Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    Your natural selection theory, despite never offering your own explanation for it, is clearly based on Dawkins or Darwin's theory, that this is the driving force between macro evolution, these tiny variables and variations in creatures but in no way offer proof that they will eventually change that species entirely into something else. This is never observed in real time...
    We've observed many changes in real time (the number I heard was 300 documented cases of evolution happening so fast we humans could actually observe it). Example; a birds food supply dried up, the bird adapted a new type of beak to get a new food supply, happened in a very short period of time. It usually happens slow, but if environmental pressures are severe enough obviously it can happen fast. You want to see some new species jump into existance in real time? WTF drugs did you take?

    If you have it all figured out why hasn't Darwin been deleted by now and replaced with your theory? Umm because Darwin's theory fits the observations and can make predictions.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post

      I am aware of it and know that better thinkers than I accept this as the reality, based on observations of the universe, both inside and outside the laboratory. Whereas nobody accepts creationism as a reality based on actual observations of the universe, they accept creationism inherently and then try (usually very comically) to fit the observations to their preconceived notions. To use an extreme example: If carbon dating the dinosaur bones shows them to be several million years old, this was either a trick by God (to test our faith) or Satan (to fool us out of our faith). Obviously this is a wildly speculative conclusion that's not actually supported by the evidence. That dinosaurs roamed the earth for millions of years, on the other hand, fits with all the data.
      So reality as processed by human logic is infinitely better than reality as processed by human spirituality?

      How is one human invented tool to understand the universe definitively better than another?

      Data is still human-observed, human-collected, human-processed.

      Like a frog who peers from a deep well, we don't see/understand much of the bigger picture because our "data" is incomplete and filtered. We only get a narrow slice of information. We think the sky is only as big as the well's opening.

      Like I said, I embrace science but I find blind faith of science to be just as detrimental as blind faith to religion.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      ------
      HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

      My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


      Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

      " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

      Comment


      • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
        We've observed many changes in real time (the number I heard was 300 documented cases of evolution happening so fast we humans could actually observe it). Example; a birds food supply dried up, the bird adapted a new type of beak to get a new food supply, happened in a very short period of time. It usually happens slow, but if environmental pressures are severe enough obviously it can happen fast. You want to see some new species jump into existance in real time? WTF drugs did you take?

        If you have it all figured out why hasn't Darwin been deleted by now and replaced with your theory? Umm because Darwin's theory fits the observations and can make predictions.
        That's adaptation, not evolution.
        "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

        In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

        - Ray Peat

        Comment


        • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
          So reality as processed by human logic is infinitely better than reality as processed by human spirituality?

          How is one human invented tool to understand the universe definitively better than another?

          Data is still human-observed, human-collected, human-processed.

          Like a frog who peers from a deep well, we don't see/understand much of the bigger picture because our "data" is incomplete and filtered. We only get a narrow slice of information. We think the sky is only as big as the well's opening.

          Like I said, I embrace science but I find blind faith of science to be just as detrimental as blind faith to religion.
          We're probably all just in the Matrix anyway? I'm not talking about blind faith in science, I'm talking about one of the most stoutly supported theories in the history of observation and reason.
          The Champagne of Beards

          Comment


          • Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

            Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
            We're probably all just in the Matrix anyway? I'm not talking about blind faith in science, I'm talking about one of the most stoutly supported theories in the history of observation and reason.
            My point is "reason" isn't better than "spirituality"... They are both just tools of analysis.

            Support = more human data. Wow. Systematic bias.

            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
            ------
            HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

            My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


            Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

            " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
              That's adaptation, not evolution.
              Umm, it's all one thing really, it's just time and change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                That's adaptation, not evolution.
                The word "adaptation" should be stricken from the natural selection curriculum. What is it that makes you think these changes that are made as a result of various selection pressures are not examples of the evolutionary process?
                The Champagne of Beards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                  We've observed many changes in real time (the number I heard was 300 documented cases of evolution happening so fast we humans could actually observe it). Example; a birds food supply dried up, the bird adapted a new type of beak to get a new food supply, happened in a very short period of time. It usually happens slow, but if environmental pressures are severe enough obviously it can happen fast. You want to see some new species jump into existance in real time? WTF drugs did you take?

