Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The human brain has indeed gotten smaller over the last several thousand years. NO question. If you don't know this, do a little Googling, maybe check the wikipedia. Humans have been eating a more-highly-processed/cooked diet over pretty much that same period. I'm not exactly 100% saying that diet caused the shrinking of the human brain, just that...it might bear looking into. Another point to consider is that humans didn't really start cooking much until about 250 thousand years ago. Most of the increase in human brain size was thousands of years BEFORE the advent of cooking. Anybody who says humans cooked earlier than that are disagreeing with the general consensus of the archaeological community. They aren't crazy raw fooders with agendas. They are scientists. They disagree with each other on lots of issues, but 250 thousand years ago is a pretty widely-accepted beginning date for humans cooking their food. Just because you people haven't done your research doesn't mean that it's time to make me a target for verbal abuse. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I thought the humanoid's brain was biggest between 190,000 to 30,000 years ago. Even then about 50,000 years ago our brain became more refined and formed in such a way to represent our current evolution. As can be seen by the dolphins a bigger brain does not mean a higher intelligence. Perhaps our brains shrank because we came to rely less on certain aspects of our nature such as the over aggressiveness of the reptillian part of our brain. There is no proof a raw food diet or even canibalism as I have theorized was what helped our brains get to be such a huge size. Just look at the native aborigines, canibals, and the Eskimos and Masai warriors, primarily raw nutrient consumers, who do not have particularly bigger brains. What do you think? Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 21, 2009, at 5:13 PM, " michael g " <tropical@...> wrote: The human brain has indeed gotten smaller over the last several thousand years. NO question. If you don't know this, do a little Googling, maybe check the wikipedia. Humans have been eating a more-highly-processed/cooked diet over pretty much that same period. I'm not exactly 100% saying that diet caused the shrinking of the human brain, just that...it might bear looking into. Another point to consider is that humans didn't really start cooking much until about 250 thousand years ago. Most of the increase in human brain size was thousands of years BEFORE the advent of cooking. Anybody who says humans cooked earlier than that are disagreeing with the general consensus of the archaeological community. They aren't crazy raw fooders with agendas. They are scientists. They disagree with each other on lots of issues, but 250 thousand years ago is a pretty widely-accepted beginning date for humans cooking their food. Just because you people haven't done your research doesn't mean that it's time to make me a target for verbal abuse. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Good questions. I can't accuse you of not asking good ones. I think that cooking hasn't got a thing to do with controlling brain size, one way or another. If it did, then there would have been runaway changes in brain size over the last couple of thousand years. There haven't been. According to one source I read, the change in brain size over the last 10 thousand years paralleled the similar decrease in body size. Also, the biggest increases in human brain size occurred well before humans cooked very much of their food, to any great degree. All that together says that brain size and cooking haven't got squat to do with each other. Unless, of course, more research comes along that I'm not aware of. Mike > > Just look at the native aborigines, canibals, and the Eskimos and Masai warriors, primarily raw nutrient consumers, who do not have particularly bigger brains. > > What do you think? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Only other question I could ask is do Eskimos ad Masai Warriors consume brains? Ruminant raw brains sound ideal. The only quality source I can imagine for the Eskimos are seal and polar bears. Did the Masai consume raw brains? I've got to finish Nutrition and Physical Degeneration to see if Weston Price took note of humans eating raw ruminant brains. The theory is that huminoids were originally scavengers and would break open the skulls of hunted down animals in order to get the brains and eat them raw. It was their primary meat source originally. Yours Truly, Dan Holt On May 21, 2009, at 6:01 PM, " michael g " <tropical@...> wrote: Good questions. I can't accuse you of not asking good ones. I think that cooking hasn't got a thing to do with controlling brain size, one way or another. If it did, then there would have been runaway changes in brain size over the last couple of thousand years. There haven't been. According to one source I read, the change in brain size over the last 10 thousand years paralleled the similar decrease in body size. Also, the biggest increases in human brain size occurred well before humans cooked very much of their food, to any great degree. All that together says that brain size and cooking haven't got squat to do with each other. Unless, of course, more research comes along that I'm not aware of. Mike > > Just look at the native aborigines, canibals, and the Eskimos and Masai warriors, primarily raw nutrient consumers, who do not have particularly bigger brains. > > What do you think? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 > > The human brain has indeed gotten smaller over the last several > thousand years. NO question. If you don't know this, do a little > Googling, maybe check the wikipedia. > > Humans have been eating a more-highly-processed/cooked diet over > pretty much that same period. The significant change 10,000 years ago was the dawn of agriculture, not the cooking of food. > Another point to consider is that humans didn't really start > cooking much until about 250 thousand years ago. Which is about 50,000 years before the arrival of homo sapiens. > Most of the increase in human brain size was thousands of years > BEFORE the advent of cooking. That still doesn't eliminate the possibility that the cooking of food, for 50,000 years before the arrival of homo sapiens and during the next 150,000 years, may have played a part in the evolution of behavioral modernity, which did NOT develop before the advent of cooking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I have done my research, even citing sources, so ending with that is just another ad hominem. But at least, as you say, you're not a creationist. First, I have never denied that brain size might have shrunk since the agricultural revolution due to diet. Second, I've never said that the possible role of cooking in human evolution means that raw diets are necessarily unhealthy. I do not have with me the book I cited earlier, _Feeding the Fire_, nor another with a chapter on cooking, Alfred Crosby's _Children of the Sun_, but they have good overviews if you're interested. It is curious that you think that people who propose this hypothesis would not pay any attention to chronology, but they do. Archaeological findings are often pushed further back as more research is done. For one thing, Homo Erectus may have used fire as long as 1.7 million years ago (Crosby, p. 13), though probably much less systematically than Homo Sapiens. As for the origin among homo sapiens, the dates are older than you say: There is controversy about the claims for fire 790,000 years ago (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444492,00.html), but other sites date to around 400,00 years ago (http://archaeology.about.com/od/ancientdailylife/qt/fire_control.htm). Since I don't have these books at hand, I can't discuss the chronology any further at the moment. But I would check out the following work to be released in three days: Wrangham, Catching Fire: How cooking made us Human (http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465013627). If you think this work will turn out to have elementary errors in chronology, you might want to contact the blurb writers who praise the work, simpletons like E.O. and Pollan. There is also an interesting book, called Human Diet, with an article that traces a trend of evolutionary changes connected to the reduction of fiber in the diet (http://books.google.com/books?id=6GDELypdTUcC & printsec=frontcover#PPP9,M1)--see pp. 65-67, for the discussion, involving australopithecine through Paleolithic and neolithic humans, which involve selecting plants with less fiber, selecting meat, and cooking. Science is fallibilistic--evidence and interpretations change and nothing is established definitively once and for all. But the claim that the cooking/brian change hypothesis is not a viable hypothesis just won't hold water. If anything, it seems this view is part of a progressive problemshift at the moment. In any event, you have not proposed a viable evolutionary cause of the brain size increase, which requires attention to variation and natural selection, not a drift towards " better " or more complex characteristics without reference to the environment that does the selecting. Bill > > The human brain has indeed gotten smaller over the last several thousand years. NO question. If you don't know this, do a little Googling, maybe check the wikipedia. > > Humans have been eating a more-highly-processed/cooked diet over pretty much that same period. > > I'm not exactly 100% saying that diet caused the shrinking of the human brain, just that...it might bear looking into. > > > > Another point to consider is that humans didn't really start cooking much until about 250 thousand years ago. Most of the increase in human brain size was thousands of years BEFORE the advent of cooking. Anybody who says humans cooked earlier than that are disagreeing with the general consensus of the archaeological community. They aren't crazy raw fooders with agendas. They are scientists. They disagree with each other on lots of issues, but 250 thousand years ago is a pretty widely-accepted beginning date for humans cooking their food. > > Just because you people haven't done your research doesn't mean that it's time to make me a target for verbal abuse. > > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Just a quick note: this is the kind of error I've been talking about. Cooking 200,00 years ago is not equal to cooking 10,000 years ago. Humans lived in different environments. The evolutionary argument is context-sensitive: certain specific environments favor particular variations. Cooking per se, across all environments and diets, does not have an effect--that is not what the argument states. Bill > > Good questions. I can't accuse you of not asking good ones. > > > I think that cooking hasn't got a thing to do with controlling brain size, one way or another. If it did, then there would have been runaway changes in brain size over the last couple of thousand years. There haven't been. According to one source I read, the change in brain size over the last 10 thousand years paralleled the similar decrease in body size. Also, the biggest increases in human brain size occurred well before humans cooked very much of their food, to any great degree. All that together says that brain size and cooking haven't got squat to do with each other. Unless, of course, more research comes along that I'm not aware of. > > Mike > > > > > > Just look at the native aborigines, canibals, and the Eskimos and Masai warriors, primarily raw nutrient consumers, who do not have particularly bigger brains. > > > > What do you think? