I made no claims. You on the other hand, said that ALL scientific research points to what your sciencedaily article claimed. An article, which was based on someone's postgraduate work, and not really even a study solely in the field you mentioned. Somehow you turned this into: "respected anthropologist" and "all research". That's ridiculous and really tells that you're not really interested in reading any science behind it, that is if it doesn't back up your preconceived notion that agriculture sucks ass.
I don't think you understand what evolution is. You also have no understanding what paleolithic man was like, despite you thinkin you do because you subscribe to someone's FICTION.
Also, your claim about average lifespan is downright false.
The very abstract of the article you posted:
"The archaeological evidence is especially weak, as many organic materials, especially plants, do not survive well, and are therefore invisible in the archaeological record. Artefacts, such as stone tools which are likely to be used for hunting and animal bones with evidence of human processing and butchering do indicate that hunting did occur at many times in the past, but it is impossible to judge the frequency."
Sounds like a cultist agenda to hate on modern agriculture, with little to no actual evidence to back that hate up.
I don't think you understand what evolution is.
You also seem to have no understanding of what paleolithic man was like.
Average lifespan was mid-fifties, assuming they survived childhood. After agriculture that number drops precipitously, until modern medicine sets in.
You also seem to have no understanding of what paleolithic man was like.
Average lifespan was mid-fifties, assuming they survived childhood. After agriculture that number drops precipitously, until modern medicine sets in.
Also, your claim about average lifespan is downright false.
Also: "In the Palaeolithic people have fairly healthy teeth with almost no caries, but in the Neolithic there is an increased use of plant foods which contain carbohydrates, so there is an increased caries rates. Neolithic teeth are also more worn down and pitted owing to hard inclusions from poorly ground-up flour."
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v56/n12/full/1601646a.html
The very abstract of the article you posted:
"The archaeological evidence is especially weak, as many organic materials, especially plants, do not survive well, and are therefore invisible in the archaeological record. Artefacts, such as stone tools which are likely to be used for hunting and animal bones with evidence of human processing and butchering do indicate that hunting did occur at many times in the past, but it is impossible to judge the frequency."
Sounds like a cultist agenda to hate on modern agriculture, with little to no actual evidence to back that hate up.