Evolution & Diet

[Larniavc]

Everyone knows that Evolution is not true.

Why do you even bother?

This is a prime example of trolling.

 

[Larniavc]

Usually the way I PROVE this statement is I begin to list the books I have read that has something to do with evolution.

This is why you fail.

Every. Single. Time.

Try presenting actual evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem with the first sentence is that when people read it they seem to shut down and quit thinking. The problem with paragraphs is that I am use to facebook where there are no paragraphs.

And that's meaningless. You posted a blatantly false claim and have done nothing to back it up. And regardless of whether you use Facebook or not, you need to understand that if you want people to understand you, you need to make your writing clear and concise.

I may not understand evolution, but I understand it better then 98% of the people in this WORLD. So where does that leave us if by your logic and reason almost no one or a VERY small percentage understands your theory?

Well that leaves us with you telling an absolute porker of a lie. You do not understand evolution and you most certainly do not understand it better than 98% of the people in this world because if you did understand it, you wouldn't post such insipid threads where you claim that evolution is false on something ludicrous.

Now I'm going to ask you,clearly and concisely: what is the point that you are trying to make with this thread?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You posted a blatantly false claim and have done nothing to back it up.

That is not true at all. Your are in fact making a false claim and trying to accuse me of the exact very same thing that you are guilty of. It seems like we have to go through this exact same thing with everyone on here: "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings, thoughts or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings." wiki

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is not true at all. Your are in fact making a false claim and trying to accuse me of the exact very same thing that you are guilty of. It seems like we have to go through this exact same thing with everyone on here: "Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings, thoughts or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings." wiki

You said that you do not understand evolution but know more about it that 98% of the people in the world. THAT is blatantly false, especially given you history of seriously misunderstanding the theory of evolution in your own threads, and an obvious deflection at my request for you to concisely and clearly say what is that you are trying to say in this thread.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is why you fail.

Every. Single. Time.

Try presenting actual evidence.

I failed because YOU do not understand the evidence. The book half life of facts is sort of an allegory because it is actually with drugs that you have a half life. So you have to understand drugs and how they work on the body to understand facts and see the nature of the truth in the way that Science applies it. You do not want to do your research so here I am having to spoon feed it to you.

Booklist
There are facts, and then there are facts. We expect some facts to be fluid—the population of Earth, for example—but, as it turns out, we probably shouldn’t expect anything we know to remain static. Things that feel like unalterable truths, like the number of chromosomes in human cells (which was 48, until somebody noticed it wasn’t), can suddenly shift. The author, an applied mathematician, explores the nature of knowledge: why it changes, how it changes, and why this is so vital for scientific exploration. Knowledge, like life itself, evolves; science regularly revises its truths to include new discoveries. The book is also a history of a field many readers might never have heard of: scientometrics, “the science of science,” a way of quantifying the growth of ideas. The author shows, too, how the principles of scientometrics can be applied to other fields, examination of various surviving copies of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, for instance, allowing researchers to track back to Chaucer’s own original version. Fascinating, engagingly written, and just mind-bending enough to spur readers to revisit their own mental catalogs of knowledge.

The premise of this book is that facts are not really information set in stone, the way we usually think about them. The world is constantly changing and nothing is for certain forever. I was floored by the notion that what my kids are learning in school may contradict what I learned in school. For some reason, that notion had never occurred to me!

 

[joshua 1 9]

You said that you do not understand evolution but know more about it that 98% of the people in the world. THAT is blatantly false, especially given you history of seriously misunderstanding the theory of evolution in your own threads, and an obvious deflection at my request for you to concisely and clearly say what is that you are trying to say in this thread.

So you admit then, in your own words that you do not understand the theory. Ok that is fine, just quit projecting YOUR lack of understanding out on me. I understand just fine because I study Religion, Science, Math and History. If you only look at one area of study and ignore the others then you are not going to understand the truth. For example we have fossils to deal with when we study evolution and now we have DNA. So we have to get the evidence from two different areas of study to coincide with each other and agree. That at times can require a balancing act. This is why we go from Darwinism, to Post Darwinism to Post Neo Darwinism and on and on and on. Because the theory that Darwin talks about is evolving and going through constant revision. We have our soup of the day and our flavor of the week. But it is constantly changing. The very definition of evolution goes through constant revision and is very fluid. All we can do is work with the evidence we have and we always have new evidence that gives us a new and a better understanding.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you admit then, in your own words that you do not understand the theory.

