You also have to remember that in each population of animals, there is a
genetic variety, so that there are animals that, unlike others, can handle
some things better than others.  It is easy for the population to shift
towards those animals.  So, as humans began eating more grains, the humans
that could handle grains began adding to the population disproportionately,
and eventually most of that population could digest and metabolize grains
better.
Grains and milk (as you say) were not completely foreign to humans.  Grains
must have been eaten to some degree, or else they never would have started
to evolve into better and more useful plants.  Grains were in the stomachs
of animals, the contents of which were eaten.  Certainly they could digest
small amounts of grains, and some in the population could handle more than
others.

P
----- Original Message -----
From: "Madeline Mason" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: Genetic basis for lactose intolerance revealed


> In a message dated 1/29/02 1:54:51 AM, Wally Ballou <[log in to unmask]
> writes:
>
> << On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:21:21 +1100 Richard Archer
<[log in to unmask]>
> writes:
>
> >> Surely this damages the claim that modern humans are genetically
> >> identical to our 40,000 year old ancestors. Here we have a specific
> >> adaptation to a food which has evolved independently in at least
> >> three cultures.
>
> >I have never seen that particular claim.  The claim is that there has
> been insufficient time for the majority of humans to adapt to the
> "technological" diet.  There has obviously been SOME adaptation in
> general, and some more dramatic adaptations in specific groups.  However,
> comparing "adaptation" to lactose, with any possible adaptation to
> completely foreign foods such as grains hardly seems appropriate.
>
> >After all, digestion of lactose is NORMAL for human infants.  Adapting to
> the point of REATAINING this natural capacity is hardly comparable to
> developing the abilities to handle completely foreign foods which were
> never eaten by humans... >>
>
> I would like to add further, that it is quite possible, even probable,
that
> early humans would have now and then been lucky enough to kill a lactating
> female animal, and would have had the benefit of consuming its milk, and
the
> suckling young might also have had milk in their stomachs. Still, this is
a
> far cry from the milk and milk products we consume today.
>
> Nevertheless, no Paleo food was ever eaten in abundance every single day
all
> year round. The day in, day out consumption of the same foods is very
> UN-Paleo, no matter what that food is, as foods were always eaten when
> seasonally and environmentally available.
>
> But as far as grains are concerned, they remain, as Wally says,
"completely
> foreign foods never eaten by humans. . ." (before the advent of the
> technology necessary to make them even marginally edible by humans)
>
> Maddy Mason
> Hudson Valley, NY
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Cape Lookout Mail Server]
>
>
>
>

---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Cape Lookout Mail Server]