Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?

[William]

IMHO the word science refers to the exercise of the mind in a way that intends to show truth previously unseen; and of course it can also be used by the corrupt to lie. (after the Greek psy, meaning mind)
It is an act of creation, and a story about Werner Heisenberg who had a choice between becoming a painter or sculptor, or instead a physicist illustrates that - much the same thing to him. So he created that spendid story called the Uncertainty Theorem. (and there's Schrödinger's Cat - I love that story)

Those who created the scam called manmade global warming are not scientists, though they have university degrees, they are merely lying conspirators, as revealed in the hacked emails.

[roony]

So lies are infinite and contain truth, whereas truth is the foundation of reductionist error and reality isn't real? Why is George Orwell's 1984 coming to mind right now?

Your credibility with me just went down another several notches, and it wasn't mainstream culture that caused it to go down.
Because my type of science does not involve reductionism. There have been and are scientists and philosophers of science who argued against reductionism and for holistic, pragmatic science, such as W. V. O. Quine (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism#Quine.27s_holism). Others in this forum have also promoted non-reductionist science.

lol stick to your limited state of reality, your credibility went down as soon as you got scared of alternative views, from scaring away the mass sheeple

You obviously havent got a clue about holism, holism is not a science, regardless of how many scientists say it is so


Science in any form, is easily the lowest form of philosophy on the planet

Real philosophy, distances itself from stupidity such as truth and lies, & a beginning & an end

Your own post shows you have no clue, regards real philosophy & how the real world works


Stick to your limited perception of the world, & one of the lowest common forms of enquiry, you're obviously going places ....

[alphagruis]

This is the thing, how can you use science as a tool, if it's basic premise is reductionism

Plain wrong. You don't know what you talk about, a usual.

Please read for instance Bob Laughlin's (Nobel Price of Physics) book "A different universe, the physics from the bottom down" before you post such nonsense.

[goodsamaritan]

okay guys... can we get back on topic?

[PaleoPhil]

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/general-discussion/rapid-evolution-counterargument-against-rpd/20/

OK, GS, I didn't mind the tangent myself too much, because the philosophy of science is one of my subjects of interest and it relates somewhat to the topic, but I will try to bring it back more directly to the topic. So, basically, I interpret many of the above posts as suggesting that the best response to a rapid-evolution-adaptation theory of diet argument against RPD would be to claim that the model of biological evolution is completely wrong, and some seem to suggest that science itself may be a worthless tool--at least as it's generally practiced. If I've got either wrong, let me know.

Tyler's alternative suggestion was to show that the evidence doesn't support rapid biological adaptation to extremely new diets, and I think that's the route that would be more productive. Claiming that evolution is nonsense will not be taken seriously and will just work to get the RPD/Paleo diet defender laughed at, and rightfully so, IMHO--especially since there would be rich irony given that the formulator of the theory of Paleolithic nutrition (Eaton) based it on biological evolution [note: that doesn't mean that I think that one must accept the evolutionary model to benefit from a Paleo-type diet, of course, and it can also be defended from a Creator-made-diet perspective].

I can imagine the critics of Paleo arguing that rapid adaption to drastically new diets can occur during critical points when drastic environmental change in available foods leads to bottlenecks (drastic reduction to relatively small numbers of surviving members of a species), such as the time of the genesis of our own species of H. sapiens, for instance. In addition to Tyler's point on relative genetic stasis since before the Neolithic revolution, I think that the bottleneck point can be refuted by pointing out that there was no severe bottleneck at the time of the Neolithic revolution and artificial human intervention was more of a key factor than environmental change in the natural wild foods available. Also, the research on the diseases of civilization and the effects on human metabolic and immune function of modern foods clearly shows that we have not adapted to them.

...you got scared of alternative views, from scaring away the mass sheeple ....

I suspect that you write some of the extreme things you do just to stir the pot and entertain yourself with the results. To claim that anyone here is "scared of alternative views" is laughable, for all of us on RPD-type diets have already accepted an extremely controversial alternative view. The best response to critiques of RPD is not, however, to attack ALL consensus views and the tool of science itself. That will serve merely to confirm in the minds of our critics that we are crackpots.

