In a message dated 1/29/02 1:54:51 AM, Wally Ballou <[log in to unmask]
writes:

<< On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:21:21 +1100 Richard Archer <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

>> Surely this damages the claim that modern humans are genetically
>> identical to our 40,000 year old ancestors. Here we have a specific
>> adaptation to a food which has evolved independently in at least
>> three cultures.

>I have never seen that particular claim.  The claim is that there has
been insufficient time for the majority of humans to adapt to the
"technological" diet.  There has obviously been SOME adaptation in
general, and some more dramatic adaptations in specific groups.  However,
comparing "adaptation" to lactose, with any possible adaptation to
completely foreign foods such as grains hardly seems appropriate.

>After all, digestion of lactose is NORMAL for human infants.  Adapting to
the point of REATAINING this natural capacity is hardly comparable to
developing the abilities to handle completely foreign foods which were
never eaten by humans... >>

I would like to add further, that it is quite possible, even probable, that
early humans would have now and then been lucky enough to kill a lactating
female animal, and would have had the benefit of consuming its milk, and the
suckling young might also have had milk in their stomachs. Still, this is a
far cry from the milk and milk products we consume today.

Nevertheless, no Paleo food was ever eaten in abundance every single day all
year round. The day in, day out consumption of the same foods is very
UN-Paleo, no matter what that food is, as foods were always eaten when
seasonally and environmentally available.

But as far as grains are concerned, they remain, as Wally says, "completely
foreign foods never eaten by humans. . ." (before the advent of the
technology necessary to make them even marginally edible by humans)

Maddy Mason
Hudson Valley, NY