On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Jacques Laurin wrote:

> In my book, adaptation always implies genetic adaptation. If you are adapted to
> something, you are adapted to it period.

I think there can be degrees of adaptation.

> Tolerance implies non-adaptation.

Why?  Why isn't it correct to say that humans tolerate fish in
their diet because they have adapted to it?

> You
> can be not adapted to something and still be tolerating it, which is called
> "tolerant" or not adapted to something and not tolerating it, which is called
> "intolerant". There always is an immunological involvement.

I can only say that this is news to me, as far as these words
being so restricted in meaning in concerned.  Perhaps this is
simply a technical meaning that I am unfamiliar with.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]