I think I see in this thread examples of what may have led some of our critics to suggest that this forum tends towards magical thinking, Paleo re-enactment, so-called "orthorexia," etc., rather than critical thinking, rational inquiry, tinkering, rigorous holistic science, etc. In response to those criticisms I would argue that these anti-science posts are merely extreme examples that will be found in any open forum and I support not censoring them because they are not clearly trollish and this is supposed to be an open forum of amateurs, not a closed forum of professional scientists, so to hold us all to high scientific standards is unfair and not relevant to the forum's purpose. Also, novel and productive ideas can arise that at first seem crackpot (such as our own RPD and one advancement that was mentioned in this thread--bone tissue regeneration from bioelectromagnetic therapy). That said, I do think it is important to encourage critical thinking even among the masses. Also, Lex Rooker's dispassionate and data-filled posts alone are enough to justify the worth of this forum and I would point any critic who thinks we are merely magical thinkers to them.

You obviously havent got a clue about holism, holism is not a science, regardless of how many scientists say it is so

You're right that I don't have much of a clue about holism (and a lot of other things). I'm merely an eager student. Alphagruis seems a much finer exponent of it and I encourage him to write more about it to educate both you and me, if you do not feel yourself omnisciently beyond learning anything.

[jessica]

the whole point of science is to conduct experiments repeatedly with the same exact factors and to "know "the outcome...it become reductionary in that to assume we can replicate the exact same factors each time is an assumption that in the chaos of the universe it is always possible for the same exact thing to happen, which, if there are infinite possibilities then yes, it may occur the same, and we may come very close to replicating the same situation as humans, but "nature" in its process is the only thing that can do this replication(cells..etc) extremely similar each time, and although we think we can control this, study this, divide this, abstract this we are still at natures whim as to how well we can control her processes through experimentation
 
 the more we look into it the smaller components of even our own bodies, we will never be able to derive from our earth senses of ,sight, sound, counting, how exactly they begin a process, how they have the "instinct" to form, combine, etc.... their dependence on things that we do not know becomes apparent....

even in an experiment is conducted 1000 times and the outcome is the same, the infinite properties of the universe still scoff at our minuscule efforts and our lazy attitude that this was enough times and is now "known" as the result and that the same thing applies to each perfect and measured situation that these perfect and measured situations always occur, it also scoffs at our youth and the agrandization of our own "lifespan" and sense of time...that we can understand common occurences on the earth enough to predict what patterns occur in this small amount of time on the planet suggests that the universe its self is a pattern and that we can delve smaller and smaller into particles here on the earth, and also further and further beyond into the universe suggests that it is ever expansive!

we can also research the past, compare it to the present, but will never fully know or understand, that is why science is theories not facts and facts in fact do not exist!  the best we can do is observe the natural processes as they go along in harmony with the universe...these observations are much better than any "knowledge" derived in a laboratory...

roony communicated something very expansive to me that to "know" you must  "unknow the known" become familiar and comfortable with the unknown, and realize that when we decide we "know" something we are assuming that the universe is finite and that we are at all capable in its contemplation with our earth senses....instinct and sentience on the other hand seem more closely related to the energies and conduct of the rest of the universe......if you know the unknown you already know you dont!!!!!!!!!!!!! haha! that is the closest you can come ....
its like the Tao(which i have nto read)

[PaleoPhil]

Jessica, there is much you wrote that I agree with. I think my idea of science and philosophy actually comes close to Taoism and your descriptions, although I also don't know a lot about Taoism (and I'm hoping to learn more about it, as I have become increasingly interested in it in recent months).

The whole point of real science is not reductionism or to "know" all the final answers to all questions. Real science is more about Taoist questioning, observing, tinkering, trial-and-error, exploring, investigating and learning than it is about absolute final answers. If we knew all the absolutely perfect answers to all questions and there was nothing more to learn, what would we need scientists for? I think the confusion that's sometimes occurring in this thread is due to the conflation of science-as-commonly-practiced with real science. As I understand it, the Taoist doesn't say that Taoism is worthless because it doesn't give him/her final answers to questions. He says the questions have their own value and it's the process of questioning, seeking, learning that is the real joy of life.

The criticism of science for not providing all the answers is a red herring. Can you name anything that provides all the answers? Does even the greatest saint or guru alive today have all the answers? No one will ever have all the answers in this lifetime using any tool, whether it be science, philosophy, religion, theogenic mushrooms or whatever. They may acquire all the answers they feel they need, but never literally all of the answers.

IMHO, Roony's posts in this thread bear more resemblance to anti-science than real science, whereas your post comes close to my own conception of real science. I do like some of his Taoist-sorts of bits but he at times has gone too far here into trashing science in general and making points that are more mere absurdity than Taoist. That said, I do find some absurdities to be stimulating, much like the cheshire cat or caterpillar in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Absurdities can unlock creativity in us and perhaps even inspire new scientific hypotheses. As a matter of fact, I thank Roony for stimulating and crystallizing some thoughts of my own on a topic I enjoy. However, even creativity-inspiring absurdities should not be mistaken for the totality of real science. Of course, I could be wrong.

