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
>environment and 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.  For
example, you and I have no kids at all, and I think that this is more
common among us raw fooders than among the SAD folk.  So we will go right
on, as a species, being maimed and crippled by our poor food choices over
generations to come without any genetic adaptation occurring whatsoever.
And it may have always been thus with our species.  These dietary abuses
have to be serious enough to lower overall fertility rates before
adaptation has a chance of occurring.  And with the human population
growing exponentially at present (and in historic and pre-historic times
too), I just don't see that happening.

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

Bob Avery ([log in to unmask])