Shuurai wrote:

> jombithedjinn wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>>"trijcomm" > wrote ...
>>>
>>>>>That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
>>>>
>>>>the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
>>>>
>>>>>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
>>>>
>>>>You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
>>>
>>>Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
>>>
>>>Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
>>
>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>>beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>>that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>
>
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for eons.

Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"

1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.

10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.

In fact, the rise of human
> civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> cultivation of these grains.

True.

>
> You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> grains;

Or vegetables and nuts. Cows have molars, they evolved to eat grass.
That they can use those molars to eat grains doesn't change that.


>
>>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
>>conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
>>intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
>>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
>>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
>
> If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
> specifically designed for chewing them.

We don't. See above.

We wouldn't have enzymes
> specifically designed for digesting them.

We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

We wouldn't have survived
> and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.

Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
thriving, really.

>
> If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
> doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
> will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
> is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
> history.

Beg to differ, except in that the word "meant" is meaningless. But we
did not evolve to eat a diet of grains and beans.

Dana

> > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > staples of human consumption for eons.
>
> Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
>
> 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
>
> 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.

Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
that relevant to the point of the discussion?

But just to make you happy:
Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.


> In fact, the rise of human
> > civilization has been directly correlated with the successful
> > cultivation of these grains.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > grains;
>
> Or vegetables and nuts. Cows have molars, they evolved to eat grass.
> That they can use those molars to eat grains doesn't change that.

Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
are certainly a possibility.

> >>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
> >>conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
> >>intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> >>meant to eat wheat grass.
> >
> >
> > If we were not "meant" to be eating grains, we would not have teeth
> > specifically designed for chewing them.
>
> We don't. See above.

Even if we take what you wrote above as a given, all we could conclude
is that they're designed for veggies, nuts, grains - or some
combination of all.

> We wouldn't have enzymes
> > specifically designed for digesting them.
>
> We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

So given that we have teeth and digestive systems that work with
fruits, veggies, AND grains, how do you conclude that we are not meant
to eat grains?

> We wouldn't have survived
> > and in fact *thrived* on them for thousands and thousands of years.
>
> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> thriving, really.

Human populations absolutely skyrocketed around grains - that's what
"thriving" means. And the decrease in height, weakened bones and so
forth have *also* been explained by population conditions.

> > If you agree with the Adkins diet, good for you. If you start asking
> > doctors and nutritionists, some of them will agree with you - others
> > will not. But your assertion that humans are not "meant" to eat grains
> > is utter nonsense. Human anatomy says otherwise - as does human
> > history.
>
> Beg to differ, except in that the word "meant" is meaningless. But we
> did not evolve to eat a diet of grains and beans.

We evolved to eat a widely varied diet that included grains and beans.

Shuurai wrote:
> > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> >
> > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> >
> > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> >
> > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.

Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>
> Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> that relevant to the point of the discussion?

Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
> But just to make you happy:
> Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.

Roughly ten thousand years, sure.


> > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > grains;
> >
> > Or vegetables and nuts.

> Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> are certainly a possibility.
>
> > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > >>meant to eat wheat grass.

> > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> >
> > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

> wrote
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
on earth prior to evolving larger brains.

The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
meats. Proteins.

So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
eating vegetables and grains. Meat's "new", relatively speaking, and most
scientists credit *it* with our leap in evolution.

Krusty wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
>
>
> I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
> on earth prior to evolving larger brains.

Read where? Vegetarian websites? Because I've read repeatedly that the
hunter-gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly 45-65% of calories
from animal food, with the rest coming from vegetables, fruit in season,
nuts and seeds, and the like.

>
> The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
> communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
> meats. Proteins.
>
> So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
> eating vegetables and grains.

How did people eat grain in any quantity before agriculture? A real
bitch to collect all those little seeds.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > > wrote
> >
> >>Roughly ten thousand years, sure.
> >
> >
> > I've always read that we were vegetarians for roughly MOST of our existence
> > on earth prior to evolving larger brains.
>
> Read where? Vegetarian websites? Because I've read repeatedly that the
> hunter-gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly 45-65% of calories
> from animal food, with the rest coming from vegetables, fruit in season,
> nuts and seeds, and the like.

