William wrote:
> We were smarter then, so the assumption is, IMHO, warranted.
>
> William
>
Bullshit.

The problem with modern science is the arrogant idea that a little 
empirical evidence trumps millions of years of trial and error. To me, 
Paleo is like when my Mother told me to do something and I asked her 
why, and she didn't have an answer. So, I assumed she was wrong, then 
later on I found out she was right.

Tradition comes from somewhere. It is arrogant to assume that tradition 
is wrong based on little or no evidence. But it is just as arrogant to 
assume that science is always wrong, or that older traditions are more 
valuable than the newer ones. Paleo science didn't get us to the moon. 
On the other hand, I am almost certain that the scientific method 
originated in the Paleolithic mind.

The assumption of evolutionary medicine/Paleo is that we evolved from 
our origins and that our "modern world" has not existed long enough for 
us to evolve much beyond them. Doesn't this principle suggest that we 
are no smarter, nor less smart, than our ancestors?

>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 16:57:45 -0500, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Not sure whether it does or not -- and I'm not claiming that Phil's 
>> making this point -- but I do want to point out that simply showing 
>> that some activity preceded agriculture doesn't mean that it's good 
>> for humans.  We seem to sometimes make that assumption: We did it 
>> before the neolithic, therefore it's a natural or healthy activity.
>
>
> .
>