>From:	Robert W. Avery <[log in to unmask]>
>Bob: Wardski, You said, If you accept evolution at all, then yes.
>The very  definition of evolution is that genetic adaptation falls in
>line with whatever behavior and environment persist over the course
> of many generations. Those of one generation who survive to pass
>on their genes to the next will more likely be those individuals whose
>genes are most fit for the environmentand
>>behavior that was engaged in.

>I disagree with this idea.  True positive adaptation only
> occurs when selective pressures are brought to bear.  For example, if in
>our society hamburger & fries  eaters have  many  more children than raw
> vegans (which is the case), this does not  mean that our species is
> evolving toward being able to thrive on this fare (or, rather,
> "unfair") because there are no selective pressures involved.  Most of the
> diseases that  kill SAD eaters occur after they have already reproduced.
> And they seem to make up for the few cases where their diseases cause
>them to die young by much more overbreeding in the aggregate vs us
>raw fooders.

Bob is making some valid observations here.  I have an uncle who is
fond of stating that those who think don't breed & those who breed
don't think.  You can't correlate reproductive rates with the health
of INDIVIDUALS too well, maybe with the 'health' (defined in terms
of total numbers) of the species as a whole.  Indeed, I could make
the case that in many instances reproduction rates seems to
correlate with unhealthiness.  I sort of disagree with Ward here
too, in that all evolution might do is select for
survival/reproductive traits in the environment at hand.  Thus if we
evolved in an environment (such as the Arctic) where meat was
plentiful & plants rare, there would obviously be
survival/reproductive benefits from selecting humans better suited
to meat eating.  But this does not mean that if we take these humans
& switch their diets back to predominately veg. that you will not
also be doing them a favor (indeed, I strongly suspect you will).
All the evolutionary arguments can allow us to conclude (& again, I
think Ward has demolished the Garden of Eden/fruitarian scenario) is
that we evolved in an enviroment in which meat was present.  It is a
logical error to then use this to conclude that meat is good.  It
MAY be, or MAY NOT be, & this may be true for SOME, not ALL.

>And with the human  population growing exponentially at present
>(and in historic and  pre-historic times too), I just don't see that
> happening.

The good news is that population is going to peak a lot sooner in
the next century than anybody expects.  Parts of Europe now have a
negative population growth rate, & as more & more of the world
becomes increasingly wealthy, the greatest contraceptive known to
man (wealth) will increasingly brake population growth.  The 2
previous generations in the U.S. both managed to double their size
by reproduction, while the wealthier boomer generation has not even
equaled its size with its reproductive rate.  Keep an eye on this
kids, as it has huge implications for the political landscape in the
next century once it becomes obvious that the Social Security system
is a joke.   I get the feeling that most of the members of this list
have a particularly low reproduction rate by choice.

>And of course evolution is still just the prevailing scientific paradigm,
>not yet proven, but that's a whole 'nother smoke.

Yeah, that theory is fraught with problems.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]