Evolution & Diet

[OldWiseGuy]

Tell me.

You sound like a successful person already.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I kind of want @joshua 1 9 to come back to this thread since this has gone horribly off-topic thanks to AV and (not)OldWiseGuy.
I'd also like him to clearly and concisely restate what his OP topic is.

I don't think the topic can be redeemed at this point (it was never really clear in the first place).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think the topic can be redeemed at this point (it was never really clear in the first place).

Too true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do you even bother?

Why do I bother to take a stand for the truth? Because truth sets you free and lies put you into bonage.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But what's your point?

The point is as you say: "The Paleo diet shows the weakness of understanding of evolution among fad nutritionists". The point being you have two branches of science: evolution and nutrition that do not seem to agree with each other because of what you admit is a : "weakness of understanding". Science is becoming so specialized so that they are losing their continuity.

Perhaps the weakness of understanding on the part of nutritionists is based more on the science of evolution weakness in presenting itself in a way that people can understand. Even men & women of science like the nutritionist.

 

[pitabread]

Perhaps the weakness of understanding on the part of nutritionists is based more on the science of evolution weakness in presenting itself in a way that people can understand.

Huh? You're trying to argue that science's weakness is that people can't understand it? That's it's too complicated for their minds?

That is just intellectual laziness; that's a weakness of the individual, not the science.

It's also worth pointing out that "nutritionist" is a nebulous title that may or may not mean a person has had any relevant training. You have to actually consider a person's education and professional accreditation before putting too much stock into what they are telling you.

Suffice to say, I wouldn't go to a nutritionist to hear about evolution any more than I would hire an accountant to fix a leaky pipe.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is as you say: "The Paleo diet shows the weakness of understanding of evolution among fad nutritionists". The point being you have two branches of science: evolution and nutrition that do not seem to agree with each other because of what you admit is a : "weakness of understanding". Science is becoming so specialized so that they are losing their continuity.

Perhaps the weakness of understanding on the part of nutritionists is based more on the science of evolution weakness in presenting itself in a way that people can understand. Even men & women of science like the nutritionist.

Makes zero sense.

 

[bhsmte]

Why do I bother to take a stand for the truth? Because truth sets you free and lies put you into bonage.

What truth?

 

[Larniavc]

Why do I bother to take a stand for the truth? Because truth sets you free and lies put you into bonage.

So your lack of knowledge is the arbiter of truth?

That's certainly an opinion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The point is as you say: "The Paleo diet shows the weakness of understanding of evolution among fad nutritionists". The point being you have two branches of science: evolution and nutrition that do not seem to agree with each other because of what you admit is a : "weakness of understanding". Science is becoming so specialized so that they are losing their continuity.

Perhaps the weakness of understanding on the part of nutritionists is based more on the science of evolution weakness in presenting itself in a way that people can understand. Even men & women of science like the nutritionist.

Except it does no such thing. Once again: you obviously understand nothing about evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point is as you say: "The Paleo diet shows the weakness of understanding of evolution among fad nutritionists". The point being you have two branches of science: evolution and nutrition that do not seem to agree with each other because of what you admit is a : "weakness of understanding". Science is becoming so specialized so that they are losing their continuity.

Perhaps the weakness of understanding on the part of nutritionists is based more on the science of evolution weakness in presenting itself in a way that people can understand. Even men & women of science like the nutritionist.

Evolution and nutritional science agree well enough - we have a good understanding of how diets have changed over evolutionary timescales. As pitabread says, I think it's just intellectual laziness; that members of the dieting public are taken in by it is understandable, but someone taking the time to construct a diet supposedly based on evolutionary principles, should be expected to do a little research or take advice from an evolutionary biologist. It's not that difficult - if a few posters in a thread on a Christian forum can see the holes in it, there's no excuse for the diet's author.

 

[Mike Lane]

Then please feel free to paint a better picture if you can, a picture that shows the exceptionalism of America to the rest of the civilised world.

American Nazi Party

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's not that difficult

Yes it is that difficult, seemingly impossible. Not evolutionary science sense that is little more than a fairy tale so it is whatever you want it to be. But the Science of diet is very testable. Take Ornish for example sense he does the most research on what diet is the most healthy. The outcome has to do with people needing less drugs and less surgery compared to the control group that is not following the Ornish diet. We have so many things we can measure like blood pressures and other indicators. As I have said before my doctor challenged me to bring down my blood pressure and I did. From a high of 190 over 119 to a low of 100/50 (after exercise) I did that through diet, stress control and exercise. The three things that the Ornish program is based on.

