Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Fermenter Zym on February 15, 2011, 12:36:16 pm
-
I read on http://old.rawpaleodiet.com/advent-of-cooking-article/ that raw paleo supporters believe cooking is bad because humans have not have time evolutionarily to adapt to it. The author says:
"It's probably safest to trust the experts in human evolution who have set the advent of cooking at 250,000 years ago, even though there are some credible claims for as little as 125,000 to as long as 300,000 years ago."
If I'm not mistaken, is not the species homo sapien sapien (aka human) only about 200,000 years old? I believe in the value of raw foods, but I wonder: how is cooking so harmful evolutionarily when it emerged at the same time as modern man?
Please explain this to me.
-
Since the first life forms on this planet ingested the first food, everything was eattin raw and unprocessed . The human brain had already attained its size and complexity while it evolved on a diet rich in raw meats. Cooking was an advent of the crafts of man already evolved and its a completely a new phenomenon. Yes cooking may have been used since the beginning days of our species but I doubt that up until the neolithic age it wasn't a universal practice. Even if some cave men roasted their meat on an open flame I doubt that they ate everything well done, some of them may even have cooked roots in beds of hot ash, but for the most part they ate raw and un processed foods. Although cooking emerged at the time of our last evolution it wasn't a contributing factor to the evolutionary changes that made humans the dominant life form. It is my belief that we would have survived more or less regardless of how much the early cavemen roasted some of their foods.
Habitual cooking and processing of neolithic foods have only been universal occurrences for a very short time period. Within the neolithic age it was not only cooking in itself that is to blame for the detrimental states of health suffered by humans in agrarian societies, its also the cooking of foods that were never meant for human consumption. Cooking makes foods that would be deadly in the raw state acceptable for human consumption; acceptable but in no way Ideal. One can survive off of cooked starches and grains, but it comes with much suffering. I claim the cooking of unnatural foods is a primary cause of much of the sickness endured through the neolithic ages as well as our currant age. Of course in our current age we are also damned by chemical pollution which only makes the toxins caused by cooking even more damaging. These sicknesses that are linked to cooked foods are caused by the bodies inability to cope with the toxins created by cooking as well as being literally poisoned by antinutrients, plant hormones and enzyme inhibitors that are never fully cooked out of foods such as grains and legumes. Neolithic people may have been fine and able to adapt to a cooked paleo diet but once they began to fully cook all meats as well as add cooked grains into the diet that is where the seriously detrimental effects of cooking began to become emergent.
-
First of all, this should have been placed in the Hot Topics forum - moved it there now.
The notion that humans must have adapted to cooked foods does not make sense. For one thing, there are species which have never properly adapted to a particular raw food even despite millions of years of evolution and of eating that very food. For example, the giant panda has been eating bamboo for 2 million years, despite its digestive system etc. being carnivorous, not herbivorous at all. PP mentioned that even the giant panda's ancestor species had also been eating bamboo for millions of years before that, as I recall.
Also, of course, one can make a few mutations/epigenetic changes, here and there, but they may well be wholly inadequate to adapt to a particular food. For example, 75 percent of the world's population have lactose-intolerance despite eating (raw) dairy for thousands of years, and pasteurised dairy in the middle of the last century onwards. Plus, there is the issue of casein-intolerance, plus the extreme calcium/magnesium ratio, the hormones in dairy, so even if one adapted to dairy in 1 or 2 aspects, there are other aspects which may never be properly adapted to by humans.
Plus, the evolutionary difference between homo sapiens' immediate ancestors, the archaic homo sapiens, was rather small, whereas the bulk of our evolution occurred during the raw-meat-eating period, so changes would have been more minor than previous eras. Also, humans could well evolve into getting larger brains, while still not being able to evolve into adapting to cooked foods. After all, if it takes millions of years for species to fully adapt from raw herbivorous to raw carnivorous diets, then obviously it's going to take an even longer time to adapt to cooked foods, which are a wholly different kind of food with extra toxins.
For the pro-cooked-crowd to prove that we have fully adapted to cooking, they would have to prove that humans were somehow immune to the heat-created toxins produced by cooking and that notion is already comprehensively debunked by the mass of studies showing harmful effects from toxins like advanced glycation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitrosamines and heterocyclic amines etc.
-
The point in cooking/processing is that it bypasses the need to adapt.
-
The point in cooking/processing is that it bypasses the need to adapt.
Somewhat wrong as an idea. Sure, cooking makes a few foods more "adaptable" due to removing the antinutrients in grains, for example, but, at the same time, cooking creates heat-created toxins which humans are not adapted to and which did not exist beforehand.Plus, even the cooking of grains clearly does not protect against the many grains-related illnesses such as IBS, coeliac etc. So, overall, there is a net loss caused by cooking, and therefore cooking does not really make foods more adaptable.
-
100% cooked food diet will not cure you of cancer.
but a 100% raw food diet will cure you of cancer.
YMMV
-
It is true that there is "evidence" that people began cooking 150,000-300,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that everyone cooked everything always starting during that time. What likely happened is that people began experimenting with cooking different foods in different areas of the world at different times. Most people of European descent come from a particular lineage that left Africa at some point, and may have brought the cooking adaptation with it or not. Whether you individually are adapted to cooking, then, is a question of your genetics.
Some people can live well and live over 100 years eating highly processed, cooked foods. Most people though, need a different diet to live well for that long. Most of the people who post here realize that they need a different diet to live well, and have settled on diets composed of mostly raw animal foods.
-
Or we could do the same thing we did when we came to RAF, which is ignore everything we had ever been taught and boldly go against the grain (haha no pun intended!).
Darwinian Evolution isn't laid on as rock solid a foundation as mainstream thought would have us believe. It hasn't proved speciation. Just because the earth has been around for millions or billions of years doesn't mean the evolution is what produced today's life forms and fossils. Think about how often evolutionists use the term designed. What they're doing is saying that life looks designed, and then going the opposite direction and trying to force the evidence to fit the mold of their dogmatic belief system, a system every bit as dogmatic as Biblical creationism. Neither of these are uninterested parties, they both 'need' their beliefs to be right, when it is true, hard evidence, without excessive speculation that we should be after.
Why is it so hard to believe that the universe was created by something, evolution is at least as ridiculous saying it exploded from nothing in to something with astounding probability figures.
If you can accept that the evidence for evolution is not as great as they would have us believe, then it becomes moot to talk about whether we evolved for cooked or raw foods. What matters is what you can objectively observe.
