> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201...ne.21stcentury...
>
> Still citing crackpots, I see.

Still unable to refute the evidence, and resorting to ad hominem, we see.

> Your additional cites from Billing's page do not dispute what I
> posted.

What you yourself posted refuted it..

"> because of the artificiality of most modern human diets, it cannot be
> concluded with confidence that the small human sample examined to date
> reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The
> results obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive."

add;

'Some of the reasons for caution regarding the study results are as follows:
...
Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut
dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and
captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions
can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response
to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic,
consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980];
also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and
Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation];
Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray,
Tulloch, and Winter [1977].

and:

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would correspond
to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1).
The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a flexibility
allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to
feed extensively on animal matter...' From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]

Now..

Why would an 'omnivore' have any meat-eating related health concerns?