Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
>> In article > ,
>> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Lord Hatred wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Krusty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been
>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
>>>>>>>>> indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of
>>>>>>>>> roughly
>>>>>>>>> 50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low
>>>>>>>>> sugar)
>>>>>>>>> fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know nothing about evolution, either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2
>>>>>> million years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What else do you want to know.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> This suggests roots 3 million years back:
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you
>>>>> want to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our
>>>>> existance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you
>>>>> do, we can talk about who's the idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
>>>> ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. It's a question of what you want to call "human history." I
>>> was clarifying, and making the point that even if you want to go with
>>> the narrowest possible definition, we still, as a species, have an
>>> overwhelming history of eating a hunter-gatherer diet, which makes
>>> claims that grains and beans are essential for human health ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to
>> the origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
>> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary
>> requirements? You can't have it both ways.
>
>
>
> No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
> long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
> requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
> 190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
> to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
> based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
> fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
> nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
> forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
> shouldn't do so now.
>
>
To add a quick cite; from a PBS site re evolution:
1. How long does evolution take?
Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many
species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except
over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to
witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life
forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be
seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for
the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in
a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs
incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the
more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.
Since human beings are not bacteria nor fruit flies, and tend to roughly
20 year generations, I'm leaning toward that
thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands figure. Makes 10,000 years seem
damned puny.
Dana