Fossils discovered in Morocco are the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens, scientists reported on Wednesday.

Dating back roughly 300,000 years, the bones indicate that mankind evolved earlier than had been known, experts say, and open a new window on our origins.
(...)
Until now, the oldest fossils of our species, found in Ethiopia, dated back just 195,000 years. The new fossils suggest our species evolved across Africa.
(...)

https://www.quora.com/
Scientific theories are formulated to explain known phenomena. When creationists say “evolution is only a theory” they are either A: agreeing that evolution occurs, because otherwise there could be no theory to explain it, B: lying, by pretending there is no difference between what the word “theory” means colloquially versus what it means in science, or C: demonstrating their ignorance of this distinction.

We have a theory of evolution to explain the evolution we know occurs in the world. We do not have a theory of unicorn flight dynamics because there is no evidence for flying unicorns.

The fact that evolution occurs had been recognized long before Darwin. Darwin merely hypothesized that natural selection was the mechanism behind it. What we would now call Darwin’s hypothesis of natural selection was “only a theory” in the colloquial sense of something postulated as possibly true, but it has now been so well confirmed by multiple different lines of evidence from different fields that the only possible way if could be overturned is to demonstrate that we all live in The Matrix and all of reality is a sham.

At this point, it is only possible for scientific developments to refine our understanding of how evolution takes place and under what circumstances different forms of natural selection operate. Not only is evolution real, it’s arguably the best understood process in all of nature. It’s far more likely that new developments will disprove gravity, dark matter, or the perceived limit to the speed of light than that it will disprove evolution.

re raw dairy:- No one  really needs raw dairy for health reasons. Quite a large number of us have food-allergies towards raw dairy and have found it easy to find other raw foods which were far more useful than raw dairy in boosting general health.

So, what in itself is an "allergic" reaction? It is a reaction of the immune system that disturbs the host, because it is stronger than normally, resulting in unpleasant symptoms.

There is no clear boundary between so-called normal immune response against foreign molecules (called antigens to express the fact that they trigger antibody formation) and an allergic reaction, except that the latter seems to escape the normal regulatory mechanisms (which can be recognized in the silence of the organs).

Why can there be a relationship between NCS (New Chemical Species derived from processing that accumulate in the body) and common antigens (all molecules from the environment recognized as foreign by the organism: hair, dust mites etc.)?

For a very simple reason that we usually don’t think about enough: there are multitudes of "cross-reactions" between different antigens. "Cross reaction" means that two different antigens trigger the same reaction of the immune system because of similar molecular surfaces.

Principally, the immune system identifies each antigen and implements a specific reaction. Each antibody produced has molecular reliefs which correspond exactly to the reliefs of the antigenic molecule to which it is intended. There is little risk of confusion. But with the billions of possibilities, some reliefs still lead to confusion, calleds "cross reactions" by immunologist.

It is thus understandable that a reaction triggered by a new antigen may be of unexpected importance if a similar antigen has already been introduced into the body and has "sensitized" the immune system. Therefore, food antigens (incompletely degraded molecules crossing the intestinal barrier) can sensitize the immune system, so that other antigens (dust, pollen, etc.) will trigger apparently inexplicable cross-reactions. This will ultimately lead to an allergy to foreign antigens, without suspecting that the reaction itself is induced by food antigens.

The converse suggests that by stopping the penetration of these food antigens (switching to a natural diet which doesn't contain the same non-degradable molecules), the immune response to environmental antigens will decrease rapidly. This is what can commonly be observed after transition to instincto.

However, there are some cases where these reactions occur with delay. The organism can indeed learn to tolerate certain antigens, such as the effect of repetitive consumption of dairy products. Then it may happen years later that a new antigen, from an unusual food, from an insect bite, from a bacterium, will cause the awakening of the immune system (immunologists refer to it as "breakdown of tolerance"). This apparently inexplicable reaction thus may seem disproportionate.

Reactions of this type are called "detoxination reaction" in instincto slang. Note that antigens capable of "awakening" the immune system, can derive from microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, or from another organism), but foods are most often sources of antigens that provoke a breakdown of tolerance.

This concept is compatible with conventional notions of immunology, except that immunologists have not yet realized the importance of food antigens since they are unable to show their effect in the too repetitive context of a traditionally cooked diet.

