acid, prominence of sweat glands, mandible jaw, total inability to subsist of raw rancid flesh and the total futility of piercing the backside of a pig with our claws and fangs

:shrug:

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Alien, what do these look like to you? Seriously?

 

And I didn't accuse you of saying that. I characterized your assertion as being that those are the only leafy plant materials that they ate. That is what you're saying, right? That's what I infer from post #46: "...if our ancestors had eaten any kind of foliage at all, it would have been somewhat spicy."

If you're suggesting that modern humans do not eat leafy vegetables -- which are simply edible plant leaves -- except for spicy ones, I'm afraid that is patently and demonstrably false.

List of common leaf vegetables

I've already addressed your utterly misguided points about taste (post #35, second to last paragraph -- read me again). Let me reiterate that your personal disdain for bland, leafy vegetables tells us nothing whatsoever about proto-humans. As for me, cooked spinach (an edible leaf) is one of my favorite vegetables.

To my knowledge, nobody in this thread has suggested that proto-humans subsided solely and completely on leaves. We are only arguing against your assertion that proto-humans did not eat any leafy vegetables at all (except for the spicy "seasoning" ones, of course). There is no reason to believe that this was the case.

For some more food for thought (if you'll forgive the pun

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), check out these links about the health benefits of various leafy vegetables.
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Collard greens
Kale
Leeks
Romaine lettuce
Spinach
Turnip greens

 

Generally speaking, I think this kind of thing would likely have been preferred, particularly for a meat-eater. Bitter plant roots and the like would have been very favorable. I have actually made a very plausible case for this. You have said nothing to refute it. The hypothesis is sound.

Spinach tastes just fine cooked. However, raw spinach can cause bloating if you eat it in large quantities. I also warn you against consuming it with large quantities of dairy unless you trace most of your ancestry to Northwestern Europe.

I did not use the word "seasoning." You did. I said, "spicy." Humans are attracted to sharp tastes. For a meat-eater, plant leaves, shafts or roots that have a piquant bitterness to them would have had an alkylizing effect on their diet, and even a tiny improvement in physiological health can make a large difference in whether a woman is likely to survive going through labor under extremely primitive conditions.

They would have been especially motivated to pursue these tastes partially because the taste of meat going rancid in your mouth, particularly if you already suffer from dental caries, is not very pleasant at all. If you got a cavity, you couldn't nip down to the dentist to have it filled. The deeper it got, the more infectious material would have congregated in it. They would have needed some means of cleansing their palates besides a tool that had not been invented yet. Predatory birds clean out their craws using animal hair. I think that things like endive and dandelion root would have done the trick for our ancestors. The piquant, exciting flavor would have been sufficient to attract the interest of our prehistoric ancestors.

Corn was probably a staple in our prehistoric diet, actually. A number of plants in this category are native to the Middle East and Near East. Again, our prehistoric diet probably didn't differ greatly from our modern diet. As now, we would have had a very strong, inbred need for easily digestible grains.

 

Have you done the FEA on that?

 

One at a time, hero. Humans are large enough to pick up a monkey and bash its head on the trunk of the same tree it fell out of. Like most vegans, you are not exercising sufficient creativity. You should get more B12 in your diet because your brain is probably shrinking as we speak.

 

By the way, Dub: do you even know what "piquant" actually tastes like? Look it up, and try to find the archaic meaning of the term. Now, the reason that we are attracted to sharp, bitter, or piquant tastes may have a bearing on our taste for soda. What actually makes soda taste good is the stimulation of nociceptors in our oral cavity. The mild irritation caused by carbonated water triggers the release of opioid neuropeptides, resulting in an overall pleasurable sensation.

Now, try to understand this: a plant that has a very sharp, biting taste would attract our ancestors for the same reason that present-day humans like to have drinks containing carbonated water. This is what would have attracted them to these plants. This is the reason they would have found them to be pleasurable to eat, especially on a diet heavy in meat. The alkylizing effect of these greens would have helped give us an improved sense of well-being.

 

I'll say it again: what I am taking issue with is your assertion that proto-humans ate no leafy plants except for the "piquant" ones you are describing. I have already agreed that it's entirely plausible that they would have been drawn to the plants you're describing. I have made no attempt to refute this. Now, if you're conceding that more-or-less bland, leafy vegetables also comprised a significant portion of the edible leaf component of the proto-human diet, then we are in agreement and the matter is settled.

But... if you are sticking to the assertion that such plants had no place in our diet, then much has been said to refute it, and not all by me.

