> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:02:05 -0400, Paleo Phil <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I would have no problem if you [Robert Kesterson] want to say: 
> > "then the fact that we are
> > here and primitive man is not must mean that we [out-bred primitive
> > man]," rather than "were superior in some way."

William wrote:
> We seem to be writing about different things here - my perception is
> that
> we are a degenerate form of primitive/paleo man.
> This is caused by diet, as shown in Weston A. Price's book. Including
> poor
> vision, latest said to be a reaction to excess carbohydrate in
> childhood
> and/or pre-natal.

Yes, I agree with that and don't see how it differs with what I wrote. As a 
matter of fact, I wrote that we are ALL descended from "primitive man" 
(and woman! :-) ). Some continue to live the primitive/traditional 
lifestyle today, whereas most of us live the modern/agrarian lifestyle. 
The moderns have outpopulated the traditionalists, but not because the 
moderns are biologically superior from the perspective of natural 
evolution.