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)

S.S. 12-29-2008 12:20 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481000]The theory is based on fossil and dental records, but also largely on the the highly probably fact that very early man lived and ate almost the same way modern hunter gatherer tribes eat and live. These tribes do not have the disease trends we have. That is really the "meat" of the paleo argument.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I have yet to see evidence that suggests that the diet of modern hunter-gatherer tribes differs significantly from that of ancient peoples.

Robert Wolf 12-29-2008 12:38 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Scott Allen Hanson;480973]First, let me say that I adhere to a generally paleo diet. I think it has strong scientific underpinnings and it is effective for me.

I do question one of the basic premises of the Paleo Diet, however, which I have not seen addressed by Cordain or others. The basic premise is that humans have not had time to adapt (or evolve) to consume foods not available to our paleolithic ancestors.

How does this square with the observed phenomenon of Northern European adaptation to dairy consumption (production of lactase) as opposed to Africans and Asians who cannot digest dairy. Is this an evolutionary adaptation or not? If so, doesn't this contradict the basic premise?[/QUOTE]


Scott-
There are very few accepted adaptations which have had time to acrue...the light completion of N europeans appears to be both geographic and a selective pressure from gluten consumption (cordain has written on this).

Lactose deal is not that big a deal in that we have the abnility to digest lactose as infants, most loose this ability with age. Some do not. All that happened was a tweak that allows some folks to continue to digest lactose throughout life. A similar phenomena occurs with the two types of hemoglobin we produce. We have a gene for fetal hemoglobin that goes dormant at birth. Some people who have disease of the adult hemoglobin have benefitted from gene therapy which turns the fetal hemoglobin back on. It would not be tough to engineer this into the germ cells and make it an inheritable thing. This is short term evolution that reflect epigenics...just tweaking the genes we already have. Here is a nice piece on the topic fromt he paleodiet update:
Geologic Time, Magnitudes, and the Paleo Diet J R Lagoni


The reason the Paleo Diet leads to optimum health is because it is the diet we evolved to eat. Humans have only been eating grains for about 10,000 years, and eating dairy for even less time.

To understand and appreciate the basic premise of the Paleo Diet - that our genetic composition has not substantially changed since the geologically recent times of mass-agriculture and industrial age food - it is very helpful to have a clear perception of the magnitudes of time (both very large and very small) that we are talking about.

A change in magnitude (in math or science) is a number written in scientific notation that is at least one power of ten more or less. So, 20 and 40 (written scientifically as: 2 x 101 and 4 x 101) are actually of the same magnitude, or often stated as being the same "order of magnitude". However, 20 and 400 (written scientifically as: 2 x 101 and 4 x 102) are one power of ten different and therefore one order of magnitude different. It is much more than mere doubling or exponential change (it must be a change in exponents of ten versus any smaller base number), and it is not uncommon in the natural world or science.

The graph below illustrates the magnitudes of the time our ancestors ate a Hunters and Gatherers' (H-G) Diet versus when our ancestors consumed a Mass-Agriculture Diet. The specific times used in this graph are 2,000,000 for the H-G Diet and 10,000 years for the geologically recent Mass-Agriculture Diet. Although exact dates and amounts can be argued, and would change some among different ethnic groups and regional histories, the graph would always look very much the same - because regardless of the specific dates you utilize, it always would very definitively involve magnitudes of change difference
[IMG]https://www.mcssl.com/merchantLogos/81949/chart.gif[/IMG]

Figure 1: Bar graph illustrating a ratio of geologic time: 2,000,000 years vs. 10,000 years. These times are good representations of the magnitude of time of the Paleolithic Era foodstuffs of our ancestors as compared to the time our ancestral lineages have been on a Mass-Agriculture Diet.
It is startling to see the Mass-Agriculture Diet as a nearly flat, non-existent bar. In a mathematical sense one could almost say it is approaching the inverse of infinity ... or that it is "infinitesimally small" in comparison to our earlier foodstuffs. It is more than a full 2 magnitudes smaller. As a decimal ratio of 2,000,000: it is .005

While we can continue to debate (and we should) the exact amounts and rates of change in human physiology and the dietary amount of animal products vs. fruits/vegetables, etc. - an obvious fact is that the amount of time we and our ancestors have had mass agriculture and industrial era food is incredibly small indeed ... and not debatable.

When we talk about "evolutionary discordance" in regard to our modern diet vs. the Paleo Diet, this is what it means in one very real sense. A diet based on the way humans ate for a couple million years will lead to optimimum health and reduce the risk of degenerative disease.

Lurene Grenier 12-29-2008 12:46 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
Fossils are quite rare and hard to come by - for example it was shown that out of all the humans that have ever lived in the united states, only 50 fossilized bones will probably remain. However, that said, there are many examples: Archaeopteryx lithographica for one.

As for irreducible complexity, that hinges on the assumption that the component parts are not useful - the eye argument. If you look though you'll find photo sensory organis in various states of complexity in many current animals.

Gravity is also a theory.

