Anybody know a Neolithic dentist?

For over two million years, the Homo species has been a scavenger and gatherer, then a hunter and gatherer.

Homo evolved from the Australopithecines in eastern Africa, east of the Great Rift Valley. Some 4 million years ago, 4-foot tall Australopithecines, with prognathic snouts, small 450 cc brains, but the first bipedal (upright) primate, started spending less time in the trees and more on the ground, consuming a nearly pure vegetarian diet, existing on a wide variety of wild plants. They likely had large colons and smaller small intestines to accommodate the large quantity of bowel flora required to digest the otherwise indigestible polysaccharide fibers of their diet.

The first hominid that most anthropologists regard as the first Homo species was Homo habilis with slightly larger brains than Australopithecus, upright bipedal gait, a probable scavenger of animals. They likely observed the true predators, the ones with big canine teeth and claws like lions and leopards, tackle other animals, successfully killing and consuming them. After these predators were sated, Homo habilis noticed that the skull containing the brain and the bones containing edible marrow remained, along with whatever other fragments remained. Our Homo ancestors therefore scavenged what the true predators left behind. We learned that stones were useful tools to crack open the skull to access the brain, or to get the marrow in the bones.

Consuming animal flesh and learning to use tools as hammers, then knife edges, spears, and hatchets, allowed us to hunt and kill our own game. The bigger the game, the greater the danger, the greater the advantage of communication, which led to the development of language and the uniquely human vocal apparatus. The next Homo species in the evolutionary sequence was Homo erectus, a wonderfully successful strain of hominids who became masters of stone tools and the methods of the hunt, including trapping and herding, with the capacity for group hunt, cooperation, and communication.

In the evolutionary sequence of the Homo species, consumption of animal flesh, the development of tools, and the need for communication and collaboration all led to the progressive growth of brain size. As brain size increased, pelvic size could not keep pace and Homo newborns were born incompletely developed, requiring an extended time after delivery before achieving independence, much longer than other primates. The prolonged nature of human child rearing enhanced the enculturation process.

The sequence continues with the evolution of Neandertalensis and Cro Magnon, the latter being the first of the Homo sapiens, the forerunners of modern humans, appearing some 180,000 years ago. Brains volumes reached a height of around 1600 cc, teeth were virtually free of decay and deformity, with consistent evidence for nutritional adequacy with absence of signs, for instance, of iron deficiency or malnutrition. (The Wikipedia image at left shows the largest brained Homo that ever lived, Cro Magnon.) While life for early Homo certainly had its challenges, such as nematode infestation from poorly-cooked fish, or traumatic injury (leg fractures were uniformly fatal), malnutrition was not generally a problem for Homo. Pre-Neolithic life was, from a nutritional viewpoint, quite good . . .

That is, until around 10,000 years ago when Homo sapiens first added grains. The hunter-gatherer cultures of the Fertile Crescent added wild einkorn and emmer wheat. The inhabitants of southeast Asia added rice that grew wild. The Native Americans living in the southeastern coastal North America, MesoAmerica, and the west coast of south America added maize. The inhabitants of central Africa added millet and sorghum. (Of course, the timeline of grain incorporation is not quite as clean as this. Maize, for instance, gathered and then cultivated in what is now modern Peru something like 4000 years ago. For the sake of simplicity, we will call it roughtly 10,000 years Before Present.) What happened to Homo sapiens who added grains? The anthropologists tell us that grain-consuming Homo:

–Experienced an explosion of tooth decay. While tooth decay was rare among scavenger-hunter-gatherers, it became commonplace in grain consuming humans. Tooth decay was accompanied by tooth abscess and tooth loss.
–Shrinkage of the face and jaw–The gruel or porridge that grains commonly yielded meant less dependence on vigorous mastication. As the face and jaw shrunk, teeth also shrunk but did so inadequately, commonly leading to tooth crowding (thus braces in kids today).
–Iron deficiency–Anthropologists look for porotic hyperostosis or cribra orbitalia, skull evidence of inadequate iron intake or overexposure to blockers of iron absorption (e.g., phytates in grains). (Nematode infestation can add to the effect.)
–Malnutrition–Evidenced by horizontal ridges in the incisors and canine teeth.
–Reduction in stature–Height was reduced by several centimeters. Bone diameter (e.g., femur diameter) was likewise reduced, what the anthropologists call reduced “robusticity.”
–Reduction in brain size–While the cause-effect connection is uncertain, roughly coincident with grain consumption, brain size decreased by 11%–a first in the evolution of Homo.

