Mr C wrote:

> 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?


Indeed, I've read that the keeping of herd animals considerably predated
grain agriculture, which makes domesticated (though not grain-fed) meat
and dairy foods older componants of diet than grains.

And I wonder if it wasn't the keeping of flocks that led to the idea
that grain-bearing plants were food.

Dana