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 01:23 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Robert Wolf;480898]
As a biochemist I am truly staggered by the complexity of life. Once you start working with DNA and the seeming chicken and egg issue of DNA replication and the attendendent need for proteins to aid in DNA replication things get complex and interesting indeed...but the issue of irriducable complexity has never borne itself out. We keep finding cellular mechanisms which can perform a given function that was stated "CAN NOT BE MADE SIMPLER". That is one issue. A second issue arrises from some of the work of [URL="http://www.wolfram.com/"]Stehan Wolfram[/URL] and his work on Cellular Automatia. The notion that all of complexity occurs in simple stepwise fasions is inaccurate and greatly obscures many of the mechanisms of extreme complexity such as DNA replication and protein folding. Id also highly recommend the book "African Exodous". I doubt if it will change your mind, but at least you will know what all of us loosers who buy the whole evolutionary biology thingy are deluding ourselves with. It has the best synergy between fossil records and molecular biology I have seen to date.

Also, for the continuity of YOUR argument you need to pick whether you are a new-earth creationist or if you DO buy into evolution (which you are saying is bunk) but with some outside influence. The inteligent design folks FULLY embrace evolution, an old earth and all of that.

I saw one of the Honchos from the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute"]Discovery Institute[/URL] speak on this topic at the University of Washington. The notion was compelling, but it has never gone anywhere and they never do any actual RESEARCH. Once you discover that the mission is NOT to uncover facts, but to push an agenda which grows from their [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy"]Wedge Strategy[/URL]...which you gotta love the open-minded mission here: "to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Once you understand they have absolutely NO interest in science, but rather pushing a political/religious agenda, then things start making sense. But again, these guy accept evolution...grudgingly. This is how they allow their work to kinda pass the sniff test and keep the topic alive.

so, for the continuity of your own argument, I'd pick a camp and run with that.



So, that's all pretty "solid" stuff, this point is much more an observation and much in the realm of opinion....[URL="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm"]Pope John Paul 2[/URL] ( I doubt you'r catholic but I liked this guy a bunch and he was a THINKER) was of the position that so long as evolution does not try to teach that there is no God, there was no problem with it AND that this theory best describes the world around us. Now, for some damm reason, scientists try to weigh in on this topic of "is there or is there not a god" when the issue is one of the supernatural...if there is a god and the supernatural, it may not lends itself well to proof in a test tube! All science can say is "Have not found proof yet..." this is where faith comes in...it just buggars me to see folks draw battle lines in these very interesting places.[/QUOTE]

I'll begin by saying for sure you are better educated in this arena than I and obviously better read at it. But at the very basic level my arguement remains the same. As you've said, it ultimately comes down to a faith issue (one which I had never intended on entering on this forum. I understand that there will always be other research and proof to refute any theory that arises, the problem is there is enough of it and it almost is always accomplished by folks who have already made their minds up about what conclusion they are trying to prove (this happens from both sides). I don't consider anyone a Loser for believing in evolution, nor do I consider myself one for not believing in it. The fact of the matter remains that while everyone loves to claim that the ID and young earth side are not approaching it scientifically and simply pushing an agenda, I have yet to see CONCLUSIVELY evidence from the other end that can reasonable PROVE that evolution exists either. I acknowledge that there is legitimate research on the topic. I would also argue that there is legitimate research from the other side that is not tainted with propaganda and agenda (I will tell you that most of this research you wont find because it has been tossed out or repressed simly because of its subject matter, nevermind that hte researchers doing the studies have more than 70 peer reviewed studies published, for some reason if a study arises in this realm, it is repressed, but that's not what I am here to discuss. I would say that there is much closemindedness coming from both sides).

I am a "show me the money" kind of person, I like to see concrete evidence, Yet still, many folks on here claim that the fossil record is complete, I hear you, but please show me. This idea that most species wouldn't have fossils would be easier to swollow if there wasn't such a darn thorough catalog of almost every current LIVING species already in the fossil record. If the fossil record is incomplete because most intermediary species were never fossilized, how do you explain such a complete representation of the current living species in the fossil record? I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, why would the current ecosystem be so greatly represented, but the millions of years previous be so poorly represented? It's pretty inconsistent.

As to the studies showing speciation. I have to wonder if we are thinking of a different definition of speciation. All the studies posted were experiments showing variation within a certain already interbreeding, chromosomally consistent organism. That is to say, if you add an appendage to a fruit fly, you still just have a fruit fly with an extra appendage. The speciation I am talking about has to do with descent with modification, the large steps that would need to arise through natural selection that don't seem to be documented anywhere, or reproduced anywhere. The transition from water to land, of reptile to bird. bird to mammal. I have yet to had someone ACUTALLY show me a significant intermediary between these very different types of species. in short, is it really speciation if you still have the same organism, but with some flair after the study is done?

As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

I think people misunderstood the intention of this thread to be one of challenging the efficacy of the Paleo diet. It's not, I think the paleo diet as it's practiced is a good way to get results, I think it's legit. But I think it gets it's legitimacy from a different starting place than the author does. I believe people were DESIGNED to eat a certain way. that more natural foods are intended to interact in synergy with our anatomy. This thread was just a discussion about some of the nitty gritty and why I am not necessarily on board with tossing out grains. We arrive at some of the same practices coming from different starting points. MY point is that neither side can prove themselves right, nor can one prove the other wrong, hence things like grains remain somewhat up in the air.

