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 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.
    A woman who is anorexic sometimes grows extra body hair. Is she adapting or evolving?
    "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 YogaBare View Post
      You think birds who develop longer beaks will eventually become a new species?
      Speciation happens.

      It happened in our homo line. Does a species just jump into existance? Homo Habilis adapted to meat eating because the forests and plants dried up. His jaw and digestive system shrank, his brain enlarged, bam 500,000 years later he can't be called a chimp anymore.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Omni View Post
        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.
        Sure. Logical reasoning isn't a human invention as well? My point is that everyone hails logic as if it is so much more concrete. It isn't. Math was invented by human beings as a way of communication. Science is built by taking human observations and apply human logic. It is still all prone to human error and limitations. Whatever you want to call it: faith, belief, logic, rationality... Whatever. It is human invented. Human construct. Human sensory download of reality, not reality itself.


        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
          Nice for elementary school science but not really for real biology but okay sure.
          Smart things seem stupid, stupid things seems smart.

          Comment


          • Kimchininja, way to mix up Lamarck's giraffe example with Darwin's evolution. Lollll.


            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
              Smart things seem stupid, stupid things seems smart.
              No. You are really confusing Darwin with Lamarck. Just saying. Wow.


              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


              • Just another idea.
                God is an ancient stress management tool, too much unknown causes us stress, hence with the advent of reasoned thought and too much time on our hands we had to invent god so that all the unknowns could be thrown in as an act of god and we could then stop worrying, without God et al insanity and death are imminent, all driven through the adrenals by the stress of the unknown.
                "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                  You think birds who develop longer beaks will eventually become a new species?
                  Well, I do think they might, but I think it's an example of evolution regardless of whether it's an example of speciation.
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Omni View Post
                    Just another idea.
                    God is an ancient stress management tool, too much unknown causes us stress, hence with the advent of reasoned thought and too much time on our hands we had to invent god so that all the unknowns could be thrown in as an act of god and we could then stop worrying, without God et al insanity and death are imminent, all driven through the adrenals by the stress of the unknown.
                    Isn't this the central premise of the book "the science of god" or whatever? I never finished the book but I liked it.


                    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
                      No. You are really confusing Darwin with Lamarck.
                      I'm not differentiating between "this" and "that". That people are differentiating (where no differentiation exists in nature) that is why they are confussed.

                      Doods, totally pumped my shoulders this morning, need to go eat 1lb grass fed steak. This thread is awesome, as the guy in the video illustrated; evolution exists, but people don't believe it. Peace out hommies...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                        A woman who is anorexic sometimes grows extra body hair. Is she adapting or evolving?
                        The change in an individual isn't an example of evolution. Birds don't actually grow their beaks longer. They have some offspring with shorter beaks and some with longer ones and the longer ones survive (in this example) better than the birds with the shorter ones. Then their offspring, if subject to the same selection pressure will again pass on more genes for longer and longer beaks.

                        Individuals changing throughout their lifetimes isn't genetic and isn't evolution. Changes to the gene pool over generations is the process at issue here.
                        The Champagne of Beards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by KimchiNinja View Post
                          I'm not differentiating between "this" and "that". That people are differentiating (where no differentiation exists in nature) that is why they are confussed.

                          Doods, totally pumped my shoulders this morning, need to go eat 1lb grass fed steak. This thread is awesome, as the guy in the video illustrated; evolution exists, but people don't believe it. Peace out hommies...
                          ...
                          Lamarck and Darwin aren't advocating the same theory. They advocated 2 different theories to explain the same phenomenon. Darwin overturned Lamarck.

                          But of course, 2 antitheses have no differences. Carry on...




                          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


                          • Derp how are you arguing with these people. They don't even know how Darwin's evolution is different than Lamarck's adaptation theory. How could they be Darwin's soldiers?


                            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 Derpamix View Post
                              I made my objections abundantly clear. I will touch up on a few more of them here, but this seems relevant to what's going on here: "The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their flagrant usage of fallacies of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion." Sound familiar? You best believe in it, Rich, you're living in one. It is not I that is not making my objections unclear, it is you who is not interpreting it. It does not matter if people smarter than you or I believe in it, without proper grasp of the knowledge yourself; as in, fully equipped to debate it against a creationist, you cannot distinguish fact from fiction. No different than faith.
                              I'm no ignorant simpleton. You are misrepresenting your terms and then calling me an ignoramus. A finch and a gull are the same species? Come on now. Is this supposed to be a debate of the facts or a pissing contest of rhetorical skills?

