On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Ben Balzer wrote:

> As we are all aware, genetic changes tend to occur in response to Darwinian
> selection- ie they tend to occur in response to factors that lead to change
> in the ability to survive to reproduce. Therefore, evolutionary genetic
> changes occur in response to diet ONLY IF the diet affects the chances of
> one's survival to reproductive age. They don't occur if the food is less
> than ideal but only affects us in later life.

Sorry to pick on you, Ben, but what you wrote above is not in
line with neodarwinism.  Genetic changes do not occur in response
to selection.  They occur randomly, as a result of internal
errors and exposure to mutagens.  The only such changes that are
inherited are those that occur in the sperm and egg cells.  Thus,
the only possible "genetic response to diet" is mutation of sperm
and/or egg cells caused by dietary mutagens.  And as you pointed
out, these changes are not inherited if they occur after one is
finished making babies.

> Although the Neolithic diet causes a lot of health problems- in fact the
> majority of the work of the whole medical industry- these problems don't
> generally occur until later in life.

A case can be made that in preliterate societies the continued
survival of elders as "living libraries" of important knowledge
would constitute some selection pressure for longevity.  With
agriculture, however, comes literacy and with it the possibility
of *recording* this knowledge, thus decreasing the value of
elders.

> I've never seen anyone hold
> up a shop for the sandwich loaves. Imagine all the prisoners misbehaving so
> they could go on bread and water. All the children refusing candy, having a
> tantrum to get a bread stick.

What, you mean you've never gone out cruising to cop a nickel bag
of croutons?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]