Guest guest Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 > Seriously, if life evolved from single-celled organisms with no > brains to invertebrates with SMALL brains, and then vertebrates > with LARGER brains, all without the benefit of cooked food, why > would proto-humans need cooked food (unlike any other evolutionary > leap that has EVER happened) to evolve to what we are today? > > Hmm? If I understand you correctly, your reasoning is that because no other evolutionary shift has ever occurred as the result of food being cooked, the cooking of food is therefore not something that could or would bring about an evolutionary shift. That's like saying the peppered moth couldn't have possibly evolved darker coloration as the result of the industrial revolution because no other species has ever changed color as the result of an industrial revolution. My response to that is there's a first time for everything. Since when is evolution limited to a closed set of valid evolutionary stimuli? > Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually > DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. It makes perfect sense to me that a huge environmental shift like the dawn of agriculture, 10,000 years ago, would bring about physical changes in human physiology. > That doesn't support your little hypothesis, does it? It's not my hypothesis. It's the hypothesis of a Harvard professor, who I'd wager has a much better grasp of evolutionary science than either one of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for larger brains " Which species have evolved smaller brains? Yeah, you just lost the argument. Mike > > > > I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. > > > > It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL > > > > Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. > > > > Mike > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 > > > " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for > > larger brains " > > Which species have evolved smaller brains? According to you, humans have: /message/107489 " Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. " Also: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html http://is.gd/B8ZI " This study demonstrates empirically that it is mechanistically possible for dwarf mammals on islands to evolve significantly smaller brains than would be predicted from a model of dwarfing based on the intraspecific scaling of the mainland ancestor. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 ha... the convenience of message archives... I wonder if we can recall as nicely for govt officials... oh well another issue for another forum. nice find... On 5/18/09, Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > >> >> > " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for >> > larger brains " >> >> Which species have evolved smaller brains? > > According to you, humans have: > > /message/107489 > > " Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by > about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. " > > Also: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html > > http://is.gd/B8ZI > > " This study demonstrates empirically that it is mechanistically possible for > dwarf mammals on islands to evolve significantly smaller brains than would > be predicted from a model of dwarfing based on the intraspecific scaling of > the mainland ancestor. " > > > > -- Kelvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 Discussions on these lists are not about winning and losing arguments. They are about people sharing knowledge and sometimes politely disagreeing in the quest. The kinds of personal attacks that have been displayed on this thread are not productive. A good rule of thumb is to never type something to someone that you wouldn't have a problem with saying to them in person. There is a culture (usually) present on lists like these that can degrade over time unless social norms are enforced. I would support deleting posts and temporarily (permanently if need be) banning users to enforce the norm of no personal attacks. Otherwise, it is usually best to not take the bait and continue arguing. Instead, don't reply or reply with a statement that messages with personal attacks are not acceptable. > > > > > > I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. > > > > > > It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL > > > > > > Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 > > I think it's a crying shame that anyone would feel unsure about what to eat based on being a scientist or not. > > Not to bust your chops or anything - but science is just a baby in nutrition. It is hypothesis heavy and very little consensus on how to interpret the facts even. > > You are better off trusting what your own body is saying, your common sense, the tradition from your healthy relatives, and then taking the advice of science/gurus/professionals like Vonderplantitx and Fallon as a piece of that. In my humble opinion. > > Connie > > > I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). > How does one know what guru to trust? Is there any guru that is right all the time? It is amazing how most of the people selling books on health completely abuse citations and scientific evidence (regardless if they are doctors or scientists!) We must all be aware that the placebo effect is normally stronger than any simple dietary change. The reason why I tried what Fallon advocates is it is backed by scientific evidence. The observations of Weston Price and others with regard to historical diets of healthy people are not just history, they are great scientific evidence. Fallon's ideas are actually have much more scientific rigor than others that choose to ignore native nutrition. I do agree though, that just by trying new things and properly listening to our bodies we can achieve levels of health greater than those who only accept mainstream science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 --- In , " greg.webs " <greg.webs@...