(Interestingly, the only exception to the above observations are southeast Asian cultures who consumed rice, arguing that rice is somehow different.)

That’s as much as can be inferred from the remains of humans dating back that far. We unfortunately cannot reconstruct soft tissue diseases like colon cancer, heart disease, or dementia. Nonetheless, one pattern is clear: When humans first incorporated grains into their diet 10,000 years ago, corresponding to less than 0.4% of the time Homo species have walked the earth, we suffered substantial downturns in health evidenced by tooth decay, deformity, and deficiencies.

Ancient grains were an expedient, a convenience, a dietary patch in times of deprivation, or the means to increased accessibility that permitted social differentiation away from an egalitarian society. Of course, these humans consumed wild grains, not the modern grains that we have today, courtesy of agribusiness. It’s much worse for us.

Like This Post? Sign Up For Updates — It’s FREE!

Plus receive my special report Life After Wheat, 5 Essential Steps to Take After You Remove Wheat and delicious Wheat Belly recipes!

Comments & Feedback...

  1. Uncle Roscoe

    Dr. D! Great discussion!

    A year ago I would have agreed with your entire time line and conclusions. However, new genetic evidence points to a couple of game changing theories.

    Virtually all mammals release DPPIV into their bloodstreams. Mammals use DPPIV to slowly break apart insulin, limiting its life span so that changes in pancreas insulin output can lower as well as raise blood insulin levels.

    The big problem humans have digesting wheat leads through the DPPIV – zonulin pathway. About 2.5 million years ago human ancestors started releasing DPPIV into their small intestines. Humans use DPPIV to digest complex carb proteins like gluten from wheat. This had to be a massive evolutionary change. Such changes can only happen when environmental factors kill a species down to a breeding pair or two. So I’m supposing that human ancestors were forced to eat some carbohydrate with hazardous proteins about 2.5 million years ago.

    The agricultural burgeoning which began 10,000 years ago is a very trying ordeal to human evolution. As it shrunk human brains, it offered population density and communication. The density and communication provided for technology advancement in spite of shrinking brains. Population shifts explain that societies have advanced on the backs of countless dead-ended blood lines. People who live in hunter-gatherer areas thrive while people who live in nearby agricultural enclaves die off. Hunter gatherers move in, take over the population voids from extinct agriculture blood lines, and start consuming the same carb proteins which killed off their predecessors. And the cycle repeats.

    Humans started releasing zonulin into their small intestines about 2 million years ago. Zonulin cuts short DPPIV’s digestion of carb proteins like gluten by making the small intestine wall porous. There is a reason why humans started producing zonulin, and I have to credit Dr. Jack Kruse for the theory.

    http://www.jackkruse.com/brain-gut-1-who-are-we-really/

    Zonulin “markets” antigens and pathogens to our nerve DNA. Humans who have been capable of incorporating these antigens into their DNA, and then using epigenetic proteins to code around them, have survived and flourished. Humans who have not performed this feat have died off. This feat is only attainable by people who encephalize with select animal fats and proteins ……thus the larger brains among hunter gatherers.

    …….’course I could be wrong.

  2. Uncle Roscoe

    Wow doc, That skull person needed a dentist badly.

    I’m not entirely convinced that most humans have been as small as most bone collectors claim. Human evolution has proceeded against a backdrop of ice age cycles, an effect of Arctic Ocean drainage rates vs Milankovitch cycles.

