Hunter Gatherer or Agriculture - Which Came First?

Primitive human most likely started out by scavenging what he could to survive, gradually developing his hunting and gathering capabilities. Possibly he found larger animals dead from all-natural causes then later developed tools to catch and kill his prey. Keeping this subsistence level way of life for pretty much 2 million years ahead of mankind began to dabble in agriculture just barely ten,000 years ago. This is mankind's prehistoric past...or so we are told.

This would appear logical should certainly we consider the evolutionary model of primal man emerging into the globe with only the most simple of instincts with no the know-how or time to wait for a harvest of grain. Rather, he goes by the easiest route of grabbing the closest living factor and rips away at its raw flesh. Appears logical, but is it true?

The Eat Appropriate for Your Blood Kind diet plan claims blood type O as the oldest blood type. This assumption is based on the truth that blood kind O would be the suitable blood type for a meat-based hunter-gatherer diet plan. Yet this assumption is based on the prior assumption of our origin.

But, actual microbiological analysis and DNA evaluation carried out over two decades ago revealed that it is the A blood type that our ancestors started off with. Even later investigation confirms A and not O as the oldest blood sort.

The A blood sort is the "proverbial classic vegetarian" blood sort. According to the Eat Proper for Your Blood Type diet, persons with blood sort A have difficulty in digesting animal protein due to a lack of hydrochloric acid in their guts. This blood kind also has concerns with dairy goods and lactose intolerance. Whole grains, fruits and vegetables is recommended for humans with this blood kind that researchers inform us is in fact the oldest human blood kind.

Interestingly, this is specifically the type of diet described in Genesis 1:29 that was originally intended for mankind. It is written in our blood that we began life consuming grain and fruits. This is something that cannot be erased. But why is it so troublesome for the established scientific community to just accept and teach this?

It could be for the reason that of the wonderful difficulty to explain mankind's agricultural origins. The origins of agriculture has been a riddle for evolutionary thinkers, a matter on which Darwin himself declined to speculate. One of the thorniest difficulties of agricultural origins is that there appears to be no developmental stage. Every single ancient civilization seemed to have emerged with quite complex agricultural techniques, systems and techniques. This contains efficiently engineered irrigation systems, seasonal planting and harvest, and advanced knowledge in the processing of grains and fruit to generate merchandise like flour, oil, wine and beer. Simultaneously, a further wonderful leap of advancement is their production of bread and noodles and other flour based items for consumption.

In order to recognize how impressive these things are, consider about this -we still use all these indispensable goods at present. We still fundamentally use the same agricultural tactics and procedures even thousands of years later!

A different outstanding "mystery" of ancient agriculture is the seeds put to use for cultivation. The earliest records of grain cultivation show the use of 'hybridized' varieties of seed. These are seeds that have been developed and engineered for cultivation. Time to experiment and find out about plant life would be essential as well as the technological know how to create these seeds from wild varieties. It is tough to picture a hunter-gatherer discovering each the time and incentive to go about such a tedious and strange job. And yet the development of these seeds had been so nicely carried out that we are still employing the similar standard main grain supposedly developed and employed by 'primitive man'.

Assume about it. Have we developed a single type of new grain in the past ten years? I am not talking about a variant or a mixture of existing grains. I mean a actually new cultivar. How about in the past hundred years? How about the past thousand years? How could these 'hunter-gatherers' have performed so considerably a lot more at the start off of time than we could in a thousand years?

Accepting our agricultural origins would mean having to revamp our established evolutionary models. It would entail having to answer concerns that some would prefer stay unasked. Would you prefer to know the truth about your past or would you rather maintain living on a flat earth for worry of falling off the edge?