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.
>
A few thousand years isn't a lot of time in a species that averages
about 20 years from generation to generation, for selective pressures
to change humans such that high impact carbs are preferable.

>
> --
> Stefan:

--Bryan