Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eating Paleo, But Don't Believe in Evolution?

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

  • I've been sick so haven't been able to or felt like dealing with this until now.

    Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
    Eureka is right, about some of what I've said, other things you have cherrypicked in order to make it seem like my argument is weaker than it is, but I've exhausted most of these things in my various posts strewn out in this thread. What you've described is not speciation, but you're still not understanding. Your problem is you're clearly ignoring forms of genetic science. Are you aware of the Hardy Weinberg principle? Hybridization also can cause you to lose polymorphisms because the Hardy Weinberg principle doesn't apply to gene flow and migrant polymorphisms become fixed. If all existing clusters hybridized we'd be left with only one cluster rather than many. Genuine evolution requires new genes into the gene-pool of a species. A re-assembly of what is already there is not evolution, it is a very small(micro) change in the grand scheme of things. If two variations can no longer interbreed, they have become more limited in their gene pool, and more restricted in its ability to manage its environment; hence the above theory of hybridizing clusters.
    Genetic drift, gene flow, gene mutations, are all ways in which new genetic material is introduced into a population. New alleles are formed by mutations to existing chromosomes and new genes are added via mutations which cause chromosomal duplication. How you have warped this in your mind to become some sort of barrier is beyond me. It's not!

    As an Ecologist I'm quite familiar with the Hardy-Weinberg Theorem. Unlike you, however, I am also familiar with the fact that it requires a set of assumptions to be met making it theoretical rather than practical in nature. It is meant to be applied to the ideal population rather than a real world one. It also in no way shape or form contradicts evolution as it is built around the premise that evolutionary forces are not at work. Another newb mistake, Derp! Almost as bad as "evolution is still just a scientific theory".

    What I described is in my earlier posts is fact speciation by any of its definitions. I don't have to cherry pick to make your argument look weak. You do that all by yourself with your constant repeating of thoroughly debunked Creationist nonsense with a few other things randomly thrown against the wall to see if they stick. Like the Hardy Weinberg principle. How could you possibly think that disproves Evolution? You were counting on the fact that I would be as unfamiliar with it as you apparently are. Sorry to disappoint.

    You'll argue mutational change, but this isn't a normal variational reshuffling of the DNA code, but an actual change in one tiny item in the code information. Are you aware of how vastly complex one tiny pin of DNA coding is, yet you postulate that, defying all conventional laws of genetics and DNA, that several of these tiny variations over time will add up to one large one that would mean speciation. Do you not understand that everything you're implying is not an example of a large change? You argue that these variations in Mendelian genetics is evolution. You're wrong. To assert this means you have an absolute lack of knowledge in genetics and this subject. You assert things with such fact that you ignore not even evolutionists support this fact; Lewontin for example, which he explains that natural selection cannot occur if the species does not already have the trait, and that it operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it. It does not explain evolution, nor as Rich points out, the origin of the species. This is foolish. If your theory is correct, ponder this; why are there distinct species at all? Surely, all these minor changes across species alters them enough to have one large change or no distinct species. Is this not proof of our DNA wall, which, you say has no barrier and no limits.
    You do realize the same Scientific Method by which these "conventional laws of genetics and DNA" are obtained is the same one which provides the plethora of evidence supporting evolution? And zero evidence to support any of your Creationist claims. You are again thinking about probability backwards. Just stop. The only thing you are doing is showing you are good at math and horrible at science. You keep trying to throw in Mendelian genetics as if that was some sort of counter to evolution. Did you even look at anything I posted. Did you read the papers? You wanna talk about the complexity of DNA and then chalk all that up to "these variations in Mendelian genetics". That just shows you didn't in fact actually look at anything I posted. Your mind is made up and you don't want no damn facts interfering with your opinions.