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles&sa=U&ei=32fTUL3wEYar2AXX64GIDQ&ved=0CB4QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNHGppMzwJl19ghT2Pbaqj44sMrT6w

    As earth plunges into ice ages polar ice growth lowers ocean levels. Receding oceans expose alluvial plains. Some of these plains have been in temperate climate zones. Ice and oceans tend to destroy the records of animals which live among them. For the most part, the bones which bone collectors present to us as evidence of human evolution come from temperate alluvial plains which get exposed at the beginnings of ice ages.

    Bone evidence says that the few people who survived on these plains, at the ends of 20,000 year interglacials, were short and small. Chances are much greater that these people were farming and eating agricultural products. What did the people who survived by hunting and fishing the frozen north look like? We don’t know. One race of these people from the last ice age is referred to as “solutreans”. There is evidence that solutreans were much larger, more robust, people.

  3. Jennifer Snow

    There’s an interesting flip side to this, however–grains may be bad for human bodies, but good for human societies. Hunter-gatherers don’t build cities. Agrarian societies on tend to be much more peaceful and socially benign than nomadic hunters or herders.

    It’s quite possible that if our ancestors hadn’t adopted agriculture, we’d still be living in the Stone Age. Of course, now that we know better there’s no reason to stick with the bad food.

    • Steve Brecher

      As to the effect of agriculture on human flourishing: find a photo or youtube video of earth from space at night. Impressive, eh? Now to get the same view at the dawn of agriculture, just close your eyes in a dark room.

    • Suzie_B

      Jennifer,
      “Agrarian societies on tend to be much more peaceful and socially benign than nomadic hunters or herders.”
      I have to disagree. Only after being able to store grains were people able to build massive armies and kill millions.

      • Jennifer Snow

        Before societies switched to agriculture, there weren’t millions of people to kill. So that part is correct.

        Early agrarian societies were much more peaceful than their “barbaric” neighbors, however. It wasn’t until somewhat later (although not much later in many cases!) that an aristocracy and thus a “military” developed. In many cases the warrior caste moved in on a *formerly* peaceful agrarian society, such as when the Aztecs obliterated (I think) the Incans.

        The aristocracy and feudalism that came later was a result of the fact that only the agrarian societies with extremely powerful military defenders could survive against the more active raiders next door. There are many, many historical examples of this.

    • Maggie

      “Agrarian societies on tend to be much more peaceful and socially benign than nomadic hunters or herders.”

      Nah, that’s just the brain fog from wheat.

    • Bill

      ” Agrarian societies on tend to be much more peaceful and socially benign than nomadic hunters or herders”

      Where is your evidence for this contention?

      • Jennifer Snow

        Historical studies. If you compare nomadic herders to nearby cultures that grow crops (the best comparisons are usually possible only between fully nomadic cultures and semi-nomadic ones), the nomads tend to be more violent and engage in far more raiding. Compare the Vikings to the more settled Saxons. Compare the Sioux to the Apache.

    • derp

      First of all, neither agrarian nor hunter-gatherer societies are peaceful in itself. Peace as a constant state is a relatively new achievement in human cultural development (http://www.economist.com/node/10278703?story_id=10278703). Furthermore, I don’t see how cities are a desirable organisation of human gathering; as a city is defined (Taleb, 2012) as a conglomerate of humans living densely together and needing more resources than its local surroundings are able to deliver. It’s not sustainable in the long run.

    • FrankG

      While the standard view is that the move from hunter gatherers to agrarian allowed the flowering of civilisation and technology, I’d suggest that recent finds like the neolithic temple complex at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey bring that assumption into question. As archaeologists find more and ask more, I expect many of our assumptions regarding pre-history may change. For example I grew up with the assumption that Neanderthals were “ignorant cavemen who dies out because they were not our intellectual equals” i.e. the assumed superiority of our species. Whereas we now know that not only were they more robust physically but also had larger brains that homo sapiens!

      There is also a big question mark over the first peopling of the American continents “Clovis First” which was the de facto “fact” for the longest time, now seems to be wrong.

      Again I always seem to get this somewhat patronising term when referring to our pre-history ancestors but don’t forget that they were the same species as us, same intellect, same capabilities. While it might be hard to imagine one of these surviving in a modern city, I dare say the same about one of us surviving in their time.