There's also the matter of simple practicality. Experience and common awareness suggest that condemning biological evolution and all science in response to critiques of Paleo/RPD simply will not work, no matter how true the condemnations may be.

It's understandable that people would become frustrated with all science given the way that it tends to be practiced today. This thread underscores the great need for more expounding in this forum on real science. I hope Alphagruis will grace us with some more meaty tidbits about it.

[William]

There's also the matter of simple practicality. Experience and common awareness suggest that condemning biological evolution and all science in response to critiques of Paleo/RPD simply will not work, no matter how true the condemnations may be.

Biological evolution would be practical if I could use it to understand paleofood, but it negates paleofood.
For instance, if we have evolved to eat something other than what our ancestors ate, why are we trying to eat like them?

[TylerDurden]

Biological evolution would be practical if I could use it to understand paleofood, but it negates paleofood.
For instance, if we have evolved to eat something other than what our ancestors ate, why are we trying to eat like them?

  Because  adaptation to new foods takes much longer than a mere 10,000 years for a body to evolve to. Palaeolithic diets are inextricably intertwined with evolution, so it's pointless to even dispute it as arguing against evolution  by definition runs counter to every palaeo notion re adaptation or maladaptation to diets.

[alphagruis]

It's understandable that people would become frustrated with all science given the way that it tends to be practiced today. This thread underscores the great need for more expounding in this forum on real science. I hope Alphagruis will grace us with some more meaty tidbits about it.

I'm rather amused when I read some posts with outrageous nonsense claims about science such as the ones posted by some pretentious idiots like roony (the summum of idiocy was reached with his claims about water as an energy source in an other thread). It is quite funny to observe that such idiots post their ridiculous statements by means of a computer and internet and probably travel with cars and airplanes equipped with numerous devices such as the GPS, all this based precisely on the most advanced science (quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, relativity etc) they bash and vomit their gall on all along their numerous posts. This kind of messages does not deserve serious comments and I've got many other more interesting things to do. 

Of course science must be criticised as every other human activity and even much more so since it has such a tremendous influence on our lives. I like your posts, Phil, or Jessica's as well as William's and others when they sincerely question what "science" tells us but avoid the sterile but highly attractive pittfall or tendency to reject science as a whole .

As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in.

Yet it's a trial and error method that cannot provide all the ansvers immediately. Nor can it provide any definitive absolute truth. It rather more often indicates what's certainly not an ansver or what's certainly wrong.

Biology is certainly the less mature science because it deals with the most complex systems, we know of. Most biologists now know that the central molecular biology dogma or genetic reductionism is wrong but this does not mean that we haven't meanwhile learned a tremendous amount of things in this framework and that a non reductionist or emergentist and more appropriate theory is not available. It just takes a long time to switch to this new paradigm. And this uncomfortable situation by itself is not yet junk science. Junk science is done when the failure of genetic reductionism is consciously denied by greedy people as in genetic engeneering or many standard medical applications.

To take just an example of what positive effect modern science such as quantum mechanics or statistical thermodynamics has brought about with respect to raw paleo let's consider the raw versus cooked issue. The adverse effects of cooking can only be understood theoretically in terms of molecules and their behaviour upon heating and this is precisely the subject of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, i.e. achievements of the 20th century. No way to find out why cooking might well generate toxins with 19th century science.

As to the paleo concept support let me emphasize once more as in my previous post in this thread that we do not even need a specific theory of evolution or even evolution or the gene concept or whatever, we just need to acknowledge that animals or humans cannot a priori adapt to everything, in particular to any arbitrary diet, irrespective of how long they try to do so. A very reasonable and likely assumption, actually.   

         

[roony]

  Because  adaptation to new foods takes much longer than a mere 10,000 years for a body to evolve to. Palaeolithic diets are inextricably intertwined with evolution, so it's pointless to even dispute it as arguing against evolution  by definition runs counter to every palaeo notion re adaptation or maladaptation to diets.