As to anecdotal evidence, I could point to just as many cases of people seeing incredible performance who ARE NOT on a paleo regimen (Khalipa comes to mind as one), so simple testimony is not necessarily what wins me over to a certain practice; again though, I think there's plenty of reasons empirically and logically to follow other parts of the diet: cutting processed foods, eating organic etc.

Hopefully no one's been offended by this thread, I feel like towards the end here some of the posts were starting to show their teeth. I don't consider someone a "loser" because they choose to believe in evolution. What does irk me is being called a loser, or uneducated because I don't. All I desire is a little mutual respect and the ability to admit shortcomings from both ends.

Sorry about the novella^

Jamie J. Skibicki 12-29-2008 01:32 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
The theories that support the earth being 4 billion years old are the same theories that we use to build nuclear reactors, particle coliders, Geiger counters, CRT tvs, look for oil, measure earth quakes, and determine how sound ground is for the construction of buildings.

What proof are you looking for exactly?

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 01:39 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
Care to elaborate on that?

Matthew Stafford 12-29-2008 01:47 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481068]
As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I'm picking out the parts of this topic I'm actually interested in. The use of law in describing a heavily tested theory has fallen out of favor because the word "law" denotes an absolute which does not exist in science. Things that have historically been called laws (Law of Universal Gravitation, for example) haven't had their names changed, but they are still theories. Your use of theory is still incorrect, which is about the only thing I'm arguing here. In common language, theory is used loosely but once you enter the realm of science the definition is rather strict.

Mike ODonnell 12-29-2008 01:49 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
If you have absolutely perfect health markers while eating grains....low BF%....no inflammation....normal BP/Cholesterol.....and everything else, have at it I say. There are no guarantees or absolutes in life....you just do what you feel brings you maximum health and prevention. Eating how our body was evolved to do is just one preventative way....but there are no guarantees on anything except toasters.

Jamie J. Skibicki 12-29-2008 01:56 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
I will, but it will take some research to get an explination that both complete and easily understood.

The basic premise is that science is a closed system and all the parts must work together. If you have a theory, say gravity, that works bodies near the earth, but then doesn't work for interstellar space, then your theory of gravity is wrong. The same theories of radioactive decay that work so well for nuclear reactors are the same theories that are used for dating the rocks of the solar system and the earth.

While we are talking about theories and science, a defintion of theory is in order. A theory cannot be proved. It can only be disproved. What you do is you come up with a theory and you try it in a bunch of different circumstances. Assuming it holds in all these cases, you give it to other people that then use this theory and assume it is correct. They than use this theory to do other stuff with it.

Example gravity: Once newton figures out g = G m1 * m2/r2 and tests this a few times, people then start using it for astronomy, space flight, artillery firing angles and what not. If the theory of gravity was wrong, these things would not work. If they do, then all of their corresponding parts must work.

Now a theory can be disproven with one example. Thats it, 1. You can have 1,000,000 test that cover a wide range of circumstances that all work but if one doesn't, the theory is disproven.

Take Newtons laws. F=ma is wrong. dead wrong. Einstien proved this. But 300 years of construction and science and engineering was based off of this. Who could all this stuff work and the theory still be wrong.

Well, it's wrong, but a damn fine approximation. You only find out it's wrong at high speed (close to the speed of light) or high gravity. Our daily experiences and even the experinces of scientist and engineers in the lab never bump into these effects. SO even a wrong theory can be of great use, as long as you know where it breaks down.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:07 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481068]I'll begin by saying for sure you are better educated in this arena than I and obviously better read at it. But at the very basic level my arguement remains the same. As you've said, it ultimately comes down to a faith issue (one which I had never intended on entering on this forum. I understand that there will always be other research and proof to refute any theory that arises, the problem is there is enough of it and it almost is always accomplished by folks who have already made their minds up about what conclusion they are trying to prove (this happens from both sides). I don't consider anyone a Loser for believing in evolution, nor do I consider myself one for not believing in it. The fact of the matter remains that while everyone loves to claim that the ID and young earth side are not approaching it scientifically and simply pushing an agenda, I have yet to see CONCLUSIVELY evidence from the other end that can reasonable PROVE that evolution exists either. I acknowledge that there is legitimate research on the topic. I would also argue that there is legitimate research from the other side that is not tainted with propaganda and agenda (I will tell you that most of this research you wont find because it has been tossed out or repressed simly because of its subject matter, nevermind that hte researchers doing the studies have more than 70 peer reviewed studies published, for some reason if a study arises in this realm, it is repressed, but that's not what I am here to discuss. I would say that there is much closemindedness coming from both sides).

I am a "show me the money" kind of person, I like to see concrete evidence, Yet still, many folks on here claim that the fossil record is complete, I hear you, but please show me. This idea that most species wouldn't have fossils would be easier to swollow if there wasn't such a darn thorough catalog of almost every current LIVING species already in the fossil record. If the fossil record is incomplete because most intermediary species were never fossilized, how do you explain such a complete representation of the current living species in the fossil record? I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, why would the current ecosystem be so greatly represented, but the millions of years previous be so poorly represented? It's pretty inconsistent.

