> wrote in message u...
> > "So why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger
> > brain? Why don't true predators like lions and wolves have
> ultra-massive
> > brains?"
> >
> > I do so wish you would stick to a point and not ask irrelevant
> > questions. There is an entireliterature concerning the interelated
> > factors of environment, anatomy, and behaviors and human evolution
> that
> > answers your question. A person first needs to know something about a
> > field of study more then a few slivers of info from here and there to
> > even ask relevant questions.
> >
> > There is no way to slice and dice the evidence to make round peg fit
> the
> > square hole you desire. Use of meat as a dietary source is related to
> > human evolution, the rise of culturally bsed behaviors and human
> history
> > of population movement out of africa .
>
> "It's also related to the evolution, team-work, cooperation,
> food-sharing and what-not of natural predators like wolves and lions.
> So what gives?:"
>
> The observation that those species like humans adopted many of the same
> general features of hunting meat.

If that's the case, then why don't such predators have huge brains?

> Porposes and killer whales etc. also do similar things.
>
> While humans share similarities it is not by itself a limiting factor
> that human evolution took a specific path based on the early behavioral
> ground work all such hunting species share.

'The Relevance of Carnivore Behavior to the Study of Early Hominids
George B. Schaller, Gordon R. Lowther
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 25, No. 4
(Winter, 1969), pp. 307-341

Abstract

Attempts have been made to deduce the social life of early hominids
by means of the comparative study of non-human primates. But
since social systems are strongly influenced by ecological conditions,
it seemed that it might be more productive to compare hominids with
animals which are ecologically but not necessarily phylogenetically
similar, such as the social carnivores. The group dynamics,
dominance hierarchies, land tenure systems, co-operative hunting
techniques, and the like of the wolf, wild dog, hyena, and lion were
compared with those of contemporary hunter-gatherers and, by
inference, those of early hominids. It was concluded that the selective
forces shaping human society were in many respects different from
those that influenced non-human primates, especially with respect to
co-operative hunting, food-sharing, and the division of labor. Field
experiments were made in Tanzania to ascertain the relative
importance of scavenging and hunting in the subsistence of hominids.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=003...3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

> Humans as an evolutionary step went more in the direction of a learned
> basis for behavior,ie. culture, as their specific adaptive method.

'Medical News Today
Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)

Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
Animals, Not Predators

by Neil Schoenherr
Washington University in St. Louis

You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts &
Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu,"
during the American Association for the Advancement of the
Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.

Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.

In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues.
He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living
primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of
years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.

"Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
the predator," says Sussman.

Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes,
which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago,
many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were
hunters and possessed a killer instinct.

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man
the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman
says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.

We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
million years ago and is one of the better known early human
species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

"It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.

Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

"Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

> In the case of hunting and gathering it gave them an added advantage
> over othr species and other primates which quickly became dominate and a
> successful direction to allow domination of all areas.

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html