Ward,

I don't want to go on and on about this, but I do have a few points to
make regarding your last posting.

>Part of my question to you was to see if you had any other way of
>explaining the succession of forms in the fossil record to explain how
>adaptation might occur.

I haven't studied this subject in any detail.

>First, the labeling of "environmental influences" as "inimical" is in
>some sense a prejudice, since *all* environmental influences that have
ever given rise to any species since the first bacteria were adaptations to
>influences different from their previous adaptation.

By inimical, I'm speaking in relation to the perspective of the
individual organism being subjected to the environmental pressures, not
in some sort of absolutist sense, such as what might be "good for the
species," or something.

>darwinian theory, known as "punctuated equilibrium." Eldredge and
>Gould who

Thanks for the info.  Sounds like a good theory.

>The word "weakening" is again a judgment of the mind as to what is a
>better or worse form of adaptation.

Yes, of course I'm being subjective here.  For example, from my point of
view, I would consider mutations that resulted in mental retardation,
shortening lifespans, reduced stamina to be "weakening," although in some
cosmic sense, species are not "weak" or "strong," they just exist.

>Evolution does not judge better or worse. Is it better to be a cat or
>a rat? A whale or a dolphin? An ant or a termite? A human or a
>chimpanzee? We would say human, but that is because we *are* human. From
the point of the whole, there is no better or worse. There is just
difference.

I agree, but I will cling to my narrow parochial human perspective.

>Functional adaptations like the body adjusting to tobacco smoke as
>best it is able don't result in any genetic changes. They are temporary
>physiological adjustments in functioning only.

I believe you are wrong about this.  Genetic changes were demonstrated in
the germ cells of Pottenger's cooked food cats, and it is not
unreasonable to assume that somatic cells were equally affected (if not
more so, since Nature tries to protect germ cells as much as possible).
This is only a top-of-the-head example; there are many others.  I believe
there is hard evidence around.  What is cancer if not genetic change in
response to environmental stressors?

>An individual is stuck with the genetic "hand" they have drawn for life,
and must then >cope the best they can by way of functional adjustments.

I believe you are wrong about this too.  Have you read Virginia Vetrano's
treatise on overcoming the effects of genetic disease through superior
nutrition that Ken Black sent to any M2M'er who requested a copy?  She
argues that genes are self-repairing in an appropriate environment.  I
believe she gave an example of someone who was healed of mongolism; the
genes reverted to normal.  Genetic adaptation occurs at the micro- as
well as at the macro- level.

>However, genetic change occurs initially through random mutations in the
germ >cells (sperm or eggs)

or maybe the somatic cells first, then the germ cells.

>it is permanent and once it spreads throughout the population, there
>is no going back.

Sure there is.  Reverse the pressures and reverse adaptation will ensue.

>Theoretically, the answer is that it would be best to eat whatever
>diet corresponds with the species' *most recent* evolutionary
adaptation.

I don't see any way to tell what that might be just by looking at the
fossil record.

>You trust the modern epidemiological studies
>more because they look at actual people today. There are sound reasons
>for either approach.

Yes, but that is not what I was referring to.  I was referring to the
experiments of the early hygienic doctors who fed people different types
of foods and measured how well they were handled metabolically by
anaylzing the contents and of urine and stool samples, and such.  The
China study is useful, interesting, corroborative, but much more modern
than what I was referring to.  It also suffers from the drawbacks you
mention.

>Eaton research team has thoroughly documented, modern meat has 5 times
>as much fat as domesticated (roughly 25% vs. 5% fat), and 5 times the
>saturated fat, and virtually no EPA while wild game has significant
>amounts. Modern livestock animals are in general not very healthy
>animals--or at least kept from succumbing with antibiotics, or
>fattened up with artificial techniques. I would contend this seriously
biases the epidemiological studies.

Agreed.

>What we see in the Natural Hygiene M2M in real life and what
>modern-day Hygienic practitioners say is that most Hygienists in fact do
better by adding some cooked starch foods, such as legumes, potatoes, squash,
>grains, and so forth. The vast majority do not thrive as well on a
strictly raw diet.

My jury is still out.  The raw path may be more treacherous to navigate
in some ways near term, but the end results may be so superior that it's
worth staying the course.  I'm in it for the long run.  But I won't
begrudge you your alternate viewpoint.  If we all agreed about
everything, there would be no need for vegraw (or the M2M either).

>I myself am intending to get back into a yoga practice again soon, and
that's >certainly not something we did in our evolutionary past.

Hmmm, don't be so sure!  Yoga's roots are pretty ancient...

>And it seems highly likely to me that a diet based on our evolutionary
>adaptation is going to be the best place to start from,

Whatever that is (since, as you admit, any snapshot you take is going to
find a species in transition).

>For instance, those on caloric restrictive or raw-food vegetarian
>diets with less meat may live longer but they may be so skinny, or might

>risk having such a low sex drive, they just can't enjoy or do certain
>things in life. (Low or no sex-drive, as well as continual hunger, are
two of the complaints sometimes heard from raw-fooders or strict Hygienists in
>the Natural Hygiene M2M.) But they may not care either. The trade-off is
>anyone's to make. We humans are an interesting amalgam of
>instinctive/natural adaptations plus onoing technological add-ons
>arising from our evolutionary predilection for tool-use. How do we
consciously optimize it all depending on our objectives is what it's all about,
>eh? So in the end, go get 'em! :-)

Well put.  Our individual predilections make the ultimate difference in
our lifestyle choices, provided these choices come from a position of
enlightenment as to what are the true consequences of our choices and
actions and not from a position of self-delusion and ignorance.  This is
where institutions like vegraw and the M2M are important vehicles for
sharing information and probing each other's blind spots, or, as Natalie
Blahut of the M2M put it, "honing each other."

Looking sharp,

Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])