>> I love to read that, but i am not sure if i understand it the way you
>> intended.
>> I loved to hear that ,because for me what make the big difference between
>> paleo eating and neolithique eating...
>
>Such statements ignore the fact that science (tack the prefix "paleo-" onto
>the branch of science of your choice--e.g., paleoanthropology, paleobotany,
>paleoontology, etc.) is responsible for our growing understanding of the
>diet and way of life of our Paleolithic ancestors. To ignore or shun
science
>is to be willingly ignorant of valuable, verifiable (in many, if not all,
>cases) information.

yes!  for one thing known  10 000 new things unknown ,that is the logic of
the scientific quest , it  remove you farther and farther away from real
knowledge. your post demonstrate it well : how many new branches to the
paleosciences will we have to create to get closer to understand something.?
what is next ?  paleobitbybitologie ( the science of linking together the
piece of the puzzle ). The natives peoples of North america used to say
:,<all my relations,>
 they didn't need to try to figure   out what is relating to what. They just
knew the interconnectingness of all things.

You are right , don't shun or ignore  science ( that was not the intent of
my message) just realise that every discovery added to our "knowlegge " is a
confirmation of how really ignorant we are and so don't take it too
seriously.
 what i see is,  that all this accumulated knowledge since we started the
quest didn't teach us more on how to be happy or healthy for the matter.
the more we know ,the sicker we are becoming , there is something
INTRINSICALLY wrong with that.

it remind me a curious phenomenon showed by statistiques : more there is
health facilities like hospitals and doctors per inhabitants the sicker
people are. ...
 But statistiques are  science so may be it doesn't mean much.
jean-claude