Also I know evolution and design are touchy topics that get people really hot and bothered, but I want to reiterate that I'm disinterested as a party, I'm uninvested, meaning that I don't care whether evolution or intelligent design are right, I only want the truth. So attacking me for questioning evolution will only prove my point.
-
There is no truth, and there never will be, so stop waiting for it.
You're stranded in the middle of nowhere, it's been 3 days and your water reserves are almost exhausted and you didn't leave a journey plan with anyone. Leave the car and go to look for water.
Billy thinks the tooth-fairy comes to collect his teeth when they fall out. His friend Jimbo doesn't know what happens to his teeth, but he noticed that the five-pound note under his pillow has the same markings on it as the one his mum got as change in the post-office earlier that day. He postures to Billy that perhaps it's their parents who take the teeth. Billy says it's clearly absolute nonsense because Jimbo never actually saw his mum take the tooth, so it's just as likely that the Tooth-fairy does it.
-
Some people can live well and live over 100 years eating highly processed, cooked foods.
There is no proof anyone can live 100 years eating all highly processed cooked foods.
The junk food diet was born only a few decades ago.
Even WacDonalds served good food until recently, maybe 30 years ago tops.
If an old person can survive to 100 right now doing that,
it is because their body was well established back when all food was high quality.
-
There is no proof anyone can live 100 years eating all highly processed cooked foods.
The junk food diet was born only a few decades ago.
Even WacDonalds served good food until recently, maybe 30 years ago tops.
If an old person can survive to 100 right now doing that,
it is because their body was well established back when all food was high quality.
+1. Also there was a study done that said for the first time in like a couple hundred years the children of our generation will die younger than their parents. I guess medicine can only keep you artificially alive so much, but if you kill yourself quicker then ever before even that will fail.
-
+1. Also there was a study done that said for the first time in like a couple hundred years the children of our generation will die younger than their parents. I guess medicine can only keep you artificially alive so much, but if you kill yourself quicker then ever before even that will fail.
That does not surprise me at all, I work with children.
I have met a 12 month old on a calorie restricted diet(doctor approved!), drinking vanilla rice milk.
Stupidity like that is not sustainable.
-
Or we could do the same thing we did when we came to RAF, which is ignore everything we had ever been taught and boldly go against the grain (haha no pun intended!).
Darwinian Evolution isn't laid on as rock solid a foundation as mainstream thought would have us believe. It hasn't proved speciation. Just because the earth has been around for millions or billions of years doesn't mean the evolution is what produced today's life forms and fossils. Think about how often evolutionists use the term designed. What they're doing is saying that life looks designed, and then going the opposite direction and trying to force the evidence to fit the mold of their dogmatic belief system, a system every bit as dogmatic as Biblical creationism. Neither of these are uninterested parties, they both 'need' their beliefs to be right, when it is true, hard evidence, without excessive speculation that we should be after.
Why is it so hard to believe that the universe was created by something, evolution is at least as ridiculous saying it exploded from nothing in to something with astounding probability figures.
If you can accept that the evidence for evolution is not as great as they would have us believe, then it becomes moot to talk about whether we evolved for cooked or raw foods. What matters is what you can objectively observe.
Also I know evolution and design are touchy topics that get people really hot and bothered, but I want to reiterate that I'm disinterested as a party, I'm uninvested, meaning that I don't care whether evolution or intelligent design are right, I only want the truth. So attacking me for questioning evolution will only prove my point.
I am right there with you and just want you to know that there are people out there who believe as you do, including me. I am christian and believe in christ. At the same time I still question everything and am not somebody who takes everyone's word for it.
Faith is a simple subject to grasp, but for most, they dont understand the concept. Faith is basically believing something that is not based on something you can see, or something based on solid evidence. Everyone needs to understand that they have faith in things no matter what they think. If one is a scientologist, they are putting their faith in men and are looking to science for all of the answers. To many arrogant athiests, this seems to be just as unbelievable as claiming that one believes in god from the bible. As humans, we think we know all of the answers, but if you study philosophy and theology, you realize there is very little we know, and in reality most of science is even based on speculation. We arent even able to see an electron, it is just a theory that electrons exist because protons "must" have an opposite charge. We have to convert an atom into light to be able to see much of anything, and even at that it is much distorted and misunderstood. There is much we dont know.
Having faith in man is as much of a religion as having faith in god. Choose your faith people.
As for evolution, there are so many holes, you could say it is just as bad as reading a fictional story. For instance, If we humans came from apes, and slowly evolved, changing different species, I find it very interesting to see that there are only apes walking around on this planet and no neanderthals or hominids walking around. There is no clear definitive showing that we evolved through species. There is no clear definitive that any species evolves to change species for that matter. Scientists just speculate and try to fill the gaps, thats it. It is utter bullshit. The only real evidence that may be true is that a species can adapt. But there is no changing species. If somebody begs to differ, show me evidence of this, I would be very interested in reading it. And dont bring the DNA argument into this because our DNA is practically the same as dolphins.
Take simple logic and convert it into the foundation of your beliefs.
-
Atheism is by far the worst religion.
It sucks because the people do not even know they have faith.
They even talk about faith being the fall of mankind,
but then they turn on the news or scientific journals and believe whatever that bullshit says.
-
Atheism is by far the worst religion.
It sucks because the people do not even know they have faith.
They even talk about faith being the fall of mankind,
but then they turn on the news or scientific journals and believe whatever that bullshit says.
I completely agree with you. I think there is always a balance needed..
-
I completely agree with you. I think there is always a balance needed..
As do I
-
One thing that bothers me an enormous amount is when someone asks
They say "are you religious?"
I say "No"
They say "so you are an atheist?"
>: facepalm!
LoL
-
As for evolution, there are so many holes, you could say it is just as bad as reading a fictional story. For instance, If we humans came from apes, and slowly evolved, changing different species, I find it very interesting to see that there are only apes walking around on this planet and no neanderthals or hominids walking around.
Neanderthals would have been a threat to other species of Man, and competing over the same resources. Apes are little threat. Humans have killed many apes too, but as they are little threat no one has needed to wipe them out.. Same reason there are no wolves in the UK but there are birds and deer. We killed loads of deer and birds too, mostly by destroying their habitat, along with wiping out many other species entirely, but wolves were purposefully and selectively wiped out as they were a threat to people. Other species of man would've been much more of a threat than any wolf...
