I agree with the idea that health is the preferable guideline, and long-term
health the best indicator.

Remember Pottinger's(?)  cats?
Same foods:
(1) cooked :
(1.1) cats were infertile in the third generation
(1.2) plants that received the cat's urine all died.

(2) raw:
(2.1) cats fertile thru 9 generations ( when the experiment was stopped).
(2.2) plants that received the cat's urine were bountiful.

Looking at long-term health over the generations, in western society we now
see ever more infertility in adults and sickness in children.
If we can improve on this we will be doing well.
This is close to what I see as my most important values in life.

Bob:
>The oldest living person in the world, Jeanne Calment of France, 122,
>eats cooked food.

Yes, and I read of someone else who attributed her age (well past 100) to
"eating cornbread and greens and hard work".
Its a bit of a puzzle isn't it?
My grandmother lived to 96 on mostly cooked, and she liked her share of
fats.  But she was never really a healthy person.
My parents are about 87 and 83, eat largely cooked, and are not healthy and
havn't been for many years.

Personally, I want to be healthy while I'm alive; I'm not putting this
effort in (to improve) to die old, I want to live while I'm alive!

and Re Melanie, I was trying to be careful to state a generalization; I
don't specifically know Melanie, and even if I did I would hold back from
advising her: I am no expert in all of this, just my own expert if you know
what I mean.  When I quote people's ideas, I try to attribute: its
verifyable, and its not neccessarily what I believe.  When scientific
experiments have been done by someone who has discovered some benefit, then
I take notice... but there is always more to it.
I take notice of what you say to, by the way. :>)

Darius:
<<
 that humanity has actually managed to divide itself into these
subgroups (unlike any other living creature on this planet; including our
closest, non-human relatives), based on what foods are best to sustain their
lives.  Hey! only we would have the brains to do it...
>>

Lynton:
Actually, food may well be the major cause of change in species: take the
difference between animals with long gestations vs those that have pouches
to carry their young.
Apparently its been found that in Australia there were a great variety of
marsupials, including sabre-toothed tigers!  In fact, it seems that there
was the variety because of the eating niches.
The development of the pouch system is I think to do with the harsh climate
in Australia, so the mother can dump the young easily if required.

The question is: did all the different animals (from rats and mice thru
whatever and sabre-toothed tigers etc) all adapt and become marsupial, or is
it more likely that there was a primeval form of mammal that developed a
pouch in Australia, or maybe it was the original?  Hey, thats more like it:
reptiles laid eggs, birds, etc.  Pre-mammals laid eggs, found they survived
better if they moved them with them as they travelled for food and whatever,
developed a fold etc,
The same animals in different circumstances (don't ask me what, I'm just
dreaming this up!) survived better by retaining the egg longer and longer.
Much later, eating niches etc  produced other specializations that resulted
in the different species.
And now we have lions and tigers without sabre-teeth, elephants and no
mammoths, and interestingly kangaroos and  wallabies in A~ (where they can
travel long distances economically and quickly) and cattle, sheep etc
elsewhere that can run alot faster but only  for short times.

>From this guesswork, it seems only logical that there are subgroups forming
based on the food available and the way it is prepared and eaten.  Of
course, not all will be successful in the long term.
[ systems of deliberately poisoning the soil what grows on it, not to
mention people directly in so many ways will also determine who survives (if
anyone) - but, never fear: the next step will be GE on humans so that they
will be able to live with the pollution !!  And then, to solve the problems
of argument, we'll get a sort of neuterd clone-android that will substitute
for the need for childbirth, and eliminate the arguments, wars and so since
they will all believe the same thing, there will be no need for much in the
way of communication.  Wow, I hope not!  But anyway, dear strugglers for
health and truth, they couldn't survive, they will have to keep us fed on
the best to keep us healthy so that they could have genetic diversity to be
able to cope with the changes in the world and as a backstop in case they
should ever (perish the thought) make a GE mistake that didn't show up for a
while!!!.  Shang-re-la !! ;>))) ]

Another example that occurs to me comes from the New Zealand parrot the Kea.
It lives in the highlands of the South Island, and is carniverous. When it
eats RAF it takes exclusively the fatty parts.  The difference between it
and other parrots that I have seen is that it seems very intelligent.  It
plays in creative ways, is attracted to 'new' things. (dismantles/destroys
what it can : tears into cars, steals jewelly, clothing, oh the list goes
on).  When the youngster is old enough, the two parents look on as it tries
to break open its first plundered egg.  They don't help, they just solemnly
stand and watch.  I saw this on a TV program, and it struck me, the
difference between how Kea's other playfulness transformed in this context.
What I am doing  is suggesting that the parrot's brain is more intellegent
because of the fat intake, this affects its behavoir, and who knows how this
might affect its further development.
(more dreaming, not very scientific but we have to keep looking at
possibilities.

Regards to all, and :>)
Lynton