Read where? :b

> > The only reason we evolved larger brains that allowed tool building and
> > communications was that suddenly, not so very far back, we started to eat
> > meats. Proteins.
> >
> > So I'm inclined to believe that most of our time on earth was in fact,
> > eating vegetables and grains.
>
> How did people eat grain in any quantity before agriculture? A real
> bitch to collect all those little seeds.

The same way they collected all those veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.
Grains grow naturally in large patches; collecting the seeds isn't all
that much more of a bother really, especially when you're generally
collecting what you and a few other individuals will eat.

How do you suppose agriculture came about, by the way?

"Shuurai" > wrote
> The same way they collected all those veggies, fruits, nuts and seeds.
> Grains grow naturally in large patches; collecting the seeds isn't all
> that much more of a bother really, especially when you're generally
> collecting what you and a few other individuals will eat.

And let's not forget, that it's MUCH more "economical" from an energy
standpoint to collect grains rather than expend huge amounts of energy in
the *hopes* of catching a wild animal....all with a brain roughly 1/3 the
size of ours and no communication.

wrote:
> Shuurai wrote:
> > > > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > > > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > > > staples of human consumption for eons.
> > >
> > > Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
> > >
> > > 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
> > > 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
> > >
> > > 10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>
> Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
> >
> > Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
> > that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>
> Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
> Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.

I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
species. The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.

> > But just to make you happy:
> > Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
> > fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
> > staples of human consumption for a really, really gosh darn long time.
>
> Roughly ten thousand years, sure.

We've been deliberately *growing* them for 10,000 to 23,000 years. We
were most certainly eating them before we decided to go through the
trouble.

> > > > You might consider the fact that we humans have molars - teeth
> > > > specifically designed for grinding fiberous materials like *gasp*
> > > > grains;
> > >
> > > Or vegetables and nuts.
>
> > Molars are more specialized towards grains than veggies - though nuts
> > are certainly a possibility.
> >
> > > >>Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
> > > >>green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
> > > >>meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> > > We wouldn't have enzymes
> > > > specifically designed for digesting them.
> > >
> > > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
> > > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.
>
> More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

Fallacy. They're more easily digestable when cooked, and release more
nutrients, but they're not undigestable raw. And actually, some
biologists have suggested that the relatively long length of the human
digestive tract is intended to accomodate grain consumption. Meat
eating animals tend to have shorter digestive tracts and much more
powerful digestive fluids. Herbivores tend to have longer tracts and
less powerful fluids.

Shuurai wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>Shuurai wrote:
>>
>>>>>Well, regardless of what you think humans are "meant" to be eating, the
>>>>>fact of the matter is that wheat, barley, and so forth have been
>>>>>staples of human consumption for eons.
>>>>
>>>>Um, no. From dictionary.com, a definition of "eon"
>>>>
>>>> 1. An indefinitely long period of time; an age.
>>>> 2. The longest division of geologic time, containing two or more eras.
>>>>
>>>>10,000 years doesn't fit the definition.
>>
>>Four eons so far: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic.
>>
>>>Well, gee whiz you got me on the "eon" thing... now how in the hell is
>>>that relevant to the point of the discussion?
>>
>>Points out that you were wrong by roughly four orders of magnitude.
>>Seems relevant, given that evolution takes time.
>
>
> I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
> long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
> matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
> species.

No, not in any quantity. Not as a staple food.

The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
> traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
> ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.

Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?

I mark for overt stupidity. You rule.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?
>
>
> I mark for overt stupidity. You rule.
>
>

Want to answer the question?

Dana

> > I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
> > long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
> > matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
> > species.
>
> No, not in any quantity. Not as a staple food.

Not in any quantity? Are you serious? They've been the most
widespread foodsource since the beginning of human civilization; and in
fact are what allowed human civilization as we know it in the first
place.

> The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
> > traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
> > ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.
>
> Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?

