On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:52:36 -0800, David Karas  wrote:

>According to Archeological records our species appears to be omnivorous >from the beginning.

There is no doubt about this, since "omnivorous" includes invertebrates as well. Since all herbivores eat invertebrates, it is a useless terminology. But I suppose that with "omnivorous" you are referring to eating vertebrate meat. Of course the Big Question is if vertebrate meat eating in humans is "habit" or "(genetic) adaptation". Since I showed in my first post that all examples for being adapted to eating vertebrate meat are irrelevant, genetic adaptation to vertebrate meat in humans is not extremely likely (a quick search on the internet reveals that even the heme iron issue is irrelevant, since for example clams and oysters contain heme iron). The examples I gave for humans not being adapted to vertebrate meat eating, show in my opinion a much more convincing argument.

>What an earlier species did is probably not important

I am glad you are using the word "probably".

>whether evolution theory is correct or not.

The point is not if the theory of evolution is correct or not. The point is that evolution is not used in accordance with current scientific knowledge in Tom's article, leading to wrong conclusions.

>There seems to be some interest in this subject so go ahead with the
>thread. Let us see where it goes.

Thank you.