----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefanie Kantor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:15 PM
Subject: Tom Billings on evolution



>
This means that something that becomes part of our long term envi=
> ronment, like vertebrate meat eating (which is only possible since the use
=
> of tools),
I do not see why. We don't need tools to eat meat, chimpanzes eat meat
whitout using tools. We don't even have to kill to eat meat since predators
often leave some and it might get gamy and very tasty for us.

. So Tom's criticism to the ra=
> w food vegan claim stated earlier, shows that Tom is the one who shows
misu=
> nderstanding and ignorance of how evolution works.

 As a matter of fact, I think nobody knows exactly how evolution works. We
only have imperfect theoretical models of evolution which are somewhat
hypothetical and different of each other.

We have to keep in mind that we are talking of animal foods in th=
> e form of vertebrate meat, since the inclusion of invertebrates in the
diet=
>  doesn't require such specific adaptations as vertebrate meat does.

Couldn'it be that any food requires specific adaptation?

> Bitter taste: experience of tasting bitter in humans comparable to
carnivor=
> es/ omnivores.

I don't understand this phrase.

> I am not a professional in comparative biology, but since vertebrate meat
r=
> equires specific adaptations, it might be useful to compare some traits of
=
> humans to vertebrate meat eaters. The following differences might

Might. It doesn't mean they do.

indicate =
> that humans are not adapted to vertebrate meat eating:
>
> The liver of vertebrate meat eaters can detoxify vitamin A, while the
liver=
>  of humans can't.
>
> Stomach capacity of vertebrate meat eaters is 60 to 70% of the total
volume=
>  of the digestive tract, while in humans this is about 25%.
>
> Length of the small intestine of vertebrate meat eaters is 3 to 6 times
the=
>  body length, while in humans this is 10 to 11 times the body length.

It could well be that these comparaisons don't mean anything, since chimps
are vertebrate meat eaters and are geneticaly and physiologicaly very close
to us. Is there any animal who would eat some original food ( I mean
unprocessed  food his ancestors could find in their environment ) his not
adapted to ? Of course selective pressure would be low or even very low if
the new food doesn't affect LRS, but there'll be some anyway. It is
difficult to draw definitive conclusion from  somewhat hypotethical
theories. Theories should allways be put to trial with experiments.
Instinctive raw nutrition experiments have shown that raw meat of animal
with no acess to processed food
and cereals fields not only may taste very good, but is also perfectly
digested and causes no troubles at all, unlike animal milk and wheat.
So, theories should be changed to take account of the known facts and
results of experiments, never being the ultimate truth but provisional
models usefull for now, only as long as new facts and experimental results
don't prove them obsolete. Than, it'll have to be completed, modified or
even completely abandonned for brand new ones. So, it is allways better not
to stick to a theory, but to the known facts, and than to try to understand
and explain these facts with another temporary theoretical model.

Kind regards.
François Dovat

>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Learn about the power of raw foods at ---> http://www.rawfoods.com
>