Robert Kesterson:
> >> If you believe that evolution works (which is the whole premise for
> >> this diet), then the fact that we are here and primitive man is not
> must
> >> mean that we were superior in some way.

Phil:
> > This is the same sort of rationale that led Europeans to determine
> that
> > they were "superior" to American Indians, Africans, and other peoples
> > they
> > conquered.

RK:
> I certainly didn't mean it that way, and apologize if I offended anyone
> by
> it.

That's fine, I know you didn't--I just meant to show where that line of thinking can lead. 

RK:
> Aside from the slaughter part (which I certainly don't condone),
> "out-breed and out-live" *is* how evolution works.

In nature, yes. But man has inserted modern technology into the equation, which overrides natural evolution. For example, normally people with poor vision would be weeded out by natural selection, but eyeglasses allow them to continue to propagate in the modern world, so that the percentage of people with poor vision is increasing. Modern society is not completely restricted by the laws of natural evolution. So the Neolithic population explosion is not an example of nature and natural selection at work, it is an example of people using agricultural and other technologies to override nature, putting them in discordance with nature and their own biology and resulting in a population explosion far beyond what nature was designed to accommodate.

I would have no problem if you want to say: "then the fact that we are here and primitive man is not must mean that we [out-bred primitive man]," rather than "were superior in some way." 

RK:
> I just mean that the notion that primitive
> man was "superior in every way" was just a bit much.

Yes, I agree there, but I have gotten used to William's colorful language. :-)