> 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.

If this is true, then how do you explain the increased
levels of celiac and diabetes in populations that have
most recently switched to neolithic from paleo?
Apparently, there has been at least *some* slow,
gradual adaptation that has taken place in the past
10,000 years in grain based societies.

It's true that punctuated equilibrium is the best
explanation for massive changes (i.e. - new species or
new traits within a species), but the Darwinian idea
of gradual change is the best explanation of
*adaptation* (as opposed to "evolution") within a
species. Check out Ward's website (www.beyondveg.com)
and read his interview with Chet Day. You'll find that
some populations have adapted *somewhat* to verboten
foods already. There are also estimates from experts
as to how long it would take for a population group to
truly adapt to a new foodstuff (I can't remember the
exact numbers, but it seems like it was on the order
of 40,000 years).

Question. Does anyone know if any food adaptation
studies have been performed on rats? It would be
interesting to find out how many generations it takes
to adapt, or if they are even successful.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com