I think he is posting a different article. I don't recall that one specifically.
Yeah, ntz08 posted an excerpt from the introduction of the book, which I hadn't seen before.
I'd like to read the book; I'm just not going to have time for a while.
Based on what I have read (including the excerpt that ntz08 posted), I'm not sure what Zuk's main point is. She's not telling people to eat candy and donuts, I presume. She has made the case that some people are more or less adapted to consuming dairy. (Not a new revelation, but some in the paleo community may still need to hear it.) Is she also arguing that some people are pretty well adapted to eating grains, including modern wheat? Or is she merely arguing that evolutionary theory doesn't rule the possibility out? The first would be a lot more interesting than the second.
The paleo diet means so many things to so many different people: there is the Cordain version, the Neanderthin version, the Sisson version, the Jaminet version, the low-carb version, and so on. Some versions exclude dairy, some don't. Some exclude all grains, some don't. Some exclude legumes, some don't.
So I sympathize with Zuk if it seems like she's aiming at a moving target. At the same time, though, whenever I read an excerpt or article by her, I can't really tell what she's trying to aim at. It seems like she's aiming at the theoretical underpinnings of the diet rather than at its practical advice; but the theoretical underpinnings she's taking aim at appear in many cases to be straw men. She criticizes the assumption, for example, "that we evolved until we reached a particular point and now are unlikely to change for the rest of history." But who believes that?
I guess I need to read the book to find out if she's got anything to add to the discussion about which specific foods (or general categories of foods) we're well adapted to, which ones we aren't, and which are a matter of individual variation.