As to the studies showing speciation. I have to wonder if we are thinking of a different definition of speciation. All the studies posted were experiments showing variation within a certain already interbreeding, chromosomally consistent organism. That is to say, if you add an appendage to a fruit fly, you still just have a fruit fly with an extra appendage. The speciation I am talking about has to do with descent with modification, the large steps that would need to arise through natural selection that don't seem to be documented anywhere, or reproduced anywhere. The transition from water to land, of reptile to bird. bird to mammal. I have yet to had someone ACUTALLY show me a significant intermediary between these very different types of species. in short, is it really speciation if you still have the same organism, but with some flair after the study is done?

As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

I think people misunderstood the intention of this thread to be one of challenging the efficacy of the Paleo diet. It's not, I think the paleo diet as it's practiced is a good way to get results, I think it's legit. But I think it gets it's legitimacy from a different starting place than the author does. I believe people were DESIGNED to eat a certain way. that more natural foods are intended to interact in synergy with our anatomy. This thread was just a discussion about some of the nitty gritty and why I am not necessarily on board with tossing out grains. We arrive at some of the same practices coming from different starting points. MY point is that neither side can prove themselves right, nor can one prove the other wrong, hence things like grains remain somewhat up in the air.

As to anecdotal evidence, I could point to just as many cases of people seeing incredible performance who ARE NOT on a paleo regimen (Khalipa comes to mind as one), so simple testimony is not necessarily what wins me over to a certain practice; again though, I think there's plenty of reasons empirically and logically to follow other parts of the diet: cutting processed foods, eating organic etc.

Hopefully no one's been offended by this thread, I feel like towards the end here some of the posts were starting to show their teeth. I don't consider someone a "loser" because they choose to believe in evolution. What does irk me is being called a loser, or uneducated because I don't. All I desire is a little mutual respect and the ability to admit shortcomings from both ends.

Sorry about the novella^[/QUOTE]

My main problem with ID and new earth pushing it as "science" and not religious agenda, is why are only orthodox christians espousing ID. If Jews or agnostics were too than it might not be agenda driven.

How long were you a bilogy major? Because you seem to display a few major misunderstanding of the fossil record and what is a law versus a theory. Gravity is a theory, so relativity. A law only states ratios that always occur. For examples Chertoffs law states that in DNA sequences A always pair with T and C with G. That's all a law is. Everything is theories from Gravity, relativity to evolution. Theories are the best explanation for the collection of data we currently have. If new data comes along that contradicts the theory, the theory is either thrown out or modified.

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:11 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
I don't think that's correct. I've met plenty of non-Christian people who still believe in ID.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:13 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481117]I don't think that's correct. I've met plenty of non-Christian people who still believe in ID.[/QUOTE]

Really? Why aren't any of them vocal about it? Why are all the major ID organizations Christian based?

Benjamin Smith 12-29-2008 02:15 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
Ben,

I sympathize with your convictions on this subject (I was taught young-earth 6-day creationism as a child, but decided in my late teens that the mechanism of creation wasn't the hinge on which my faith would swing).

So here's my response to your initial conundrum - if you don't believe that humans adapted to a paleo diet through the evolutionary process, you can probably agree that the conditions under which humans were created according to the Biblical account are the same as the conditions under which the scientific consensus suggests we evolved.

Therefore:

Don't eat anything that wasn't available in the Garden of Eden.

It sounds silly, but I'm completely serious - this is the approach I would take if I was trying to talk my parents into eating Paleo. If you take the Bible literally (which I can respect), then you know that the Garden was the ideal environment, so just eat critters and plants. If you approach it from that standpoint, I doubt you'll find any inconsistencies with the Paleo/Primal approach.

C James Barton 12-29-2008 02:17 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481068]As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically.[/QUOTE]

The Law of Gravity isn't proven mathematically, it's proven empirically - by experiment and observation.

IIRC, one of the early successes of Newton's LoG was that it could be used to derive Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion - that is, it accounted for a lot of observations.

Of course, you ask about Mercury, counter-examples and laws-as-approximations...

Jamie J. Skibicki 12-29-2008 02:20 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
James,

You had to bring up mecury, didn't you. Okay, the variation in Mecury's orbit is accounted for my einsteins correction to gravitational theory (that close to the sun is enough to find a deviation, though small one, due to relativisitic effects). THis shows that even an incorrect, yet close theory, can be useful.

Frank Dennis 12-29-2008 02:20 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Jamie J. Skibicki;481080]The theories that support the earth being 4 billion years old are the same theories that we use to build nuclear reactors, particle coliders, Geiger counters, CRT tvs, look for oil, measure earth quakes, and determine how sound ground is for the construction of buildings.

What proof are you looking for exactly?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481088]Care to elaborate on that?[/QUOTE]

As a specific example:

[URL="http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp"]GPS systems are affected by relativity[/URL] (wfs). The altitude at which satellites orbit is sufficient that the varaition in gravity affects how fast clocks in orbit are ticking vs. how fast they're ticking on the ground. If GPS and communications satellites did not acount for this difference in clock speed, then computer networks would lose time. It's not a huge difference, but it adds up.

This is just one example, but there are many more examples where current models of physical laws make predictions which bear out in how we interact with the universe. Of course, the very nature of science is that when something comes along which doesn't fit our model, the model gets updated. Using a model to describe the universe which had 7 concentric celestial spheres, with Earth at the center, worked just fine until the invention of the telescope.

