JL:
>I agree. Anatomy, apes, fossils just show that we CAN eat meat and be
>healthy, but not that meat is necessary.

On the other hand, if there were _any_ human/homonid cultures which were
vegan then we we would have support for a meatless diet. The absence of a
vegan culture in history and prehistory, while it doesn't prove anything,
is certainly indicative of a value in animal foods to our species.

>The only arguments that
>seem valid to me are those about deficiencies. Continuous denial of
>scientific evidence (with the naive thought that it's the consumption
>of animal food which creates the need for B12, and not the need for B12
>that makes animal food necessary), or of unsuccessuful experiences
>(they didn't succeed because they were lacking greens/sprouts, because
>of detoxification...) is intellectually dishonest.

The value of paleo-diet research provides a basis to deviate from.
Deficiencies appear as a limiting factor. The track records of the various
diets also serves as a limit. If one were to claim that a diet without
animal foods was "more healthy" then _they_ would need to explain away the
deficiencies, the track records of such diets, as well as show
statistically that such a vegan diet is "more healthy". No one has done
that with any degree of rigor that I know of.

Curiously, paleo-diet research often finds that cooked grains (and dairy)
are among the most deleterious of the food groups, but some raw fooders
experience robust health with short sprouts and limited raw dairy--thus
doing away with meat altogether. Others appear to be enjoying robust health
on a diet _very_ high in meat, even cooked (see the paleo-list). Humans are
extremely nutritionally flexible, in large part probably because of our
unique evolution. There is plenty of room for all sorts of diets.

Cheers,
Kirt