The generally accepted date for the arrival of people in the
Americas is about 15,000 years ago, not long before the advent of
agriculture in the Old World (about 12,000 years ago).  If we are
rejecting agricultural foods because they have only been part of
the human food supply for 12,000 years or less, it's hard to see
that the 15,000 years for New World foods should be treated
differently.

I see that point...but that logic makes absolutely no sense to me. If we are
adhering to the premise that "edible raw/with nothign but a sharp stick"
foods are meant for our consumption, then it would seem that those foods
which were readily available to those entering the New World are certainly
within paleo standards. Is their digestibility/etc. irrelevant in this case?
There are so many hundreds of (once-wild) indigenous foods then that we
should avoid according to this rule: apples, cherries, pine nuts,
watercress, walnuts, many berries, etc.

It doesn't seem reasonable to consider "New World" foods non-paleo based on
dates alone, although I do understand the evolutionary concept behind it.

Are we ultimately getting into ER4YT kind of stuff here? I don't know a
great deal about ER4YT, but I think I understand that the idea is that each
of the 4 major races (subgroups) of humans (asian, caucasian, mideastern,
african) originated with one blood type (I think, for example, that O is an
African blood type? Is this correct according to ER4YT? I could be very
wrong). The idea is that the mixing of races caused "mixing" of blood types,
which in turn caused various food intolerances, etc. This seems to me like a
form of evolution.

Anyway, maybe someone who understands ER4YT better than I could clarify
this, and tell us what this means in terms of Old World/New World food.

Stacie
who fears she is in over her head now...bracing for the flood...





_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com