I see the list as about a diet that scientific evidence indicates humans 
ate for a very long time and were healthier when they did. Diet is not 
the only factor in that health, but a significant one and one worth 
exploring.

Whether we "evolved" or not is a theory and secondary. This is a slight 
departure from Cordain who says (correct me if I am wrong) that humans 
"evolved" the way we did partly because of the diet that was available 
to us.

It all boils down to what to eat today, for one's health. There are the 
general notions and for each individual some particular variations.

This list concentrates on scientific evidence from paleontology. As 
science is not static, conclusions may change, and are therefore open to 
challenge. An example is the evaluation of bones to determine the age of 
people when they died. If a scientist says the person was 40 because 
their bones were similar to a forty-year-old today, that could be an 
error. Maybe their bones at a much older age were as good as ours at 40.

Does anyone know of an advance in the way the age of the deceased is 
determined. All we find is bones, so I imagine it would be tough to find 
an alternative to the "health" or "equivalent current age" of the bones 
but maybe another factor that has been found.

-Wayne


pbarrett wrote:
> The List should be open to all ideas but it does seem contradictory or 
> counterintuitive or counter something for someone purportedly 
> following a diet based on the theory that man evolved over time to 
> question that premise. Wouldn't that be for another Listserv?
> Also, we have to admit that not everybody understands what a theory or 
> a hypothesis is.
> Pat Barrett  [log in to unmask]
> http://ideas.lang-learn.us/barrett.php

> <snip>