There's plenty of arguments against evolution

The primary one being it's a THEORY, even so called evolutionists admit that

Stop treating theories as science, all you can do is point out evidence MAY coincide, evolution like ALL other theories, are simply works of fiction



Also we've had non reductionist or emergentist, science for CENTURIES, bechamp, naessens etc., it's only people like alphagrius who cant get their heads out the sand they call science to see them, or explore them

Get your heads out of science & stop making excuses for your dogma

[miles]

What do you mean they 'admit it's a theory'? That's what it's called: 'The Theory of Evolution'. Nothing in science can progress beyond theory. It can only remain the most plausible theory until advancements are made which either disprove it, or increase it's strength. It can become a stronger and stronger theory, as more and more evidence backs it up, and counter-arguments collapse. No one is arguing that it is any more than a theory...

The religions were theories. People looked at the world, and postulated that it could be created by a greater power. They took things they saw as evidence of this power to back it up. People became emotionally attached to it, and others used it to control them; and those with the control would try to quash counter-theories.

A theory can be used to understand what's going on. You can use the theory of evolution to that effect. You could say the same about your sight. Is what you see, really what's there? Not necessarily. But it works. You picture things in their different colours, at their different distances. There are probably a load of other ways you could see them, but you are able to use your vision to understand it. Most theories work, and lead to advances in understanding, as they link with more other theories. When they're advances the old theories aren't usually wrong completely, they were just more simple versions.

The human cell is a good example as with each new microscope with more power comes along, they can see more, and their theory progresses. Their last theory wasn't wrong. A colour blind person doesn't see the world wrongly. Their view of the world isn't wrong. It's just different, as they receive different information, and have to form different ways of understanding what they see. They connection, or theories still help understanding, similar to how creating stories can help people remember number sequences.

[roony]

Great, do you really want me to explain the difference between, theory such as string theory & experimentally provable science, such as chemistry?

[miles]

Well the job of theories such as String-theory, are to give us a focus. We can look at these theories and aim to create ways of testing them. Even when we could test them, it'd be a long time before we'd be able to use that knowledge for anything practical... But it gives scientists somewhere to go.

Or what?

[roony]

Well the job of theories such as String-theory, are to give us a focus. We can look at these theories and aim to create ways of testing them. Even when we could test them, it'd be a long time before we'd be able to use that knowledge for anything practical... But it gives scientists somewhere to go.

Or what?

A theory is a fictional, hypothetical model

Real sciences like chemistry & physics, are verifiable by experiment in the laboratory

[William]

A theory is a fictional, hypothetical model

Real sciences like chemistry & physics, are verifiable by experiment in the laboratory

A fictional, hypothetical model is called a hypothesis, not a theory.

Smarten up, guys. You are spinning your wheels.

[roony]

A fictional, hypothetical model is called a hypothesis, not a theory.

Smarten up, guys. You are spinning your wheels.

I think you went & confused miles, even more lol, poor thing ... lol

[miles]

wtf... It's you who is confused, Roony...

[PaleoPhil]

I'm rather amused when I read some posts with outrageous nonsense claims about science ...

Ah, well, if entheogenic mushrooms can inspire creativity with random hallucinations, I suppose I should look at absurdities as potential creativity boosters. I'll try to think of Roony as our hookah-mushroom-smoking caterpillar dude. 

I like your posts, Phil, or Jessica's as well as William's and others when they sincerely question what "science" tells us but avoid the sterile but highly attractive pittfall or tendency to reject science as a whole .

Thanks! I enjoy your posts very much also.

As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in.

Or at least the best one we currently have. I try as an amateur to use a basic version of the scientist's toolkit. I like it because to a certain extent it works, not because it's perfect (which it isn't).

Biology is certainly the less mature science because it deals with the most complex systems,

Correct, the more complex and chaotic and less discrete the system, the more difficult it is to do good science and the easier it is too fall prey to the temptations of seeking the answers you want, making the results fit your hypothesis, cherry picking the data, seeing what you want to see, fooling people with false results, etc.

we know of. Most biologists now know that the central molecular biology dogma or genetic reductionism is wrong but this does not mean that we haven't meanwhile learned a tremendous amount of things in this framework and that a non reductionist or emergentist and more appropriate theory is not available.

Yes, mapping the genome of several species doesn't seem to have produced the sort of rapid and numerous breakthroughs that some people expected, but I wasn't surprised. Having all the details helps some, but it still doesn't give you the totality of the complex big picture.

To take just an example of what positive effect modern science such as quantum mechanics or statistical thermodynamics has brought about with respect to raw paleo let's consider the raw versus cooked issue. The adverse effects of cooking can only be understood theoretically in terms of molecules and their behaviour upon heating and this is precisely the subject of quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics, i.e. achievements of the 20th century. No way to find out why cooking might well generate toxins with 19th century science.

