In these forums I've heard many times that the evidence that humans are responsible for the extinction of the paleolithic megafauna is overwhelming. Although I'm sure there is more, only two concrete items have surfaced so far which have been considered evidence.

1. Megafauna no longer exist today.
2. Its hard to disprove that we aren't responsible.

I consider both of these insufficient on logical grounds.

1. Megafauna no longer exist today

Consider the logical form of this argument:

Mammoth used to exist. When they did, humans hunted them. Mammoth no longer exist. Therefore, humans are responsible via over hunting.

This argument is a non-sequitor. Unless direct evidence can be shown that humans positively killed off every single live mammoth capable of reproduction, it will remain so.

2. Its hard to disprove that we aren't responsible

I'll go one further. Its downright impossible at this point to prove that we aren't responsible. However, that used as evidence does not make an argument true. In fact, this statement relies on the fact that it is impossible to prove a negative in which observable or verifiable evidence cannot be had.

To illustrate the fallacy, consider this statement:

Unicorns exist, because its very difficult to prove that they don't.

Although you could not prove anyone wrong who said this, I don't think it would convince you that unicorns do in fact exist. At best, you might concede to the person that so far, neither you nor him have seen one.

Like I said, there is probably more evidence that I have not been confronted with. Personally, the first time I heard that humans were responsible for these extinctions was in Diamond's book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. I thought it made sense at first, but it never really sat well with me. Until recently, I had no idea that it was a prevalent theory.

For the past few weeks I've been dealing with tooth pain. At first I though maybe cavities ... then I actually lifted my lip to check the gum line. Well, they're definitely receding. Its not too bad, but its bad enough to expose parts of the teeth that are normally covered (hence the pain when eating sometimes).

Anyone else have any stories about treating/reversing this? I would hate to think that when gums go, they're gone for good. But if that's the case, then oh well ...

More than a few nutritionists believe that nutrition plays an important role in brain chemistry, almost to the point of determining whether a particular individual will function normally in society or whether that individual will have a hard time "playing nice" with others. Even between these, though, you'll find a division between those who believe that nutrition has the greatest impact during childhood and those who say nutrition throughout all life is significant in determining sanity.

What I thought would be interesting is looking for correlations between poor nutrition and violent criminals. I must clarify though, that we should factor out non-psychological factors as much as possible. For instance, a scenario involving an armed robber killing a convenience store clerk for whats in the cash drawer would probably be better classified as economically motivated, i.e. stealing money in that person's opinion was easier than simply working for it. Correlations should be looked for in those violent offenders who appear to commit crimes for the sake (or thrill) of committing crimes and not simply for the payoffs.

Anybody got any stories, articles, etc.?

I've been reading a lot here about how to eat raw meats and organs, and it seems that the consensus is to just 'bolt' them. From what I've gathered, bolting is a quick process in which food (raw meat) is swallowed with a gulp of water. It seems that the dominant rationale behind this is that our carnivore cousins (wolves, kitties, etc.) do little actual chewing, relying on their teeth to merely rend meat from a carcass and basically swallowing the chunk whole. Therefore, since they are carnivores and we are also carnivores, we should emulate the wolf, giant cat, bear, etc. (Yes, I know bears are omnivores)

But I have some issues with this logic. I will use the wolf as my example carnivore where needed, mainly because it is easy to spell. Mind you that wolf can be substituted for any similar carnivore:

1. Wolves and humans 'bolt' their food differently according to the above paradigm. Whereas a wolf simply tears some flesh from a carcass, cuts it up a little with its teeth, and then swallows it, a human must rely on a glass of water to assist, as well as a knife. Early paleo hunters most likely had knives. Indeed tools might have figured heavily into our evolution by some anthropologist's accounts*. However, its unlikely that they had glasses of water with them. Also unlikely is that they only killed near bodies of water. I find it further unlikely that they would use the blood as a substitute for water that might help them bolt their food down whole, owing again to the fact that they would have had no vessel in which to collect enough blood for drinking.

2. We have teeth and they must've been used for something. In the above point I failed to point out (intentionally) that humans could just opt to swallow their food whole without any liquid assistance. We do (and did) indeed have that option. However, anyone who has tried to swallow anything larger than a small marble realizes how painful and terrifying getting food lodged in your throat can be. It can take minutes to hours before the blockage clears. This leaves our paleo hunter with the option of either chewing his food, or using a flint knife to chop it into tiny chunks that he and his fellow hunters can then swallow whole. Paleo tools of anatomically-modern humans are praised by many anthropologists as being of surprising quality, but I doubt they came as near to the level of precision and efficiency as a sharp, modern fillet knife. Even using the latter on a slab of liver is time consuming owing mainly to the slimy, almost amorphous nature of the organ. It would seem unlikely, then, that our ancestors, using crude tools, would take such pains as to sit down and meticulously cut the prized organs into pieces tiny enough to be swallowed by himself and his mates without any complications to swallowing.