Scientists just speculate and try to fill the gaps, thats it. It is utter bullshit. The only real evidence that may be true is that a species can adapt. But there is no changing species. If somebody begs to differ, show me evidence of this, I would be very interested in reading it. And dont bring the DNA argument into this because our DNA is practically the same as dolphins.
Our DNA is practically the same as Dolphins is BECAUSE of evolution...
Having faith in man is as much of a religion as having faith in god. Choose your faith people.
One doesn't need to 'believe' or have 'faith' in anything...
As humans, we think we know all of the answers, but if you study philosophy and theology, you realize there is very little we know, and in reality most of science is even based on speculation.
This is similar to your post a while back where you claimed that everyone was fat-phobic and seemed to think you were out ahead somehow with your new revelation. Not everyone thinks 'we know all the answers', or expects to find any definitive answers. There will never be solid evidence for anything.. There is just more evidence for evolution than anything else. When more evidence comes forward, the theory of evolution will be built upon and modified, not replaced entirely. We aren't going to find that it's bullshit and there's some completely different explanation, the picture will just become clearer the more evidence is noted. If you are going to sit around waiting for solid evidence for everything you won't get anywhere. Like completing a complicated maths calculation, you have to start out simple with what you can and build upon it, whereas you would rather sit there trying to work it out in your head and never advance.
-
Miles, though it makes no difference to me which theory you subscribe to, are you sure evolution is as good a theory as you claim? Doesn't it bother you at all how often the word 'design' is used in reference to nature by scientists?
What makes you see design, and then do a 180 degree turn and say it was mutations? We know adaptive evolution takes place, but it seems to lack the power for speciation.
Also why are there creatures in the fossil record that stay virtually the same for millions of years, there should be some change, and actually each fossil should be substantially different over that period of time.
I don't buy Dawkins' claim that we're just lucky to have the fossils we have and that their rarity is the reason we don't see more apparent intermediaries.
I don't know enough to argue for intelligent design, I only know that what I see in darwinan ToE is very unconvincing when looked at with an uninvested eye.
-
This is similar to your post a while back where you claimed that everyone was fat-phobic and seemed to think you were out ahead somehow with your new revelation. Not everyone thinks 'we know all the answers', or expects to find any definitive answers. There will never be solid evidence for anything.. There is just more evidence for evolution than anything else. When more evidence comes forward, the theory of evolution will be built upon and modified, not replaced entirely. We aren't going to find that it's bullshit and there's some completely different explanation, the picture will just become clearer the more evidence is noted. If you are going to sit around waiting for solid evidence for everything you won't get anywhere. Like completing a complicated maths calculation, you have to start out simple with what you can and build upon it, whereas you would rather sit there trying to work it out in your head and never advance.
The vast majority of people that believe in evolution generally have faith in mankind and our ingenuity. They honestly believe that we did come from monkeys and absolutely take it as fact. And yes I am saying most people who believe in evolution. You could say I am generalizing, and yes I am. Everyone I've met who believe the theory are exactly the same. "If you dont believe in evolution, you're an idiot, misguided, etc..." My Biochem professor last week said that people who dont believe in evolution are idiots and that it is a fact. This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about. I am not saying we cant have plausible theories or try to think.
-
That does not surprise me at all, I work with children.
I have met a 12 month old on a calorie restricted diet(doctor approved!), drinking vanilla rice milk.
Stupidity like that is not sustainable.
holy shit you serious?
-
According to a recent study, up to 4 percent of modern human DNA comes directly from the Neanderthals, so, no, the Neanderthals did NOT die out, they continued, just like homo erectus and other such hominid species, they just became part of modern human DNA via admixture.
-
All other primates have 48 chromosomes except humans, which have their
second and third chromosome "fused" together. I think this occurrence may point to the fact that modern humans are a result of the breading of different species of proto humans back in paleo times. If you breed two different equine breeds together for example a horse and a Donkey, then you have similar chromosomal miss matching that can result in such changes in the chromosomal pairs.
The breading of different strains of human could be the primary reason for the superior traits of the only bread of homosapian that manged to survive. All the qualities got mixed together in these primal encounters and eventually a mixed breed emerged as dominant and then perhaps merged again with the other sub species into a single species. As anyone with eyes can see, we still have many different variations(breeds) of human today) And yes we still interbreed although I would say that a cromagdon breeding an homo erectis may have some more extreme genetic mutations in their offspring than an African breading an Asian . The more distant the relation the more radically original the offspring, sometimes the match is too extreme and the offspring is of inferior quality, but there must of been a few instances of success which went on to spawn a new breed. Out of the shuffle we somehow had two pairs of chromosomes fuse.
-
Atheism is by far the worst religion.
It sucks because the people do not even know they have faith.
They even talk about faith being the fall of mankind,
but then they turn on the news or scientific journals and believe whatever that bullshit says.
I have adopted into a Unitarian way of believing.
I like the fact that they don't claim to believe in a Deity, and yet at the same time they support such Ideas as humanism.
I feel more at home with people who worship out of a love and concern for humanity than I do for people who worship out of some dogmatic version of God.
Its more Honorable for someone to be humane out of a genuine spirit than it is for someone to follow some predetermined view of honor based on a religious convention.
For someone to know in their heart that there is no judge, wrath or almighty to be fearful of and still chose to live by the principals of common decency is what I find to be of greatest value. I wish to cultivate a mentality where my faith in humanity and my disbelief in a higher being are able to play along in Peace with my other sensibilities which lead me to view humanity with distrust and superstition.
-
Evolution and belief in God are not necessarily incompatible. Francis Collins describes this in his book "The Language of God". Here's a lecture where he presents the key ideas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y
-
"If you dont believe in evolution, you're an idiot, misguided, etc..." My Biochem professor last week said that people who dont believe in evolution are idiots and that it is a fact.
I have faced this kind of nonsense.
My understanding of the word> Evolution = change in species over time
There is nothing specific about that.
HOW it happened? I really do not care.. but where I live you either believe in Jesus, or the fact that we came from monkeys, or you are a terrorist. If you do not pick one and live by it, then you are classified as "immature weirdo". Same treatment I get around "election time".
holy shit you serious?
Yes achillezzz, I don't think I could have ever made that silly shit up. A 1 year old on a <calorie... restricted... diet> She does not even talk yet and they are calling her fat.
-
Doesn't it bother you at all how often the word 'design' is used in reference to nature by scientists?
Scientists avoid using the word design, as they are aware of how religious folks grasp on to that.
What makes you see design, and then do a 180 degree turn and say it was mutations?
Who said I see design?