As interesting as it is to watch you dance around and change your
position with every post, it doesn't make for good conversation - why
don't you actually pick one and try sticking with it for a while?

Shuurai wrote:

>>>I used the word "eons" because it's commonly used to denote a really
>>>long time. I don't frankly care about the accuracy. The fact of the
>>>matter is, humans have been eating grains for most of our history as a
>>>species.
>>
>>No, not in any quantity. Not as a staple food.
>
>
> Not in any quantity? Are you serious? They've been the most
> widespread foodsource since the beginning of human civilization; and in
> fact are what allowed human civilization as we know it in the first
> place.

True. But civilization is relatively recent.
>
>
>> The systematic cultivation and collection of grains can be
>>
>>>traced anywhere from 10,000 to 23,000 years ago, depending on who you
>>>ask. However, humans were eating grains long before that.
>>
>>Really? As a staple food? Or a handful now and then?
>
>
> As interesting as it is to watch you dance around and change your
> position with every post, it doesn't make for good conversation - why
> don't you actually pick one and try sticking with it for a while?

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.

Dana
>

" > writes:


>Shuurai wrote:

>> > We wouldn't have enzymes
>> > > specifically designed for digesting them.
>> >
>> > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
>> > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

>More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

The invention of weapons allowed early humans to hunt animals they
wouldn't otherwise have been able to hunt. The discovery of fire
enabled them to eat things they couldn't otherwise have eaten.



--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

Dana Carpender wrote:


> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> thriving, really.


People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?

I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
reason.



Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
because of some characteristics.

People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
needed more natural protection than others.

We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
skin tones or different styles of noses.

You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
(and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
basically what evolution is.

Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
"improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
have changed a LOT in 40 years.

> wrote in message oups.com...
>
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
>> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
>> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
>> thriving, really.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
>
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.
>


heck, it only took a few generations to get rid of sickle cell anemia (protective against malaria) in Africans transplanted to Europe.

On Mon, 22 May 2006, Squad wrote:

>
> > wrote in message oups.com...
>>
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
>>> farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
>>> to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
>>> thriving, really.

bad teeth are from sugar. gingivitis, i can see. but toothrot is
something from the 1700's. cite yer sources.

>> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
>> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
>> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>>
>> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
>> reason.

poor nutrition, mostly.

>> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
>> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
>> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
>> needed more natural protection than others.

can we please stop this? you obviously have forgotten that "dark" is
natural -- lighter skins allow more efficient vitamin E production from
sunlight.

>> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
>> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
>> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
>> skin tones or different styles of noses.

mutations are mutations. they dont' spread across a population evenly.
We know what the "constellation" of genes for mathematical aptitude is.
Doesn't mean everyone's got it.

Lena

Lena B Katz wrote:


> mutations are mutations. they dont' spread across a population evenly.
> We know what the "constellation" of genes for mathematical aptitude is.
> Doesn't mean everyone's got it.

And you know all about "mutations" and "aptitude" dontcha, Lena?

(Sorry folks, couldn't help it)

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
> > Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> > farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> > to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> > thriving, really.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
Well, greater availability and sophistication of health care, better
nutrition (a broad understanding of body chemistry and all body
functions that did not exist a couple hundred years ago), and more of
everything because of the advantages of civilization.

> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
How is that supposed to show that evolution is fast? If anything, it
shows that some traits at least are slow to "evolve away". Which is
the opposite of your point, I think.

> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
Wanna take that back?

> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
Right, assuming you understand the difference between natural selection
and enforced selection, and the compressed time frame of generations
that brings with it. Which still supports the exact opposite point
than you are arguing.

> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.

And that's about 60 enforced generations, or 12,000 human years for
cats, a little less for dogs. Though I'd like to see the photos and
info on the species, since I doubt the specs for breeds have changed
much, when it comes to the whole pet beauty contest gig.

And anyway, if breeders are able to have such dramatic impact on a
breed (not even a species), and a mongrel remains a mongrel no matter
the place or time, doesn't that further erode your argument of rapid
*natural* selection?


Mr C