How did you get THAT from what I said?!

 

[joshua 1 9]

Why do you even bother?

Good question. I think the answer is because I have been raised to believe in progress even though people seem to want to regress right now. They use to say lead, follow or get out of the way. Today we have massive obstructionism that we never really had to deal with before.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How did you get THAT from what I said?!

From the psychological theory of projection. Fraud talked about the theory but his daugher really was the one that developed it. Again people accuse others of what they are guilty of because they can not deal with it in themselves so they project it out on others. People who go to war come to the conclusion that: "I have met the enemy and he is me". We do not deal with issues and problems in others we deal with them in ourselves.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From the psychological theory of projection. Fraud talked about the theory but his daugher really was the one that developed it. Again people accuse others of what they are guilty of because they can not deal with it in themselves so they project it out on others. People who go to war come to the conclusion that: "I have met the enemy and he is me". We do not deal with issues and problems in others we deal with them in ourselves.

It's not projection when it's a fact. You obviously understand nothing about the theory of evolution if you think that you gaining weight after loosing it on a shoddy yo-yo diet proves you right.

 

[Gene2memE]

From the psychological theory of projection. Fraud talked about the theory but his daugher really was the one that developed it.

A Fraudian slip.

Sorry, I couldn't help it. I'll show myself out.

 

[Larniavc]

I failed because YOU do not understand the evidence. The book half life of facts is sort of an allegory because it is actually with drugs that you have a half life. So you have to understand drugs and how they work on the body to understand facts and see the nature of the truth in the way that Science applies it. You do not want to do your research so here I am having to spoon feed it to you.

Booklist
There are facts, and then there are facts. We expect some facts to be fluid—the population of Earth, for example—but, as it turns out, we probably shouldn’t expect anything we know to remain static. Things that feel like unalterable truths, like the number of chromosomes in human cells (which was 48, until somebody noticed it wasn’t), can suddenly shift. The author, an applied mathematician, explores the nature of knowledge: why it changes, how it changes, and why this is so vital for scientific exploration. Knowledge, like life itself, evolves; science regularly revises its truths to include new discoveries. The book is also a history of a field many readers might never have heard of: scientometrics, “the science of science,” a way of quantifying the growth of ideas. The author shows, too, how the principles of scientometrics can be applied to other fields, examination of various surviving copies of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, for instance, allowing researchers to track back to Chaucer’s own original version. Fascinating, engagingly written, and just mind-bending enough to spur readers to revisit their own mental catalogs of knowledge.

The premise of this book is that facts are not really information set in stone, the way we usually think about them. The world is constantly changing and nothing is for certain forever. I was floored by the notion that what my kids are learning in school may contradict what I learned in school. For some reason, that notion had never occurred to me!

What are you taking about?

Are you okay?

 

[Larniavc]

They use to say lead, follow or get out of the way.

Who is this 'they'?

I'm getting a little worried that you are okay. Do you have anyone nearby that you can talk to?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Who is this 'they'?

In this case I am referring to the WW2 Vets that rebuilt this country after the end of WW2. As far as people to talk to. My wife is a bit funny in that department. She just wants me talking to her and her family. She does not trust people outside of her family and friends.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You obviously understand nothing about the theory of evolution if you think that you gaining weight after losing it on a shoddy yo-yo diet proves you right.

Unless I walk 5 miles a day then I am either going to gain weight or lose weight. My weight does not remain consistent. Most of my life I could keep that swing within 20 pounds. I do not think I could ever do any better then to keep it less than 5 pounds. If you can maintain a steady consistent weight all of your life with no gains and no losses then good for you. The only thing I was talking about was those of us that tend to put on a little weight every now and then and what we need to do to follow our doctors order to lose that weight for the benefit of our health. The question then has to do with the Paleo Diet based on Evolutionary theory and just how effective that can or can not be in contributing to our general state of health.

If you understood evolution (which you do not seem to) Then you would understand that Diet is a consideration in evolutionary science. For example the point has already been brought up that cooking is considered to be very important in the theory. Of course in order to cook you have to have fire. This again is considered to be very important in the evolution of man.

Here we have a wide open discussion on anything that has to do with evolution and food. Instead of attacking me personally and in violation of the rules why don't you contribute to the discussion. Perhaps it is my fault for making myself a part of the conversation to open myself up to these illegal attacks. I will have to be sure to be more impersonal in the future.

