Evolution/Creation on Trial

[Not_By_Chance]

In a trial, would you be convinced by the defense claiming that "God could have planted the fingerprints at the crime scene"? If not, then why are you convinced by the same argument when it comes to biology?

What do you mean by the same argument?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

False. Evolution says that proteins came about through natural selection. Selection is the opposite of random.

Until you fix this mistake, the rest of your argument falls apart.



Proteins fold according to the laws of chemistry, not randomly. Again, until you fix this mistake, the rest of your argument falls apart. Do you really think that God is in every cell making sure every protein folds correctly?



Yes, they do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding

In fact, you can predict secondary structures such as beta sheets and alpha helices from the amino acid sequence.

http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/jpred/



All matter has information.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Physical_information



This is false. Proteins can form abiotically.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707000889

Also, RNA can act as catalysts and fill the role of proteins. In fact, randomly assembled RNA molecules can have DNA ligase activity.

"Seven families of RNA ligases, previously isolated from random RNA sequences, fall into three classes on the basis of secondary structure and regiospecificity of ligation."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7618102

However, all of this deals with abiogenesis, not evolution. If you think there is not a natural process that produces humans, then you need to take a sex ed class.



You haven't shown that DNA is required.

we suggest that low energy charged particles might have played a role in chemical evolution in the solar system.

More speculation. Perhaps God was involved? No, couldn't be, that's a step too far in the direction we don't even want to consider.

 

[sfs]

The standard Darwinian approach to how Proteins came about is by random chemical accident over billions of years time.

The standard Darwinian approach to where proteins came from in the first place is, "I don't know -- that's not really my job." Evolutionary biology deals with changes to life, and proteins appeared on the scene before the common ancestors(s) of all life existed. The standard Darwinian approach to where new proteins come from is, mostly from old proteins, with modification, and occasionally from noncoding DNA. Neither of which really fits your description here.

The point was there is, was, and never shall be anything random about it. In a random scenario the sulphides of one functional Protein type when unfolded and allowed to re-fold would refold differently forming other types of proteins on a much more frequent basis and not ONLY refold into the exact same 4 dimensional shape bonding with the exact same partner molecules. On the rare occasions it does not fold properly (very rare) it either neutralizes the function or causes disease in the organism. Now scientists have speculated as to why this is true but none of these hypotheses are viable.

Why? The proper folded form is the lowest energy state, and thus the most stable. That's the form it's going to end up in unless it gets caught in a local minimum first, which is where the enzymes come in handy. (And it's not true that proteins only misfold rarely: cells have dedicated machinery to destroy misfolded proteins because it happens fairly often.) So I still don't see what the problem is with di-sulfide bonds. Instead of repeating yourself, could you explain why the chemistry is surprising?

So relative to evolution, the folding for function aspect of Proteins is not random, nor were the first proteins formed in nature outside of a living host over millions or billions of years. And of course protein folding is a common and observed occurrance (that's why it is studied in the link I provided), all physical nature of living things depend on it. And yes some do speculate as to the why it happens just as it does but it is all speculation. They do not understand why the Proteins fold exactly the same way every time. Also I do not believe for one minute in Chemical coincidence, the processes within chemistry are guided by laws and principles...information is NOT a function of dead matter.

I don't see what any of this has to do with di-sulfide bonds. The same for the rest of your post, which I've deleted.

 

[durangodawood]

What do you mean by the same argument?

For you, does the possibility that God did it (rather than natural processes or human intervention) cast reasonable doubt on ANY physical evidence. Like OJ's bloody gloves?

 

[Loudmouth]

What do you mean by the same argument?

We have seen many creationists argue that if God created life that it would look exactly like life evolved, for no apparent reason. It is no different than a defense attorney trying to argue that God planted swirls of oil that just happen to look exactly like the defendant's fingerprints.

 

[Loudmouth]

we suggest that low energy charged particles might have played a role in chemical evolution in the solar system.

More speculation. Perhaps God was involved? No, couldn't be, that's a step too far in the direction we don't even want to consider.

More observations that you continue to ignore. The claim was that peptides could only form inside the cell. This is false.

" To investigate the possible role of low energy ion irradiation in prebiotic synthesis of oligopeptides, we applied keV Ar+ and N+ ion beams to solid state phenylalanine. After ion irradiation, it was found that phenylalanine dipeptide was formed and the optimal pH value for peptide formation was 8–9."

The scientists showed that peptides can form from free amino acids outside of the cell.

 

[stevevw]

You keep saying impossible, care to demonstrate that?