We know adaptive evolution takes place, but it seems to lack the power for speciation.
What makes you think that?
Also why are there creatures in the fossil record that stay virtually the same for millions of years, there should be some change, and actually each fossil should be substantially different over that period of time.
Why should there be any change? If a species is comfortable enough in its environment to continue to survive and reproduce, then it will do so...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The vast majority of people that believe in evolution generally have faith in mankind and our ingenuity. They honestly believe that we did come from monkeys and absolutely take it as fact. And yes I am saying most people who believe in evolution. You could say I am generalizing, and yes I am. Everyone I've met who believe the theory are exactly the same. "If you dont believe in evolution, you're an idiot, misguided, etc..." My Biochem professor last week said that people who dont believe in evolution are idiots and that it is a fact. This is the kind of nonsense I am talking about. I am not saying we cant have plausible theories or try to think.
Scientists do not believe in anything. Most people are not scientists. Your Biochemistry teacher is not a Scientist.
-
Scientists do not believe in anything. Most people are not scientists. Your Biochemistry teacher is not a Scientist.
I'd like to hear some examples of who the real scientists are...
On this side of the earth most people claiming to be scientists say things just like that.
-
You don't have to be a scientist to be able to interpret scientific data.
I do not consider myself a scientist, but I have been raised by and around people who fit the description. My father got his masters in biology when he was 21 years old. He was offed a job to teach at UK medical school and turned it down for a job at Ashland oil as an environmental researcher. He surveyed the land and lakes, he even discovered a species of leach that was thought to not live in that area. Anyway I guess if anyone was a scientist it was my father. Although he dropped scientific work and got a pilots licence and became a photographer, and then he apprenticed under his father to become a builder.
A man of science can be many things. I grew up around other family who were scientific in their thinking. My Grandmother , my mother and my aunt who baby sat me, each had their own encyclopedia set, and I remember them always looking up this or that, I think my aunt would actually read it to me outloud when I was a child. She read her whole set from A to Z. I also remember watching programs like Carl sagans universe, or James burks connections. I always remember a natural tendency to crave knowledge and to store it away like treasure. My mother had an encyclopedic mind and though she never had any academic accolades she was always running experiments and tinkering with Ideas. I studied the scientific method in school and read scientific literature along with philosophy, shrinkology, poetry on my own time. Science was always a hobby for me and I love to theorize and build up and expand on the discoveries of others.
I really consider myself blessed to not be trapped into being a pure blooded scientist. My father the scientist was so well schooled that he could never think outside of the scientific box. He though I was insane to eat raw shell fish because he learned from other scientist and even saw for his self the parasites that infest clams, while he was a student. He saw the parasites and then heard the professional say that they were harmful pathogens, and so as a Good scientist he believed the evidence. But we can see that there was no evidence for such a conclusion, just some ignorant assumption about how exposure to parasites will invariably cause infection upon ingestion. The problem with pure science is that no one mind can ever take all the variable into consideration, nor can they envision all the implications of a particular discovery. Even an entire university of scientist can still have blind spots that only those with unscientific perceptions can see.
This is where I have found my purpose, not as a scientist, but as an interpreter and scholar. Someone who can screen the raw data through the filter of the mind and sift out the golden nuggets of truth from the mountains of rubbish. Most discovery's, even those that seem to be profound are nothing without the acknowledgement of a human spirit. Science must be applied to real life to have any value in existence. I like to keep up on the cutting edge of new discovery so that I can be the first to appreciate and Honor each achievement by putting it through my own process of accreditation , and then if there is value to be found , I will heap it onto the mental collection and use it to shift the weight of my own scientific argument with greater understandings and aspirations. Hopefully I chose wisely, what I keep close to heart as scientific truth, so I wont end up with a cumbersome pile of pyrite. I don't want to live in a fools Paradise of false toiletry thoughts that I believe to be scientific truth, but all I have is my intuitive ability to interpret facts by comparison to how they measure up against my already cumbersome pile of gold nuggets.
I find myself dabling in the arts of the charlatan and perhaps my scientific credibility gets lost , when I try to combine science with spirit in some thing I call spiritual alchemy. Then again perhaps I enjoy being incredible at times. Even If it sounds incredibly stupid, at least there is solace to be found in sentiments like this one.
Science has explained nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness.
Aldous Huxley
He wasn't a scientist either but was a good interpreter of scientific data
-
Scientists avoid using the word design, as they are aware of how religious folks grasp on to that.
Who said I see design?
What makes you think that?
Why should there be any change? If a species is comfortable enough in its environment to continue to survive and reproduce, then it will do so...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Scientists do not believe in anything. Most people are not scientists. Your Biochemistry teacher is not a Scientist.
Sorry, I'm less adept at quoting within the lines as you are so I'll answer here.
Darwinian Evolution's poster child Richard Dawkins throws around 'design' like he's some kind of preacher.
You don't see design? You don't see bats designed to hunt using sonar. You don't see teeth designed for sheering, holding and grinding? You can switch out the word if you like but you'd still be saying that animals and plants are built to perform certain actions or functions.
I think it lacks speciative capabilities because we don't find true intermediaries and large groups of fossils simply show up and disappear without the in betweens.
Why should there be any change? Are you serious? Thit is your theory, not mine. The T-rex if I'm not mistaken went 20 million years without much, if any visible change, at least according to the fossils. I'm not even asking for improvement, just ANY kind of significant change. I don't think DEv. says a comfortable creature isn't going to change. It says that natural selection is going to select beneficial mutations if they provide a competitive advantage and select against unfavorable ones right? Well something should happen in that amount of time shouldn't it?
And then the last quote you listed I see you credited to me, though it was another user that posted it, so I'll chime in. Scientists don't believe anything? The same scientists that tell you eating raw food will kill you.....and really believe it? Or the same scientists who tell you sunscreen is good for you, as if titanium dioxin was not a carcinogen, not to mention all the other nasties in most sunscreens? Or did you mean the scientists that are still hunting for a cure for cancer even though you and I both know what it takes to repair it when repair is possible? I think either it may help for you to elaborate on that statement or it is self evident that it's baseless.
-
Darwinian Evolution's poster child Richard Dawkins throws around 'design' like he's some kind of preacher.
He's an atheist, you can't be a full scientist and an Athiest.
You don't see design? You don't see bats designed to hunt using sonar. You don't see teeth designed for sheering, holding and grinding? You can switch out the word if you like but you'd still be saying that animals and plants are built to perform certain actions or functions.
