Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?

[PaleoPhil]

You know when the food companies get wind of the concept of ancestral/Paleo diets they're going to spend millions trying to counter the concept. I'm guessing that rapid evolution may end up being one of their major counterpoints (after the nasty, brutish and short, aka lifespan, argument and other common points). They'll probably fund scientists to argue that people have adapted to agrarian foods. Here's the sort of thing they may point to:

"The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution."
Posted on: January 26, 2009 8:53 AM, by Razib Khan
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/01/the_10000_year_explosion_how_c.php

[goodsamaritan]

We are the laggards, we got left behind, paleo ancestors genes expressed on me and my family. (my father's side, his mother)

My children inherited a lot from me as well.

[TylerDurden]

I shouldn't worry, it's a very poor argument. Current studies show practically minimal difference between us and our palaeo ancestors(something like 0.05% or less). The trend seems to be going in favour of increasing complexity of tools rather than the evolution of humans, which means there might be a chance of AIs evolving to go past human abilities/IQ. Granted, it might be possible to genetically modify humans so that they all get photographic memory, savant-like abilities re maths etc. but there's a limit to that for any organic sentient species, for obvious reasons.

[alphagruis]

Actually, we do not need evolutionary arguments to back up RPD...

We have just to acknowledge that neolithic cooked food is definitely toxic when ingested over an extended period for all animals including man and will remain so whatever future evolution might be. There are very serious reasons to believe that it is merely not possible to adapt to such food to the same degree we adapted to raw paleo food.

The "rapid evolution" of man during the past 10000 years is a cultural rather than biological evolution.

[TylerDurden]

Exactly, And PP's mention of the giant panda's inability to handle its bamboo diet even after millions of years shows that one cannot guarantee dietary adaptation even to raw foods over hundreds of thousands of years, let alone cooked foods. And since cooked foods are so completely different from the raw diets animals have had over hundreds of millions of years, it's arguable we can never adapt to them properly.

[miles]

Current studies show practically minimal difference between us and our palaeo ancestors(something like 0.05% or less).

What measurement of difference do you refer to? By some, the difference between us and certain vegetable matter is little more than that...

[TylerDurden]

What measurement of difference do you refer to? By some, the difference between us and certain vegetable matter is little more than that...

  I'm talking about genetic difference, of course. And there's a rather bigger difference between us and plants. I seem to recall that we share 40% of our genes with bananas for example but that is not remotely  comparable to a 0.05 % difference.

[Matt51]

Some articles say we are hybrid humans - part human, part bacteria. Others say our genome turned out to mostly be viruses which hacked their way into humans. Not sure how the constant mixture of viruses into humans affects us genetically. We may look like humans of 10,000 years ago, but the non-human portion of us could be entirely different.

The human great leap forward 50,000 years ago, means aliens probably re-engineered us anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
well it's a thought anyway, if anyone needs a laugh!

[PaleoPhil]

Exactly, And PP's mention of the giant panda's inability to handle its bamboo diet even after millions of years shows that one cannot guarantee dietary adaptation even to raw foods over hundreds of thousands of years, let alone cooked foods. And since cooked foods are so completely different from the raw diets animals have had over hundreds of millions of years, it's arguable we can never adapt to them properly.

Yes, as in the giant panda example, if it was going to fully adapt so that it's diet would be optimal in the long term (beyond reproductive age), I think it would have done so by now.

[roony]

Some articles say we are hybrid humans - part human, part bacteria. Others say our genome turned out to mostly be viruses which hacked their way into humans. Not sure how the constant mixture of viruses into humans affects us genetically. We may look like humans of 10,000 years ago, but the non-human portion of us could be entirely different.

The human great leap forward 50,000 years ago, means aliens probably re-engineered us anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
well it's a thought anyway, if anyone needs a laugh!