      Göbekli Tepe was a complex of carved stone temples built by hunter gatherers who by common assumptions had no time to spare on such “civilised acts” as they struggled to live an hand to mouth survival. I wonder if we really needed the farming in order to find the time to be specialists and build technologies?

      • Uncle Roscoe

        Yeah, Diamond presents a pretty compelling explanation of Europe’s conquest of native peoples. It’s still happening big time. To Diamond’s detriment he takes food’s roll in this conquest ….well he doesn’t ignore it. He just takes it for granted.

        Agricultural sugars and proteins provide the pathway which Diamond’s germs use to infect native hunter gatherers. The farmers from Europe move onto native hunter gatherer land. In order for farmers to farm they need property rights. Hunter gatherers don’t need property rights. So European farmers establish property rights within the European encroachment enclaves, and freeze native peoples out of their hunting grounds. Natives are left with no choice. Either eat the European foods and die a slow death, or eat nothing and die a fast death.

        This has to stop. Some westerners have realized this, and are traveling around places like the Borneo islands, establishing official land rights according to the people who already live on the land ……recorded in places unaccessible to change by western farmers.

  4. Mike

    I’m a little sceptical of the *neatness* inherent in this account of things.

    I’m deeply interested in what Stefansson found with medieval Icelandic skulls. And, sure, it’s relevant that those people had limited access to bread. Here’s an online copy of a Stefansson article on that.

    http://www.biblelife.org/stefansson1.htm

    That, BTW, was originally published in Harper’s Magazine in the 1930s, and how far have we come in the following 80 odd years? Embarrassing, isn’t it?

    BUT — and as the Monty Python sketch had it — “this is a big but” — there are problems with that neat account. First, is the shrinkage of the jaw and face really down to lack of chewing? Stefansson, for one, would have given you an argument on that. This is one of these assumptions that — again, insofar as this issue is noticed at all — are “floating around”. But how valid is it really? Maybe this is more do with a food supply of minerals in the diet or something like that.

    Secondly, is this supposed neat pattern of jaw shrinkage — and stature shrinkage — always and everywhere observable with the transition to farming? I’m not convinced: I think this a picture people who are aware that there is a real problem here (as there, indeed, is) WANT to see — because it simplifies the problem — but I’ve sceptical as how far that can be pushed. Does anyone really have comprehensive data that ALWAYS points this way — data that has depth as regards both time and place and always says the same? Show me. That’s all I’m saying.

    There’s data from Weston Price, for example, that seems to suggest that even when grain makes up a fairly high proportion of the diet it’s not *necessarily* a problem — not if the rest of diet is rich in minerals in fat-soluble vitamins. The Swiss villagers he saw seem to show that:

    http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/price3.html

    And so did the Hebridean Islanders — and, for the matter of that, the African Dinka, who despite the cereals in their diet (also rich in fish from the Nile), seem to have have had no worse tooth decay and, actually, rather better physiques than the cattle-herding Nuer.

    My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is that most of us are probably better off cutting out — or at least miminizing — the consumption of cereal grains. Moreover, I think it’s important to notice that historic populations that ate them tended to prepare them carefully and ate them together with other, richer, foodstuffs. However, I get very uncomfortable when I see people making very big claims on the basis of limited — and *unshown* data — and when I know of other data that suggests otherwise.

    Yeah, there’s a case here. But don’t over-state it. I really don’t like the way the “mainstream” makes large and unsupported claims for its high-carb, low-fat. low-salt paradigm. I shouldn’t like to see the sceptics doing something similar.

    • Uncle Roscoe

      I think the untrodden pathway here is what’s gone on in this interglacial around Europe. People peopled the caves of Europe through the last ice age. It might be the first set of bloodlines to survive an ice age intact.

      The phenomenon I described above, with agrarian blood lines dying out, and being replaced by hunter gatherer bloodlines is only mostly correct. Over many generations a small thread of agrarian genes gets strengthened. They get constantly reinforced with hunter gatherer genes, and find ways to circumvent the disease processes brought on by agricultural carbs.