Let’s go back to the tolerance / intolerance concept as seen by GCB and endorsed by Seignalet.  …

The assumption is that by eating cooked food or an excessive amount of any specific foodstuff, the body gets polluted by abnormal molecules and foreign proteins. Before becoming a part of us, ingested foreign proteins must be cut into amino acid which are subsequently re-formed in suitable human proteins, as well explained by Seignalet   under his point 3 here http://www.reocities.com/HotSprings/7627/ggforeword.html :
If you’re interested, you can read the complete explanation of Seignalet, which is quite technical. (select the text, copy and paste it on Word or whatever to get rid of the mess on the webpage) but certainly more accurate than my approximate attempt.

To make it short, cancerous cells continuously appear in our bodies. These are earmarked by what I think is called in English “antigen presentation”, so that the immune system can identify them and destroy them. Now, when the body is polluted by foreign proteins which trigger the cells  having included them to show a specific type of “antigene presentation” on their membrane, the immune system is thought to finally go “on strike” (tolerance),  failling to destroy those cells anymore as it would involve destruction of a large proportion of the body.

If, by an unfortunate coincidence, a cancerous cell happen to have precisely the same “antigene presentation” than the one the immune system is on strike against (tolerant), then it won’t be destroyed and will be able to freely proliferate.

That’s why GCB thinks an excessive consumption of proteins is dangerous, especially if those proteins have a shape only slightly different of human proteins, so that the immune system could too easily fail to recognize them as foreign. It appeared that meat of domestic mammals can easily be consumed in excess, leading to some foreign proteins having not been broken into amino acids by our enzymes to pass through the bowel lining.  That’s what would have led to the cancer of Nicole, according to GCB. This problem is much more acute with dairy products to which our adaptation is unlikely to be complete and our instinctive stop signals extremely weak.

New York Times praises the quality of Uruguayan beef from grass-fed cattle

Sunday, December 20th 2009

The New York Times dedicated a long piece to the quality and rising pre-eminence of Uruguayan beef in world markets, contrary to what is happening in neighbouring Argentina, still considered “king of the best beef in the world”
…
For more than a century, Argentina has distinguished its beef as healthier and more natural than meat from most of the world. Cows ambled leisurely across the rich soil of the Humid Pampa munching on green grass, not the grains offered in crowded feedlots in the faster-paced American industry.

But that image could become a memory from a bygone era. Political decisions by Argentina are changing the taste of the famed Argentine steak and threatening to tarnish the country’s world-renowned beef industry.

The changes have driven away investors, reduced the size of Argentina’s herd and given the nation’s smaller neighbour, Uruguay, the chance to capitalize on Argentina’s troubles by billing itself as the “last big farm” for healthier, grass-fed cattle
….
But faced with a prolonged drought this year and concerns over their profits, many ranchers are converting their pastures into land for soybean cultivation. Now government incentives to fatten cattle faster are deepening a shift toward raising more Argentine beef with grains like corn and oats in often-crowded feedlots, opening the door for Uruguay to claim the grass-fed advantage.
...
Uruguay is trying to show the world it is dedicated to “natural” beef — grass-fed and hormone-free by law. One marketing campaign features a symbol of a supermarket bar code emerging from blades of grass. Another points out that each Uruguayan cow, on average, grazes on pasture the size of two soccer fields
....

The globe-spanning presence of wheat and its exalted status among secular and sacred institutions alike differentiates this food from all others presently enjoyed by humans. Yet the unparalleled rise of wheat as the very catalyst for the emergence of ancient civilization has not occurred without a great price. While wheat was the engine of civilization’s expansion and was glorified as a “necessary food,” both in the physical (staff of life) and spiritual sense (the body of Christ), those suffering from celiac disease are living testimony to the lesser known dark side of wheat. A study of celiac disease and may help unlock the mystery of why modern man, who dines daily at the table of wheat, is the sickest animal yet to have arisen on this strange planet of ours.

Organic means nothing these days. Go for 100 percent grassfed meats or wild game meats, all raw, of course. Fish, fruit are fine, though less of a staple of the diet than meat, if possible. Keep nut consumption very low, though.