Mutations are tiny changes to DNA in very observable and understandable ways... only over a population scale and along period all we have to rely on is a statistical improvement and species will change.

I think its more than that. You paint a very simplistic picture. Its not just about a mutation making a little change. Some changes require several mutations happening together as one part of what is needed is useless without certain other parts. Its like having only part of a mouse trap. Without the spring or hinge or both its useless. But also mutations are a mistake in the copying process of something that was OK to begin with. Beneficial mutations are very rare and even still can have some fitness lose in the long run.

So its hard to believe that an error can produce such magnificent complexity and improvements in living things. In some cases there are many parts that need to be formed together for things to work and a random chance process cannot know whats needed nor get it right by a fluke. A rare beneficial mutation cannot build a bit of something waiting for another beneficial mutation to keep building it bit by bit. If so there wouldn't be enough time in the existence of the earth to create the complexity involved in living things.

Also as pshun2404 said I think it was and as I have read before some things are formed a certain way and cannot evolve by chance. Tests have been done to show that chance cannot form certain things. Things like our genetic code which is a code for life and a language that has hidden codes within codes made up of millions of letters all in their right place. Just like living things have systems with systems with many components all in their right place.

I read something about our genetics and someone was comparing it to a massive cupboard like one of those telephone exchanges with bundles of wires everywhere. Thousands of wires all going to the right place to connect things together. The scientists said they had only started to understand things in one small corner of the cupboard.

We are only beginning to find out the vast amount of complexity in our DNA which scientists said was junk. Well its not junk and it probably is way more useful and complicated than they ever thought. The more complex it gets the harder it is to explain it all was self created by some random chance naturalistic process. There is way more design to anything that humans have ever made so how can it not have some design to it.

To just add time to it so that it gives it some sort of magical ingredient is illogical. Its like saying that there was an explosion in a print factory and it wrote the entire library of books in the national library which is impossible. But when we add time that is suppose to solve this. But its still impossible no matter how much time you add to it.
Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). chance of success is not a very good. In fact its impossible.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No matter what the evidences are for and against it seems that for all that is involved in making life there is to much involved to say it happened by a random and chance naturalistic process.

How many times have I corrected this misconception of yours? And yet here you are, making the same claims, as if you don't know any better.

 

[stevevw]

How many times have I corrected this misconception of yours? And yet here you are, making the same claims, as if you don't know any better.

What are you talking about.

 

[Gracchus]

I think its more than that. You paint a very simplistic picture. Its not just about a mutation making a little change. Some changes require several mutations happening together as one part of what is needed is useless without certain other parts.

Can you give some examples?

Its like having only part of a mouse trap. Without the spring or hinge or both its useless. But also mutations are a mistake in the copying process of something that was OK to begin with.

I read Behe's book. He never considered that mutations may change more complex structures and processes to simpler ones.

Beneficial mutations are very rare and even still can have some fitness lose in the long run.

Harmful mutations are quickly eliminated from the gene pool. Thus only neutral or beneficial mutations are propagated. That is probably why 99% of all species known from the geologic record are extinct. And a mutation that is beneficial in one environment may be harmful in another.

So its hard to believe that an error can produce such magnificent complexity and improvements in living things.

Once more we encounter the argument from incredulity advanced by someone who doesn't really understand evolution.

In some cases there are many parts that need to be formed together for things to work and a random chance process cannot know whats needed nor get it right by a fluke.

Gives some examples of cases where many parts need to be formed together.

A rare beneficial mutation cannot build a bit of something waiting for another beneficial mutation to keep building it bit by bit.

Evolution doesn't have to wait. If an organism is not competitive, it is selected out. If a species does not have the adaptive variability to survive, it goes extinct.

If so there wouldn't be enough time in the existence of the earth to create the complexity involved in living things.

Life has been around for about three and a half billion years. If you were to count to three and a half billion, incrementing by one ever second it would take you about 1110 years.

Also as pshun2404 said I think it was and as I have read before some things are formed a certain way and cannot evolve by chance.

I read that Harry Potter was a horcrux. I don't believe everything I read. And it has been repeatedly pointed out in these forums that, statistically at least, natural selection is not chance.

Tests have been done to show that chance cannot form certain things.

Which tests were those? Where and when were they done? Who did them and where are they reported?

Things like our genetic code which is a code for life and a language that has hidden codes within codes made up of millions of letters all in their right place. Just like living things have systems with systems with many components all in their right place.

