Todd:
>The problem, as I see it, is this:  As human beings migrated from
>place to place, their food supply changed.  With each change, a
>certain percentage of people would get sick and there would be
>instense selection pressure against their genes, but in favor of
>the genes of those who did well on the new food.  At the same
>time, there would be no selection pressure to retain adaptation
>to the previous foods that were no longer available, so if
>adaptation to new food X involved maladaptation to old food Y,
>there was no obstacle to this.  Adaptation to new food sources
>would always be less than complete, until a very long time had
>passed.  The point, however, is that there is no reason to expect
>that these scattered populations, all struggling to adapt to new
>food sources, would remain well adapted to their "primordial"
>foods.

Todd, my man! This is perfect!! I have been trying to formulate the same
paragraph for months now and tonight I can sleep easy--you said it all.
That paragraph is the blessing and the mess we humans find ourselves in
these days. Thanks for the summary.

I wish both sides of the fence--the mainstream and the paleo--would respond
in serious fashion to this "problem". But it always seems to get glubbed
over. Oh well....

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]