      The most recent two thousand year agrarian rule in Europe, through famine, plagues and disease, produced a relatively resistant race of agrarians. I’m sure this same process has happened in other agrarian enclaves around the world. People selected by this process can consume the agricultural products of their native regions, with little illness, long enough to raise families.

      The native people of Britain are celts. But angles, saxons and jutes populate most of England now. They are from mainland Europe. They were placed in England mostly by the agrarian enclave system of the Holy Roman Empire, spearheaded by weapons from the technology of a tightly-knit agrarian society.

      • Dr. Davis

        Fascinating insights, Uncle!

        History is indeed filled with examples of agrarian cultures overrunning hunter-gatherer cultures. Of course, the conquest of the U.S. is a perfect example of Europeans marginalizing Native Americans, often slaughtering tribes wholesale in the name of claiming land.

        • wolfgang

          Agrarian Europe early medieval Europe was overrun constantly by war like semi-hunter-semi aghrarian tribes like the huns and the mongols and the magyars, and so was Rome invaded by lesser settled tribes, and so were the Navaho and Hopi and the Mandans and other cornraisers raided by hunter-gatherer tribes.
          The white settlers did not slaughter ‘wholesale’ indian tribes, completenon sense, diseases killed the natives just as gonoreah killed massive in europe : in fact from 1870-1890 except wounded knee the biggest slaughter was from hunter Lakota indians on semi agrarian Pawnee (google pawnee massacre)
          I think this site is amazing, and this part on evolution could be very interesting too, as wheat sure has had its toll on our forebearers.
          However rapid conclusions without historic knowledge thrown in the air make that this thread loses its sense.
          I’m convinced that modern wheat is bad for health, however without wheat nobody here would be having a flatscreen, a car or a book. All this was invented by agrarian societies. Cro Magnon had a much bigger brain, but thousand of IQ100 passing informations beat some isolated IQ130 any time. Agrarian societes permitted leisure and time off and had village structure for collecting knowledge.

          PS the argument stated above about evolution, that to have a gene pass you had the population die off except those rare couples who did have the gene, is the perfect argument evolution theory as we know it know is not more than that, theory (or BS depends how long you think about it). So how many trillion ice ages did we need to exterminate all those tribes almost and by chance still have some few left to pass on just every minor change in our digest system, skull or tooth size. It is impossible.

          • Dr. Davis

            I fear you misread my post, Wolfgang, or else I stated it imprecisely.

            I do not believe that traits like smaller jaw size were passed on, or at least I have no knowledge, for instance, of an acquired genetic change triggered by an epigenetic process.

            There is no debate, however, that consumption of grains does result in such changes. It is not clear whether this induces genetic/epigenetic changes.

    • Edward

      It’s also important to specify which grains the native peoples were eating. Not all cereals are created equal. The isolated Swiss villagers were eating very coarse whole grain rye, not “cereals” in general, and the people of the Outer Hebrides were eating very coarsely milled oats. The South Sea islanders who ate starch were eating cassava in the form of tapioca. Cereals were not all the same in Price’s time, although they almost are all the same now, in that nearly all of them contain the hybridized wheat that Dr. Davis is rescuing us from.

  5. murray

    An interesting paper attributes dental caries to high insulin levels interfering with the parotid hormone. The parotid hormone is involved in remineralization of teeth. [See The systemic theory of dental caries, Ken Southward, General Dentistry, September/October 2011, Pg. 367-373.) This conforms to the observations of Dr. Weston Price, who linked dental caries and diminished lower jaw formation to the introduction of flour and sugar in several cultures. Dr. Price also identified a substance in the fat and organ meats of animals eating fast-growing grass that was linked to proper jaw and air passage development, which he called Activator X. This has recently been identified as vitamin K2, which activates proteins to remove calcium from soft tissue and add or replenish calcium in bones.

    Little wonder there is a suite of tooth, jaw and bone-related issues following the conversion of diet from low-insulin and high vitamin K2 eating grass-fed ruminants to high-insulin and low vitamin K2 eating grains.