I see animals that have features which help them do what they do... I don't see them being designed, nor do I see them adapting.. I just see them as they are now, with those features. Then the question is how they came to possess those beneficial features: Evolution; Design; ..
I think it lacks speciative capabilities because we don't find true intermediaries and large groups of fossils simply show up and disappear without the in betweens.
What is a 'true intermediary'? The more intermediaries that are found, the more gaps there are to fill... There are many fossils which show gradual change, good examples are:
The horse lineage from the small three-toed forest dweller up to modern-day horses;
Human evolution over the last 7-8 million years;
The bird-like reptiles evolving into true birds;
The evolution of whales from the early semi-aquatic forms (most closely related to hippos) right through to the modern forms.
Besides that... There are 1.4 million described species, estimated 10s of millions of species total currently in existence, but only a few hundred-thousand different fossilised species discovered for the entire history of our planet...
Why should there be any change? Are you serious? Thit is your theory, not mine. The T-rex if I'm not mistaken went 20 million years without much, if any visible change, at least according to the fossils. I'm not even asking for improvement, just ANY kind of significant change. I don't think DEv. says a comfortable creature isn't going to change. It says that natural selection is going to select beneficial mutations if they provide a competitive advantage and select against unfavorable ones right? Well something should happen in that amount of time shouldn't it?
No... If the species is comfortable at the top of the food-chain, there is no reason it would change...
And then the last quote you listed I see you credited to me, though it was another user that posted it, so I'll chime in. Scientists don't believe anything? The same scientists that tell you eating raw food will kill you.....and really believe it? Or the same scientists who tell you sunscreen is good for you, as if titanium dioxin was not a carcinogen, not to mention all the other nasties in most sunscreens? Or did you mean the scientists that are still hunting for a cure for cancer even though you and I both know what it takes to repair it when repair is possible? I think either it may help for you to elaborate on that statement or it is self evident that it's baseless.
Sorry about that, it was meant to be quoted to Pioneer. That's why I put the line to separate, but I forgot to change the name.
Scientists are meant to not believe in things. They're just meant to follow data, seek out any new data which would lead in any direction and factor it in to their overall understanding. They can continue to pursue a theory, but they should not believe it.
There are researchers who create data, but who are not Scientists. Scientists are the ones who collect the data and use it, whether or not they were the ones who created it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Example:
My father the scientist was so well schooled that he could never think outside of the scientific box. He though I was insane to eat raw shell fish because he learned from other scientist and even saw for his self the parasites that infest clams, while he was a student. He saw the parasites and then heard the professional say that they were harmful pathogens, and so as a Good scientist he believed the evidence.
He was right to think that eating raw shell fish would be harmful based on the data he had collected, but not to believe it.. A good scientist would be open to any new data which might come about that might be contrary to his previously collected data, and factor it in to his over-all understanding of the matter.
-
It seems that no matter how sound the evidence is for the basis of abstract scientific belief ,there will always be some anomaly that defies explanation. My eatting raw and rotten meat in front of my father and not dieing within days was an anomaly, that shook up his scientifically cherished beliefs. Perhaps this tiny piece of irrational truth can be used to put a wedge into his mind and put into question the other aspects of his idiotic clinging to certain dogmas regarding the nature of the world.
His initial oh my god you re actually eating that raw reaction, turned into silent disbelief, and finally after a year of being witness to a miracle he finally accepted that what he was told would be deadly is in actuality making me thrive. Science can best witness the miraculous through an open mind. Otherwise its just an anomaly(such as my crazy talk) doesn't warrent further consideration, all the other fantastic things I have tried explain to him without providing tangible proof just seem to get ignored. One must speak to well trained scientist as if they were children who believe in the tooth fairy; if you want to shatter their beliefs in the purity of science. Even if that scientist is my own father.
-
When people found out about my diet, their usual reaction, on finding out that I hadn't died yet despite years of eating raw meats, was to pretend that I had never had any illnesses before doing the RPD diet - considering I had had numerous, rather overt health-problems at the time, I find this sort of mental blindness about as ridiculous as a belief in the flat-earth theory, but people often need such views as , if they accepted that I had done well with this diet, it would make their own lifelong habits re eating cooked foods seem moronic by comparison.
-
I think that the paleo paradox is a perfect example of how even in these modern times science still has enormous blind spots. There is still this phenomenon of compartmentalization that seems to keep the minds of scientist trapped within some invisible boarder called convention. Even Paleo scientist who have studied in detail how our ancestors were strong framed brutes that could thrive off a carnivorous diet cant even venture into theorizing about the exact time in history that raw meat became unfit for human consumption. Scientist have discovered the bone pits where the first tools were used to crack open bones for the raw bone marrow. And yet there are very few of these highly specialized anthropologist that can make the connection that if paleo man could thrive off of such food then there should be no reason that modern man could not as well. Even the Eskimos are living examples of how humans can thrive on a diet of raw animal foods, and yet it seems that the great health benefits of their diets is almost completely ignored by mainstream science. Why are there so many highly educated people who study the ancestry of man and cannot make the connection that there is no reason that modern humans cannot thrive off of a diet that is similar to the hunter gatherer ancestors. This blind spot is so huge and apparent to people on this forum. I sometimes wonder if there is not some willful and deliberate conspiracy by the scientific community to lord over such realizations and suppress such discoveries for some dark subliminal motive. Are they possessed by some demon that will refuse to let them admit that we are animals that were hunter gatherers long before the advent of cooking. Is the truth that human beings are blood thirsty omnivores by nature, so scary that it must be suppressed. Or maybee there is some validity in an Idea that the cooking of foods have in some unmeasurable way contributed to the civilization of the wild hunter tribes of yore. People who are born and raised paleo will seem to be primitive to the average scientist and perhaps a paleo tribesman could never be driven to attempt advanced scientific endeavors so their way of life is fundamentally at odds with what the modern scientist seeks to turn man into.
The battle over the fate of the species knows no peace and from what I can see many scientist today act as enemy's to the better nature of humanity, and their discovery's will take us further from our tribal lands and deliver us into a brave new world where humanity will be reduced to one scientifically designed mode of life. Intelligent design is a dream of the men of science and the nightmare of the tribal forfathers.
