>> Jim > I believe we should only consume the types of foods that  
>> would have been available to our ancestors for millenia, foods  
>> that we would have consumed in volume and with sufficient  
>> frequency for adaptation.



> Steve > There is good evidence that man was in the Americas over  
> 30,000 years....  (Johanna Nichols).
>


Let's assume for a moment that 30,000 years is sufficient time for  
adaptation to a food that has no counterpart in the world that  
mankind grew up in.  You're only sufficiently adapted if you happen  
to descend from those post-Siberians who discovered this stuff.  To  
the rest of the world it is quite new.


> Steve > As to "consumed in volume", I think it was this group were  
> I posted information on the Australian Aborigines where they looked  
> at 839 different foods that were regularly consumed; a diet that  
> was paleo up until the 19th century(1800)s.  I would hazard to  
> guess that quite a few of those foods were not consumed in volume  
> and that many of them are unique to Australia where man has had a  
> limited occupation perhaps greater than 30,000 years but not much  
> more that 50,000 years in Australia, yet I doubt very few, if any  
> would question whither any of those 839 foods are paleo.
>


Again, the definition is whether it's of the same type that we  
consumed in Africa and in the diaspora.  Kangaroo flesh is of the  
same type as zebra flesh.  But let's assume Aborigine adaptation to  
those food items that were not of the same type that man had consumed  
for most of his 2.5 million years on this earth.  If you're native  
Australian, you're good.  But what about the rest of us?  I would be  
interested in seeing what those 839 food items were.

Phil > Based on that criterion, tomato, winter squashes, avocado,  
capsicum, and chili peppers would be nonPaleo, since they are New  
World foods.

Well, they're certainly open to question.  There is a reason many  
people have problems with nightshades.

Jim