>I think that it does make sense to apply a non-uniform standard of
evidence.

(IMHO) The problem is that most members of this list joined in order to
find **the answer** about diet (and health in general). But, to their
dismay, that sought after answer is not so easily forthcoming.

Paleo is not easily definable. Some (like myself) look back only
50,000-100,000 years, mainly because I believe there's enough evidence
that's a good evolutionary cut-off point. Others may look back 1,000,000
years or so because they believe the genetic 'base' was set there. Others,
especially Native Americans, may look back only 10,000 years because it's
possible at least a few 'new world' adaptations occurred within that time
frame (genetic shifts can occur quite rapidly among isolated groups). So,
we're really debating something that's not, and may never be, clearly
defined - by anyone.

Regarding new world foods, I'm also in the "what's the big deal" camp.
Can't handle nightshades? Then don't eat new world nightshades - and avoid
old world nightshades. Etc., etc. In truth, how do we *know* what
differences exist between similar species of new world and old world
plants? How do we *know* what differences exist between 'modern' versions
of old world plants vs. their more recent descendents?