The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that these theories then make a young earth impossible because of other things we observe in the universe; for mass distribution to be what it is now, for the planets to be where they aren and how they are using nothing but the physical laws of the universe to achieve the current configuration, requires the sort of timeline coherent with evolutionary theory.

Of course, none of that matters if you believe that God created the universe and the earth is young, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way. If you have faith that there is a creator, then science is irrelevant; just because there appear to be rules in place for how the universe works around us, God by his very nature, as most people concieve him, can suspsend those rules at will and do whatever he wants.

As people have said on this thread before, in neither case can we be completely certain what our ancestors ate. When was the fishing pole invented? How long do you suppose ancient man, if evolution is correct, was eating shellfish he could dig out of the sand on the beach, before he finally could catch things like tuna or cod, and so why are these fish on the menu? Why is it, if creationism is correct, that pork was unhealthy before the coming of Christ, but not afterward? Pigs didn't change... did the universe change around them?

Absolutism is never truth, even things like gravity and the speed of light are variable in certain circumstances. I think the best way to approach the paleo diet, or any diet, or any endeavor which by definition requires personal experimentation, is to learn as best you can what's been done, what the basics are, and then adapt it to your goals as your experience increases.

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:21 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481119]Really? Why aren't any of them vocal about it? Why are all the major ID organizations Christian based?[/QUOTE]

Ever heard of Ben Stein? He's Jewish and a proponent of ID, he even made a movie about the suppression of it.

That really isn't the point though, You think it's all Christians, I can give you examples of people who believe it that aren't. But that's sort of a rabbit trail to what's being discussed here. Let's try to steer it away from religion again.

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:24 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Benjamin Smith;481121]Ben,

I sympathize with your convictions on this subject (I was taught young-earth 6-day creationism as a child, but decided in my late teens that the mechanism of creation wasn't the hinge on which my faith would swing).

So here's my response to your initial conundrum - if you don't believe that humans adapted to a paleo diet through the evolutionary process, you can probably agree that the conditions under which humans were created according to the Biblical account are the same as the conditions under which the scientific consensus suggests we evolved.

Therefore:

Don't eat anything that wasn't available in the Garden of Eden.

It sounds silly, but I'm completely serious - this is the approach I would take if I was trying to talk my parents into eating Paleo. If you take the Bible literally (which I can respect), then you know that the Garden was the ideal environment, so just eat critters and plants. If you approach it from that standpoint, I doubt you'll find any inconsistencies with the Paleo/Primal approach.[/QUOTE]

Again, not doubting the Paleo diet's efficacy, I actually TRY to follow it as much as I can. I simply doubt the origin

Jamie J. Skibicki 12-29-2008 02:25 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
I think we should keep our arguments to a scienftific nature. One, if we don't, it's a violation of the AUP and second, nothing any of us say will change anyone's belief in what ever religion they believe in and is a waste of time.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:27 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
The majority of the evidence to support the diet called the "paleo diet" is modern hunter gatherer societies. These societies have almost no incidences of heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, lung cancer, emphasema or obesity. Which are currently the 7 of the top 10 leading causes of death in the US and other "western countries".

The main reason why they have a lower average life span and life expectency than Americans is due to their lack of modern antibiotics and healthcare. Our people may have a lower mortality rate, but we have a much higher morbidity rate.

If it bothers you calling it the "Paleo diet" call is the "Hunter-gatherer diet" or the "Bushman diet"

Dave Hancock 12-29-2008 02:29 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Amber Mathwig;480499]
Although Taubes book, Good Fats, Bad Fats is quite possibly one of the most difficult reads [/QUOTE]

I think you mean "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Definitely not a "light" read.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:29 PM

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.

That really isn't the point though, You think it's all Christians, I can give you examples of people who believe it that aren't. But that's sort of a rabbit trail to what's being discussed here. Let's try to steer it away from religion again.[/QUOTE]

I've seent hat movie, Ben Stein is an ID proponent, he's a free thinking proponent, he's opposed to any idea not being explored equally by the scientific community. He's not specifically pro ID just anti not supporting alternative theories. Which I applaud.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:30 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Dave Hancock;481140]I think you mean "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Definitely not a "light" read.[/QUOTE]

Are bad calories what happens when milk goes bad? :rofl:

Dave Hancock 12-29-2008 02:33 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481142]Are bad calories what happens when milk goes bad? :rofl:[/QUOTE]

That depends, do you like cottage cheese. ;)

C James Barton 12-29-2008 02:34 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Frank Dennis;481128]The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that these theories then make a young earth impossible because of other things we observe in the universe; for mass distribution to be what it is now, for the planets to be where they aren and how they are using nothing but the physical laws of the universe to achieve the current configuration, requires the sort of timeline coherent with evolutionary theory.[/QUOTE]

That's not *strictly* true. The whole universe could have been created three seconds ago, with everyone's memories of the past just fabricated. All the regularities of nature could still be present.

Of course, there's no [I]evidence[/I] for that, but it can't be disproved. It just doesn't usefully explain anything.