    What does every example you have listed have in common? Have you not looked at the genetic difference between the species you're saying have vastly changed? I would bet my money on no. With this, you ignore several theories, either intentionally, or unintentionally, and give very simplistic and horribly thought out arguments towards evolution, one key theory is ignoring the DNA limitation that allows all sorts of variation between it, and regression toward the mean. With all your vast knowledge of evolution, you've obviously ran into this theory, yes? Want to explain it? This plant and animal breeders all run into this same problem, a literal wall in DNA preventing its transcendence beyond.
    Ok now you're just rambling incoherently. I gave examples of speciation. What is your definition of "vastly changed". Just because your caricature of evolution has a donkey giving birth to an elephant doesn't make it true. What part of slow gradual change do you not understand. Even under periods of rapid evolution (punctuation equilibria) it's still gradual in the context of a human lifespan.

    This wall you are trying to conjure up is a myth. You keep using the complexity of DNA and backwards probability. No matter how many times you say it you will still be wrong. Speciation has actually been observed in lab, something you keep ignoring. In both plants and animals. You keep alluding to some sort of chromosomal barrier to evolution. In fact, evolutionary mechanisms work on chromosomes by changing their size, configuration, redundancy, and number (polyploidy...your favorite!). That they act as a barrier is a myth.

    You brought up Population Genetics in another post. You do realize that entire discipline is devoted to explaining and furthering our understanding of evolutionary phenomena rather than to debunk it, right?

    Another thing, which you ignorantly, and erroneously allude to is polyploidy; which is a variation in the numbers of chromosomes and rearrangements of chromosomal material. This isn't proof of evolution, only if you're myopic and brainwashed by Darwinian propaganda, it does not produce anything beyond the limits already established. We know normal cells are diploid, with double sets of similar chromosomes, and that reproductive cells are haploid(though you might not know this judging by your responses), with only one set. Haploid male and female cells unite in zygote to form the diploid cell. What you're referring to, found in plants but very rarely in animals, is three or more haploid chromosomes together in an organism. These breeders can produce polyploid in plants with chemicals like colchicine. Then you arrogantly assume that because this plant has now taken on many more chromosomes, and inherited traits of another plant, that it has somehow evolved into an entire different species. Nope, sorry, this did not occur, and if I weren't dealing with clearly people who have only read one book on the subject, I wouldn't even have to explain this. You're again just referring to the same genetic theories which you've routinely ignored. What about the polyploidy rodents which you ignored probably because they still clearly look like rodents just ones that have inherited undesirable traits.
    You're getting madder and madder lol. Getting a little frustrated, Derpinator? LOL! I realize you are getting desperate and resorting to insulting me but accusing me of not knowing High School Biology is laughable coming from someone who didn't even know the definition of a Scientific Theory.

    First, lets correct you on the definition of polyploidy. The actual definition of polyploidy is having more than two sets of chromosomes. The tendency of polyploids to create gametes with a different number of chromosomes and thus reproductively isolating itself from the next generation has been a driving force in their evolution. I and the entire field of Botanical Science "arrogantly assume" such a thing. If you were in fact as familiar with it as you pretend to be and if you had actually looked into my links posted earlier you would see your oversimplified nonsense does not apply.

    Are you really that much of an expert in the Botanical sciences that you know more than they do? Don't even try to counter with some BS that this is an appeal to authority. Nothing becomes fact just because one person says so but when something is duplicated and repeatable verified by others. It's called the Scientific Method, a thing with which you have already demonstrated your unfamiliarity.

    And again you keep talking about these established limits. Except you haven't been able to establish them anywhere other than your characterized version of evolution.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
      I am not sure, but I have been in several instances of moderated debates before in entire courses dedicated to it. No one has had a PhD, yet, and I don't claim to be able to debate against them right now and hold my own. This is all practice, and I don't get out to disprove, merely to increase my own knowledge by challenging others. You also need to look at it from the point of view of a creationist, or a religious person, when these things are merely accepted as fact, and the others will look down at people who hold differing views, so I merely ask them to put their money where their mouth is. If you can call someone else ignorant and absurd, you should be prepared to run into someone that is going to go out of their way to challenge that. This is the role I'm filling currently, despite not actually committing to either side.