  6. Great post. This is what the topic of this NEScent meeting was all about. I first asked Professor Ungar about the pre-Columbian American civilizations. They were a mixture of agrarian (Maya, Aztec, etc.) and hunter-gatherer societies. It seemed like the perfect lab to study this. He stated in no uncertain terms “You only see decay and malocclusions in the agrarian societies and none in the h-g societies.” This is how we developed the proposal.
    I consider all dental diseases such as decay, periodontitis, malocclusions, impactions, and hypomineralzations to be grain and carbohydrate based scourges of civilization. They can be used as “The canary in the coal mine” to reference the occurrence of other such malodies such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. if we are wise enough to recognize it and make the necessary changes.
    http://www.nescent.org/science/awards_summary.php?id=309

    • Dr. Davis

      Ah, wonderfully said, Dr. John!

      I suspect you are 100% correct: the adverse health consequences visible in the remains of teeth and bones only HINT at the downturn in health Homo sapiens experienced with grain consumption.

    • Dr. Davis

      Uh, didn’t say it did, Bob.

      As you likely know, the origins of cultivated maize/teosinte are a bit fuzzy.

  7. James A. Nelson

    Weston Price was a Neolithic Dentist (circa 1930) that made some interesting observations.
    http://www.westonaprice.org/basics/principles-of-healthy-diets
    I have found that my own dietary requirements have to have an emphasis on bone broths (stocks) and organ meats. I now add ground beef liver to sphagetti sauce, pot roast, enchilada sauce, casseroles (no grains). I add ground up chicken livers to chick soup. I cook a whole chicken in a pressure cooker for one hour in order to dissolve most of the bones/meat into the soup so that very little is wasted. I can eat cooked bone marrow without any problems. I can eat starchy tubers (potatos, parsnips, sweet potatos, etc.) within a carb controlled way of eating. And with the exception of cooked rice (in small amounts), it looks like I can’t eat any grains, vegetable oils (besides coconut and olive), and any other chemicals/preservatives; this includes various artificial sweeteners as well. I can’t eat any legumes, either. A tablespoon of black strap molasses is ok. Refined white sugar is not. So maybe this is the Weston A. Price diet as viewed through a Paleo 2.0 lens? I’m one of the few lucky ones that can eat grass-fed butter, aged cheese, and homemade yogurt. Supplements include a Blue Ice Butter/Oil blend for Vitamin D, Doctor’s Choice magnesium, acerola cherry, and dessicated beef liver. This appears to be the correct way of eating for myself, since my visit with the dentist showed that my teeth were stronger, cavities on my wisdom teeth had healed, and my gums are much better than they have been in years.

  8. Lindas

    I agree , my teeth got whiter also. When i cheated a couple times I got back the nasty UTI’s I used to get ( 2 within 6 weeks!) . Just got my colonoscopy and mammography done. 4 years ago I had polops removed….this time I had a very , clean and healthy colon. Mammo was good also. Can’t totally relate to NO WHEAT, but a great reduction in fibromyalgia pain and collapse is very noticable also on NO WHEAT and vitamin D and fish oil supplementation. Definitely feel more in control and like I’m going the right thing.
    Amazingly, I found a book called “The Better Bladder Book” by Wendy Cohan, RN chapter 5 has several sub chapters entitled Gluten Intolerance and Celiac disease, the lectin connection, recovery on a Gluten free diet………………It lists wheat (page 78 and many others through out the book) as a serious bladder irritant. There is a whole chapter on ” Fighting Adrenal Fatigue” and its relationshi to UTI and other inflammatory conditions ,,,,,great bok for people familar with “Wheat Belly” and related info.
    I have slipped but I feel more then ever that wheat is really killing us and I hope the message can get out to the parents of young children (my grand kids included) so the kids can avoid illness before it gets them too.