Ask some one with Down's Syndrome if all their genes are in the right place, or someone with hemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

I read something about our genetics and someone was comparing it to a massive cupboard like one of those telephone exchanges with bundles of wires everywhere. Thousands of wires all going to the right place to connect things together. The scientists said they had only started to understand things in one small corner of the cupboard.

There is much that we don't know. That is true. And there are stupid, ignorant, deluded and perverse people who deny even what we do know.

We are only beginning to find out the vast amount of complexity in our DNA which scientists said was junk.

Well we have mapped a human genome and a chimp genome, and the genomes of other species are being mapped. And some of it, does not code for protein nor does it perform any other observed function. Moreover some of it can be changed without any observable effect on the organism.

Well its not junk and it probably is way more useful and complicated than they ever thought.

Some of it is junk. If you can demonstrate none of it is, you will find a publisher, and can plan your junket to pick up your Nobel Prize.

The more complex it gets the harder it is to explain it all was self created by some random chance naturalistic process.

Complexity is almost always harder to explain than simplicity. Sometimes it can take years of study and thought just to understand. I suspect that you have not spent the time or made the effort.

There is way more design to anything that humans have ever made so how can it not have some design to it.

How do you determine what is designed?

To just add time to it so that it gives it some sort of magical ingredient is illogical.

That is a straw man. It is religion that invokes magic, mysteries and miracles. Science is knowledge without certainty. Religion is certainty without knowledge.

Its like saying that there was an explosion in a print factory and it wrote the entire library of books in the national library which is impossible.

And who but a religious person would say that? Who but religious persons invoke impossibilities?

But when we add time that is suppose to solve this. But its still impossible no matter how much time you add to it.

Time is not something that you add to a process, like adding sugar to your coffee. Time is about the rate of change of a process compared to the rate of change of another process.

Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

Quite frankly, I didn't even understand the abstract. Still:

... this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). chance of success is not a very good. In fact its impossible.

The universe is full of phenomena far more improbable than that, and such wildly improbable phenomena are nevertheless obviously not impossible, because we actually observe them. Reality is full of mind-boggling numbers and probabilities, but just because your mind is boggled, it does not mean that they are impossible.

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

What Axe seems to be arguing in this paper is that the scenario you posited earlier, of adaptations that required multiple simultaneous mutations is not feasible. Of course I only read the abstract, and I may have misinterpreted. Perhaps you can point out my error?

The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3

Pan-selectionism is the hypothesis that only natural selection, with possibly isolated exceptions is involved in evolution. Other mechanisms have been proposed and there is some argument among scientists as to the existence or importance of such mechanisms. Google "pan-selectionism" for more information.

Please note that none of the three articles you cited, none, are proposing that evolution does not happen. Such a conclusion would have been prominently mentioned.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What are you talking about.

I'm talking about your misconception regarding the supposed randomness of evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

I think its more than that. You paint a very simplistic picture. Its not just about a mutation making a little change. Some changes require several mutations happening together as one part of what is needed is useless without certain other parts. Its like having only part of a mouse trap. Without the spring or hinge or both its useless.

And yet, you can remove more than half of the parts and still have a perfectly functional tie clip.

The problem here is that you're looking at a finished system and all of its pieces, and saying, "If I can't remove any pieces and have it fulfill the same role, then it's useless and could not have evolved except all at the same time." But that's not true. Even if the function in question requires every single piece, there's no guarantee that you couldn't remove some pieces and end up with something else which does work, and does function perfectly well. What's more, there's no guarantee that the last change added a piece - it could have just as easily removed a piece, such as is the case with the Venus Flytrap - if it closed slower, it wouldn't work, but if it closed slower and had sticky mucous, it could easily catch flies. Slowly, it evolved to close faster and faster, and at that point, there was no more need for the mucous.

So its hard to believe that an error can produce such magnificent complexity and improvements in living things.

Really? Because there are numerous algorithms that explore this kind of thing and come up with "yep, it works". Check out some of cdk007's videos on Youtube, he does a pretty good job of showing off these algorithms.

In some cases there are many parts that need to be formed together for things to work

I'd ask for an example, but at this point it's kind of a farce. People have been over this with the human eye, the bombadier beetle's caustic spray, the bacterial flagellum, and countless other examples to show why this simply is not the case, and at this point, bringing up further examples is kind of silly - apparently, unless we can show how every single thing evolved, it couldn't have.

