>>I’m interested in your comment about “whole one-diet-fits-all 

>>Paleo paradigm is easily discredited by evolution but not Creationism.”



I would be interested in it as well. Seems a bit contradictory. My understanding of creationism is that it is more of a "steady state" philosophy - in other words, we were created as we are now. That may or may not differ among the various creationist "sects" - in the same manner that evolutionary biology has different "sects".



On the other hand, if someone can trace their roots back to the fertile crescent, and have indeed become more adapted to grains over time, then that would at least hint at evolution. It may not prove evolution, but I don't think it would disprove it either. In fact, the punctuated equilibrium theorists might claim it supports their side rather than the opposition.



The main problem I see in the evolution vs. creation debate (and the reason why it gets so heated at times) is the idea that creationists tend to regard humans as a "special creation" while evolutionists do not. At that point in the argument it brings "faith" into the picture, and that's where it always goes awry.



I vote there be no bans. Except for name-calling.