Krusty wrote:
> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> > My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated carb
> > foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
> > health in many.
>
> And everyone in this thread has shown you why you're wrong.
>
Actually, Krusty, I have watched this thread grow, and just decided to
read it. So I did. There is not a single post yet to counter Dana's
argument in any substantive way.

> We can't help it if you're thick headed.

I don't know all that much about diet, but I'll stack myself up against
anyone in this thread when it comes to evolution, since Brother Dimmick
is not in evidence. The anti-Dana argument wrongly supposes numerous
things: that humans are only a few tens of thousand years old; that
there is only one direction for genetic expression (always improves);
that civilization's only impact on evolution was dietary; that gains in
human fitness and survivability (such as they are) are due to
grain-eating, rather than more subtle or even more obvious effects
(everything is bigger, stronger, more). Civilization is presumptively
agrarian, but I think that includes cattle as well as soybeans, don't
you?

Hell, you want to talk about quick evolution, look at the way we've
become a species of city-dwellers. Remarkable adaptation, that! Is
that evolution? Did you know, the way Chinese folks say they're
hungry, or "let's eat!" is literally "I want eat rice"? Even if they
don't want rice.


Mr C