• Seeing as your original idea about the flat teeth as a jaw-vise has been essentially laid to rest, it stands to reason that our flat molars were used for herbivorous purposes just like in other species with such teeth. (Note, however, that this wouldn't merit our classification as herbivores, since we have varied tooth forms and other features that allow us to subsist on an eclectic diet -- yes, including meats.)
• Leafy plant foods have been a staple in many cultures' diets throughout recorded history, and these foods are also eaten by some of our closest animal relatives. There is little reason to suppose that our lineage inexplicably lost and then regained our taste for these leafy foods.
• As lightgigantic points out, several aspects of our digestive system suggest habituation to a diet with a significant plant component -- more significant than a bit of dandelion. (Although it is also undoubtedly true that meat represented a significant component as well, with cooperative hunting perhaps even being a major driver of sociality, and thus brain power.)

Compare this to the evidence for the hypothesis which is... what? That you don't think they taste good? Other than this irrelevant factoid, your case establishes the plausibility of piquant plant foods, but fails to rule out the inclusion of more bland plants. Take careful note that it is this very ruling out which I am concerned with.

I do

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Lucky for me, because skim milk is one of my favorite drinks. I go through quite a bit of it.

Hey, just paraphrasing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I thought it seemed a relatively innocuous substitution.

Agreed. However, I think that the utter absence of bland, leafy plant food would be a pretty significant difference, don't you think? But as I mentioned earlier, if you're allowing a place for such food in your hypothesized diet, then we're not at odds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eace:

 

There is no reason that our ancestors would have even known they could be used for food. In modern times, humans usually don't eat things like "iceberg lettuce" unless they have drenched it in some kind of dressing.

Bullshit. On the contrary, I think that I have constructed a somewhat plausible argument for stating that the kinds of bitter-tasting foliage that actually appeal to modern humans, such as spinach, would have been an almost necessary part of a meat-eater's diet. A species that does not eat as much meat would not need the leafy green vegetables there to provide balance.

We might not have eaten very many leafy, green vegetables at all prior to the advent of meat-eating. However, I think that certain highly bitter vegetation would have been extremely useful in cleansing the palate after a meal high in meat. It would have helped relieve the unpleasant taste of meat that is trapped in crevices in the teeth and going rancid.

It is still mechanically sound. Our frontal molars in particular would have come in handy for holding a piece of animal flesh as we were tearing it from the carcass. It is mechanically sound. It has not been "laid to rest" simply because you refuse to acknowledge that I have a point. You have not said a single thing to refute the mechanical soundness of this suggestion. Also, I have demonstrated elsewhere that I will reject an idea once someone has pointed out a legitimate flaw in it. The idea of the human jaw being useful as a powerful vice is mechanically sound. Our molars are a lot more complex than those of a herbivore.

For one thing, it is mechanically sound. The human arm has the greatest level of strength pulling in same direction from which our molars grow from out of our jaw: down and slightly out. Nearly all other euarchontoglires have highly diversified diets, including meat. Modern humans eat meat, but they have a much lower need for calcium and magnesium due to the fact that modern humans have a much lighter bone structure; our more big-boned ancestors would have had a greater need for these minerals, so they may have spent more time than we do gnawing on bone and cartilage.

Take careful note that it is this very ruling out which I am concerned with.[/quote]This doesn't rule out my ideas, though. Now, although I haven't strictly ruled out bland plants, I think that a more bitter-leafed plant would have been much more useful for prehistoric Man. These particular kinds of leafy greens would also have had an alkylizing effect on the diet, and this would have resulted in a higher level of health for our ancestors if it is a fact that you can improve your health through a so-called "alkylizing" dietary regime. A bland leaf like iceberg lettuce or some shit like that would not have had this benefit, and it has a low Caloric content. We need Calories to survive.

And look, spinach is included in that category of plant. It is naturally a bitter-tasting vegetable. It has an exciting taste. I like it, too. Our ancestors would have liked it.

Ass.

I am not really sure why you think our ancestors would have reached for it. This is the sticking point, here. Bland, pale-tasting leaves are probably not even particularly nutritionally dense. The kinds of vegetables that actually confer a benefit to your health are the kinds that are either aromatic or otherwise interesting. The human palate can tell when something actually has extremely poor nutritional content. A very bland, pale vegetable would not even be very nourishing.

 

The proto-human in question was obviously not a modern, industrial-age human. Indeed, it wasn't a member of Homo sapiens at all. When are you going to realize the inanity of these taste-based arguments?

