Hi William,
The logic is flawed but it is based on comparisons with modern bones. 
The incorrect assumption is that we eat and live at least as well as 
Paleolithic humans. By that thinking, they have erred on the safe side.
This paradigm is further supported by Neolithic evidence of the "nasty, 
brutish, and short" lives reported by historians. Of course, the latter 
groups were deeply invested in agriculture.

There is North American evidence  from the Dickenson burial mounds 
showing significant reductions in bone density, reduction in stature, 
and other signs of disease-driven bone damage during the transition to 
agriculture. The cool thing about this evidence is  that it showed that 
the deeper investigators excavations into the mounds, the further they 
went back along the line of forebears. The evidence clearly showed that 
HG had strong healthy bones but their descendants who undertook 
agriculture suffered significant reductions in bone health because of 
their dietary choices.

Best Wishes,
Ron



william wrote:
>
> It [i]is[/i] the age of maturity, after which age-at-death is dated by 
> examination of marks of disease on bones.
> We (neolithic man) all have these; the bones of paleolithic man do not 
> have marks of disease.
> This is why we try to eat a paleolithic diet, so that we don't have 
> any of the diseases that leave such marks on bones.
>
> The idea that no disease = death is a stupid idea.
>
> William
>


-- 
PK