On the recent discussion on evolution...while I'm in general agreement with
a lot of paleo doctrine, I always found it unfortunate that large portions
of it are based heavily on evolution. If someone was going to honestly look
into evolution with an open mind, they would find that believing Darwin's
theories takes as much, if not more, faith than believing in a creator.
Given the evidence, or rather, the complete lack of it, it is *almost*
easier to believe that a UFO came down and "seeded" the planet than it is to
believe in evolution as it was taught to us all in science class. -- Jay

Here are some notes I took from a paper refuting evolution and its
connection to diet (and yes, the paleo diet was brought up in it):

-=-=-=-=-=

No missing link can ever be found, because it doesn't exist.

The theory of Evolution/Adaptation is just that...a theory and has no basis
in fact.

For humankind, all discoveries dating back 2 million years indicate more and
more pointedly that the human-forms existing then correspond closely to
those living now; there is not the slightest trace of evolution towards a
race of greater utilitarian fitness or adaptation. The continued failure to
find Homo forms in the period ranging back 3-4 million years or beyond
indicates more and more clearly that the Homo life-form, like every other,
originated in a sudden mutation (the Germans have the great word "Wandlung"
meaning instant transformation) of which the "when," "how," and "why"
remains an impenetrable secret. There exists somewhere in this recess of
time a sharp frontier on the hither side of which we see Homo as a
completely formed type, endowed with a certain bodily structure, walk, and
posture that has not materially altered up to the present day. The 3 million
year old humanoid footprints found in Africa several decades ago match
exactly the gait, foot impression, balance, and structure of human
footprints now.

re: The Fossil Record

What of the gaps between the major groups: phyla, classes, orders?
"Punctuated equilibrium" might explain a lack of many fossils, but it cannot
explain a lack of *all* transition fossils! The gaps are pervasive and
immense. Is evolution so punctuated and ingenious that it left NO trace in
the fossil record spanning these gaps?

Darwin himself wrote on this topic:  "Nature may almost be said to have
guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional and linking
forms."

re: Natural Selection

Natural selection, as observed in operation, permits variation only within
species boundaries. It operates also to preserve those boundaries. The
theory that natural selection has the creative power necessary to fuel the
changes necessary to turn one species into another is unsupported by the
empirical scientific evidence (to believe so is an article taken on faith -
Science religion). No case has ever been observed of a species "adapting"
itself to change its anatomy or physiology, which "adaptation" then resulted
in more "fitness" and was passed on by heredity with the result of a new
species.

The Darwinian creation of species is no more observable than supernatural
creation by God. Natural selection exists, but no one has evidence it can
accomplish anything remotely resembling the creative ability to form a new
species. The Darwinian Theory, which explains complex life as the product of
small genetic mutations and "survival of the fittest," is known to be valid
only for variations within the biological species. The idea that Darwinian
evolution can gradually transform one kind of species into another is merely
a biological hypothesis - not a fact.

re: Adaptation to improper foods:

[B]ecause an animal can chew something up, swallow it, and live long enough
to tell others about it, then that animal is an omnivore. For example, the
herbivorous cow has been fed the flesh of other dead cows, mixed in with its
feed, for hundreds of years by the cattle industry. Cows still continue to
survive on such food. Yet, an omnivorist would argue that the cow is no
longer an herbivore, but is now an omnivore, because it can eat something
aside from common grass. Almost any animal, can eat just about anything, and
still live, but that does not mean it has "evolutionarily adapted" to or is
designed for that food!
And what is adaptation to food anyway? Consider the following: Northern
Europeans are much more tolerant of cow's milk than other ethnic groups.
Middle Easterners and Mediterraneans are much more tolerant of goat's milk
than other ethnic groups. This is obviously due to the fact that over
periods of several thousand years, those groups drank those milks. Each
ethnic group has developed a tolerance for the milk, but does that now mean
each group has adapted to it [and now requires it nutritionally?]?

Now, every natural species can tolerate a vast amount of improper food
(fuel). That is why dogs, mice, rats, cats, birds, etc. can tolerate vast
amounts of denatured, dead, improper food even though they have never seen
these types of foods in their genetic history. The cells and tissues
composing the anatomy of these organisms always display an amazing degree of
resilience, elasticity, and buoyancy. However, the tolerance for these types
of foods/fuels will actually decrease (not increase as through adaptation)
over time with each successive generation as the animal form is dulled
(lowered vitality and genetic damage). And this holds true for humans too.
Humans can tolerate a vast amount of improper food (fuel), but only so much
before imminent breakdown. Perhaps it is not so accurate to describe humans
as actually "de-evolving" rather humanity has been getting duller in form by
unnatural feeding - no sharpness of feature, of action, or of the
will-to-live.