Kassandra:

John Taylor Gatto has a lot to say about the education issue.

And yes, it would be much better and more interesting to discuss multiple interpretations!  For example, using both a standard history text and Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" in parallel.

JS

pam:

I know where he's going...he probably just read "The 10,000 Year Explosion".  

So: what exactly does "agriculturalist genes" mean?  It means that southern Europeans are, genetically, closer to Middle Easterners who took up farming ~10KYA (exception: the Basque) -- and northern Europeans are, genetically, closer to local hunter-gatherers who took up some amount of farming much more recently.

Several subjects to keep in mind:

First, he's talking about the difference between 10 thousand years ago and 3-5 thousand years ago -- compared to ~6 million years of hominin evolution, and 3.4 million years of well-established meat-eating.  The differences are small except in a few narrowly defined categories such as disease resistance, lactase persistence, and a lower frequency of the HLA MHCs associated with celiac.

Then, remember that "anatomically modern humans" first appear between 200 KYA and 100 KYA...in other words, our ancestors were archaeologically indistinguishable from modern humans for 20-40x the span of time in question.

Moving on: natural selection doesn't care if you're happy or optimal: it cares who reproduces more successfully.  1000 sick farmers were, on average, more successful than 50 healthy hunter-gatherers, and generally replaced them by force.  (The archaeological evidence is 100% clear on this point: in every case for which we have evidence, the transition to agriculture was a health catastrophe, resulting in sickness, deformity, and short lifespan.  See Jared Diamond's The Worst Mistake In The History Of The Human Race.)

So we have been selected in the few thousand years since agriculture for the traits that help us survive to reproductive age, not those that allow us to live a long, healthy life -- which were selected over millions of years.  People grow up and bear children on a diet of Mountain Dew, Taco Bell, and gas station chili dogs...we're very successful in that regard!  But as we know from our own experience, a paleo diet leaves us healthier and happier, even if we're not necessarily more reproductively successful in the short term.

Finally, it's instructive to remember that Stephan has never been paleo.  At best, he's been a Weston A. Price supporter, very positive on the dietary value of grains and beans (soaked and sprouted, of course), a stance with which I disagree.  (See, for instance, my previous article).  Even with that caveat, I haven't found WHS to be an objective source of information since he left school and began supporting the dogma of his employer (e.g. insulin makes you slim).  As a result, I don't read WHS anymore, and I don't recommend reading it to others.

JS

Paul N:

I connected the same dots independently, last year...and was somewhat disappointed to find, upon searching for references, that Wadley and Martin had done the same nearly 20 years ago!

I'm sure the reason that their work isn't better known is that it overturns the entire narrative of the origins of civilization and of humans.  If you accept Wadley and Martin, you must also reject the idea that agricultural civilization represents an inevitable and necessary step in human progress...and I think it's safe to say that only a tiny minority are willing to even entertain the concept.

Thank you for contributing: perceptive commenters like yourself are always welcome here!

JS