On Mon, 2004-05-10 at 11:24, Wade Reeser wrote: > A 'theory' in science is the best explanation that fits > the evidence. And the beliefs of the story-teller. > The so-called "Theory of Evolution" is one of the strongest > most supported scientific theories, it is no mere hypothesis or 'guess'. > The mountains of evidence for evolution gives it a validation on the order > of 'the earth is round'. The earth is actually a solid spiral, given a four-dimensional universe. In an n-dimensional universe it should be different. > > I dont think you should be so dismissive of this important and far reaching > theory. I don't dismiss it. It is valuable, but should be used with caution. > > Are you seriously using etyomology as a 'proof' of origins or a disproof of > evolution? Yes. The physical body which reacts to food is not the person, persons react differently to food (or what they believe is food) depending on their beliefs. > > ** "Adapting" to foods does not seem reasonable. > > Certainly adaptation to enviroment and nutrients have been shown in the > laboratory for bacteria. E.g. bacteria developed to 'eat' petroleum, the > engineering of yeast for making cheeses, breads and alcohol, etc. In higher > animals, I think one of the first examples of evolution, Darwin's Finches; > the developement of beaks on the finches in particular for different eating > different foods on the different microenviroments on Galapagos Islands. I > think it is more than reasonable to suppose that primates (that includes us > humans) have evolved different eating patterns both out of need and > opportunity. As far as humans are concerned, a very good book called > 'Nutrition and Evolution' by Crawford and Marsh details a lot of info > about diet and human evolution. Highly recommended. > The idea of paleofood list is that we have not adapted. Am I mistaken? William