The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the solar system younger, any life and human life younger yet, and agriculture an almost complete new-comer.

Lurene Grenier 12-29-2008 02:35 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481136]Again, not doubting the Paleo diet's efficacy, I actually TRY to follow it as much as I can. I simply doubt the origin[/QUOTE]

Even if we throw out evolution and believe in a 6-day creationist path, we still know that humans didn't start out as farmers, right? Adam and Eve didn't farm. They had to live off of what they had. Humans didn't farm for a long time after eden - hell, how long did adam and eve live?

And God MADE them with eden in mind. To never have to know want or work, and farming is certainly work, so doubtless they'd have had animals and what grew around them naturally - God wasnt giving them sandwhiches to munch on.

So if you doubt evolution, then there'd be no way we could ever adapt to bread. That's almost a better argument for paleo than the evolutionary one :)

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:35 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Frank Dennis;481128]As a specific example:

[URL="http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp"]GPS systems are affected by relativity[/URL] (wfs). The altitude at which satellites orbit is sufficient that the varaition in gravity affects how fast clocks in orbit are ticking vs. how fast they're ticking on the ground. If GPS and communications satellites did not acount for this difference in clock speed, then computer networks would lose time. It's not a huge difference, but it adds up.

This is just one example, but there are many more examples where current models of physical laws make predictions which bear out in how we interact with the universe. Of course, the very nature of science is that when something comes along which doesn't fit our model, the model gets updated. Using a model to describe the universe which had 7 concentric celestial spheres, with Earth at the center, worked just fine until the invention of the telescope.

The problem, from a scientific standpoint, is that these theories then make a young earth impossible because of other things we observe in the universe; for mass distribution to be what it is now, for the planets to be where they aren and how they are using nothing but the physical laws of the universe to achieve the current configuration, requires the sort of timeline coherent with evolutionary theory.

Of course, none of that matters if you believe that God created the universe and the earth is young, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way. If you have faith that there is a creator, then science is irrelevant; just because there appear to be rules in place for how the universe works around us, God by his very nature, as most people concieve him, can suspsend those rules at will and do whatever he wants.

As people have said on this thread before, in neither case can we be completely certain what our ancestors ate. When was the fishing pole invented? How long do you suppose ancient man, if evolution is correct, was eating shellfish he could dig out of the sand on the beach, before he finally could catch things like tuna or cod, and so why are these fish on the menu? Why is it, if creationism is correct, that pork was unhealthy before the coming of Christ, but not afterward? Pigs didn't change... did the universe change around them?

Absolutism is never truth, even things like gravity and the speed of light are variable in certain circumstances. I think the best way to approach the paleo diet, or any diet, or any endeavor which by definition requires personal experimentation, is to learn as best you can what's been done, what the basics are, and then adapt it to your goals as your experience increases.[/QUOTE]

I guess I'm having a disconnect here. You're telling me that because GPS satellites work that somehow also proves evolution? Help me out here. I understand how nuclear decay works, I understand there is empirically tested and sound results for things that are just "theories".

What I do not see is that evolution - in the biological sense - is backed up by this same empirical evidence. It's not something that can be reproduced. No one can run an experiment on a long enough timeline to ever show that dramatic speciation we see in nature can occur as such, the empirical evidence for it is EXTREMELY thin. The question of age doesn't come into question for me so much as the question of the actual randomized speciation. I simply have NEVER been offered evidence where somone has been able to reproduce a biolocial descent with modification on the scale required to arise an entirely new species.

FWIW, using nueclear decay as a proof for dating something still requires that you make certain assumptions; assumptions that you can't possibly know for sure. Such as using a carbon dating method to date a bone based upon the rate of carbon decay, interpolated backwards using matter found in the bone: you have to ASSUME that carbon content of the atmosphere was consistent throughout history, to which there is significant evidence that it wasn't. It is likely that it has been changing.

so despite certain theories being incredibly sound, the proof of something that is slightly related, but completely different still requires that you make certain assumptions about some unknowns. Unknowns that if ever found to be different, would significantly change your results. Are we simply unwilling to consider the idea that some of our original assumptions were incorrect?

Anyone ever heard of String theory or zero point energy? or the idea that MAYBE the speed of light has been constantly getting slower?

I am simply saying that there are possibilities that could refute many findings that we have, and it doesn't make someone an idiot to entertain those possibilities.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:37 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=C James Barton;481146]That's not *strictly* true. The whole universe could have been created three seconds ago, with everyone's memories of the past just fabricated. All the regularities of nature could still be present.

Of course, there's no [I]evidence[/I] for that, but it can't be disproved. It just doesn't usefully explain anything.

The evidence is that the universe is billions of years old, the solar system younger, any life and human life younger yet, and agriculture an almost complete new-comer.[/QUOTE]

We can mathematically prove that the earth is more than three seconds old. In fact we can empirically prove it's billions of years old. Unless all we know about physics and math are wrong. But this discussion is going nowhere quickly, and could turn into an ugly religion vs science debate that never works out.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:38 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481149]I guess I'm having a disconnect here. You're telling me that because GPS satellites work that somehow also proves evolution? Help me out here. I understand how nuclear decay works, I understand there is empirically tested and sound results for things that are just "theories".

