On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Michael Audette wrote:

>   The deer in Texas, grow smaller and don't live as long as the same species
> do in say, Utah. The region a group of any species settles into, causes
> stress that can alter growth, longevity, and overall health. How each group
> survives each region, determines the survival of the overall species. If
> people looked at the overall picture of these groups, and estimated the
> average. Then they may be able to find an average paleo way to eat, instead
> of arguing about which group ate best.

But that would take all the fun out of it.

Seriously, your example of the deer is an excellent illustration
of the general point that the fact that humans were able to adapt
to a certain dietary/environmental niche doesn't entail that it
is optimal.  The health and longevity of the deer in Texas is
"good enough" given the conditions and predators that they have
to deal with.  It may be that if they were in direct competition
with the deer of Utah or Pennsylvania they wouldn't do so well,
but that's not the case.  So their reduced size and longevity
don't make as much of a difference as they otherwise would.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]