And as for the assertion that they wouldn't have known to use these types of food -- that is completely baseless speculation trying to pass itself off as fact.

"An almost necessary part of a meat-eater's diet"? Do you know how many species eat nothing but meat and yet never touch a leafy plant at all, let alone a "piquant" one? They're such a significant group of animals that they even have their own name: carnivores! To say that using these plants would be useful or beneficial is one thing, but to say that it is necessary is absurd. Plenty of meat-eating animals get on fine without them.

The reason I considered it laid to rest is because, until your latest post, you hadn't responded to any of the points that I made against the idea earlier, in post #35. (And don't worry, I'll respond to your new retort regarding calcium needs below.) Instead, you've just been clinging to the purported "mechanical soundness" of the idea, as if showing that something is not impossible is tantamount to showing that it actually happens.

Ironically, you have absolutely no empirical basis for asserting the mechanical soundness of your idea. You have no clear idea of exactly how robust a jaw the proto-human in question might have possessed, nor do you have any clear idea of how large or dense the (raw) animal bone in question might be. This is once again speculation attempting to pass itself off as fact. If you believe that the idea is mechanically sound, then the onus is on you to prove it, not on me to disprove it. Until then, the best you can say is that it might be mechanically sound.

That's not true at all. Fossils show that all but the very most recent proto-humans were significantly smaller in stature than modern humans, and none possessed skeletons any more robust than ours. (Note that Homo sapiens did not evolve from the Neanderthal line, which had a squat and robust form.) For example, Australopithecus species consistently stood in the 3 - 5 ft range, with relatively chimp-like skulls resting atop a skeleton that is remarkably similar in form to modern humans, save for the diminished size. If anything, Homo sapiens requires more calcium than our ancestors did -- certainly not vice versa.

This is only a problem if we assume a diet composed exclusively of such plants. I think I have made it pretty explicit that this is not what I'm asserting. Clearly we met our caloric needs through a variety of sources.

You must not have seen these, so I'll post them again.
Brussels sprouts
Cabbage
Collard greens
Kale
Leeks
Romaine lettuce
Spinach
Turnip greens
Note that these are only a handful of links I quickly gathered from a site that I was familiar with. Some additional Googling on your part should make it plain that most of these leafy vegetables offer considerable health benefits. (The iceberg lettuce that you so loathe is indeed not one of the more nutrient-dense of the lot, but other varieties of lettuce are.)

I'm not sure what I said to deserve that. :shrug:

 

They are not inane. I am correct in stating that a pale, bland type of vegetable is likely to be lacking in real nutritional value. I am not just making this shit up as I go along. I am trying my best to put together several divergent facts. Romaine lettuce, on the other hand, is a more flavorful leaf, and--surprise, surprise--it also happens to be much higher in nutritional value.

Look, the human palate is a very sophisticated tool for chemical detection; the olfactory system, doubly so. If a food actually suffers from a complete lack of taste, it very likely lacks any real nutritional value beyond, perhaps, some complex carbohydrates. However, gluten, especially that found in wheat, has some very mild inflammatory effects. I don't think that it is inconsequential that our metabolism of wheat gluten results in some interesting opioid-like molecules that can have the effect of heightening our appetite (one reason that I avoid wheat like the fucking galloping bubonic plague, and so should anyone who has weight gain problems, heart trouble, or Diabetes fucking Mellitus in their family history. I don't keep my weight down to 170 at a height of 6'2" by being fucking careless about what I eat. I am the only person in my family who can maintain a steady lope for a good ten miles. Look, if you want to live, follow my fucking advice instead of trying to talk to me like I'm an idiot). Due to the effect of low-level inflammation on endorphin and dynorphin, this would serve as a motivation, similar to what would motivate us to pursue bitter or astringent tastes, to pursue these kinds of foods in our diet.

As an interesting consequence of the mechanics of our palate, proteins such as gluten would also tend to congregate in AREAS of our palate that are rich in certain nerve clusters that help to stimulate the flow of oxytocin in our brains (you know, those things that vegans are flushing down the toilet, fucking assholes). This would explain why foods that are rich in this plant protein play such an important role in our diet, and it would also explain why these protein-rich plants were some of the first plants ever to be cultivated by neolithic farmers. What makes a horse's palate different is that they have something called a "gap." Partially because of this feature, the mechanics of their palate result in most plant material, particularly the kinds of material that are difficult to digest, being distributed evenly, allowing for continuous chewing. The human palate does not function in the way that a horse's palate does, though. For us, it congregates. Now, if the central part of our palate is overstimulated as a result of too many large food particles or too much thick protein to be swallowed effectively, we will instinctively divert this difficult to swallow material into our cheeks, so we won't choke on it. These are among many reasons that you don't have to be a fucking Einstein to figure out how to eat your food properly.