Also as pshun2404 said I think it was and as I have read before some things are formed a certain way and cannot evolve by chance. Tests have been done to show that chance cannot form certain things. Things like our genetic code which is a code for life and a language that has hidden codes within codes made up of millions of letters all in their right place. Just like living things have systems with systems with many components all in their right place.

"Cannot evolve by chance"? This is sort of like saying "Cannot win the lottery twice in a row by chance". Um... Yes, actually, you can, no matter how slim the odds. And of course, we're ignoring the numerator here, by looking at just one specific combination of DNA, where in reality we find countless combinations that work just fine.

We are only beginning to find out the vast amount of complexity in our DNA which scientists said was junk. Well its not junk and it probably is way more useful and complicated than they ever thought. The more complex it gets the harder it is to explain it all was self created by some random chance naturalistic process. There is way more design to anything that humans have ever made so how can it not have some design to it.

Um... No. Not only is the role of "Junk" DNA fairly controversial, but nobody is saying that it's meaningless, and that opinion has not widely been held, not even in the 80s.

Peer-Reviewed Science Has Now Demonstrated the Implausibility of Evolving New Proteins
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). chance of success is not a very good. In fact its impossible.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html

You've misunderstood a highly complex and specialized paper; Luskin is lying about it (as he does quite regularly).

The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2013.3

I feel the need to point out that bio-complexity was an open-access journal fronted by the Biologic Institute (a direct relative of the Discovery Institute); it published a grand total of four articles before closing it's doors, and trying to appeal to it as a real peer-reviewed journal is just wrong.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

Quite frankly, I didn't even understand the abstract. Still:

"Using these simplifications, the difficulty of specifying a working beta-lactamase domain is assessed here. An alignment of homologous domain sequences is used to deduce the pattern of hydropathic constraints along chains that form the domain fold. Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function."

Axe was looking at a specific protein coming about at random with a specific protein fold. This is the usual ID sleight of hand where they paint a bulls eye around the target. What Axe did not do is test the probability of a protein emerging with any kind of catalytic function, or any kind of B-lactamase activity. It is the bridge hand fallacy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the vast, vast majority of academia is in agreement that the theory of evolution, at least in its broad strokes, is the correct model for how life diversified after it arose. The portion of life scientists who think evolution is not true is akin to the portion of historians who believe the holocaust is false - a tiny fringe group that deserve to be ignored and ridiculed - and their representation in the peer-reviewed literature is incredibly weak. Evolution is taught in almost every single university the world over, and various branches of science depend on it as a model. Evolution even saves lives, as discoveries made thanks to the theory of evolution and an understanding of how organisms evolve has led to major advances in the fight against HIV.

According to Scientific America "medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second." There is evidence to suggest that heart disease and cancer is primarily cause by the food we eat. Food that far to often is processed in the lab by science using GM food. So if you value your health and your life then you need to keep a very close watch on science and academia. WHY? Because they tend to be lazy and sloppy. Even when they have all the tools they need to get it right. Although to be fair evolution is widely debated and the more something is debated the better the chance is they got it right.

 

[HitchSlap]

OK, so we hear a lot on this forum that masses of evidence overwhelmingly confirms evolution to the extent that for all intents and purposes it can be regarded as fact. In that case, can someone please present a non-scientist like myself with perhaps half a dozen pieces of evidence that if presented in a court of law, would be sufficient to convince a jury that evolution were true beyond all reasonable doubt. At least one of these should directly relate to the claim that one type of creature (e.g., a reptile) can turn into a bird, with some examples of actual creatures where this has happened or is happening.

Let’s flip the coin now. Can someone also present a similar amount of ideas presented by creation scientists that can be shown to be false, again using the above court room scenario.

Finally, could someone answer the question about how the first life could have got started all on its own without any divine intervention. In particular, where all the information came from to start life and build the first self-reproducing cell and how the problem of chirality could have been overcome in such a process.

Since you would be presenting these ideas to non-scientists, could you for each piece of evidence you present, indicate what the specialism of any scientist working in that field would need to have.

In case you missed this, the cdesign proponentsists already lost in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

 

[Loudmouth]

According to Scientific America "medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second." There is evidence to suggest that heart disease and cancer is primarily cause by the food we eat. Food that far to often is processed in the lB by science using GM food. So if you value your health and your life then you need to keep very close watch science and academia. WHY? Because they tend to be lazy and sloppy. Even when they have all the tools they need to get it right.

