>If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason most of us are
>eating paleo is because very little if any genetic
>evolution has occurred in the last 10,000 + yrs.

The idea that evolution is a gradual process is heavily biased by Western
thoughts regarding controlled, intentional, directional, gradual (and
non-revolutionary) change.  Darwin also fell into this bias, though he was
correct of course in his theory of natural selection.  I prefer the ideas of
Huxley and Gould, that is punctuated equilibrium--i.e,. not gradual change,
but periods of long stability not "leading" towards any "adaptations" within
a species.  Species are stable for a long time--change is sudden, drastic,
and subject to natural selection.

Any "genetic change" that takes place due to pressure from natural selection
is not probably not the result of gradual changes in the population.  It's
due to an isolated population with a set of genetic characteristics that
give rise to new species.  Natural selection is the mechanism, environmental
pressure allows the new species to survive or die off.  As much as grains
are destroying everyone's health around here, the gut and body tissues will
not slowly evolve to better deal with this.  To be able to digest neolithic
foods without all the health havoc they wreak will require again, a
population in isolation that appears spontaneously on the scene.
Furthermore, if such a species ever were to arise, there is no reason why it
would have to be a close anscestor of Homo Sapiens. Probably our large brain
size and the time we appeared on the planet deems it impossible that we
would be the nearest hypothetical ancestor. In this sense, the random
element of natural selection and an evolutionary history of punctuated
equilibrium seems to explain why we aren't and never will be adapted to eat
grains.

Judith