> We can only study modern stone age h-g societies as
> a surrogate (paleo with a
> small p).

Maybe we could avoid the confusion by using the terms
"paleo" vs. "primitive"? I realize primitive isn't
100% accurate since Primitives may not be eating
within the paleo model. But it's more likely than for
most "moderns".

> And I'm not sure about the point that 5k years is
> not long enough for
> evolutionary changes.

It seems to me that in a "closed" society (like a
group living on a remote island) evolution could be
hastened somewhat. It's possible certain traits could
be "weeded in" or "out" fairly rapidly. Take hair, for
instance. What if lighter hair color or curley hair
was
seen as being taboo - no mating could take place or
babies with those traits might even be killed.
Depending on the dominance/recessiveness of the genes
responsible, the change *could* take place in just a
few generations. Same might be true of dietary traits
like tolerance to a food or intolerance of another
(especially if the intolerance was fatal).

Aren't we now seeing rapid evolution of antibiotic
resistent strains of bacteria?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/