On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:24, Wade Reeser wrote:
>  A 'theory' in science is the best explanation that fits
> the evidence.

And the beliefs of the story-teller.

>   The so-called "Theory of Evolution" is one of the strongest
> most supported scientific theories, it is no mere hypothesis or 'guess'.
> The mountains of evidence for evolution gives it a validation on the order
> of 'the earth is round'.

The earth is actually a solid spiral, given a four-dimensional universe.
In an n-dimensional universe it should be different.
>
> I dont think you should be so dismissive of this important and far reaching
> theory.

I don't dismiss it. It is valuable, but should be used with caution.
>
> Are you seriously using etyomology as a 'proof' of origins or a disproof of
> evolution?

Yes. The physical body which reacts to food is not the person, persons
react differently to food (or what they believe is food) depending on
their beliefs.
>
> ** "Adapting" to foods does not seem reasonable.
>
> Certainly adaptation to enviroment and nutrients have been shown in the
> laboratory for bacteria.  E.g. bacteria developed to 'eat' petroleum, the
> engineering of yeast for making cheeses, breads and alcohol, etc.  In higher
> animals, I think one of the first examples of evolution, Darwin's Finches;
> the developement of beaks on the finches in particular for different eating
> different foods on the different microenviroments on Galapagos Islands.  I
> think it is more than reasonable to suppose that primates (that includes us
> humans) have evolved different eating patterns both out of need and
> opportunity.  As far as humans are concerned, a very good book called
> 'Nutrition and Evolution' by Crawford and Marsh details a lot of info
> about diet and human evolution.  Highly recommended.
>

The idea of paleofood list is that we have not adapted. Am I mistaken?

William