What I do not see is that evolution - in the biological sense - is backed up by this same empirical evidence. It's not something that can be reproduced. No one can run an experiment on a long enough timeline to ever show that dramatic speciation we see in nature can occur as such, the empirical evidence for it is EXTREMELY thin. The question of age doesn't come into question for me so much as the question of the actual randomized speciation. I simply have NEVER been offered evidence where somone has been able to reproduce a biolocial descent with modification on the scale required to arise an entirely new species.

FWIW, using nueclear decay as a proof for dating something still requires that you make certain assumptions; assumptions that you can't possibly know for sure. Such as using a carbon dating method to date a bone based upon the rate of carbon decay, interpolated backwards using matter found in the bone: you have to ASSUME that carbon content of the atmosphere was consistent throughout history, to which there is significant evidence that it wasn't. It is likely that it has been changing.

so despite certain theories being incredibly sound, the proof of something that is slightly related, but completely different still requires that you make certain assumptions about some unknowns. Unknowns that if ever found to be different, would significantly change your results. Are we simply unwilling to consider the idea that some of our original assumptions were incorrect?

Anyone ever heard of String theory or zero point energy? or the idea that MAYBE the speed of light has been constantly getting slower?

I am simply saying that there are possibilities that could refute many findings that we have, and it doesn't make someone an idiot to entertain those possibilities.[/QUOTE]

What about bacteria? They display mutation and evolution all the time?

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:39 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Lurene Grenier;481147]Even if we throw out evolution and believe in a 6-day creationist path, we still know that humans didn't start out as farmers, right? Adam and Eve didn't farm. They had to live off of what they had. Humans didn't farm for a long time after eden - hell, how long did adam and eve live?

And God MADE them with eden in mind. To never have to know want or work, and farming is certainly work, so doubtless they'd have had animals and what grew around them naturally - God wasnt giving them sandwhiches to munch on.

So if you doubt evolution, then there'd be no way we could ever adapt to bread. That's almost a better argument for paleo than the evolutionary one :)[/QUOTE]

I don't think we're in disagreement here. I don't eat bread. But I do eat rice, and I do like oatmeal. It's entirely conceivable that people in history ate wild oats and wild rice; even more likely wild corn. If it were wild, obviously it would only account for a very small portion of someone's diet... as it does in mine.

Amber Mathwig 12-29-2008 02:41 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Dave Hancock;481140]I think you mean "Good Calories, Bad Calories". Definitely not a "light" read.[/QUOTE]

Yep, got corrected on that one already. This post isn't light reading for me either. On one hand I feel dumb....on the other hand I think after I re-read the posts a few times, they might start to make sense and I'll feel smarter for having stuck through reading all the back and forth's and maybe have some debate material for future family dinners.

But seriously, Robb, could we possibly get another Playboy analogy here for those of us who didn't major in smart people stuff?

John S Park 12-29-2008 02:42 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Joey Powell;480769]Scott, I did not present the concept. I recommended the book for further modification and understanding of the diet I had been working on him with. Upon reading the book, how much I don't know, I got a phone call. He was aggressive towards the concept.

He was offended to his very core. So we agreed to disagree. He was not going to be a regular client, so I saved what I could of an relationship, patted him on rear, and sent him on his way.

I guess I had viewed it that even from a Biblical perspective...Eden was sort of Paleo, and after "The Fall" Adam and Eve's diets changed because they "worked the land" and "toiled in the dirt". So regardless of outlooks, it was a sound approach to eating.[/QUOTE]

have you read the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? he has an interesting interpretation of "the Fall" and "Cain and Abel"

[QUOTE]Ishmael proposes that the story of Genesis was written by the Semites, and later adapted to work within Hebrew and Christian belief structures. Ishmael proposes that Abel and his extinction metaphorically represents the nomadic Semites and their losing conflict with agriculturalists. As they were driven further into the Arabian peninsula, the Semites became isolated from other herding cultures and, according to Ishmael, illustrated their plight through oral history, which was later adopted into the Hebrew book of Genesis.

Ishmael denies that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden of humans simply to test human's self-control. Instead, Ishmael proposes that the Tree represents the choice to bear the burden of responsibility of deciding which species may live and which should die. This is a necessary decision agricultural peoples must make when deciding which organisms to cultivate, which to displace, and which to kill in protection of the first.

Ishmael explains that the Fall of Adam represents the Semitic belief that once mankind usurps this responsibility - historically decided through natural ecology (i.e. food chains) - that mankind will perish. He cites as fulfillment of this prophecy contemporary environmental crises such as endangered or extinct species, global warming, and modern mental illnesses.

Adam in Hebrew translates to "Man" and Eve translates to "Life." The story was written by the Hebrews and was passed down from their ancestors the Semites, but they didn't understand the meaning behind it because the Hebrews wanted to be tillers like their neighbors, unlike the herding Semites. He is saying that Life is tempting Man of the knowledge of good and evil (What is good for one is always evil for another, ex: lion eats deer, good for lion, bad for deer. Deer gets away, good for deer, but evil for lion as he has to starve. Man takes land for farming, all animals dissapear).