                  If you have it all figured out why hasn't Darwin been deleted by now and replaced with your theory? Umm because Darwin's theory fits the observations and can make predictions.
                  I posted about this before, natural selection is not equipped to explain how incipient stages of these structures begin, only that they were there. There is no evidence that something came from nothing forced by natural selection. Only that these selective adaptations occurred, to ensure the species survival. Everything else occurs from what I've said in the previous posts, and you're once again assuming open-ended evolution with no proof despite genetic law flying in the face of your theory. Evolutionists have to solve this dilemma still.

                  Last part was mostly to Rich, I've slept 3 hours in 36 and your avatars looked alike for a second.
                  Make America Great Again

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                    Umm, it's all one thing really, it's just time and change.
                    Lol not really. adaptation implies conscious decison to change with environment. evolution is not a conscious decision but random mutation + natural selection pressure.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                    ------
                    HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                    My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                    Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                    " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                    Comment


                    • I think if you take complex language and theories and simplify them, you realize that either 1) nothing is actually being said, or 2) what is actually being said is absurd.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                        I posted about this before, natural selection is not equipped to explain how incipient stages of these structures begin, only that they were there. There is no evidence that something came from nothing forced by natural selection. Only that these selective adaptations occurred, to ensure the species survival. Everything else occurs from what I've said in the previous posts, and you're once again assuming open-ended evolution with no proof despite genetic law flying in the face of your theory. Evolutionists have to solve this dilemma still.
                        Are you saying wings can't evolve from non-wings? Eyes can't evolve from non-eyes? Is that the point we're hung up on? Did you watch the Dawkins video I posted? It's actually really entertaining/hilarious. It's old and you'll actually enjoy it. Or it will help you sleep, so it's a win either way. But it also addresses these questions (although I'm not sure to your satisfaction, because he doesn't get all molecular about it).
                        The Champagne of Beards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                          The word "adaptation" should be stricken from the natural selection curriculum. What is it that makes you think these changes that are made as a result of various selection pressures are not examples of the evolutionary process?
                          You think birds who develop longer beaks will eventually become a new species?
                          "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                          In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                          - Ray Peat

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
                            Lol not really.
                            Yep, really. ^^

                            Darwin was cool, he was like "hmm, things change". That was it. That was his big thought. It was a great throught. Implied in his thought is that time exists. Things change thru time. Done. No need to splice words.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                              Yep, really. ^^

                              Darwin was cool, he was like "hmm, things change". That was it. That was his big thought. It was a great throught. Implied in his thought is that time exists. Things change thru time. Done. No need to splice words.
                              Nice for elementary school science but not really for real biology but okay sure.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                              ------
                              HCLF: lean red meat, eggs, low-fat dairy, bone broth/gelatin, fruits, seafood, liver, small amount of starch (oatmeal, white rice, potatoes, carrots), small amount of saturated fat (butter/ghee/coconut/dark chocolate/cheese).

                              My Journal: gelatin experiments, vanity pictures, law school rants, recipe links


                              Food blog: GELATIN and BONE BROTH recipes

                              " The best things in life are free and the 2nd best are expensive!" - Coco Chanel

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
                                My point is "reason" isn't better than "spirituality"... They are both just tools of analysis.

                                Support = more human data. Wow. Systematic bias.

                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                By default doesn't belief automatically preclude logical reasoning and hence analysis,
                                as a leap of faith (without analysis) is required to complete the equation i.e. the "God" constant.

                                Either way I don't think it really matters whether you believe in millions of years of gradual adaptation and evolution or that God made it look like there has been millions of years of evolution, I personally leave people to their faith, except when they argue their superiority over others primarily as a tool to build up their armies of believers and turn a spiritual belief stream into a political tool for personal gain, and sadly that's where most seem to go over time.
                                "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X