      This I understand, so I can recant this in your particular case, as I haven't seen you be overtly offensive to either side.

      PS: I don't really claim to be a genius, or that intelligent of a person, just someone with an inquisitive mind that wants to learn as much as I can from all angles. I think it's inquisitive minds that actually drive the world. I can understand how I come off as arrogant, but it's not really the case.
      OK this post suddenly lets this whole thread (at least as far as I've been able to catch up to) make more sense. I've never thought of you as stupid, even though I probably disagree with almost everything you say, but the stuff you've been posting in this thread has been so flabbergasting so to hear that this whole time you've basically been playing Devil's Advocate suddenly puts it all into perspective. The vehemence with which you've been arguing some pretty fantastically out there things, I admit, had me shaking my head. I can actually respect it as a tactic for learning more about a subject though. Well played! All your insults notwithstanding.

      Comment


      • Keep up with the thread. Hope you're feeling better.

        No, you're still not getting it. All you have is that micro evolution(not disputing, obviously), eventually leads to macro evolution. Not even evolutionists claim that this(ring species) is evidence of it, so you're literally refuting yourself with your admitted lack of knowledge. You can't seem to admit this has never taken place, so you're trying to straw man this in along with your buddy 0Angel0. What you are literally referring to, whether you know it or not, is a change in the frequency of alleles, but what you're not taking into account is the fact that this change in frequency necessarily reflects a reduction in some of the alleles, or a complete elimination of them, and the only increase is merely a matter of the difference in proportions present in the those populations, the expression of formerly suppressed alleles that were already present in the old population. I don't know how many times I have to say this. There is no increase in the alleles available, there is simply more of a certain kind, of which there used to be proportionally fewer in the former population, but there is always a decrease in alleles that defined the original population and in some cases a complete elimination of those formerly expressed alleles which results in a loss of genetic diversity.

        When you repeat around the ring, over long periods of time to establish a large and phenotype homogeneous population, one established population becomes the basis for the migration of a core few of its members to a new territory to form a new population, this group possess an even more limited amount of alleles from the former population, with the new frequency of alleles becoming the basis for a new phenotype that would emerge from the inbreeding. This is, what you know as isolation and inbreeding among members of the new population, which you would call the new "species" or subspecies. With this "speciation", as you would refer to it, there is an accompanied reduction in genetic possibilities(gene depletion again), from changes in gene frequency that occurs with the new population, as it requires(genetic law) that some of the alleles that formed the phenotype of its predecessor to be lost in new population.

        tl;dr "speciation" comes at a loss of variability, and you are still not providing what I've been asking this whole thread.

        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 this refuted again? Like all evolutionists, you attach ideological preferences to genetics to bolster your argument. It's sorta sad. Pretty much the majority of your post goes on like this with more "you're wrong, look at my papers". I did, hence why I'm still making arguments. The chance that a particular "mutation" will become a fixed trait in a population is inversely proportional to the effect on its phenotype. The idea that mutations, regardless of what they entail, are capable of producing limitless biological change is speculation, unobserved, and clearly based on faith.




        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.
        Your punctuated equilibrium theory is clearly at odds with evidence.

        You're getting madder and madder lol. Getting a little frustrated, Derpinator? LOL! I realize you are getting desperate and resorting to insulting me but accusing me of not knowing High School Biology is laughable coming from someone who didn't even know the definition of a Scientific Theory.

        First, lets correct you on the definition of polyploidy. The actual definition of polyploidy is having more than two sets of chromosomes. The tendency of polyploids to create gametes with a different number of chromosomes and thus reproductively isolating itself from the next generation has been a driving force in their evolution. I and the entire field of Botanical Science "arrogantly assume" such a thing. If you were in fact as familiar with it as you pretend to be and if you had actually looked into my links posted earlier you would see your oversimplified nonsense does not apply.