  9. gordon

    I think that you would have a big, humungous argument with evolutionary biologists over this ‘just so’ story of human development. There is no mechanism for development by atrophy, stop chewing and the jaw grows smaller is patently a misunderstanding of the probable process of evolution. Though some have argued for Lamark, conventional science on the whole much prefers neo darwin and it’s progressive research based ideas.
    I vote for Mike’s opinion and reject the leap to the wishful thinking of Weston Price who’s ideas are necessarily fosilised in the 1920’s when his observations were made.

    Just my two cents, which may not be even worth that…

    Gordon

    • derp

      This is not about evolution (=phylogenesis), this is about individual development (ontogenesis). And indeed, bones that are not used do not grow well. Take the X-ray of *anyone* with long-term lower body paraplegia, und you will see significant reduction in bone mass. Or take the X-ray of *anyone* with congenital lower-body paraplegia, and you will see small, atrophied bones.
      So, there is no evolutionary argument here, it’s about individual development throughout childhood.

    • Edward

      Hard to believe anyone would think of Weston Price’s observations or thinking as fossilized or wishful. His evidence is perfectly scientific with side by side photos of siblings, for instance, one of whom has been eating in a “primitive” manner and the other of whom has been eating in a “civilized” manner. And his statistics are irresistibly compelling: 0.1% of 1400 of the teeth of people living outside settlement have decay, while 30% of the teeth of people living in towns or ports have decay? Is that wishful? Have you even read his original text? It is amazing to me that people assume that modern means more advanced just because it is modern.

    • Uncle Roscoe

      “stop chewing and the jaw grows smaller is patently a misunderstanding of the probable process of evolution.”

      “stop chewing and the jaw grows smaller” was a Lamarck hypothes/observation …..”soft inheritance”. Lamarck thought that people’s actions can change the traits which their offspring inherit.

      Darwin followed Lamarck with “survival of the fittest”. Darwin described how environmental factors kill individuals who do not possess mutations which allow them to survive the factors. ‘Survivors pass these mutations to their offspring. Darwin’s “survival” was so successful that his proponents purged Lamarckian inheritance from science. But read Darwin more thoroughly. Darwin thoroughly endorsed a brand of Lamarckian inheritance.

      Later the misguided “survival” cult which ran mainstream science was bolstered with the discovery of DNA. DNA seemed to validate Darwin’s “survival”. They theorized that the only thing needed to thoroughly understand inheritance was to map DNA. But DNA mapping did nothing of the sort. It asked more questions than it answered. Now with the research into epigenetic proteins, the inheritance picture is becoming much clearer. Epigenetic proteins operate in ways which thoroughly vindicate Lamarck. Teratogens are alive and well. What we do in large part determines what traits we pass on to our progeny.

      That is to say, stop chewing and yes, the jaws of affected offspring can grow smaller.

      A set of chromosomes performs no actions whatsoever. The glaring question which anti-Lamarckian people like you fail to ask is, how are human traits manufactured as humans grow from a single cell into adulthood? The answer is epigenetic proteins. And epigenetic proteins constantly change in every one of us. The epigenetic proteins which females have at puberty, the epigenetic proteins which males have at procreation, are the epigenetic proteins which our offspring inherit.

  10. Uncle Roscoe

    I think Dr. Davis has mentioned this before. Agrarian societies have a minority schizophrenia problem. Recent research has revealed that schizophrenia is initiated by a virus, embedded within the DNA of many humans. Most humans with the schizophrenia virus don’t get schizophrenia because their epigenetic proteins code around the virus. However, this re-coding process requires a level of fat and animal protein-based flexibility which agrarian diets and tight social disease exchanges do not permit.

    I think Americans witnessed the biggest drawback in Connecticut a couple of weeks ago. Testosterone combines with the virus to create a first psychotic break which is extremely violent. The more sugar and wheat-like opioid in the diet, the bigger the problem.

    • Dr. Davis

      Yes, scary thoughts, Uncle.

      Some critics dismiss this as just a low-carb diet. However, all of us here recognize that wheat is the most prevalent mind-active drug in modern life, potentially adding to mental illness in no small way.

  11. That is an intriguing contention, and one that I kind of fit. I have a lot of “Saxon” genes, (in terms of many ancestors from Northern Europe,) and I was totally unaware of any gluten sensitivity until my early fifties.

