PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:49:14 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
Hi John, 
It is difficult to be sure about any theoretical perspective. If we were
created this way, with our short GI tracts, only one stomach chamber, high
acid production in the stomach, etc. then we were designed to eat lots of
meat. If we evolved to our current state, with only a vestigial remnant of
the appendix which was used for extracting nutrients from cellulose,
developing a large, energy expensive brain, etc. then we evolved to eat lots
of meat. 

Cochran and Harpending offer a strong set of arguments making the case that
we are evolving all the time, and the rate at which we evolve is increasing
with the size of the human population and since we adopted agriculture, in
their book "The 10,000 Year Explosion". 

I think that if you look at indigenous populations who have just adopted our
eating practices within the last one, two, or three centuries, you can see
much higher rates of autoimmunity, kidney failure, obesity, cancer, heart
disease, and other diseases of civilization. My point is that we are
evolving an adaptation to modern eating habits. Europeans are not as
susceptible because many of the more susceptible individuals have been cut
from the gene pool through harsh illness and premature death. It is a harsh
and painful process in which many of us will probably not see our genes
survive the cut.    

I'm not totally sure either, but the evidence supporting evolution looks a
lot stronger to me than support for creationism. However, I have had many
painful lessons in the hazards of dismissing ideas because they didn't fit
with my current understanding. :-)

Best Wishes, 
Ron


> >>by meats is, I think, fairly defensible irrespective of the theory of
> >>evolution.
> >>Ron
> 
> >That might be true, I'm not sure.
> >Nonetheless evolution theory becomes necessary if we take a step back and
> ?ask ourselves WHY is it that we are best suited to eat a diet dominated
> by
> ?meat.
> 
> Could it be we were just designed that way to start with? Why are we not
> evolving to use modern foods?
> 
> John
> 
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2