They have their own adaptations. Cats, for example, have thicker and more potent mucosal secretions for promoting the adequate pre-digestion of their food, and the hair that they cough up from licking themselves incessantly plays an important role in keeping their upper digestive tract sanitary. Increased grooming behavior, by the way, can be mediated by activation at the dopamine receptor D1, which can also have extremely potent anti-hyperactive and pro-attentional effects. Humans simply have a different set of adaptations, one of which is to seek out bitter-tasting plant leafs.

Jesus Christ, man, right now I have pulled a complete 180 here in stating that leafy, green vegetables must have played a role in our diet, and you are still wanting to fucking argue. I don't know what your motivation here is, but I suspect you're an asshole vegetarian, I don't care that you drink fucking skim, who just doesn't want to admit to the fact that our primitive ancestors consumed a diet rich in animal flesh. If so, then face facts, veggie-brain: they DID, and we have a number of important adaptations for surviving on just such a diet.

Yes, I do. Our bite has a jig-saw pattern, but our teeth are generally even. This adaptation would have been useful for gripping and tearing at bits of tough meat or, for that matter, stripping a tough, inedible peeling off of a piece of fruit. Its uses would have been multifarious.

By the way (asshat), we have a specialized set of molars at the rear of our jaw. They don't come in until approximately the same stage in our life cycle at which we probably would have given most of the soft, easily chewable meat in our diet to our growing offspring. This would have left the older members of a tribe forced, in times of scarcity, to make do with the tougher bits of meat, including bone and cartilage. Now, something would have to motivate us to satisfy ourselves with bone, cartilage, and other extremely tough material, rather than hogging the good bits of meat for ourselves while our offspring starved. Well, when these teeth come in, we are likely to go through a second phase of teething, resulting in us exercising a greater favor for tougher, harder-to-chew material. This might include tough plant fiber, but chewing on what is effectively leather would be just as effective. This kind of material would have helped sustain our oldest offspring through their final growth spurt without resulting in our youngest, most vulnerable offspring being deprived of the protein that is so very important for us during our tender years. Therefore, we DO have an adaptation that would cause us to switch to harder-to-chew material later on in our adolescent development. It would have been merely a form of teething, but it would have had an important adaptative effect on our diet.

Quit trying to create fucking straw man arguments. I know what I am fucking talking about here. My views are highly researched, and I am not pulling these ideas purely out of my fucking ass. If you can point out a truly critical flaw in my designs, I would appreciate it, but every single person to post in this thread has resorted to diversion tactics and various forms of bullshit. Look, jerk, if you can point out a legitimate flaw in my ideas, that helps me. However, I really despise a human being who has to resort to bullshit. That's the kind of shit that radical vegans and fucking pro-lifers do. Those two groups of alleged people are more full of shit than any two groups on the fucking planet. I hate them equally. I have an intense desire to stab them in their fucking eyes. No matter what argument you present to a vegan, they will try to make a fucking strawman out of it. They are born fucking assholes. They are worthless, useless, YUPPIE parasites.

Their fucking dietary regime would only work if our ancestors had the OPTION of wandering down to the grocery store to pick up a jug of soy milk. Often enough, the only plant matter they had to eat was grass, and humans are not adapted for eating fucking grass. On the other hand, the animals that come storming down out of the mountains during the Wintertime CAN eat grass, and HUMANS can eat THEM. During the Ice Age, when the winters were very cold and very dark, these herdbeasts would have kept our ancestors from fucking STARRRRRRRRRRRRRVING, ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!!!! We weren't living in a fucking GARDEN of FUCKING EDEN for the ENTIRITY of our EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY. We went through some really fucking bone-hard times. Unfortunately, vegans are too STUPID to realize this sort of thing. They cling to their fucking dietary regime like it's some fucking religion. They're assholes.

 

Feel better now?

First off, I am not a veg*n of any kind whatsoever. I am literally eating chicken for lunch as I write this post. (Leftover pot pie, glamorous me.) Moreover, I have stated numerous times that I fully believe that meat and other animal products have played an important part in the human diet for a very long time. It's clear that your extreme anti-vegan sentiment is tainting your approach to this thread. I do not have a strong opinions either way on the topic of veg*nism; I am merely someone with a strong interest in human evolution. I am interested in objective truth, and I take issue with your ideas only because they smack of extreme intellectual bias.