I am not meaning to preach doom and gloom , on the contrary I just want to express the two extrems of the issue so that the compromise I wish to formulate has some point of reference. Mankind got to where we are by the development and utilization of tools,and natural phenomenon, and just like the use of fire can be for good or evil so can today's science be seen as a tool. If we can learn to use it wisely without losing our soul along the way then there may be some ultimate virtue to share in. Though I am highly suspicious of the collectivism that's inherent within the modern sciences. Primitive man developed his skills out of personal observation in nature and with the help of his kinsmen. Scientific man develops his skills based on already preconceived reality's at the behest of whatever foundation is providing the resources. The scope of science and technology has grown too large for any man to put a handle on it, and this is what I am concerned about. It may not be rise of the machines but it could lead to a more mechanically enslaved mankind that's turning toward a mentality in accordance to some mechanical comand from a lordship of a scientific cabala. Such commands from the Lord of science are already being made of us. Just consider the laws against raw dairy of serving raw meat in public. This pervasive and all consuming trend to monopolize the food , water, education, medical care of the entire civilized world, by a small group of foundations that are also responsible for the funding and implementation of the major scientific endeavors. It is the scientific class that wants to put fluoride in our water, and give us shots full of mercury and genetically modified viral DNA. Its the scientific class that is toying with our genetics and labling some people as genetically inferior.Most damaged genes are a result of environmental pollution and inadequate nutrition over generations of impure living. Inconvenient facts such as how the inventions of modern science are corrupting us biologically as well as spiritually or the systematically reducing mental acuity of the masses through a number of means, are being collectively ignored by those with the authority to investigate such atrocity.
There is an undercurrent of resistance to such domination which may be our saving grace and these conflicts of interest may just be a necessary part of the next phase of human development. Being a human myself who has a vested interest in the outcome of humanity, I just want to have some part in how things play out, as well as become equiped enough to be able to opt out of the best laid plans of lab rats and scientist(or is it mice and men). My real dream is to persist and propagate and pass on what I have learned so that no matter where ever humanity ends up perhaps it will take a piece of me with it.
-
He's an atheist, you can't be a full scientist and an Athiest.
I see animals that have features which help them do what they do... I don't see them being designed, nor do I see them adapting.. I just see them as they are now, with those features. Then the question is how they came to possess those beneficial features: Evolution; Design; ..
What is a 'true intermediary'? The more intermediaries that are found, the more gaps there are to fill... There are many fossils which show gradual change, good examples are:
The horse lineage from the small three-toed forest dweller up to modern-day horses;
Human evolution over the last 7-8 million years;
The bird-like reptiles evolving into true birds;
The evolution of whales from the early semi-aquatic forms (most closely related to hippos) right through to the modern forms.
Besides that... There are 1.4 million described species, estimated 10s of millions of species total currently in existence, but only a few hundred-thousand different fossilised species discovered for the entire history of our planet...
No... If the species is comfortable at the top of the food-chain, there is no reason it would change...
Sorry about that, it was meant to be quoted to Pioneer. That's why I put the line to separate, but I forgot to change the name.
Scientists are meant to not believe in things. They're just meant to follow data, seek out any new data which would lead in any direction and factor it in to their overall understanding. They can continue to pursue a theory, but they should not believe it.
There are researchers who create data, but who are not Scientists. Scientists are the ones who collect the data and use it, whether or not they were the ones who created it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Example:
He was right to think that eating raw shell fish would be harmful based on the data he had collected, but not to believe it.. A good scientist would be open to any new data which might come about that might be contrary to his previously collected data, and factor it in to his over-all understanding of the matter.
So you would not consider Dawkins a scientist? What is a full scientist?
And then I'm confused, you don't see design, just see the world, but you think the evidence points to evolution?
I guess my response to "what are true intermediaries?' is could these examples not simply be different species instead of a gradual shift? Also if the ToE claims that speciation was likely the result of geographic isolation, then how did organs evolve the relatively similar arrangement and form amongst huge groups of species?
A few hundred thousand fossils isn't a lot, you're right, but spread out through all of the strata they should be fairly representative of then til now.
Really? 20 million years and no significant change just because evolution somehow knows the animal is at the top of the food chain? remember we're talking random mutations here being selected for and against, soo wouldn't something give the Trex (and their genes) a competetive advantage over other TRex and their genes? Also important was the word 'random' in the last sentence, they don't have a choice in changing, it's random, the only options are either beneficial or detrimental right? I think 20 million years is plenty.
So you would not approve of entire books being written from the perspective of evolutionary theory?
-
CitrusHigh:
Thinking isn't the same as believing. One can't be a proper Scientist if one ignores evidence. If one believes then one will ignore evidence which is contrary to what one believes. If one thinks then one will take on the new evidence, and balance it against the other evidence.
And then I'm confused, you don't see design, just see the world, but you think the evidence points to evolution?
The evidence which is available to me at this time points more towards evolution than anything else I have been able to conceive.
I guess my response to "what are true intermediaries?' is could these examples not simply be different species instead of a gradual shift?
Firstly, they are different species.. Being intermediary just means it's connected through evolution to older and more recent species, not that it was somehow incomplete..
Secondly, they could be anything - they could be demons or extra-terrestrials.. Maybe God made them and got bored of them and like Lego he has to destroy some to make new ones. But what does the presently available data best suggest?
Also if the ToE claims that speciation was likely the result of geographic isolation, then how did organs evolve the relatively similar arrangement and form amongst huge groups of species?
They didn't... All animals have similar organs because they have all come from the same group of animals at one time..
A few hundred thousand fossils isn't a lot, you're right, but spread out through all of the strata they should be fairly representative of then til now.
..? I don't understand what you're saying here.
Really? 20 million years and no significant change just because evolution somehow knows the animal is at the top of the food chain? remember we're talking random mutations here being selected for and against, soo wouldn't something give the Trex (and their genes) a competetive advantage over other TRex and their genes? Also important was the word 'random' in the last sentence, they don't have a choice in changing, it's random, the only options are either beneficial or detrimental right? I think 20 million years is plenty.
Evolution doesn't know anything.
I don't know much about the T-Rex or how long it is thought to have survived as a species. But if an animal can live and breed then it will do so, and if its offspring can live and breed then they will do so.. So if a species is able to continue living and breeding as they are then they will continue to do so, and continue to exist... Just because some t-rex is born that can run a bit faster doesn't mean all the others are going to commit suicide.. If the other t-rex's can still live and breed just fine then they will produce offspring as the faster one will... and there will be no significant change in the species. It's only if the mutation which makes the one t-rex faster coincides with an environmental change which selects for the faster running members of the species that it will lead to any significant change..
So you would not approve of entire books being written from the perspective of evolutionary theory?
There's nothing wrong with writing books about evolution...