Yes, cooking introduces new chaotic variables into organic systems. These organic systems (like food and the human body) are too complex for us to understand fully and we cannot know aforehand all the effects that introducing additional chaos into these systems will have--which is very risky. We are literally playing with fire.

I'm thinking that the work of Nassim Taleb (he's working on another book that will be more universal than his statistics-oriented Black Swan--I highly recommend The Black Swan and all of Dr. Taleb's articles and interviews--he's one of the revolutionaries in the world who really gets it), Mandelbrot and others on complex systems, chaos, unintended consequences, etc. may influence the scientists who already believe that cooking has some deleterious effects to question it even more.

As to the paleo concept support let me emphasize once more as in my previous post in this thread that we do not even need a specific theory of evolution or even evolution or the gene concept or whatever, we just need to acknowledge that animals or humans cannot a priori adapt to everything, in particular to any arbitrary diet, irrespective of how long they try to do so. A very reasonable and likely assumption, actually.   

Brilliant. Dr. Taleb would like this, I believe. Taleb would say, I think, that all we really need is our own trial-and-error experience to figure out that modern foods have a negative effect on us. I would add that the Paleolithic nutrition/metabolism model saves us some time by giving us some clues as to what we should try. Nassim grudgingly acknowledged that theories do have some value, so I don't think he would mind.

[invisible]

There's plenty of arguments against evolution

The primary one being it's a THEORY, even so called evolutionists admit that

Evolution is not a theory. It's considered 'scientific fact'. You are most likely confused because there are theories which try to explain how evolution took place. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' isn't a theory that evolution took place, rather how it took place i.e. he suggests through natural selection.

[jessica]

"As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in."


i agree with this insofar as yes science is us trying to build a language to describe the patterns we see in the natural world...however, we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes!  this is not understanding or knowledge.    this is an extremely understated and annotated version of the real truth and depth of this situation,
  what scientists do not realize is that they will never truly understand any part of the natural world by analyzing, deriving, duplicating etc... perhaps we have overstepped our ability to ever exist with nature as was intended and that is why our species is committing this painful weird suicide or morphing into a new species....and in natures larger plan the earth has to change to create a new pattern of sentience for that new being to exist in....because true knowledge is existing instinctualy within the system as part of the function...because animals dont question, they know, because plants do not question, they know...its divine instinctual knowledge that we strive for but even to ask is to negate the point...

[PaleoPhil]

...we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create a systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes!  this is not understanding or knowledge.  ...

Yup, people are even hoping to become fancy robots with cyberbrains. There was another article about that yesterday, and they talked about it like it was a good thing.   It's getting out of hand. It reminds me of the 1950s world's fair video where the mad scientists were predicting that humans would some day just take a pill instead of eating natural foods.

... perhaps we have overstepped our ability to ever exist with nature as was intended and that is why our species is committing this painful weird suicide....

You may be right. I think it's the Red Dwarf British TV series (and books based on it) in which the Earth turns out to be a garbage planet that other planets use to store their refuse. A fitting end.

The attitude seems to be, "That's all right, there's plenty of other planets where this one came from."

[Matt51]

I accept there is evolution and natural selection. How humans developed is open for speculation. One author says humans ate raw fruit and damaged their/our brains when we started eating meat and cooking food. Others say eating meat is what led to the increase in the size of the human brain. There are many theories floating around.

Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?

[roony]

I accept there is evolution and natural selection. How humans developed is open for speculation. One author says humans ate raw fruit and damaged their/our brains when we started eating meat and cooking food. Others say eating meat is what led to the increase in the size of the human brain. There are many theories floating around.

Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?

Bottlenecks, theoretical cro-magnons,  dark matter, all old tactics used by the science industry, to cover up their own ignorance, if you cant deny something which goes against your dogma & stupidity, give it a fancy name & call anyone who questions it a fringe or maverick scientist ....


As for calling evolution theory, a fact, that's like calling string theory a fact, you cant make a speculative theory, fact, unless it's provable in a lab

Good luck trying to prove the evolution of man in a lab ... lol

[alphagruis]

Evolution is not a theory. It's considered 'scientific fact'. You are most likely confused because there are theories which try to explain how evolution took place. Darwin's 'theory of evolution' isn't a theory that evolution took place, rather how it took place i.e. he suggests through natural selection.

Yes of course. Evolution is first of all just a fact, whether one likes it or not. Period.

Darwin's natural selection and more recently complex systems theory is a theory that may explain or explains yet a good deal of the characteristic features of evolution, whether one likes it or not. Period.