william wrote:
>
> My point of view is that any belief based on faith is a religion, 
> whether it is officially recognized as such or not. Compared to 
> science, which is based on observable evidence.
>
So observations drawn from selective breeding of plants and animals 
don't apply to human animals? I have noticed in previous posts that you 
object to the use of the term evolution, but I don't see how that 
would/should compromise a definition of  Paleo eating practices.
> ((died eh? My proofreading ain't perfect, but I don' think I've done 
> that. Yet.
> Vive le paleolithic!  ;)   ))
We are all working toward that end though. :-)  I should read over my 
posts before I send them but I hope that most people read "diet" for 
that one. :-)
> It might also be seen as and adjustment well within the capability of 
> the human body, rather then an evolved adaptation.
>
Yes, it might. However, the evidence for evolution in some form 
(possibly quite different from our current conception) is supported by 
quite a lot of evidence. That doesn't make it true beyond doubt, but it 
is sure based on observations drawn from plant and animal breeding and 
genetic manipulations in the laboratory, as well as observations of 
humans. Your objection to the use of the term "evolution" appears to be 
based on  a bias that might not deter too many people from considering a 
Paleo diet. On the other hand, maybe you are correct and it would act as 
a deterrent to those with fundamentalist religious perspectives.

Best Wishes,
Ron

-- 
PK