I said:
> >but there's something I'm just not getting. I've been
> >following (I think) your and Bob's arguments on adaptation to
>>meat.Maybe it's the word "adaptation" that I'm stumbling over.  It seems
>>to me that there could be persistent behaviors that we adapt to in
>>the sense that they don't significantly slow down our reproduction, yet
>>we don't need them, and may even be marginally better off without
>>them.

> > What am I missing here?  In layperson's language.

Ward said:
> Martha, unfortunately I guess now I am the one who is unclear. :(
>Could you give an example to illustrate such a behavior? Thanks,

Well, I didn't really have any examples in mind, as I was just
hypothesizing.  Let's see.....um.....um.....picking petals off daisies!
Writing letters to Santa!  Ear piercing!  Or no, circumcision!   Let's say
people do this for millions of generations.  It doesn't seem to interfere
with reproduction.  But that doesn't mean we now need to do it or
that it does us any good whatsoever.