Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:50:15 -0400 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:02:05 -0400, Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > I would have no problem if you [Robert Kesterson] want to say:
> > "then the fact that we are
> > here and primitive man is not must mean that we [out-bred primitive
> > man]," rather than "were superior in some way."
William wrote:
> We seem to be writing about different things here - my perception is
> that
> we are a degenerate form of primitive/paleo man.
> This is caused by diet, as shown in Weston A. Price's book. Including
> poor
> vision, latest said to be a reaction to excess carbohydrate in
> childhood
> and/or pre-natal.
Yes, I agree with that and don't see how it differs with what I wrote. As a
matter of fact, I wrote that we are ALL descended from "primitive man"
(and woman! :-) ). Some continue to live the primitive/traditional
lifestyle today, whereas most of us live the modern/agrarian lifestyle.
The moderns have outpopulated the traditionalists, but not because the
moderns are biologically superior from the perspective of natural
evolution.
|
|
|