        Are you really that much of an expert in the Botanical sciences that you know more than they do? Don't even try to counter with some BS that this is an appeal to authority. Nothing becomes fact just because one person says so but when something is duplicated and repeatable verified by others. It's called the Scientific Method, a thing with which you have already demonstrated your unfamiliarity.

        And again you keep talking about these established limits. Except you haven't been able to establish them anywhere other than your characterized version of evolution.
        Thanks for shortening my definition already listed. You're still wrong, for a few reasons. Not even going to respond to your pathetic ad hominem that wasn't even the case, I was downplaying it and calling science fallible, as it is. You have no proof I don't know what a scientific theory is, like you have no proof evolution occurs to your ideological preference.

        1). Reversion to the average. As a botanical scientist you should be aware of this already. But, you dishonestly keep assuming open-ended evolution. Polyploid hybrids can't occur without pre-existing parent species(look at wheat for example), meaning it shows a decrease, not a gain, of genetic diversity. I swear, I don't know why I have to keep rephrasing the same thing. Your arguments have literally become useless insinuations.
        2). Speciation by polyploidy does not produce new morphological characteristics, and in your examples, the daughter species showed only small changes, mostly in color.
        3). Speciation by polyploidy implies plants can be designed to "evolve" by forming hybrids, but doesn't show unplanned "evolution". You're speculating again
        4). Darwin's theory depends on splitting of one species into two(WHY DO YOU STILL NOT GET THIS, NONE OF YOU I SWEAR TO CHRIST), which then diverge and split over and over again(OPEN-ENDED EVOLUTION). Only in this case would Darwin's theory, in which all species are "evolved" descendants of a common ancestor would make sense. Your repeated straw man of "LOL SPECIES INTO A SPECIES DURR NOT EVOLUTION" is a shitty deflection that needs to be shot down, now. It is essentially, you know, the entire premise behind origin of species to Darwinism.
        Last edited by Derpamix; 11-06-2013, 06:30 PM. Reason: derp
        Make America Great Again

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bloodorchid View Post
          we call it football cause that's what it should be called, like god intended
          Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

          Griff's cholesterol primer
          5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
          Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
          TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
          bloodorchid is always right

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 0Angel0 View Post
            OK this post suddenly lets this whole thread (at least as far as I've been able to catch up to) make more sense. I've never thought of you as stupid, even though I probably disagree with almost everything you say, but the stuff you've been posting in this thread has been so flabbergasting so to hear that this whole time you've basically been playing Devil's Advocate suddenly puts it all into perspective. The vehemence with which you've been arguing some pretty fantastically out there things, I admit, had me shaking my head. I can actually respect it as a tactic for learning more about a subject though. Well played! All your insults notwithstanding.
            My intelligence is backwards probability.

            PS I don't think you're stupid either, I'm just a wound up guy. No personal offense intended, I respect most people I debate with.
            Last edited by Derpamix; 11-06-2013, 06:24 PM.
            Make America Great Again

            Comment


            • Originally posted by APPLEGIRL View Post
              I eat this way because it is healthy and makes sense and I feel great. I'm a person of faith and student of scripture. We don't all need to agree on everything to agree on some things.
              Thanks APPLEGIRL--well said!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by APPLEGIRL View Post
                I eat this way because it is healthy and makes sense and I feel great. I'm a person of faith and student of scripture. We don't all need to agree on everything to agree on some things.
                I agree with you, but some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing. I would if I was getting paid to do it. But, I'm not so I don't bother. To each their own.

                Comment


                • Why would my belief/disbelief in evolution/creationism have anything to do with how I eat? I believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I don't eat spaghetti.

                  Last edited by JoanieL; 11-07-2013, 09:42 PM. Reason: to add pic
                  "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                  B*tch-lite

                  Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                    Why would my belief/disbelief in evolution/creationism have anything to do with how I eat? I believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I don't eat spaghetti.
                    And with that, this thread has officially:









                    Find me on Facebook!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tatertot View Post
                      And with that, this thread has officially:









                      That happened pages ago.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MarielleGO View Post
                        I believe in evolution big time... however there are somethings science can't explain (yet) that calls for now for another more god (or goddess) like explanation...

