From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 10:21:24 MDT
Keith Elis wrote:
> Here's my take:
Your take is wrong. Welcome to the list of people trying to pigeon-hole me.
As I just finished writing last night to Lee Crocker...
I am using the word "adapted" according to its concise definition as it
relates
to evolution. It is impossible for an organism to be adapted to an
environment
in which it did *not* evolve. Adaptation is a process that happens only in
the
context of an environment.
It is meaningless therefore to say that humans might be better adapted to
some other environment in which it did not evolve. We are best (or only)
adapted to environments in which we *did* evolve. And just as a giraffe is
adapted to eating the leaves of tall trees, a human is adapted to eating an
omnivorous diet of lean meats, fish, fowl, fruits, vegetables and nuts.
Humans might be able to improve on the natural diet (i.e., to thrive in an
environment which humans are not adapted). In fact we already do so when we
use unnatural substances such as medicines to cure or prevent illness. I am
not suggesting that anyone should not consume medicines, or any food or herb
or any substance whatsoever that has been proven to be beneficial to the
diet. I take many non-paleolithic substances myself, but only because I see
sufficient evidence for them.
And I am certainly not suggesting that anyone sleep outdoors, or in caves,
or go back to living hunter-gatherer lifestyles. This is about diet only.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 10:30:25 MDT