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
sabertooth:
I enjoy reading your captivating posts.
-
How can one be a full scientist if they've already committed to evolution to the point that they ridicule anyone who attempts to question it?
The evidence you claim for evolution can easily IMHO be viewed as evidence for design.
I know they are different species, I'm saying is it not possible that they are only that and nothing more? Think of how many varieties of primates there are. Or how many different kinds of fish there are. What assures you they are intermediaries instead of simply unconnected but genetically similar species? To me the present data suggests design in the extreme until someone gives me better evidence to lean towards evolution. When evolution explains what purpose each stage of the evolution of the flagella served, that would help. Because when I see a machine like that, that our minds can't yet reproduce, it isn't obvious to me that it evolved that way, it seems more reasonable that it was designed that way. The sheer probability of life spontaneously assembling (something we have yet to accomplish purposefully or otherwise, in the lab), and then the sheer probability of that life then evolving through totally random mutations seems quite ludricous to me. I mean, have you read the probability figures? And they use the anthropic principle to justify those probabilities? That is amazing.
Even if there was a common ancestor, they should still have evolved differently according to their particular habitat. Unless the blueprint for the organs was there before they were separated by location. That, prima facie, is very low probability already.
I'm saying that we should have fossils from every time period til now even if it's not every single species. We should still see an abundance of gradual change in the record instead of groups of creatures appearing and then vanishing.
I disagree with you on the TRex, i think evolution states that there has to be some change in that amount of time. And that for me is evidence against evolution.
My point about books written from the standpoint of evolution is that they've committed to evolution such that they treat it as fact, when most of it is speculation, and speculation has no place in science beyond simply being speculation (this same rules apply to design theory of course).
Anyway, you don't need to reply to this unless you're particularly motivated to, it was a good mental exercise, thanks for discussing it with me.
-
I tend to believe that evolution happens as on an as needed basis and if the environment is habitable then little change will need to occur to ensure survival. Environmental homeostasis allowed for ancient sea creatures to remain unchanged for millions of years while our land animal ancestors had to evolve drastically and quickly to adapt to the change in climates . There seems to have been an evolutionary quickening since the extinction of the dinosaurs, and whatever calamity may have caused it, is up for debate, but no one can Deny the emergence of millions of new species that occurred during the ages right after the mass extinction of of most large land animals that occurred about 65 million years ago. The survivors of that calamity bare its marks within the genetic code, and the traits that allow for such radical fast evolution are still active in many of the more complex animals today.
While of course there are still some throwback species such as frogs turtles, crocodiles, that were so well designed that little alterations were necessary and they must of found a good niche during the mass extention of their distant dinosaur cousins. The tiny mammals on the other hand lived almost exclusively on the edge of extinction and had to make quick adaptions to escape the hungry king lizards of the day. They had to adapt to living in the trees or burowing underground. The same forces that drove some small lizard creatures to begin to make their own body heat or feed their young from adapted sweat glands are what has given the mammals an evolutionary advantage. Mammals and birds seem to be the quickest to adapt and evolve of all species.
Mammals had evolved from shrew looking bug eating weasel creatures into the whales of the oceans , the bats in the air, the squirrels of the trees, the people of the forest. All these changes happened in a relatively short time frame. Those qualities of the evolutionary quickening once developed were quickly ingrained into our codes so as to ensure that future species will be able to quickly adapt and therefor survive the next bout of calamity.Those of us who are not to far damaged still retain this spirit of survival that I claim is so strong a phenomenon within our particular animal kingdom.
The horseshoe crab has changed remarkably little in the last 250 million years. There are fossils going back about 400 milion years. Since the bottom of the ocean has changed little in the past 250 million years and the original development of armor was so successful the Horseshoe crab has never had to deal with climate change, predation, or mass starvation; so its genetics have remained static. Only in extrem circumstances will the genetic code sense distress and begin to work on rebooting its code.
The qualities that are most responsible for all of human achievement were forged into us by the perseverance of our ancestors as they lived through the cycles of early hell fire and brimstone and then later iceages . Humans today seem to have evolved to a place where we can manipulate the environment to fit our needs, this may be a recipe for an evolutionary peak, because we are no longer testing the entire code of our species on the frontiers of rugged paleo living. This may allow our DNA to become sloven and fall into disrepair. I do believe that there are disciplined ways of living life that can at least stall this decline and with a bit of luck there may be some new call of the wild that triggers one of us to mutate into a form that can lead to a more evolved humanity, of course I don't suggest we hold our breath waiting for that day to come.
-
I don't know saber, the theory and most of its advocates wreak of dogma and narrow minded sheep think, to the point that you would think you were talking to religious zealots, only with darwin, natural selection and mutations as their prophet.
Also it's not very respectful of Occam's razor.
-
I try to not adhere to dogma myself, I am a lone voice crying out in a wilderness. I don't preach Darwin or natural selection. I have fashioned a theory completely my own, although I borrow aspects of Darwin, I don't believe that natural selection and random mutations are what drives evolution. I believe that once the DNA molecule developed to a high enough level of sophistication then it could by some unknown mechanisms be responsible for the intelligent design of itself. Life happens of it self(sounds paradoxical, and it is to a an extint)but that doesn't mean that there is not some method to the madness of "Random mutation". There might be some bio feedback that occurs on a cellular level within the organism that could trigger epigentic changes in times of want, and then the structure of the DNA would be under the direction of some phenomenal force ,yet to be fully explained. This force can perform the genetic alterations, under the direction of an intelligence that is capable of projecting the most feasible fix for problems that the organism in its current form could not overcome by any other means. These changes overtime get passed down and eventually lead to the birth of new species with unique specialization. Of course nature is cruel and not all the changes end up in success, but there could be a reason to why genes alter expression and structure as they do under situations of hardship where survival is at stake.
The basic claim I make in regards to evolution is, there seems to be an unexplained intelligent force behind the creation of more and more complex and adaptive forms of life. I believe this force is a result of ages of accumulative adaptive changes orchestrated by the DNA itself. Life is a force of nature that seems to be somewhat beyond nature. The DNA of our cells has power of a god to determine its destiny in a way that inert matter simply cannot. Matter that has the power to direct its own construction is a miracle that is often overlooked in the bedate between intelligent design and natural selection. Its my openion that both Natural selection, and intelligent design are necessary for life to exist as it does. DNA has the power to direct its own destiny, but it is still bound by the basic laws of natural selection. That does not mean its under the direct control of mother nature, but it does have to confine itself to the bounds of her boarders .