> wrote: > > --- In , " cbrown2008 " cbrown2008@ wrote: > > > > I think it's a crying shame that anyone would feel unsure about what to eat based on being a scientist or not. > > > > Not to bust your chops or anything - but science is just a baby in nutrition. It is hypothesis heavy and very little consensus on how to interpret the facts even. > > > > You are better off trusting what your own body is saying, your common sense, the tradition from your healthy relatives, and then taking the advice of science/gurus/professionals like Vonderplantitx and Fallon as a piece of that. In my humble opinion. > > > > Connie > > > > > I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). > > > > How does one know what guru to trust? Is there any guru that is right all the time? It is amazing how most of the people selling books on health completely abuse citations and scientific evidence (regardless if they are doctors or scientists!) > We must all be aware that the placebo effect is normally stronger than any simple dietary change. The reason why I tried what Fallon advocates is it is backed by scientific evidence. The observations of Weston Price and others with regard to historical diets of healthy people are not just history, they are great scientific evidence. Fallon's ideas are actually have much more scientific rigor than others that choose to ignore native nutrition. > I do agree though, that just by trying new things and properly listening to our bodies we can achieve levels of health greater than those who only accept mainstream science. > Weston Price certainly showed the remarkable flexibility of our species to thrive on a wide variety of diets. However, in my own dietary explorations, I've found that the more paleo my diet, the better I feel. For me, WAPF/NT has too much focus on traditional preparation of neolithic foods (raw dairy, fermented/sprouted grains, etc.) , that for my physiology are suboptimal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2009 Report Share Posted May 19, 2009 A raw diet may be impairing your ability to reason. There is not a general evolutionary trend for bigger brains--that's a fact and I explained how evolution works. Take a course if you actually want to know. First point about logic. " There does not exist a general trend to bigger brains " does not equal " there are species that evolve smaller brains. " Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. We were talking about explanations proposed to explain the increase in human brain size at certain periods in evolutionary history. Humans have not continuously evolved bigger brains through all moments in their history; species in general have not evolved bigger brains continuously over time. It is not how evolution works--look up the difference between the great chain of being and evolution by natural selection. Yeah, you're a f---ing a--. > > > > > > I have no idea what apes evolved from, but I bet it had a smaller brain than an ape. > > > > > > It's a good thing those early proto-apes learned to cook their fruit, or they'd never have evolved into chimps, etc. They'd still have smaller brains, right? LOL > > > > > > Dude, come on. Stop the bleeding and give up. I don't like ripping into people like this. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Yes, indeed, the human brain HAS gotten smaller. That's due to poor nutrition, IMHO. Island dwarfism? You show the oddest possible exception, and that proves something? We're talking general trends here. Weird, extremely rare exceptions are, by nature, going to LOSE any evolutionary argument. Evolution is about large, long-term trends. One tiny exception does not invalidate a much larger, longer-term trend. Mike > > > > > " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for > > > larger brains " > > > > Which species have evolved smaller brains? > > According to you, humans have: > > /message/107489 > > " Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. " > > Also: > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html > > http://is.gd/B8ZI > > " This study demonstrates empirically that it is mechanistically possible for dwarf mammals on islands to evolve significantly smaller brains than would be predicted from a model of dwarfing based on the intraspecific scaling of the mainland ancestor. " > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 > > > > > > I think it's a crying shame that anyone would feel unsure about what > to eat based on being a scientist or not. > > > > > > Not to bust your chops or anything - but science is just a baby in > nutrition. It is hypothesis heavy and very little consensus on how to > interpret the facts even. > > > > > > You are better off trusting what your own body is saying, your > common sense, the tradition from your healthy relatives, and then taking > the advice of science/gurus/professionals like Vonderplantitx and Fallon > as a piece of that. In my humble opinion. > > > > > > Connie > > > > > > > I just attended a workshop by raw food guru Aajonus Vonderplanitz > and was pretty impressed with his lecture and his personal story and > findings. However, much of it is in opposition to what Sally Fallon > writes about (e.g. eating whole raw eggs and not just the yolk, NOT > freezing liver or any meat before eating it, etc. etc. etc.). > > > > > > > How does one know what guru to trust? Is there any guru that is right > all the time? It is amazing how most of the people selling books on > health completely abuse citations and scientific evidence (regardless if > they are doctors or scientists!) > > We must all be aware that the placebo effect is normally stronger than > any simple dietary change. The reason why I tried what Fallon advocates > is it is backed by scientific evidence. The observations of Weston Price > and others with regard to historical diets of healthy people are