The most basic of all discussions with evolution still centers on stephen jay gould theory of punctuated equilibrium vs whatever the current incarnation of Darwin's gradualism that he adapted from the father of geology Charles Lyell. Do you really have a mathematical formula to deal with the science of evolution to determine when evolution is gradual and when it is rapid or explosive or radiates? I mean if you do then let me know because my insurance adjuster claims that the damage from the last storm was not storm damage at all but slow gradual damage that took place over time and therefore is not covered by my policy. So they want me to accept their check for 10% of the cost of repairs.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What truth?

The truth that creationism follows a mathematical precision that evolutionary theory does not follow at all. My sons are both engineers and they are a LOT better at math then I am. I always trust NASA because IF they make a mistake people die. Kabbalah studies the precision of the Hebrew Language. They say that area of study is about to go through a shake up or a time of testing because so much teaching has crept in that is not accurate. Even DNA (the Language of God) still needs a lot of study and research to understand. Even if we do not understand ancient Hebrew or DNA the mathematical precision is still there. Very few people understand the logic behind math and how that logic can be expressed. You get into that very small group of people that I do not claim to be a part of. Although my son tells me that he learned that in the fifth grade. Which would substantiate the claim that so many people like to make that we do not have the understanding of a fifth grader. In fact Jesus teaches that you have to have the understanding of a Child to understand the things of God and to many people lose that along with their innocence and purity.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Makes zero sense.

Yes that is the point I was trying to make.

 

[Gene2memE]

Yes it is that difficult, seemingly impossible. Not evolutionary science sense that is little more than a fairy tale so it is whatever you want it to be. But the Science of diet is very testable. Take Ornish for example sense he does the most research on what diet is the most healthy. The outcome has to do with people needing less drugs and less surgery compared to the control group that is not following the Ornish diet. We have so many things we can measure like blood pressures and other indicators. As I have said before my doctor challenged me to bring down my blood pressure and I did. From a high of 190 over 119 to a low of 100/50 (after exercise) I did that through diet, stress control and exercise. The three things that the Ornish program is based on. .

The Ornish diet is an almost definitive example of psuedoscience.

Why Almost Everything Dean Ornish Says about Nutrition Is Wrong. UPDATED: With Dean Ornish's Response

I wonder about your ability to tell what's genuine and what's pushed by charlatans.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The Ornish diet is an almost definitive example of psuedoscience.

No it's not. Ornish does a huge amount of research and he is well published in peer review journals. Right now the best diet to follow is what the Government puts on the food labels. They are still working on it and they have not perfected it. But it is the best they can do with what is currently known to science.

 

[Gene2memE]

There is limited positive clinical evidence for some elements of the Ornish program for weight loss. Which is not surprising, given its comparison to the diet of the average American.

But, Dr Ornish ignores most countervailing findings, even those that directly contradict his claim, and he overstates (sometimes mildly, sometimes massively) the benefits of his diet with regards to things like heart health, or bases his claims on studies that don't actually support his conclusions. Like his 1990 diet and heart health study, where his book conveniently omits that the people that went onto the whole food diet also went radical lifestyle revision, including quitting smoking, starting an exercise regime, controlling overall calories and having stress management counciling.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not evolutionary science sense that is little more than a fairy tale so it is whatever you want it to be.

But in another thread you just typed a post extolling the virtues of Francis Collins views on evolution. You are a walking contradiction my friend, it makes any discussion with you quite difficult.

Right now the best to follow is Theistic Evolution as defined by Francis Collins. It is best because it is the most up to date based on the latest research & understanding. Collins is a leading expert in his field as he was a director. Of course new information and new understanding is discovered all the time as there is a lot of research going on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes it is that difficult, seemingly impossible. Not evolutionary science sense that is little more than a fairy tale so it is whatever you want it to be. But the Science of diet is very testable. Take Ornish for example sense he does the most research on what diet is the most healthy. The outcome has to do with people needing less drugs and less surgery compared to the control group that is not following the Ornish diet. We have so many things we can measure like blood pressures and other indicators. As I have said before my doctor challenged me to bring down my blood pressure and I did. From a high of 190 over 119 to a low of 100/50 (after exercise) I did that through diet, stress control and exercise. The three things that the Ornish program is based on.

The most basic of all discussions with evolution still centers on stephen jay gould theory of punctuated equilibrium vs whatever the current incarnation of Darwin's gradualism that he adapted from the father of geology Charles Lyell. Do you really have a mathematical formula to deal with the science of evolution to determine when evolution is gradual and when it is rapid or explosive or radiates? I mean if you do then let me know because my insurance adjuster claims that the damage from the last storm was not storm damage at all but slow gradual damage that took place over time and therefore is not covered by my policy. So they want me to accept their check for 10% of the cost of repairs.

Not only are you dead wrong but you are WAY offtopic.