CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (https://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Nutrition (https://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Don't believe in Paleo because... (https://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=40807)

Joey Powell 12-29-2008 07:26 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
I am black box on the whole thing...
Measurable, Observable, repeatable.

Don't care if my paleolithic ancestors did it...

Don't care if my Great Grandfather X 134 (Noah) did it...

Don't care if I am actually an alien hybrid from Alpha Centauri...

Does it lean me out, keep me strong, float big turds, and keep my joints from hurting?

I am in...where do I sign??

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 07:52 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Joey Powell;481358] float big turds[/QUOTE]

You had me at float big turds :rofl:

Brandon Oto 12-29-2008 10:02 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Lurene Grenier;481177]This is a very important point: math and logic can be completely internally consistant and valid, without being voracious. That is, it can be totally disjoint from reality. We require observational data and experimental evidence to anchor math to reality, and then when we have a model that can predict experimental outcomes, we call that a theory. It will always remain a model and a theory.[/QUOTE]

This is a bit of a stretch. While you may be able to argue that both logic and math are empirical, and you would not be the first, making that case convincingly would be one of the most remarkable feats ever witnessed. Logic and math in the basic forms are the closest things imaginable to being [I]a priori.[/I]

In short, you can suggest that logic "could be otherwise," but much like a a square circle, it is quite unclear how this would actually work.

Moran Bentzur 12-29-2008 11:24 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Liam Dougherty Springer;481274]Though this thread no longer has anything to do with nutrition I am interested in speciation and if it is possible for a fish to become a bird or vice versa PM me with a link if you don't mind.... Please only scientifically backed sources.[/QUOTE]

The point I tried to make in the last post was that you will never witness a speciation event where a fish becomes a bird. Evolution works in a slow (at least in our anthropocentric view) and gradual fashion. Fish don't become birds. They slowly evolve into other forms (that you would probably still throw into the "fish" bin) with time some of these forms will look very different than the original fish. Eventually reptiles evolve and from them birds. Is it that hard to imagine a slow gradual shift from one form to another? If by breeding I can easily change a wolf-like creature to look like Paris Hilton's pocket dog, how hard is to imagine the missing parts of the tree of life so that you can see it as a continuum and not a vast array of distinct species.
The origin of birds is a well studied subject and you can find many good sources online to educate yourself. As always [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds"]wikipedia[/URL] (wfs) is actually such a good place to start.

David Reed 12-30-2008 12:02 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
Evolution isn't perfect, but it's the best theory we have that can be verified through scientific means, right? If there has been research done on a theory that has more evidence than evolution, I'd like to know.

Also, evolution will probably always be a "theory", because like all theories, there's no way to prove it beyond a doubt. Science doesn't prove things, that's math's job. Just like gravity, we have a "theory" on how it works, but some new finding tomorrow could completely debunk our theories on it, which is why you can never really *prove* anything in science.

If you are saying that there is a better explanation than evolution for it, with the catch that it CAN'T be proved by scientific means, then that is beyond discussion. The English language is utterly incapable of facilitating a discussion on the nature of reality (science, religion, evidence, faith, etc.) without major misunderstandings cropping up.

Vincent Tam 12-30-2008 02:26 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
Ben,
Evolution may have holes, but not having a continuous and gradual record of fossil records to illustrate gradualism doesn't disprove evolution. Gradualism was Darwin's hypothesis of how evolution brought about new species - but as we've seen more and more, the introduction of new species came in spurts during times of distress in the environment.

Jared Grisham 12-30-2008 02:31 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481129]Ever heard of Ben Stein? He's Jewish and a proponent of ID, he even made a movie about the suppression of it.
[/QUOTE]

Not trying to sound condescending, but that movie is about as credible as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. PZ meyers was duped into being interviewed for the movie, then kicked out of the screening. Dawkins was interviewed, yet his discussions were clipped and spliced out of context to make him sound like a loon. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with that film.

Scientists who believe in God are not suppressed within the scientific community. For that matter, ID proponents are not suppressed either. They just have not given any scientific proof to back up their claims. Their basic premise is "we have found gaps here and here, and we believe the explanation to these gaps is God". If you choose to believe that, more power to you -- just don't call it science, since it is not testable, verifiable, etc. Ergo, it deserves no bearing in the realm of science.

Below is a very concise description of what evolution is to help alleviate any misconceptions.

[IMG]http://people.virginia.edu/~abb3w/Images/Fark/Evolution2.jpg[/IMG]

Lurene Grenier 12-30-2008 08:01 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Brandon Oto;481433]This is a bit of a stretch. While you may be able to argue that both logic and math are empirical, and you would not be the first, making that case convincingly would be one of the most remarkable feats ever witnessed. Logic and math in the basic forms are the closest things imaginable to being [I]a priori.[/I]

In short, you can suggest that logic "could be otherwise," but much like a a square circle, it is quite unclear how this would actually work.[/QUOTE]

That is exactly not what I'm saying. What I AM saying is that I can construct a perfectly valid proof with non-veracious assumptions, thus being internally consistant and yet disjoint.

validity and veraciousness are seperate and distinct properties.

I am emphatically saying that logic and math CANNOT be otherwise. Thats what validity MEANS - that the structure and consistency of your argument are correct.

Brian Lau 12-30-2008 10:25 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[quote=Ben Chapman;480518]Like I already said, the quite absent fossil record that is so greatly hailed as evidence, but speciation should show literally millions of intermediary specimens at significant populations numbers, for the modification to happen, it would happen one modification at a time, obviously modifications like that haven't even been observable in current history, hence the incredibly long timeline that evolution requires. So far, no one can point to any of these, and believe me, I've looked.
[/quote]

Something I'm curious about myself, and I happened to recently come across a relevant paper that provides fossil evidence for an intermediary specimen. Really wonderful coverage by [URL="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/07/09/dawn-of-the-picasso-fish/"]Carl Zimmer at Discover Magazine[/URL] (wfs), in which he also mentions other examples of transitions captured in the fossil record.
[URL="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7201/abs/nature07108.html"]
Friedman, M. (2008) The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature 454, 209-212.[/URL] (wfs)

Some press about the paper: [URL="http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33976/title/A_wandering_eye"]Science (wfs) [URL="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080709/full/news.2008.946.html"]Nature[/URL] (wfs), [URL="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926643.400-flatfish-caught-evolving-thanks-to-its-roving-eye.html"]New Scientist[/URL] (wfs)

Ben Chapman 12-30-2008 10:28 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Vincent Tam;481482]Ben,
Evolution may have holes, but not having a continuous and gradual record of fossil records to illustrate gradualism doesn't disprove evolution. Gradualism was Darwin's hypothesis of how evolution brought about new species - but as we've seen more and more, the introduction of new species came in spurts during times of distress in the environment.[/QUOTE]


I'll say it again, as I've said before. I'm not trying to claim, or have ever claimed to be able to disprove evolution. My contention is that it is just as unprovable as it is disprovable.

Do you have examples of these spurts during times of distress? Specifically one's that might have been observable.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.