At 12:22 PM 5/4/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I recently read the book "The Beak of the Finch" and
>it posits that evolution happens much faster that
>previously thought.
>
>This makes me
>wonder just how much adaption Homo Sapiens
>has had in the last 10,000 years to agriculture.
>(Or in the case of my English descent, the last 2000)
>If all started out like the Innuit, with severe diabetes
>and other reactions to grains, then the adaption to where
>we are now may have actually happened over just a few
>short generations.  Basically, say %90 of the population
>would have been chronically I'll in the first generation,
>and the survivors in the next generation would already
>be somewhat adapted.  Then in just a few generation
>after that you are mostly adapted.  Maybe the forces
>pushing toward agriculture, such as starvation, were
>very strong.
>
Evolution does take time - by its very definition {change over time}

You also refer to...

<"small genetic changes" or
<are the "large" changes>

Human evolution, on the magnitude of populations adapting to new food
sources or dying out, is a major adaptive response ("big change"). Human
physiology does not mutate quickly, but the blood can make changes in
lectin reaction much more rapidly, and thus impact diet ("small change").
Blood type has (if you follow lectin theory)  an enormous impact on dietary
requirements.

Small changes can have big results.

It was recently posted that people either do really well or really poorly
on low-carb diets. Those that do really well are most likely the unadapted
original Hunter-Gatherers with type O blood. Those that do not have
apparently been adapted to "modern" foods- the Agriculturalists (type A).

Would this be what you mean?

Louise