    In an older culture which did not demonize fat and meat, and did not inflict high fructose corn syrup or hybrid wheat upon my person, I could have easily made it into grandmother-hood with only the usual collection of elderly troubles. As, undoubtedly, my ancestors did!

    • Dr. Davis

      The geneticists have succeeded in concocting a thing–modern wheat–that is appropriate for NO human, Anglo Saxon or otherwise!

  12. Nobelly

    Is wheat bad for dogs too? I’ve had the flu all week and have been eating Lipton soup and straining out the noodles. Gave a bunch to my little dog and she was up all night sick!

    • Boundless

      > Is wheat bad for dogs too?
      Yes, and even worse for cats. It’s a recent addition to carnivore pet food and does not belong there (you guess along with us as to why it was added).

      You can expect the same spectrum of health problems in your pets that it causes in people. Our dog was overweight and over-shedding before we switched to WF.

      Dog food is probably still too high in carbs even without the wheat.

  13. Andrew L

    Entertaining bed time story right there. Quite the opposite is true with genetic entropy. Naturalism is a debunked religious belief.

    • Boundless

      Andrew, can you do a couple of things:
      1. Confirm that you are responding to the base article of this thread, and that you didn’t intend instead to reply to one of the responses (this happens too easily and too often when the reply is the last at the time you respond).
      2. Quote some of what you’re taking issue with, so we can match your points with whatever caught your eye.

      Interpreting the fossil record is perilous.
      So is ignoring it.
      Lively debate is no problem.

  14. slenkar

    neanderthal had the biggest brain volume, you might notice that the middle class/intellectuals/aspergers
    have more prominent brows

  15. I think that you would have a big, humungous discussion with transformative scientists over this ‘just so’ tale of individual growth. There is no procedure for growth by wither up, quit eating and the jaw develops small is patently a misconception of the potential procedure of progress. Though some have suggested for Lamark, traditional technology on the whole much wants neo darwin and it’s modern analysis centered concepts.
    I elect for Mike’s viewpoint and decline the jump to the unrealistic of Weston Cost who is concepts are actually fosilised in the 20’s when his findings were made.

  16. Rogelio

    1) I would like to see a checklist of grains, ranked for comparison in regard to their consequencs for health.
    2) If the phrase “wheat belly” condemns wheat, does that mean SPELT is o.k., since it is not “wheat”;
    likewise BARLEY, OATS, FLAX, and other seeds; or does “wheat belly” condemn all of these?
    3) Is UNYEASTED bread o.k. or condemned?

  17. Boundless

    Update on Ötzi’s teeth:
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/04/scienceshot-iceman-had-bad-teeth.html
    “And he may have had a small stone, gone unnoticed in his whole-grain bread or gruel, to thank for a broken molar. That gruel may be the culprit behind Ötzi’s cavities and gum disease, too. (An arrow on the right in CAT scan above marks places where the bone is eaten away by infection, the left arrow points at deep cavities.) In the late Stone Age, humans were increasingly incorporating coarsely ground grain into their diets.”

  18. horace black

    After reading your article in Acres USA, we really felt our family needed to make some dietary changes. Upon reading this blog article, I feel rather disappointed that you embrace the theory of Evolution in a day and time when most scientists see the error in it…even Darwin denounced it on his deathbed.
    The Creator gave us directions on making a bread of various grains (several thousand years ago, they were still in their perfect form) and He also gives us wisdom to discern truth from theory.
    We will sift out any truth from your studies…and toss the rest. Suggest others do likewise.

    • Erica in RSA

      If you’re referring to the so-called Ezekiel bread, you might want to read a bit further so that you can see not just what went into it, but how it was cooked! It was defiled, and was a picture of how Israel had behaved towards God in the presence of the Gentiles.

      Ezekiel 4:12 “And you shall eat it [as] barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.” 13 Then the Lord said, “So shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, where I will drive them.” 14 So I said, “Ah, Lord God! Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth.” 15 Then He said to me, “See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it.”