From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 09:50:34 MDT
Greg Jordan wrote:
> There are a lot of ways to argue with [evolution]. First of all, we
> have very little knowledge of what our Paleolithic ancestors
> actually ate.
We know what they did *not* eat and that is the primary determinant of the
paleodiet. We know they did not eat dairy, grains or legumes in any
significant quantity. We also know they *did* eat meat.
> the remains of the period. Many of the things "paleodieters"
> assume must not have been in their diet very likely were. For
> example, grains and legumes began to be cultivated in the
> Neolithic because they had been gathered in the Mesolithic
> (with many intermediary stages, as evident in studies of Near
> Eastern evidence).
I do not disagree with this nor does it any way contradict paleodiet theory.
The mesolithic was a short stage between the paleolithic and the neolithic.
For millions of years prior, grains and legumes were not significant in the
diet.
> Secondly, our paleolithic ancestors, though they managed to
> survive by the Darwinian standards of managing to reproduce,
> were hardly what we would call "healthy". They had short
> lifespans and their bodily remains evidence numerous diseases
> and malconditions.
Archeological evidence of human remains show that paleo peoples were
healthier than their neolithic progeny. This was discussed previously in the
thread about diet and evolution.
> The history of hominids is one that bounces back and forth
> between carnivory, herbivory, and omnivory, like a lot o
> that of mammals in general. That implies to me that our
> bodies are actually probably very flexible about diet.
Yes, quite flexible, I agree. However the flexibility of our diet does mean
that just any diet is optimal.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 09:59:04 MDT