Surprisingly more archaelogical evidence supports xeno or extra origin, such as asteroid or meterological, or xeno intervention, then evolution, evolution just another flawed nazi theory in modern science bleh

[Matt51]

Surprisingly more archaelogical evidence supports xeno or extra origin, such as asteroid or meterological, or xeno intervention, then evolution, evolution just another flawed nazi theory in modern science bleh

I believe the various large structures in Peru, as well as the Great Pyramid, were constructed by visitors ancient humans considered to be Gods. When Capt Cook first went to Hawaii, he was mistaken for a God and treated well. When he went back, he went at the wrong time of the year to be their God, so he was murdered.

I feel current theory of evolution has large gaps.

[roony]

I believe the various large structures in Peru, as well as the Great Pyramid, were constructed by visitors ancient humans considered to be Gods. When Capt Cook first went to Hawaii, he was mistaken for a God and treated well. When he went back, he went at the wrong time of the year to be their God, so he was murdered.

I feel current theory of evolution has large gaps.

And how exactly would they know to consider capt cook as a god in the first place? Their gods mustve had similar technology

The fact they killed him speaks volumes, the wrong time of year obvious historic nonsense


The fact they had little to no technology, suggests most primitive tribes around the world, must've been highly indentured slaves, or heavily isolated

The large populations of primitive tribes, seems to negate heavily isolated

[PaleoPhil]

Just a wild guess, but I'm thinking that if advocates of ancestral diets respond to claims of extremely rapid biological adaptation to modern foods with claims of xeno origins, godlike visitors building pyramids, and biological evolution as a "nazi theory," that it will undercut, rather than buttress, their credibility.

[roony]

Just a wild guess, but I'm thinking that if advocates of ancestral diets respond to claims of extremely rapid biological adaptation to modern foods with claims of xeno origins, godlike visitors building pyramids, and biological evolution as a "nazi theory," that it will undercut, rather than buttress, their credibility.

lol since when has the truth ever had credibility ....

Credibility is simply a belief system of convenience, unfortunately for some of us that convenience comes at too high a price, i suggest you question the price you pay for your credibility

& the destructive nature of the adherence to mainstream culture


An open mind is crucial in forums like this, as we are truly on the fringe of society, what is the point of following nature in our diets, but still follow the same cultures & science which brought us our toxic modern cooked food diets, in the first place?


Why should we follow a diet in nature, & not apply the truth of that nature to the rest of our lives?


Surely healing the body, leads to seeing the world as truthfully as possible, even if it means stepping outside of the norm? By applying a raw diet, havent we already proved modern science wrong, & made the first step?

[PaleoPhil]

Open-mindedness is good, but so are questioning, skepticism, critical thinking and putting hypotheses to the test.

[roony]

Open-mindedness is good, but so are questioning, skepticism, critical thinking and putting hypotheses to the test.

Not when they're grounded in reductionism & its religion modern science & it's enforcer modern society

[PaleoPhil]

Not when they're grounded in reductionism...

Correct, which is why I avoid reductionism. It's also important to not engage in the error of credulity.

[roony]

Correct, which is why I avoid reductionism.

Kwl, you also have to realise a persons imagination & sense of fiction will always be greater then any truth, as our definitions of truth & methods of physical & spiritual enquiry are steeped in reductionism

Our ability to tap into a sense of fiction is crucial as,

A persons imagination will always surpass any truth, or fact, as it is all encompassing & infinite

By not stepping outside of the gentrification & coloured lenses of the sciences, you cant step outside of the self & see the world around you as it is in its entirity, without an infinite & inquisitive imagination & sense of fiction,

to push you past the current status quo, alternative views & theories, are simply a step in that direction, feed your sense of fiction & allow your mind to experience the fantastic


Everything has a grain of truth, your mind & imagination simply surpasses the need for truth, your ability to create your own reality & theories is alot more useful

[PaleoPhil]

Fiction and imagination is cool as long as it's not presented as fact. My concept of science is just a tool, not a religion or world. Science as religion is not science to me. Of course, like any tool, science can be used for both good or ill and the very fact of using it effects how we look at things and outcomes, but I find it to be a useful tool. If you prefer not to use science at all it will be difficult for us to communicate on matters of nutrition, health, biology, anthropology, etc.

Everything has a grain of truth,

Do lies and errors have a grain of truth?