The fact that medical errors are the third leading cause of death is one of the best pieces of news there is. It shows just how far we have come. The top causes of death used to be diseases that modern medicine now cures. Just 150 years ago the average life expectancy was 40 years old, and every child had just a 50% chance of seeing their 3rd birthday. Now the average life span is over 80 years and child mortality is about 1%. When you eliminate all of these other causes of death, the rarer causes and age related causes are going to rise up on the list.

Also, selective breeding is genetic modification as well.

 

[The Cadet]

According to Scientific America "medical errors the third-leading cause of death in America, behind heart disease, which is the first, and cancer, which is second." There is evidence to suggest that heart disease and cancer is primarily cause by the food we eat. Food that far to often is processed in the lab by science using GM food.

You make a whole bunch of very disparate, barely-related statements here. Yes, medical errors cause a lot of death. Your source, however, does not list it in the top 10! This is because this category, while huge, includes so many disparate issues that it's extremely unreasonable to group them together. Furthermore, it's heavily inflated by the sheer number of chronic cases we see in our hospitals. These are people barely clinging to life, and who will almost certainly die either in the hospital or in hospice care. Is it any wonder that "medical error" becomes a noteworthy problem? Of course, this has little to do with academia and far more to do with the actual doctors and their abilities, readiness, awareness, and the like, but either way it's the same kind of fiddling of the data that hucksters like Mercola use to scare people away from real medicine. Also, as Loudmouth pointed out, If iatrogenic error is a leading cause of death, you're probably in pretty good shape.

That our food causes heart disease is a misstatement; what contributes to heart disease is overeating, and consuming too much of the wrong nutrients. Whether any individual food is likely to cause cancer or not is a matter of scientific inquiry; however, the claim that GMOs have something to do with it has been examined at length by numerous safety studies and determined to be false (although certain additives and methods may cause problems). However, you know how we find out that these things are dangerous? Science and academia!

So if you value your health and your life then you need to keep a very close watch on science and academia. WHY? Because they tend to be lazy and sloppy. Even when they have all the tools they need to get it right.

This is where things like peer review, repeating experiments, and the like come into play. The scientific method is, in fact, remarkably robust, and while medicine is a particularly complex, noisy, and difficult field (that is, the data is inherently going to be very noisy and full of confounding factors, compared to other scientific fields), I'm not sure if the comparison to biology is valid, to be honest.

And despite all that, so what? When it comes to complex and difficult fields, can you name me any better indicator of what is actually accurate and verified within that field beyond "this is what the experts in this field almost all agree is true"? What is better than the scientific consensus?

 

[joshua 1 9]

The fact that medical errors are the third leading cause of death is one of the best pieces of news there is. It shows just how far we have come.

Are you suggesting that medical errors are killing less people now? Perhaps if you look at examples like doctors washing their hands where infant mortality rate dropped from as high as 35% to less than 1%. Perhaps my objection is not with good science used to promote good health. The issue maybe with the science the CEO uses to get rich at the expense of our health. Of course they try to justify themselves when they say we would sell healthy food if that made us rich. Americans they claim want unhealthy food. Then when diabetes is spinning out of control they sell the American people drugs to counter the effect of the food they are feeding them. So there is science that is good and clearly there is science that is actively working to make people sick. Even if the government has been working to promote healthy food.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you suggesting that medical errors are killing less people now?

I am saying that we are much, much healthier with modern medicine than we were without. If you want to go back to the days where people commonly died of smallpox and bacterial infections, be my guest.

Perhaps if you look at examples like doctors washing their hands where infant mortality rate dropped from as high as 35% to less than 1%. Perhaps my objection is not with good science used to promote good health. The issue maybe with the science the CEO uses to get rich at the expense of our health. Of course they try to justify themselves when they say we would sell healthy food if that made us rich. Americans they claim want unhealthy food. Then when diabetes is spinning out of control they sell the American people drugs to counter the effect of the food they are feeding them. So there is science that is good and clearly there is science that is actively working to make people sick. Even if the government has been working to promote healthy food.

Science doesn't have motivations or agendas. People do.

 

[joshua 1 9]

.

That our food causes heart disease is a misstatement;

The work I am referring to is Dr Dean Ornish's: Program for Reversing Heart Disease. This involves diet, exercise and stress control. The leading cause of death in America today is coronary heart disease. Most cardiologists now believe that the progression of coronary heart disease can be slowed, stopped, or even reversed. Dr Ornish's program also seems to help people with diabetes and cancer. Also I could refer to the PBS promoted book: "eat to live" that talks about the American diet where people are overfed yet malnourished. Some people believe obesity is epidemic in America because the diet of processed foods tends to strip the nutrients out of our diet.