3. Aajonus has pointed out that the ptyalin in human saliva will interfere with meat digestion and recommends chewing as little as possible. Many here also recommend this. But ptyalin is an amylase, and an amylase's job is to begin the conversion of starch into sugar. Ptyalin's job specifically is to accomplish this with the chewing process. Many people (non-RPD) would undoubtedly point to the presence of amylase in saliva as prima facie evidence that man is meant to eat starchy vegetables. Else, they would argue, why would we have this adaptation if it served no use? Its a good argument. Indeed the presence of ptyalin in saliva appears to be a digestive adaptation to eating something starchy, on the basis that the resultant sugars are needed by some metabolic processes. However, it falls short in assuming that only starchy veggies have starch, which many here know to be false, as certain organs (liver) are relatively high in glycogen, an animal starch. The original claim that ptyalin interferes with protein digestion seems rather odd, considering that its job is starch digestion.

Because of the above points, I have to call into question the primacy of bolting our food. I don't necessarily think that its a wrong practice, and it probably does wonders for many early RPD'ers who have trouble chewing raw organs, but I cannot agree that its a natural practice; that is to say: I don't think our ancestors practiced this for any length of time frequently, and therefore nature had no opportunity to specifically select for this practice in our evolution.

Also, the implications of the theory of bolting over chewing is that the teeth are useless, or almost so. They are either used solely for the chewing of the occasional tuber or wild fruit, or not at all, and are therefore a vestigial organ which refuses to go away. My guess is that more people would believe that the teeth have some use, however limited, rather than believing that they are as useless as the appendix to modern physiologists. And there is some good reason to believe that mankind may have evolved utilizing two different eating styles: bolting meat, and chewing vegetation. However, I find it unlikely that mankind, when initially on the threshold of transitioning from roaming frugivores to hunter-gathering omnivores (and possibly carnivores), found that they needed to invent an entirely new style of eating to accompany their new food source. Those small fruit-eating distant ancestors of ours were accustomed to chewing their primary diet: wild fruits and whatever other nutrient-rich vegetation they ate. When starting to eat other types of food it would be somewhat of a logical fallacy on our part to conclude that all of a sudden, they decided to try a completely radical new form of eating: namely, swallowing without chewing. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they did not just chew the new food the same as the old. Furthermore, if this worked for them, then there is no logical reason to believe that at any point from then forward that all of a sudden they decided that chewing was bad and that swallowing whole was better.

I realize that this is a long post, but the issue of chewing or bolting kinda bothers me. I'm just starting to consume raw liver, and while I can chew it, I find that bolting is easier. However, I'm not completely sold on the idea that it is what I should be doing. Its just easier to do. But consider what could happen: if bolting is not the right way to digest, and it does cause some small problems, then many new RPD-ers would find themselves continually stuck in a rut owing to their dependence on a handicap: i.e., bolting over chewing because its easier and doesn't taste nearly as bad. Then again, it could be the proper way to go, or it just might be one of those things that doesn't matter.

Naturally, I'd like to hear what you guys think.

* I recall a theory stating that our initial evolutionary jump was fueled by the use of tools to liberate marrow and brains from scavenged carcasses. The idea was that large predators rarely had access to these organs, so once everything else was gone, the carcass was left for the scavengers. Proto-human homonids exploited this bounty by chiseling through bone to get ahold of fatty, nutrient-rich marrow and brain tissue.

This is the website I've ordered raw milk from. I did a search for it with the forum search tool but I don't think anybody has mentioned it yet.

They claim to be grass-fed and I've placed two orders with them so far. Their milk was good, and their cream was to die for. Personally, raw dairy doesn't sit well with me, so I most likely will not order anything else, but for those of you who do well with dairy, I would say that this seems to be a good source.

Pardon if this has already been posted elsewhere.

What's your take on balancing acidic and basic foods? Necessary, unnecessary, pseudo-science?

From most of what I've read over the past year or so, the majority of people who go raw paleo or primal or what not tend to notice some pretty marked changes in their body shape and makeup. It seems that most people lose fat around the abdomen and tend to gain mass on the upper body ... without exercise. Is this pretty common?

Also, most of the testimonials I've seen are from men. I know there are quite a few women pursuing this kind of lifestyle, but I don't hear much on how it affects there bodies. Is it similar to the way it affects men?

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

I'm thinking that this personals area might be for relationship relationships, but I think I'm gonna just try and meet anyone near me, male, female, androgynous, etc. Plus my girlfriend might not like it I try to pick up paleo chicks online. Then again, she might ...

I live in the Phoenix, AZ area and I really want to meet some veteran RAF'ers. I keep reading about the good skin, clear eyes, stable disposition, lack of BO, etc. Yes, I'll want to smell you if I ever meet you face to face lol ... i think a clean natural smell is better than oils, perfumes, etc. I do like some perfumes, tho, and I'll readily admit that I'm kinda odd, but oh well.

Anyway, if any of you currently live (relatively) near me or will be passing through, I'd like to get together with you. Its hard trying to adopt such a radical lifestyle without a flesh-and-blood support structure. At least for me.