CARTA: The Evolution of Human Nutrition – Richard Wrangham: Fire, Starch, Meat, and Honey

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Everyone knows that Evolution is not true. The only problem is that we have nothing better to replace it with and that means it becomes our best guess. Recently I went through a program where I had a dietician work out a personalized diet for me. They are very good with what they do and they know all the latest research and findings. Still this is based on their best guess and new information becomes available all the time. One day I asked her about the Paleo diet. This is a diet based on the types of foods presumed to have been eaten by early humans, consisting chiefly of meat, fish, vegetables, and fruit, and excluding dairy or grain products and processed food. One problem with this diet is that little is known about the diet of Paleolithic humans, it is very likely that they consumed wild grains and legumes. O wait, little is known? Is that yet another weak leak in our evolution theory. Our conclusions are based on insufficient data? I am by the way no novice on dieting. I have lost around 500 pounds in my lifetime if you add it all up. I lost 150 pounds on one diet once upon a time. Now doctors say this is not good for us to be a yo yo dieter like that. Again this blows a big hole in evolutionary theory because the theory is that we evolved to survive feast and famine. Times of plenty and times of scarcity. I do believe that IF you want to lose weight then you had better understand how the body works, because when you're in a weight loss mode it really is not that difficult to lose weight and your really not all that hungry. But if you body is in a feasting mode you can pretty well forget the idea of losing weight. We are coming out of the holidays now and this is traditionally the time when people go into a mode to try and lose the weight they gained between Thanksgiving and New Years. As some of us snowbirds dig in to hibernate for the winter. My point is this. One field of science namely evolutionary science theory seems to contradict another area of science modern medicine and the science of diet and nutrition. In this case the nutritionists has a master's degree but she knows more about it then the doctors do because this is a full time job for her.

So, why do nutritionists keep all the good information to themselves i.e. nutrition has more to do with digestion and elimination than any specific diet.

 

[Larniavc]

So, why do nutritionists keep all the good information to themselves i.e. nutrition has more to do with digestion and elimination than any specific diet.

Don't question Big Nutrition.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Unless I walk 5 miles a day then I am either going to gain weight or lose weight. My weight does not remain consistent. Most of my life I could keep that swing within 20 pounds. I do not think I could ever do any better then to keep it less than 5 pounds. If you can maintain a steady consistent weight all of your life with no gains and no losses then good for you. The only thing I was talking about was those of us that tend to put on a little weight every now and then and what we need to do to follow our doctors order to lose that weight for the benefit of our health. The question then has to do with the Paleo Diet based on Evolutionary theory and just how effective that can or can not be in contributing to our general state of health.

If you understood evolution (which you do not seem to) Then you would understand that Diet is a consideration in evolutionary science. For example the point has already been brought up that cooking is considered to be very important in the theory. Of course in order to cook you have to have fire. This again is considered to be very important in the evolution of man.

Here we have a wide open discussion on anything that has to do with evolution and food. Instead of attacking me personally and in violation of the rules why don't you contribute to the discussion. Perhaps it is my fault for making myself a part of the conversation to open myself up to these illegal attacks. I will have to be sure to be more impersonal in the future.

CARTA: The Evolution of Human Nutrition – Richard Wrangham: Fire, Starch, Meat, and Honey

But you're acting that simply because you had a yo-yo diet, which is shown not to work, you have somehow disproved evolution, which you have not. If anyone does not understand evolution, it is you.

And no. No-one has been attacked you 'illegally' on this thread. Asking you to be clear and concise in your OP topic, which you have still not done, is not an attack.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But you're acting that simply because you had a yo-yo diet, which is shown not to work, you have somehow disproved evolution, which you have not. If anyone does not understand evolution, it is you.

And no. No-one has been attacked you 'illegally' on this thread. Asking you to be clear and concise in your OP topic, which you have still not done, is not an attack.

Swing and a miss, nice try though. Next time stick to what you can provide evidence for. In this case evolutionary theory is contradicted by Modern Medicine, more exactly the study of nutrition and diet. This is just an example of one of the many many many contradictions we find within science. As I stated from the beginning all we can do is go with our best guess. But just because we do not have a better explanation that does not mean that our best guess is right or accurate. It may work and it may not work. All you can do is roll the dice and take your chances.