Life has in it the essence of God
-
The capabilities of the DNA molecule to adapt and survive are not infallible and there are substances which do suppress genetic expression and can sterilize its capacity to adapt.
I have been working on different trains of thought that could tie together all these loose ends that are running through my mind. There just is so much to contemplate.
The substances created by cooking may have a detrimental effect on gene expression, or they may just interfere with the functions of the individual cells and leave the genetics unaffected.
So I cannot say for sure that the cooking of foods could somehow affect our evolution directly.
What is more evident is that cooking allowed us to be able to eat foods that were never available to us during early periods of evolution. So cooking allowed for us to be exposed to substances that our genome had never had been exposed to. Plant lectins, hormones, and the toxins created from cooking seemed to become a major part of the neolithic diet, could have an accumulative effect, where by once the body can not eliminate and cope with the excess of toxic substances then epigenitic changes will occur. These changes are the precursors to adaption and evolution. These complex factors have intensified during the neolithic age to such an extent where the our genetic codes had to have been altered. The simple fact that some people can tolerate wheat and dairy while others cannot, seem to give evidence of the beginnings of an adaption process. I do believe that there would be a way for our species to adapt to natural substances, but I am skeptical about the power of the DNA to adapt to environments high in toxins created by cooking.
These toxins if at high enough concentrations could be responsible for suppressing healthy gene expression. There have already been studies that prove that exposure to toxic substances can suppress genetic expression for multiple generations even after the toxins are removed from the foods.
So lets jump forward to the present moment of our evolution. We should also take time to expand on the idea of cooking to include the synthisation of countless other chemical substance that have been just recently introduced into our environment. Then also consider the greater degree that foods are now cooked. Generations ago, traditional cooking methods involved slow roasting and baking slow leavened breads. Now we cook with electric furnaces and many processed foods are flash fried. Just imagine the potential increase in toxins created by modern processing and cooking methods. The modern evolution of cooking along with the addition of synthetic elements may have pushed many people past the limit of what their bodies were designed handle.
What is also worth consideration is the different capacity of some to tolerate these poisonous foods, while others are completely intolerant. I believe it would be possible to determine scientifically the factors responsible for such different capacities. Its also worth noting that within the last two generations that humans suddenly began to develop severe and prevalent sicknesses, and food intolerance that didn't seem to exist in previous generations. My cousin is allergic to green beans for christ's sake, my people were from the hills where they grew and ate tons of green beans and still managed to live into their 90s. To me all these food allergies and intolerance point to some type of accumulation of genetic damage and supression.
Perhaps some of the major problems suffered by individuals today were actually inherited from the previous generation that was raised on DDT and other experimental substances, this list could go on forever, but you get the point. There may be a redeeming element to what ever is behind such damage, someone who is damaged will often become extra sensitive to toxins of all kinds cooked foods, grains, alcohol, or whatever suddenly become unbearable. This may be an attempt by our genes to avoid further damage. The paleo diet seems to work in some people by providing optimal nutrition while at the same time removing the sources of contamination. This development of sensitivities could be an attempted remedy for factors involved in gene suppression and lead to a recovery at a genetic level. This rebound effect could even lead to improvements that will insure survival for future generations. Imagine that someone who is extra sensitive to poisons would be more able to avoid the next round of poisoning that will cull out the rest of the herd. Those of us who have found the paleo diet at this time may be fortunate to have the blessing of being warned about the dangers of modern food before being rendered completely genetically defunct, and if we heed this warning then it may be possible for some of us to avoid any further genetic damage.
-
Sabertooth, you are quite right, epigenetics clearly plays a part, and mutations/changes to genetic expression, while helpful to survival in some cases, might be seriously harmful in other cases.
-
I agree that these haphazard attempts by the genes to cope with drastic changes, which we call epigenic changes, can be overall harmful and lead to the development of serious genetic flaws, that can be passed down through the generations. The more severe flaws developed by our ancestors used to be culled out of the species due to natural selection. Anyway; These short term changes seem to be essential for development of tolerances to poisonous and anti nutrients in foodstuffs that would otherwise completely destroy the organism. But I also believe that if you remove the poisonous foodstuffs along with other hindrances and restore environmental homeostasis then the genes that were being epigeneticaly repressed or somehow altered can rebound and revert back to more positive modes of expression.
-
The point in cooking/processing is that it bypasses the need to adapt.
ZOMG WELL SAID! FACEBOOKIN' IT NOW!
Sorry caps but yes, what he said.
-
ZOMG WELL SAID! FACEBOOKIN' IT NOW!
Sorry caps but yes, what he said.
I already extensively debunked this foolish notion in previous posts. After all, cooking has not gotten rid of the many of the negative effects of grains on health, such as causing things like IBS/Crohn's etc., plus cooking introduces plenty of heat-created toxins to which humans are unadapted to as well. All that cooking does is remove some of the antinutrients in foods like grains, thus making more nutrients available, PROVIDED that the cooking process isn't too harmful. So argument invalid.
-
I already extensively debunked this foolish notion in previous posts. After all, cooking has not gotten rid of the many of the negative effects of grains on health, such as causing things like IBS/Crohn's etc., plus cooking introduces plenty of heat-created toxins to which humans are unadapted to as well. All that cooking does is remove some of the antinutrients in foods like grains, thus making more nutrients available, PROVIDED that the cooking process isn't too harmful. So argument invalid.
Still, what I said is true... It bypasses the need to adapt, clearly, or we would have adapted.. We don't need to, so we haven't, because of cooking/processing.. We were able to eat and live off things by cooking/processing them that we couldn't have otherwise without adapting, so it bypassed the need to adapt.
Ergo: The point in cooking/processing is that it bypasses the need to adapt.
Discuss.
-
Still, what I said is true... It bypasses the need to adapt, clearly, or we would have adapted.. We don't need to, so we haven't, because of cooking/processing.. We were able to eat and live off things by cooking/processing them that we couldn't have otherwise without adapting, so it bypassed the need to adapt.
This is a classic case of a false premise. It is not necessarily at all likely that we would have eventually fully adapted to eating raw grains if we had continued to eat them for countless millenia without ever cooking them, as we have such widely different digestive systems from naturally-grain-eating animals like birds. Plus, like I said, even cooked grains cause all sorts of health-problems like Crohn's/IBS etc. due to maladaptation, thus making it clear that cooking does not bypass the need to adapt. In other words, the antinutrients removed by cooking are merely only a part of the components of grains that we are not adapted to.