In a message dated 5/7/99 4:39:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

>
>  Furthermore, if you accept the neodarwinian assumption that
>  adaptation is driven by random mutations, then there are no
>  guarantees that adaptation will happen, no matter how long people
>  are exposed to a given food.  This is especially an issue if
>  adaptation requires multiple simultaneous mutations (i.e., if 3
>  mutations are required to have no problems with a certain food,
>  but individually those mutations confer no advantage).  This
>  implies that the mere fact that people have been eating a certain
>  food for a very long time does not imply that it doesn't make
>  them sick; it only means that it hasn't killed them off.
>
>  Todd Moody
>  [log in to unmask]
>
>

Excellent point Todd, the last line in particular.  At what point are they
sick?
If a culture lives a long time, doesn't come down with life-shortening
diseases,
and is eating neo-foods, at what point are we going to say that they were
eating
incorrectly?....Im really curious,,,at what age are we satisfied??  70, 80,
90 or 100?

Let me use myself as an example of something, I have lactase.  I can and do
digest milk easily.  My children (so far) 10yrs and 9yrs, are digesting milk
easily.
We, for whatever reason, evolved to do this, we have that
advantage...somewhere,
somehow, our DNA felt the pressure to adapt to milk.  And I know it wasn't
pasturized or refrigerated milk.  HAD to be fermented to last, so I'll say it
was.
And that it is that type of milk products that we *should* be consuming,
'cause
we all know that modern processed milk products are damn near poison...
*IF* nature saw fit to allow us to have this advantage, would I not be denying
my proginy an obvious advantage if I were to deny it or repress it??  And why
would I want to do that?  In another 10,000 years we should be seeing people
adapted to milk and grains presumably.  The way they're going to get there is
by *US* using these products and passing our genes down.  Correct me if I'm
wrong, but unless we have a bonifide physical reason to avoid these products,
shouldn't we be *wanting* to pass this *advantage* on??  (prepare for heresay)
Why would we want to freeze ourselves in time, as far as eating goes..when we
know that we as a people are going to continue to evolve??  This doesn't seem
logical to me. Wouldn't we want to pick the foods that have given us health
*most recently*, and that allowed us to live the longest, so we can *grow* as
a species?  Otherwise, we might as well stay Neanderthal, 'cause there's no
benefit in being Homo Sapien, and in turn Homo Sapien Sapien.

Our ancestors got us to where we are today, by eating neolithic foods,
*something*
had to have been working right somewhere, 'cause I know none of us here is
going to say
they are *inferior* to those of the past.....at least not
intellectually....8-)

Anna L. Abrante
[log in to unmask]