But closer doesn't necessarily mean that the item we're considering is more similar. We were asked to accept that we were meat eaters because chimpanzees are meat eaters. But bonobos aren't. Why aren't bonobos more like chimpanzees? A. They are in many ways - but not that. We might be like Ns. in many ways but not that (whatever *that* was).
Looking at our natural diet (where we came in) I suggested that we look at the diet of our ancestors (not Ns., bonobos or chimps) for the last 5 million years. It's obvious that changes in the last 10,000 years haven't yet been accepted by some of our population (milk intolerance, wheat intolerance, &c) and it's the longer term that that informs best - and looking at the vitamins we need. Vitamins indicate which items were so plentiful in our ancestors' diet that there was no need to manufacture those items in the body. Only one is indicated as being from meat and that indicates fish or shell-fish. We *need* fruit-veg. The rest is almost entirely optional. With modern (ie the last 10,000 years') technology the rest is entirely optional.
-- Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