                        anyway, if I remember it correctly, during Genesis in the bible god didn't make pre-packaged foods, chemicals, hormone injections or candy. From what I remember all he gave Adam and Eve were fruit trees, plant and animals. (he even told them not to eat the apple... might have been because it's high carb ) But in essence, what god gave Adam and Eve was Primal dieting...

                        So if you believe in Genenis or Evolution, the diet of early humans was the same...
                        I don't think they were eating animals until they were cast out of the Garden of Eden...

                        I believe the Earth is closer to 6,000 years old than millions or billions of years old.

                        As for evolution, wouldn't the primates we supposedly evolved from now be extinct?
                        Paleo Diet: 8-25-13 Wt: 185 BF% 27
                        Primal Diet (Lower Fat/Carb): 9-27, Wt: 176.4
                        Potato Hack Diet (Rotation): 11-12, Wt: 171.2
                        Primal Diet (LF/C): 1-23-14, Wt: 159.6
                        1-30-2014 - 157 (lowest weight since 2004)
                        GAPS/SCD 12-29-2014
                        CW: 164 GW: 130-135 CBF%: 24.38
                        49 - 5'7.5"
                        Macros (PFC) 30/40/30

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by APPLEGIRL View Post
                          I eat this way because it is healthy and makes sense and I feel great. I'm a person of faith and student of scripture. We don't all need to agree on everything to agree on some things.
                          Well said. I agree.
                          Paleo Diet: 8-25-13 Wt: 185 BF% 27
                          Primal Diet (Lower Fat/Carb): 9-27, Wt: 176.4
                          Potato Hack Diet (Rotation): 11-12, Wt: 171.2
                          Primal Diet (LF/C): 1-23-14, Wt: 159.6
                          1-30-2014 - 157 (lowest weight since 2004)
                          GAPS/SCD 12-29-2014
                          CW: 164 GW: 130-135 CBF%: 24.38
                          49 - 5'7.5"
                          Macros (PFC) 30/40/30

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MsSmith View Post
                            As for evolution, wouldn't the primates we supposedly evolved from now be extinct?
                            They are.
                            Starting DL: 135 Now: 380
                            Starting Bench: 115 Now: 255
                            Goal: Get stronger.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MsSmith View Post
                              I don't think they were eating animals until they were cast out of the Garden of Eden...

                              I believe the Earth is closer to 6,000 years old than millions or billions of years old.
                              Being a notorious pagan myself I believe that the earth is FLAT and that all those people believing it is round are victims to a world vide conspiracy from multi-national corporations and corrupt politicians! I also believe that I must die in combat to go to Walhalla, and that I will be rewarded with ad libitum mead and eternal combat with other great warriors inside that great hall...
                              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                              - Schopenhauer

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cavewizard View Post
                                They are.
                                Interesting.

                                4. Could apes ever evolve into some other humanlike creature?

                                It is possible that in many millions of years present day apes could evolve into some other humanlike species. It is, however, very improbable. First of all, humans did not evolve from any of the species we know as apes today. At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today. The species at the end of these lineages are a result of a very specific combination of selection pressures and genetic mutations over millions of years. This same combination is highly unlikely to occur ever again.


                                Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

                                This is interesting to me as a university educated middle school science major in that all of my instructors told us we could preface our answers on tests with "according to the textbook..."
                                Paleo Diet: 8-25-13 Wt: 185 BF% 27
                                Primal Diet (Lower Fat/Carb): 9-27, Wt: 176.4
                                Potato Hack Diet (Rotation): 11-12, Wt: 171.2
                                Primal Diet (LF/C): 1-23-14, Wt: 159.6
                                1-30-2014 - 157 (lowest weight since 2004)
                                GAPS/SCD 12-29-2014
                                CW: 164 GW: 130-135 CBF%: 24.38
                                49 - 5'7.5"
                                Macros (PFC) 30/40/30

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X