<div>
(Ruthenian @ Apr. 19 2007,13:42)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Problems with this comment:
- What makes them part of a normal diet is that humans developed using them as a food source.  If early humans ever had access to milk after childhood it was  in extremely limited quantities.</div>
Which makes milk a more suitable food than most available cultivars today. They were not available to our ancestors any more than bovine (ovine or whatever) milks were available.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">- Further, milk is explicitly produced as a food, so it is appropriate to ask how it is best used as a food.</div>
Except the rebuttle of "its for calves" does not provide a suitable arguement for its validity as a human food.
Flour (any grain) is a product from the energy stores of plant reproduction.
Why should it be food?
legumes? why should they be food.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">- In a sense, it is true that "...reproductive products of plants ... are not intended for anything other than supporting the growth of new plants." Â However, the adaptive strategy of some plants means that the fruit was palatable to some animals so that the seeds would be carried elsewhere or disseminated in their feces.</div>
Now, heres where it gets fun, you cant confuse a fruit, which is an interaction with the enviroment, from the reproductive agent, seed. We can harvest the seed to allow us to harvest the fruit. But we can also take the seed, pulse, grain etc and consume it directly.
what makes those 'normal' foods?
They are not meant to be digested, milk is.