...your mind & imagination simply surpasses the need for truth, your ability to create your own reality & theories is alot more useful

Your imagined reality may be useful to you, but it may not necessarily be useful to me. Imagined hypotheses are part of science, except that unlike in dreamworld we put them to the test using criteria we can agree on.

[roony]

Fiction and imagination is cool as long as it's not presented as fact. My concept of science is just a tool, not a religion or world. Science as religion is not science to me. Of course, like any tool, science can be used for both good or ill and the very fact of using it effects how we look at things and outcomes, but I find it to be a useful tool. If you prefer not to use science at all it will be difficult for us to communicate on matters of nutrition, health, biology, anthropology, etc.
Do lies and errors have a grain of truth?
Your imagined reality may be useful to you, but it may not necessarily be useful to me. Imagined hypotheses are part of science, except that unlike in dreamworld we put them to the test using criteria we can agree on.

Yes, all lies & errors have a grain of truth, also lies & errors can actually surpass the truth, & are actually even more useful, as theyre infinite, the truth is a limited instance, a fixed point

Truth is the basic unit or foundation of reductivism, or to deduce


lol why the hell would you want to test something infinite?


Reality isnt real, why would you want to test it?


Reality is simply a agree'd on set of units, like mathematics, an agree'd upon mass hypnosis, where we agree to walk into walls & count atoms


Reality is simply a way of displacing our perception of reality, into units of time & distance & finitism in the form of reductionism

[Matt51]

 
"Science" is often just another religion. We are told nonsense by respected scientists, what we know to be false - such as, meat is bad for us, saturated fat is bad, fluoridated water is good. Global warming is unproven speculation promoted as "science".
Part of evolution is true, but this does not mean all the derivative speculation regarding evolution is true. We know Neanderthals share the same key gene for speech "modern humans" do, but then we also are told there are no shared genes, even though only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been mapped. Maybe we evolved from primitive primates who ate termites, and learned to scavenge bones. Or maybe not.
We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.

[roony]

"Science" is often just another religion. We are told nonsense by respected scientists, what we know to be false - such as, meat is bad for us, saturated fat is bad, fluoridated water is good. Global warming is unproven speculation promoted as "science".
Part of evolution is true, but this does not mean all the derivative speculation regarding evolution is true. We know Neanderthals share the same key gene for speech "modern humans" do, but then we also are told there are no shared genes, even though only a small portion of the Neanderthal genome has been mapped. Maybe we evolved from primitive primates who ate termites, and learned to scavenge bones. Or maybe not.
We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.

Precisely, science will never have the answers as nature, is infinite, you cant reduce it to science, or atoms

[PaleoPhil]

"Science" is often just another religion. ...

Yes, and when it is just another religion it is not true science, which is why I specified that I use science as a tool, not as a religion.

We do not know how the universe started, we do not understand time, we do not understand life, soul, conciousness. "Science" does not have all the answers.

Science will never have all the answers and any so-called scientist who thinks the purpose of science is to provide all the answers is engaging in religion, as Matt mentioned above, not science. Science is a practical tool, not a magical provider of perfect, final answers to all questions. Science is more about questions than answers. Nothing really provides all the answers, though advocates sometimes claim that their religions do.

[roony]

Yes, and when it is just another religion it is not true science, which is why I specified that I use science as a tool, not as a religion.
Science will never have all the answers and any so-called scientist who thinks the purpose of science is to provide all the answers is engaging in religion, as Matt mentioned above, not science. Science is a practical tool, not a magical provider of perfect, final answers to all questions. Science is more about questions than answers. Nothing really provides all the answers, though advocates sometimes claim that their religions do.

This is the thing, how can you use science as a tool, if it's basic premise is reductionism, which is basically institutionilised atheism, the dullest form of religion known to man, at least the hindu's get to have great sex, & the zionists smite everyone lol

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, all lies & errors have a grain of truth, also lies & errors can actually surpass the truth, & are actually even more useful, as theyre infinite, the truth is a limited instance, a fixed point

Truth is the basic unit or foundation of reductivism, or to deduce

lol why the hell would you want to test something infinite?

Reality isnt real, why would you want to test it? ....

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.

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

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.