Denis:
>>>HOwever, I would point out that studies on adaptation
>>>physiology concur in saying that  a small stature is an advantage when
>>>living in the tropical/equatorial zone (the more skin surface the higher the
>>>evapo-perspiration...).

>Jean-Louis Tu:
>>I have never read about those studies, but the fact that a small stature
>>is an advantage does not seem obvious to me.

>Kirt:
>It is not obvious to me either. If I was as strong and healthy as the
>traditional Masai were, I would consider it a blessing, dairy or not! That
>the Masai are so tall as a result of dairy is not an unreasonable
>hypothesis to me, but whether that is a drawback, even a minor one, is not
>clear. Tall people are often at an advantage socially, and humans, whatever
>else they are, are social animals.

I'm only speaking from a physiological point of view. Being taller and
slEnderer (not slAnderer...) than necessary  can make one liable to spinal
deformation, special wear on articulations, and can be associated with mild
or severe osteoporosis and other bone malformation. You are not without
knowing the difference in bone density between our ancestors and the common
homo sapiens sapiens . You probably know that osteoporosis incidence  can be
dynamically linked with the average body height of a  "population". It would
indeed be very interesting to know if studies have been conducted amongst
the Masai on this particular aspect. I will check out in Medline.

(I remember mentioning to Melisa that
>Ombodhi was 6'2"--I think I remember something like that--and she said,
>"Really? Well, that changes my idea of him all around." Or: look at the
>personal ads and see how many women list "tall" as a qualifier of what they
>are looking for in a mate. Or: anthropologically-speaking, physical size is
>(only) one factor in the ability to scare away a competitor, sexual or
>otherwise, or even a _predator_...)

It is all too evident that reproduction amongst human beings does not follow
natural mating principles...So I'm afraid your argument  is out of the point...

(...)
> I look at it like this: our
>capacity for taste-changes should operate reasonably well with any thing in
>the "original molecular set" (defined as prefire) including ocean water and
>clay. Mammalian milk is clearly in this set, regardless of whether our
>ancestors were dairy farming (they _weren't_)

I fully disagree. The only valid question regarding man's "original
molecular set" is : "Have we, homo sapiens , or have any of our ancestors,
had in the past any opportunity to drink milk from other species ?" Only by
answering this question can you decide what is part and what is not part of
our food referential. The answer is indeed trickier than it seems...

>Now, whether, raw yogurt or butter or cream will exhibit a
>useful taste-change might be an open question--one for personal
>experimentation, not for decree by nutritional experts, GC Burger, or
>anyone else.

I'd be very interested to hear the results of your experiments...

Cheers
Denis