                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              Now, on to the topic at hand. Note, I have no actual stance in this topic, despite my posts, so your tricks of ad hominen, and ad hoc do not work. If you're not diversified in the subject at hand, you will make key fundamental errors in things that do not make sense, this is why you refer to ring species as evidence of macro evolution, with this you make the mistake of assuming open-ended evolution(like 0Angel0), where phenotypic changes just keep going on and on with a never-ending accumulation of changes. You have no evidence for this at all, not even a grasp of the subject at hand to properly argue it, so instead you defer and deflect(Hox genes) and feint ignorance when backed into a corner(this above post) with a "quaint" appeal to authority fallacy(Jesus rescue me from your kind that have strayed from your word). Evolutionists accept that lack of genetic diversity is a problem with evolution, they just do the same thing, except they try to apply it to proper context with bottlenecks and ignoring the processes of speciation themselves.
                              Hox genes are found in all manner of species, from fruit flies to humans. We can compare the genetic makeup of the different Hox genes and know which human hox genes share common ancestry with the different fruit fly Hox genes. It is clear that there have been multiplications of Hox genes, and that their functions have grown to build very different body segments. How is this not evidence of speciation from common ancestry? Pretending all my counterpoints are so laughable as to only merit the reaction of "pfft, I knew you'd say that, because you're so dumb" is a rhetorical device, not a scientific argument.

                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              I did make the mistake of assuming you'd know intuitively what I was talking about, after all, how could I not with the way you assert your opinion in this thread? It is an error on mine, albeit much smaller than the personal incredulity which you showcased. What I was referring to, in my last post, was this loss of genetic diversity, with the reduction of heterozygosity to homozygosity, seen in your example of ring species, which you erroneously claim is refutation of my posts and proof of macro evolution. Cells are homozygous for a particular gene when identical alleles are present in both homologous chromosomes; a homozygote, this means that organisms are homozygous for the traits that are to be held constant. When a subpopulation of a species is reproductively isolated from its parent lineage, or other populations of the same species(always the same species), even through your "speciation", its traits are going be fixed. For it to stick in its new population, or continue to characterize and form the new population, the opposing, or competing alleles for that trait must be removed from that gene pool. This is a genetic law necessary reduction in genetic diversity in your speciation event, and in no way proves macro evolution. In fact, this punctures so many holes in your theory, because it already refutes open-ended evolution where traits supposedly accumulate. Homozygosity, literally is the thorn in your theory, which you have repeatedly tried to shoehorn in as proof of evolution blissfully unaware of your grave error.
                              How is homozygosity a thorn in my theory? One population is heterozygous. A geographical or other segregation occurs and in one population, Allele A is favored, where in the other, Allele B is favored (meaning the different traits confer survival advantages in each group). Over time and generations, Allele B can be eliminated from the group where Allele A confers survival advantage, and Allele A can be eliminated from the group living in a situation where Allele B is favored. Am I misunderstanding you still?

                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              Get it yet? 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, no transitional species, no transitional fossils, absolutely nothing. Only speculation, and, in Darwin's words "use your imagination". Hmm... Darwin is quite clear with his argument that there has to be lots of gradations between them, hence your use of "lots of tiny changes lead to big ones". So, surely, there would still be transitional species around? Not just extinct versions(explained through my above post). I'm not seeing any. Fossil records are obviously imperfect evidence of a macro evolution, and the fact the people in this topic have straw man'd this in repeatedly is laughable evidence at best; on par with your laughing at the bible.
                              You know genes and DNA weren't identified until after Darwin's time, right? And I still don't understand what you mean by a transitional species. Every species is a transitional species. Flying squirrels may some day evolve into bat-like creatures, like the flying fox. Do you expect me to anticipate future phenotypic expressions of gene pools? Obviously, that's like saying "If God can do anything, can he make a stone so heavy that he himself can't lift it?" It's a tautology.

                              Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                              I never said I disliked you, actually the opposite, despite the fact I believe you'd be someone that goes to an amusement park and tells kids around that isn't really Donald Duck, just some guy in a costume. You're really comfortable insulting religion in an echo chamber, but you're quick to back up and merely take it to a critique the moment someone points out your intolerance and lumps you in with every other atheist.
                              If the kids were running the world and making decisions that affected my life based on their belief in Donald Duck, I just might become that guy. I think removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is backward thinking. When people don't care about those words any more, they'll stop designing the bills that way. I don't live under Gods, and I reject Gods who exist in the clouds, in heaven, or any other remote location. If you want to talk about Gods who live here, on the sacred earth, with me and the other sacred humans, sacred tortoises, and sacred acacia trees, then I'm happy to engage in spirituality all day long.
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by turquoisepassion View Post
                                Derp how are you arguing with these people. They don't even know how Darwin's evolution is different than Lamarck's adaptation theory. How could they be Darwin's soldiers?


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                                Can you show me where I conflated anything remotely resembling Lamarckianism with the present understanding of Natural Selection? Because I think I'm the main one Derp's arguing with.
                                The Champagne of Beards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X