Kirt wrote:
> And is the human brain part of human pysiology? You are welcome to the
prehuman brain of 2 million years ago...

Yes!  The human brain is very much part of our physiology, and this is one of
the primary criteria by which anthropologists judge these people as
physiologically identical to us.  You should read the very wonderful book by
Boyd Eton et al called "The Paleolithic Prescription".  It's a scholarly book
written by a group of doctors and anthropologists.  It may be out of
print--it came out in the 1980's.  Anyway, they make the point very strongly
that these people were JUST LIKE US.  The only difference was in culture.
They were every bit as intelligent as we are.

> And humans were relatively far-flung over geography so finding evidence of
fire does not mean that _all_ humans used fire at this time, does it?

Evidence of fire 1.5 and 1.6 million years ago has been found in more than
one place.  It doesn't prove that every human of this period had fire, but
it's suggestive that fire was the norm.

> 1] Where does anyone (anyone except the raw vegan crowd) say that we should
not eat what we ate well BEFORE we evolved into humans? (you mentioned
amoebas)

I just wrote a long message to Wally on this point.  Short version: we need
to eat what those who were physiological the same as us ate.  If a creature
is not physiologically the same as us, then what is good for them may not be
good for us.

> 2] Are you absolutely positively sure that "humans" were fully modern 2
million years ago? Perhaps you could provide a reference or five, especially
as regards speech and brain size, as well as art and technology?

Yes.  I gave a very strong reference already.  Boyd Eton is eminent in this
field.  Go take a look at the paleodiet list, and see the reverence with
which the other scholars refer to him--for example, Loren Cordain.  What
evidence do you have that humans were not physiologically the same as us 2
million years ago?  I'd be very curious to know.

> 3] What do amoebas have to do with the argument?

I was just following Wally's argument to its absurd conclusion.  We cannot
base our diet on the diet of beings who were physiologically different from
us.

Sheryl wrote:
> We are
> better adapted to the diet eaten by our species for the last million years
> than the last 10,000 years.

Kirt wrote:
> I think this is Wally's point. What is yours?

No--Wally's point (and yours, too, apparently) is that we should eat what
pre-human animals ate, the animals that later evolved into humans.  I
disagree with this.

> PS Deleting your =20 etc is very annoying

It looks like plain text on my end.  AOL must be using MIME for the messages.
 I don't think I can change that.  Sorry.

     - Sheryl