not > just history, they are great scientific evidence. Fallon's ideas are > actually have much more scientific rigor than others that choose to > ignore native nutrition. > > I do agree though, that just by trying new things and properly > listening to our bodies we can achieve levels of health greater than > those who only accept mainstream science. > > > > Weston Price certainly showed the remarkable flexibility of our species > to thrive on a wide variety of diets. However, in my own dietary > explorations, I've found that the more paleo my diet, the better I feel. > For me, WAPF/NT has too much focus on traditional preparation of > neolithic foods (raw dairy, fermented/sprouted grains, etc.) , that for > my physiology are suboptimal. > Glad to hear the paleo diet is working out for you. I would love to find more scientific info on the paleo, but that is fundamentally difficult since it is about a time long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 > > > > > > > " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for > > > > larger brains " > > > > > > Which species have evolved smaller brains? > > > > According to you, humans have: > > > > /message/107489 > > > > " Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. " > > > > Also: > > > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html > > > > http://is.gd/B8ZI > > > > " This study demonstrates empirically that it is mechanistically possible for dwarf mammals on islands to evolve significantly smaller brains than would be predicted from a model of dwarfing based on the intraspecific scaling of the mainland ancestor. " > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 > > --- In , " Stanley " <j_alexander_stanley@> wrote: [snip] > > Weston Price certainly showed the remarkable flexibility of our > > species to thrive on a wide variety of diets. However, in my own > > dietary explorations, I've found that the more paleo my diet, > > the better I feel. For me, WAPF/NT has too much focus on > > traditional preparation of neolithic foods (raw dairy, > > fermented/sprouted grains, etc.) , that for my physiology are > > suboptimal. > > > > Glad to hear the paleo diet is working out for you. I would love > to find more scientific info on the paleo, but that is fundamentally > difficult since it is about a time long ago. A long time ago and in so many different parts of the world that there is no single defined paleo diet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 golly... you make it sound so... simple. simple and effective points made... 2 out of 2... not much can be said to refute the points you made. thanks for sharing! Kelvin On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Stanley <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > " So there is absolutely not a general evolutionary trend for >> > > > larger brains " >> > > >> > > Which species have evolved smaller brains? >> > >> > According to you, humans have: >> > >> > /message/107489 >> > >> > " Also, if I understand correctly, human brain size has actually >> > DECREASED by about 8% over the last 10 thousand years or so. " >> > >> > Also: >> > >> > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7243/full/nature07922.html >> > >> > http://is.gd/B8ZI >> > >> > " This study demonstrates empirically that it is mechanistically possible >> > for dwarf mammals on islands to evolve significantly smaller brains than >> > would be predicted from a model of dwarfing based on the intraspecific >> > scaling of the mainland ancestor. " >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 > > golly... you make it sound so... simple. Well, it *is* simple. Mike is operating under the bizarre erroneous belief that it's somehow not evolution if an environmental stimuli or evolutionary adaptation is uncommon. It's similar to the " reasoning " used by vegans when they say humans aren't meant to eat meat because we don't have sharp claws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Take a look at Nature, volume 387, pages 173-6, 1997. This shows that the human brain got smaller right around the times that humans started eating more cooked food, and grains, tubers, etc. There is no correlation between the advent of cooking and the increases in human brain size. There is, in fact, if we compare the consensus among evolutionary biologists with also consensus among archaeologists, a REVERSE correlation between more cooking and more processing of food, and decreases in human brain size. I would like to point out that these are two separate fields, evolutionary biology and archaeology. There are two different degree tracks, etc. And guess what? Crazy raw fooders aren't paying them all off to misrepresent the fossil record, or the archaeological record. That I know of. I certainly am not paying them. Geoff Purcell, are you? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 How come the eskimos' brains aren't bigger than ours? Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 21, 2009, at 5:35 PM, " michael g " <tropical@...> wrote: Take a look at Nature, volume 387, pages 173-6, 1997. This shows that the human brain got smaller right around the times that humans started eating more cooked food, and grains, tubers, etc. There is no correlation between the advent of cooking and the increases in human brain size. There is, in fact, if we compare the consensus among evolutionary biologists with also consensus among archaeologists, a REVERSE correlation between more cooking and more processing of food, and decreases in human brain size. I would like to point out that these are two separate fields, evolutionary biology and archaeology. There are two different degree tracks, etc. And guess what? Crazy raw fooders aren't paying them all off to misrepresent the fossil record, or the archaeological record. That I know of. I certainly am not paying them. Geoff Purcell, are you? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.