> Dairy isn't nutritionally necessary for anyone. Perhaps it was in the past, but not now. Assuming alternative sources of the same essential nutrients, I agre

> Dairy isn't nutritionally necessary for anyone. Perhaps it was in the past, but not now. Assuming alternative sources of the same essential nutrients, I agree – no single food is nutritionally necessary or ever was. In the real world, meanwhile, dairy products are a key source of protein etc. for people in at least some regions where sufficient alternative sources are not widely affordable or available. Certainly, milk was crucial to the survival of many populations as recently as a century ago (not "aeons ago during some ancient famine"). > Evolution informs us about why we eat what we eat and how we might be affected by various foods Evolution is an open-ended history of accidents, with much to say about what works for us (as opposed to what cannot). > but it does not control us. Indeed. Not only does it not control us, we cannot even conclude based on it that a novel environment or resource will not be advantageous. In the case of ungulate milk consumption, it turns out it was. > Not sure what you mean about telos. Evolutionary adaptations are in the nature of accidents, not guided by any purpose or implying any optimal "natural" state. Populations taking advantage of accidental fitness for new niches is a defining pattern in the evolution of life on earth, and consumption of milk by some human populations fits that pattern. Drawing conclusions about the suitability of drinking milk because "we didn't evolve to drink it" is fallacious (in contrast to, say, explaining most people's lack of lactase persistence by their ancestors' non-consumption of milk, which is sound, non-teleological reasoning).