Cooking and Evolution

[Fermenter Zym]

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.

[sabertooth]

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.    

[TylerDurden]

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.

[miles]

The point in cooking/processing is that it bypasses the need to adapt.

[TylerDurden]

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.

[goodsamaritan]

100% cooked food diet will not cure you of cancer.

but a 100% raw food diet will cure you of cancer.

YMMV

[Sitting Coyote]

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. 

[CitrusHigh]

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.

[miles]

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.

[laterade]

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.

[kurite]

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.

[laterade]

+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.

[pioneer]

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.

[laterade]

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.

[Caveman]

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..

[pioneer]

I completely agree with you. I think there is always a balance needed..

As do I

[laterade]

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

[miles]

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.

[CitrusHigh]

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.

[pioneer]

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.

[achillezzz]

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?

[TylerDurden]

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.

[sabertooth]

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.

 

[sabertooth]

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.

[michaelwh]

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