LaRRY wrote:
>>>The Los Angeles Times
>
> Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.

For valid scientific info, it's at least three notches above ecologos.

<...>
>>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
>>>eight genes ...
>
> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.

Ipse dixit.

> Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single
> course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition.
> http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html

MIT is not the only university with anthropology programs. Search for other
colleges and universities with BIOLOGICAL or FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY programs, you
fruitcake.

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/PAHIL/
http://www.uncw.edu/ant/curricul.htm
see BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
http://people.uncw.edu/albertm/

> In fact, there is not one -real- science course in this track.

Craig Stanford, mentioned in the article, teaches at the University of Southern
California. From the CV on his webpage:
Courses Taught
Primate Social Behavior
Primate Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (graduate level)
Evolution of Primate Intelligence (graduate level)
Human Evolutionary Ecology
Human Origins
Evolutionary Medicine
Evolution of Human Behavior
Introduction to Biological Anthropology
http://www.usc.edu/dept/elab/anth/Fa.../stanford.html

Those sound like science courses to me, Larry. Maybe you can take a course or
two from him to clear up some of the pseudoscientific crap you regurgitate on
your cheesy website.

> Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists propagate
> some of the most nonsensical superstitions and fanciful speculations about
> human diet.

Hardly as nonsensical, superstitious, or fanciful as the speculations you post
on your cheesy website.

<...>
>>>"Even though we have this idea that we are
>>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
>>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the
>>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.
>
> Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology.

Ipse dixit.

<...>