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