Second, I am trying my best to hold back any hostility despite having been called numerous insulting names by you over the course of this thread. I would appreciate if you would calm the hell down and at least try to be more civil.

You are still arguing that the only leafy greens in the proto-human diet had to have been "piquant" or "spicy" ones, are you not? This is the same thing you've been arguing for most of the thread, and it's the same notion that I have been arguing against.

I was not trying to create a straw man. When I think of an edible leaf that is "spicy" or "piquant" like you've described, I think of things like parsley or cilantro, which most people would describe as seasoning plants. It's really as simple as that; I wasn't trying to caricature your argument. If it was the quotation marks that offended your sensibilities, know that I didn't mean to imply that it was a direct quotation coming from you.

The problem is that most of your research uncovers irrelevant trivia which has little or no bearing on the two hypotheses that I'm concerned with. Take this for instance:

What does this have to do with anything? It's meaningless filler which, from what I can tell, is designed to give your argument the illusion of credibility. When we look at the actual heart of the hypotheses, we see that they rest on tenuous assumptions.

Yes, they are. As I keep saying, projecting your sense of taste onto another species tells us nothing. While there can be little doubt that certain plants have gustatory properties which could be objectively described as 'piquant' and would likely be recognized as such by nearly any animal, beyond those cases, what tastes like cardboard to you or me might have been as delicious as a fudge sundae to the proto-humans we are discussing. As I explained earlier, ultimately speaking, it's not that we eat foods because they are tasty, it's that foods are tasty because we eat them.

And as for the health aspects -- the plants in question are all nourishing and, for the most part, are relatively nutrient dense. I've twice provided you with a handful of links for further reading, and you should feel free to further investigate the matter yourself. You'll find that it would have been very beneficial for us to eat these plants.

When was the last time you finished a good steak and then thought to yourself, "I could sure go for a bitter-tasting plant leaf"? I can't recall that I have ever had this experience.

"Cleansing the palate" in general is hardly something that crosses one's mind even in modern times, and I don't see a good reason to suppose that it would have been a major concern for proto-humans. If a proto-human is suffering from old, rotting meat in its mouth, there are numerous simple ways to remove it, and simply no need to find a bitter leaf to mask the taste of the rancid meat. (Pick out with fingers, wash mouth with water, use twig as toothpick, etc.)

I am not arguing against tearing meat or peeling fruit. It's the idea of a proto-human cracking open animal bones with its jaw that has no empirical basis.

This hinges on the highly dubious assumption that wisdom teeth come with a second instance of teething behavior. The eruption of wisdom teeth is often a mildly painful experience, and if you've experienced it then you'll know that the sensitive area is not a place one would be inclined to bite a bone with. And in any case, teething is hardly the same as cracking a bone open.

I have pointed out numerous flaws. I've even caused you to substantially change your argument, presumably to avoid the very flaws that I pointed out. I showed that the Nutcracker Man fossil was not evidence of your hypothesis, both because he was not proto-human and because the very wear patterns you cited didn't evidence bone-breaking. I showed that there is no reason to suppose that proto-humans had significantly increased calcium needs, as well as reminded you that calcium is abundant in many more easily obtainable sources than marrow anyway. Above, I am continuing to address your points centered on taste. I think I can safely say that I have not resorted to any form of prevarication.

Here are some other flaws:

Bone-cracking vise behavior

• Why don't we see this behavior in modern apes who have a similar diet and jaw anatomy to proto-humans in question?
• What exactly is the purpose of this behavior? A few times I've expressed my sincerest doubts that calcium would play any part in this behavior, and you've yet to attempt to rebut the points I made.
• Proto-human fossils have been uncovered along with fossilized animal remains, with clear evidence that the animals had been butchered and eaten. Why didn't archaeologists find animal bones that had been cracked open in the manner that you described? These animal bones were scrutinized extensively (that's how we know they were butchered), and it's an absolute certainty that they would have noticed the signs of bones having been cracked in the jaws of a proto-human.

Leafy food

• Leafy plant foods (non-piquant varieties, that is) have been a staple in many cultures' diets throughout recorded history, and these foods are also eaten by some of our closest animal relatives. There is little reason to suppose that our lineage inexplicably lost and then regained our taste for these leafy foods. Is this what you're suggesting?
• Given that modern apes and other primates are known to eat various types of grasses on occasion, and that proto-humans are thought to have done this as well, what reason do we have for supposing that proto-humans would have avoided leafy foods which likely had a similar flavor profile?