Cain was a symbol for the tilleres who tilled their soil with the blood of Abel, the Semites. The agriculturalists were farming this food, and more food means a never ending growing population. More people means more need for food so they would kill the Semites or any other hunter-gatherers for more land, because they figured since agriculture was good for them, they didn't care about any other way of life or animal, so they drove them out. The very few hunter gatherer tribes that exist today are product of millions of years of survival knowledge. Thousands of generations of trial and error what every plant does, and survival techniques. And by wiping them out, we, whose way of life existed for less than 10,000 years (less than .005% of man's existance, are wiping out knowledge that allowed man to survive for millions of years. Once that knowledge is gone, and we run out of space or resources, the fall of man will be fulfilled

Until today, where our population is over 6 billion where half of those people are not even 15 years old yet. Growing and growing until all of our resources are gone, because we took life into our own hands instead of following nature's laws. We never have to worry about population control as hunter gatherer tribes do because having food is never a worry. We are also wiping out rain forests everday, where almost all of natural remedies and cures come from (many of which we have not discovered and possible cures for diseases we can't cure on our own). It is also sad that species that are the culmination of evolution are being wiped out.

[/QUOTE]

Here is another explanation [url]http://www.ishmael.org/interaction/qanda/Detail.CFM?Record=619[/url] wfs. just wanted to share, it is a great book i just read :). It can't be proved but it makes a lot more sense

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:43 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
1 Attachment(s)
[QUOTE=Dave Hancock;481145]That depends, do you like cottage cheese. ;)[/QUOTE]

Good point

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:43 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481152]What about bacteria? They display mutation and evolution all the time?[/QUOTE]

I'm not arguing against adaptation, but have we ever observed them become anything but another bacteria?

There's plenty of support for microevolution within an organism. You can look at the various breeds of dogs to easily see that. But they're all still dogs.

I suppose I should have made the distinction between micro vs. Macro evolution from the beggining. Micro is not an issue to me, but I only see it within the same organisms.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:46 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481158]I'm not arguing against adaptation, but have we ever observed them become anything but another bacteria?

There's plenty of support for microevolution within an organism. You can look at the various breeds of dogs to easily see that. But they're all still dogs.

I suppose I should have made the distinction between micro vs. Macro evolution from the beggining. Micro is not an issue to me, but I only see it within the same organisms.[/QUOTE]

Evolution is change in a species over time. Plain and simple. Bacterias genetic's change all time, and bacteria become new species of bacteria, if that's not evolution, than what is evolution? What about birds who eventually evolve into new species of birds? Or is that still microevolution?

Lurene Grenier 12-29-2008 02:48 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;481153]I don't think we're in disagreement here. I don't eat bread. But I do eat rice, and I do like oatmeal. It's entirely conceivable that people in history ate wild oats and wild rice; even more likely wild corn. If it were wild, obviously it would only account for a very small portion of someone's diet... as it does in mine.[/QUOTE]

I think the problem is that it's poisonous if it's not cooked, so knowledge must be applied to eat it, and that had to be developed and spread over time. As for corn, the Omnivore's Dilemma has more to say about it's current state.

C James Barton 12-29-2008 02:48 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Phillip Garrisonq;481150]We can mathematically prove that the earth is more than three seconds old. In fact we can empirically prove it's billions of years old. Unless all we know about physics and math are wrong. But this discussion is going nowhere quickly, and could turn into an ugly religion vs science debate that never works out.[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, I don't believe the Earth is three seconds old, and I'm not super-interested in other people's religious views. There's very little point in discussing them, it would be against the AUP, and I don't want to talk about them here.

What I do want to say is, maths can't prove anything about the real world. You need science - observations - as well. Maths without data is fascinating, but not directly related to the physical world.

There's nothing logically impossible about the entire observable universe being created, just as we see it now, a millisecond before you read this post. There's just not a shred of evidence for this it, either. All the laws would still work. All of your memories would be consistent (not true, but consistent).

Jamie J. Skibicki 12-29-2008 02:52 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
James,

That reminds me of bonus question from quantum.

"Describe the world if Planks constant was 1".

I still have flashbacks.

Phillip Garrison 12-29-2008 02:58 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=C James Barton;481166]Just to be clear, I don't believe the Earth is three seconds old, and I'm not super-interested in other people's religious views. There's very little point in discussing them, it would be against the AUP, and I don't want to talk about them here.

What I do want to say is, maths can't prove anything about the real world. You need science - observations - as well. Maths without data is fascinating, but not directly related to the physical world.

There's nothing logically impossible about the entire observable universe being created, just as we see it now, a millisecond before you read this post. There's just not a shred of evidence for this it, either. All the laws would still work. All of your memories would be consistent (not true, but consistent).[/QUOTE]

Math can prove that renaissance rich white men, were really smart, and really bored. :welcome:

Ben Chapman 12-29-2008 02:59 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
 
[QUOTE=Lurene Grenier;481165]I think the problem is that it's poisonous if it's not cooked, so knowledge must be applied to eat it, and that had to be developed and spread over time. As for corn, the Omnivore's Dilemma has more to say about it's current state.[/QUOTE]

Oats are poisonous if they aren't cooked? news to me.
And yes, corn as we know it now is pretty far removed from how it began. Indigenous people's did eat quite a bit of it too. I guess it was Maze back then.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.