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 > > > > The human brain has indeed gotten smaller over the last several > > thousand years. NO question. If you don't know this, do a little > > Googling, maybe check the wikipedia. > > > > Humans have been eating a more-highly-processed/cooked diet over > > pretty much that same period. > > The significant change 10,000 years ago was the dawn of > agriculture, not the cooking of food. > > > Another point to consider is that humans didn't really start > > cooking much until about 250 thousand years ago. > > Which is about 50,000 years before the arrival of homo sapiens. > > > Most of the increase in human brain size was thousands of years > > BEFORE the advent of cooking. > > That still doesn't eliminate the possibility that the cooking of > food, for 50,000 years before the arrival of homo sapiens and > during the next 150,000 years, may have played a part in the > evolution of behavioral modernity, which did NOT develop before > the advent of cooking. Ok, my bad. What I've done here is inject my own alternate hypothesis that does happen to mesh with Mike's timeline. Wrangham argues that cooking began 1.8 million years ago because that's when hominid teeth and guts became smaller, changes that, according to him, can only be explained by the fact that our ancestors were getting more nutrition and softer foods, which, he argues, could only have happened because they were cooking. However, thus far, there is no evidence for cooking as far back as that. There are sites older than 250,000 years that may show the cooking of food, but the evidence is still being questioned, and there is no consensus on what those sites actually show. It sounds to me that in that timeline, the shift to eating calorically dense meat is a better fitting hypothesis than cooking. And, Wrangham does focus on brain size. What stands out for me in Mike's timeline isn't necessarily a change in brain size, but a huge change in brain function. According to that timeline, the cooking of food by hominids started just before the emergence of homo sapiens and its development of the extraordinary traits that separate humans from all other animal species; traits that did NOT show up during the previous ~4.75 MILLION years of raw foodism. Obviously, correlation does not equal causation, but it's an interesting correlation, nonetheless. In any event, the cooking of food was no doubt an environmental variable during the time we evolved the traits of behavioral modernity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep > the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly > ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious > scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me > when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly > basic science. I looked at the header of this post to see which post you were responding to, and it's a response to this one: /message/107589 in which Bill was yet again correcting your erroneous grasp of evolution... glass houses and all that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2009 Report Share Posted May 23, 2009 Evolution does not work by covering law models like " All increases of brain size are caused by X. " It just doesn't. And I've cited plenty of scientific support for the cooking hypothesis--it's a viable scientific hypothesis, your conception of common sense and serious scientific support notwithstanding. I've tried to get you to understand the difference between the great chain of being--a pre-Darwinian idea that is the background of everything you say--and evolution by variation and natural selection, which requires you to identify the variation and the selecting environment for evolutionary changes which are necessarily context sensitive. Then you wonder why people swear at you when you condescend to them about how ridiculous they are for entertaining a scientific hypothesis that is taken very seriously by many scientists. E. O. is just plain ridiculous? Come on--no one is asking you to abandon your raw diet, nor is anyone insisting that this hypothesis is proven, so why are you being so rude. When people refuse to understand the propositional content of what is being said, make basic errors in understanding of scientific theories like Darwinism, and back it all off by declaring themselves victors of a " debate " over a " ridiculous " hypothesis taken seriously by the scientific community, it's a little much. Bill > > Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. > > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. > > > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Great chain of being? I'm merely suggesting that common sense suggests that PROBABLY human brain size increases have been for the same reason(s) as in other species. Why overcomplicate it? Why? Where's the compelling evidence? It's about the same as saying " When the sun rose this morning, it was for totally different reasons than every other day before, ever " . On another note, you're implying that raw foodists are somehow subhuman. You know, and have probably known for a long time, that there are raw foodists here. That's plural, not singular. Are you being pointlessly insensitive on purpose or by accident? You can either keep being insensitive, or you can just let this issue go. There are no other choices. This group is either about health, or it's about something else. If it's about justifying your eating of cooked food, that's one thing. If it's about health, then it's time for you to rethink, right? Mike > > > > Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. > > > > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Where does E.O. say that he thinks human brain size is the result of cooking? Don't post anything else in response to this. Simply show me the link. We both know it doesn't exist. Mike > > > > Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. > > > > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Brain sizes have increased for all kinds of reasons--in the early primate, it was to handle a superior vision system in order to pick out fruits and vegetables amid the clutter. These increases happen for specific reasons at specific times, not continuously across all contexts. Your own conception of common sense is not a good guide to constructing a scientific explanation--and it is not an evolutionary argument to posit an inherent tendency to bigger brains without reference to the environment. I am not implying that raw foodists are subhuman (?!)--you've already got the bigger brain (and modern technologies like blenders)--eat what you want. So we can't discuss a scientific hypothesis because it makes you uncomfortable? Does everything that gets discussed have to shore up your worldview? _You_ may be on the wrong list. This is a Nourishing Traditions-based list. According to that book, some raw is good, but cooking most vegetable foods is usually a good idea to counter the antinutrients and to improve the digestibility of some nutrients. As I explained already, I do not have an opinion on how much raw is ideal--I eat raw milk, and occasional raw meat, and a fair amount of raw vegetables (salads, etc.)--this seems to be in keeping with NT. If you want to convince us to eat more raw than Sally Fallon recommends, then so be it. I'd be open to the argument, though it should proceed by discussing its benefits for us now, not by trying to rewrite history to justify a current diet. Bill > > > > > > Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. > > > > > > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 Oh my! So I'm a liar? And everyone else is resorting to ad hominems, not you. Well, clearly you can't read, since I already have posted the link: This is from the post on May 22, 9:57 AM: --- But I would check out the following work to be released in three days: Wrangham, Catching Fire: How cooking made us Human (http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Fire-Cooking-Made-Human/dp/0465013627). If you think this work will turn out to have elementary errors in chronology, you might want to contact the blurb writers who praise the work, simpletons like E.O. and Pollan. --- Here is the direct quote from given on that page: " In this thoroughly researched and marvelously well written book, Wrangham has convincingly supplied a missing piece in the evolutionary origin of humanity. " Any more " gotcha " accusations you want to hurl my way? Bill > > > > > > Or we could just go with the SIMPLEST explanation. Which, for those who don't know, is that the increases in our ancestors' brain size were for the same reasons as brain size increases in thousands of other evolutionary/genetic lineages, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with cooking. > > > > > > I swear I'm not trying to be mean. You guys aren't helping me keep the discussion civil, though. You spout theories that seem utterly ridiculous in the face of common sense, and have no serious scientific support, either. Then, you call me names and swear at me when I point out that you have violated both common sense and fairly basic science. > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 I notice that the people who developed this theory and support it are all from societies where raw-meat-eating is socially frowned-upon. British and Americans, specifically. This is really just a bunch of reverse-justifying, by people who don't have the anthropology and archaeology experience to avoid making fools of themselves. Why do I say that? E.O. studies ants. He's an ant expert. I would actually expect something more intelligent from Wrangham, since he's a primatologist. I notice a GIANT hole, though, in that...I don't see any famous anthropologists in that reviews section on Amazon. Ant experts and primatologists, in opposition to anthropologists, on a theory of human evolution? I don't even need to watch that fight to know the winner. I don't have a problem with cooking food. I have a problem with making a religion out of it, specifically, acting like there is some automatic intrinsic good to it. I personally don't see ANY need to eat food that needs to be cooked to be digestible/safe, and cooking animal products is just stupid, in a general sense (unless we're talking about improperly-raised chickens, etc.). If it can't be safely eaten raw, why eat it? Unless you're starving. Are you starving? No? Neither am I. Just to be clear, I don't give a rip about what Weston Price, Sally Fallon, or anybody else believes about human nutrition. I study all of the nutritional primary researchers, from Stefansson to Price, to anybody else who has useful knowledge. If you think this is a Weston Price or Sally Fallon group, you don't read here much. That's actually my guess about your social mistakes here...you don't have many posts here at all (less than 60), and your posting history only goes back a little more than a year. It's clear you don't read here much, so let me clue you in...we question grain consumption, meat consumption, dairy...we even have a vegan here, I think. It's all open for discussion. Nobody gets a free pass (OK, we all talk about the Masai diet a lot, but even raw dairy takes hits here sometimes). First you swear at me (we have a lot of conservative Christians here), then you try to mass the Sally Fallon supporters against me....you really don't know anything about this group, if you think those tactics will work. Sorry. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you. You need to give up on the cheap tactics of mobilizing people against me. You don't know this audience well enough, at least not yet. Try again later, maybe. Better yet, get a nutritional theory that makes at least SOME sense. Then you won't need to try to turn the group against one of its long-term members. I mean, I've read this group daily for almost 4 years. I admit, I don't read every word, but I know this audience very well. I don't share all of everyone's views here, but I know NOT to swear, not to try to hide behind (largely nonexistent) Sally Fallon guru worship...whatever. Get a clue, please. Or leave. Your choice. Seriously, you need to get some anthropologists and archaeologists on board with any theory of human evolution. Ant experts, primatologists ...not good enough. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 You keep thinking I'm trying to win a debate here (or trying to establish a " nutritional theory " ). For the last time, I was defending other posters from YOUR rudeness in telling them they were clueless for considering the hypothesis, a viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be true, but has plenty of support. Every time I respond to one of your accusations, you shift the ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he does, he just studies ants. There are no serious scientists who support it--well, if there are, they come from societies that don't like raw food (!!!). You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you accuse me of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you (despite the fact that I told you I was happy to hear cases for eating more raw than she endorses). And you then appeal to your longevity on this list as grounds for ... for what, exactly, I'm not sure. This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier comments, can you please try to 1) respond to the propositional content of what I say and not what you think I am trying to get at by some kind of indirect means, 2) propose another evolutionary argument for the posited brain increase, if you prefer, but understand what an evolutionary argument involves, and 3) stop alternating between ad hominems and accusations on the one hand and complaints that you are being unfairly picked on on the other. You have made numerous personal attacks on me and other posters. The only personal attack I made--the cursing--came in response to your " dude, you just lost the argument, " following another catalog of the above errors. Should you be surprised by that?-- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the logical structure of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments work, shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond that way. Why is it " all open for discussion " except this hypothesis, which you feel compelled to shout down and declare obviously false? Bill > > I notice that the people who developed this theory and support it are all from societies where raw-meat-eating is socially frowned-upon. British and Americans, specifically. This is really just a bunch of reverse-justifying, by people who don't have the anthropology and archaeology experience to avoid making fools of themselves. > > Why do I say that? E.O. studies ants. He's an ant expert. I would actually expect something more intelligent from Wrangham, since he's a primatologist. I notice a GIANT hole, though, in that...I don't see any famous anthropologists in that reviews section on Amazon. Ant experts and primatologists, in opposition to anthropologists, on a theory of human evolution? > > I don't even need to watch that fight to know the winner. > > I don't have a problem with cooking food. I have a problem with making a religion out of it, specifically, acting like there is some automatic intrinsic good to it. I personally don't see ANY need to eat food that needs to be cooked to be digestible/safe, and cooking animal products is just stupid, in a general sense (unless we're talking about improperly-raised chickens, etc.). If it can't be safely eaten raw, why eat it? Unless you're starving. Are you starving? No? Neither am I. > > > > Just to be clear, I don't give a rip about what Weston Price, Sally Fallon, or anybody else believes about human nutrition. I study all of the nutritional primary researchers, from Stefansson to Price, to anybody else who has useful knowledge. If you think this is a Weston Price or Sally Fallon group, you don't read here much. That's actually my guess about your social mistakes here...you don't have many posts here at all (less than 60), and your posting history only goes back a little more than a year. It's clear you don't read here much, so let me clue you in...we question grain consumption, meat consumption, dairy...we even have a vegan here, I think. It's all open for discussion. Nobody gets a free pass (OK, we all talk about the Masai diet a lot, but even raw dairy takes hits here sometimes). First you swear at me (we have a lot of conservative Christians here), then you try to mass the Sally Fallon supporters against me....you really don't know anything about this group, if you think those tactics will work. Sorry. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you. You need to give up on the cheap tactics of mobilizing people against me. You don't know this audience well enough, at least not yet. Try again later, maybe. > > Better yet, get a nutritional theory that makes at least SOME sense. Then you won't need to try to turn the group against one of its long-term members. I mean, I've read this group daily for almost 4 years. I admit, I don't read every word, but I know this audience very well. I don't share all of everyone's views here, but I know NOT to swear, not to try to hide behind (largely nonexistent) Sally Fallon guru worship...whatever. Get a clue, please. Or leave. Your choice. > > Seriously, you need to get some anthropologists and archaeologists on board with any theory of human evolution. Ant experts, primatologists ...not good enough. > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2009 Report Share Posted May 24, 2009 haha... u must be frustrated bc mike never admits any mistakes or wrong when flagged by u or alex, et al. to continue this back and forth is only an exercise in mental foreplay and wasted effort wen ur one objective is to point out certain flaws or considerations and the other is to maintain position and 'win' a debate. in other words... why other anymore? this can continue ad nauseum wen any valid point made is sidestepped or changed to argue another related but new point. kelvin via cell (i wonder who the 1 vegan mike was implying on this big list of readers...) On 5/24/09, lynchwt <lynchwt@...> wrote: > You keep thinking I'm trying to win a debate here (or trying to establish a > " nutritional theory " ). For the last time, I was defending other posters from > YOUR rudeness in telling them they were clueless for considering the > hypothesis, a viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to > be true, but has plenty of support. Every time I respond to one of your > accusations, you shift the ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he > does, he just studies ants. There are no serious scientists who support > it--well, if there are, they come from societies that don't like raw food > (!!!). You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out > that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you accuse me > of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you (despite the fact > that I told you I was happy to hear cases for eating more raw than she > endorses). And you then appeal to your longevity on this list as grounds for > ... for what, exactly, I'm not sure. > > This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier comments, can > you please try to 1) respond to the propositional content of what I say and > not what you think I am trying to get at by some kind of indirect means, 2) > propose another evolutionary argument for the posited brain increase, if you > prefer, but understand what an evolutionary argument involves, and 3) stop > alternating between ad hominems and accusations on the one hand and > complaints that you are being unfairly picked on on the other. You have made > numerous personal attacks on me and other posters. The only personal attack > I made--the cursing--came in response to your " dude, you just lost the > argument, " following another catalog of the above errors. Should you be > surprised by that?-- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the > logical structure of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments > work, shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond > that way. > > Why is it " all open for discussion " except this hypothesis, which you feel > compelled to shout down and declare obviously false? > > Bill > > > >> >> I notice that the people who developed this theory and support it are all >> from societies where raw-meat-eating is socially frowned-upon. British >> and Americans, specifically. This is really just a bunch of >> reverse-justifying, by people who don't have the anthropology and >> archaeology experience to avoid making fools of themselves. >> >> Why do I say that? E.O. studies ants. He's an ant expert. I >> would actually expect something more intelligent from Wrangham, since he's >> a primatologist. I notice a GIANT hole, though, in that...I don't see any >> famous anthropologists in that reviews section on Amazon. Ant experts and >> primatologists, in opposition to anthropologists, on a theory of human >> evolution? >> >> I don't even need to watch that fight to know the winner. >> >> I don't have a problem with cooking food. I have a problem with making a >> religion out of it, specifically, acting like there is some automatic >> intrinsic good to it. I personally don't see ANY need to eat food that >> needs to be cooked to be digestible/safe, and cooking animal products is >> just stupid, in a general sense (unless we're talking about >> improperly-raised chickens, etc.). If it can't be safely eaten raw, why >> eat it? Unless you're starving. Are you starving? No? Neither am I. >> >> >> >> >> Just to be clear, I don't give a rip about what Weston Price, Sally >> Fallon, or anybody else believes about human nutrition. I study all of >> the nutritional primary researchers, from Stefansson to Price, to anybody >> else who has useful knowledge. If you think this is a Weston Price or >> Sally Fallon group, you don't read here much. That's actually my guess >> about your social mistakes here...you don't have many posts here at all >> (less than 60), and your posting history only goes back a little more than >> a year. It's clear you don't read here much, so let me clue you in...we >> question grain consumption, meat consumption, dairy...we even have a vegan >> here, I think. It's all open for discussion. Nobody gets a free pass >> (OK, we all talk about the Masai diet a lot, but even raw dairy takes hits >> here sometimes). First you swear at me (we have a lot of conservative >> Christians here), then you try to mass the Sally Fallon supporters against >> me....you really don't know anything about this group, if you think those >> tactics will work. Sorry. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you. You >> need to give up on the cheap tactics of mobilizing people against me. You >> don't know this audience well enough, at least not yet. Try again later, >> maybe. >> >> Better yet, get a nutritional theory that makes at least SOME sense. Then >> you won't need to try to turn the group against one of its long-term >> members. I mean, I've read this group daily for almost 4 years. I admit, >> I don't read every word, but I know this audience very well. I don't >> share all of everyone's views here, but I know NOT to swear, not to try to >> hide behind (largely nonexistent) Sally Fallon guru worship...whatever. >> Get a clue, please. Or leave. Your choice. >> >> Seriously, you need to get some anthropologists and archaeologists on >> board with any theory of human evolution. Ant experts, primatologists >> ...not good enough. >> >> Mike >> > > > -- Kelvin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > >viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be true, >but has plenty of support. What support? Why would slightly more advanced primates need chemicals totally foreign to their body chemistry to evolve larger brains than the slightly less-advanced primates they themselves evolved from? No other species has ever needed such a thing to evolve a larger brain. The kinds of chemicals in cooked food are extremely different than what can easily be found in the environment of most organisms. The only exceptions might be in the case of natural grass fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense to study whether or not there's been accelerated evolution around active volcanic areas, where vegetation is often burned/cooked? >Every time I respond to one of your accusations, you shift the >ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he does, he just studies >ants. There are no serious scientists who support it--well, if there >are, they come from societies that don't like raw food (!!!). Forgive me, I had not done my E.O, biography homework yet. I did a little reading and found out that he's really just an ant expert. Had I known that, I'd have ignored any reference to him. AS far as serious scientists go, look, asking zoologists and primatologists about human evolution is like asking an orthopedic surgeon to do a heart transplant. Scary, no? LOL >You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out >that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you >accuse me of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you >(despite the fact that I told you I was happy to hear cases for >eating more raw than she endorses). And you then appeal to your >longevity on this list as grounds for ... for what, exactly, I'm not >sure. Did you have a point somewhere in that paragraph? I'm desparately looking for one, and I can't find one. You had been flailing in your previous posts, and I was hoping to allow you to keep flailing. You weren't adding to your credibility by doing so, so I was only too happy to help you keep it up. > > This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier >comments, can you please try to 1) respond to the propositional >content of what I say and not what you think I am trying to get at by >some kind of indirect means, you haven't made any scientific points worth addressing, yet. Nothing you've said is something I haven't thought of. Therefore, I continue to be unwilling to accept a tremendously odd theory. >2) propose another evolutionary argument >for the posited brain >increase, if you prefer, but understand what an >evolutionary >argument involves, How about, I don't really CARE why? Why do we have to come up with a reason, or set of reasons? What's interesting about it? Until we have a much better understanding of DNA biochemistry, it's all guesswork. In 15 or 20 years, computers will probably be fast enough to prove or disprove any theory in a few seconds. Until then, it's a waste of time to theorize. I'm referring to 's Law here, and if you don't understand the implications of it, please don't argue. >- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the logical structure >of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments work, >shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond >that way. Consider this for a moment. You're basically saying " if it weren't for the brave/smart cooked-food-eaters, we'd all still be in the Stone Age " to a raw foodist. It's like saying to a member of PETA " if it weren't for medical testing on animals, we'd be in terrible shape " . What do you THINK my response is going to be? I've seen SO many people's health issues healed by a raw food diet, including my own. I don't have time for silly justifications like this. It isn't helping heal people. Healing people is most of why I'm on this group, or any nutrition group. I come to learn and teach about healing. Your theory is doing nothing but getting in that way of that. I have better things to do with my time, like helping teach people how to eat to be healthy, and reading messages here to learn how to eat healthier. Generally, avoiding overly-cooked food is an excellent way to better health. Stop, please stop. Can you not see how this isn't helping anyone's health? People can find all kinds of justifications to overly-cook their food. You don't need to help that process. It takes care of itself just fine. Not only that, there's not even any good support for your theory, that I am aware of. Anthropologists and archaeologists won't touch this nonsense with a 10 foot pole. Show me even ONE prominent anthropologist who actually thinks this makes sense. One. Please. I'm begging you. I really would like to respectfully request that you DROP this, until/unless you can find a prominent, degreed, and hopefully tenured anthropologist who wholeheartedly agrees with this crazy theory. I don't know what else to say. I thought this group was about healing through nutrition, not justifying unnecessary cooking of food. Don't you even realize that many of Dr. Price's tribes ate raw organ meats all the time, and still do today? They do it specifically for their health. They even SAY THAT. Did you know that? Bet not. Good gravy. God save us from armchair scientists. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 > > > > viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be > > true, but has plenty of support. > > What support? Why would slightly more advanced primates need > chemicals totally foreign to their body chemistry to evolve > larger brains than the slightly less-advanced primates they > themselves evolved from? No other species has ever needed > such a thing to evolve a larger brain. And, no other species has ever evolved a brain with the kind of intelligence that humans possess. Of millions of animal species that have evolved over millions of years, the only one to develop that degree of intelligence evolved from the one species that figured out how to cook food. Cooked foodist humans: put men on the moon Raw foodist chimp cousins: figured out how to pull termites out of a mound with a twig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 25, 2009 Report Share Posted May 25, 2009 Boy, you really convinced me that time. Computers will do it when they are fast enough. Thanks for that bit of brilliant insight into scientific methodology. No, I'm a moron, I've never heard of 's Law before, and the mere brilliance of the concept defeats me despite the complete irrelevance of faster computer models to testing scientific theories or tracing DNA divergences, which they haven't quite got down yet. I know you are reacting like an irrational PETA person--that's my point. All modern humans cooked their food--doesn't mean they ate all cooked, just like I don't. It is an open question for this list how much cooked and raw is ideal. Anthropologists and archeologists are plenty aware of the role of cooking in evolution, as differences between Neanderthal skulls and modern humans have to do with the diminished need to rend and tear raw flesh. I'm finished researching this topic for you--you investigate who supports it and why. The book I referred to is released today--you can actually look at the evidence it cites, how much comes from your preferred scientists or not, and whether they come from societies with a bias against raw food. Oh, and please post one more rambling, illogical post to which I won't respond, so that you can point out that you " won " a debate through pure exhaustion. Bill > > > >viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be true, >but has plenty of support. > > What support? Why would slightly more advanced primates need chemicals totally foreign to their body chemistry to evolve larger brains than the slightly less-advanced primates they themselves evolved from? No other species has ever needed such a thing to evolve a larger brain. The kinds of chemicals in cooked food are extremely different than what can easily be found in the environment of most organisms. The only exceptions might be in the case of natural grass fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense to study whether or not there's been accelerated evolution around active volcanic areas, where vegetation is often burned/cooked? > > > > > >Every time I respond to one of your accusations, you shift the >ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he does, he just studies >ants. There are no serious scientists who support it--well, if there >are, they come from societies that don't like raw food (!!!). > > Forgive me, I had not done my E.O, biography homework yet. I did a little reading and found out that he's really just an ant expert. Had I known that, I'd have ignored any reference to him. AS far as serious scientists go, look, asking zoologists and primatologists about human evolution is like asking an orthopedic surgeon to do a heart transplant. Scary, no? LOL > > > > >You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out >that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you >accuse me of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you >(despite the fact that I told you I was happy to hear cases for >eating more raw than she endorses). And you then appeal to your >longevity on this list as grounds for ... for what, exactly, I'm not >sure. > > Did you have a point somewhere in that paragraph? I'm desparately looking for one, and I can't find one. You had been flailing in your previous posts, and I was hoping to allow you to keep flailing. You weren't adding to your credibility by doing so, so I was only too happy to help you keep it up. > > > > > > This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier >comments, can you please try to 1) respond to the propositional >content of what I say and not what you think I am trying to get at by >some kind of indirect means, > > you haven't made any scientific points worth addressing, yet. Nothing you've said is something I haven't thought of. Therefore, I continue to be unwilling to accept a tremendously odd theory. > > >2) propose another evolutionary argument >for the posited brain >increase, if you prefer, but understand what an >evolutionary >argument involves, > > How about, I don't really CARE why? Why do we have to come up with a reason, or set of reasons? What's interesting about it? Until we have a much better understanding of DNA biochemistry, it's all guesswork. In 15 or 20 years, computers will probably be fast enough to prove or disprove any theory in a few seconds. Until then, it's a waste of time to theorize. I'm referring to 's Law here, and if you don't understand the implications of it, please don't argue. > > > >- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the logical structure >of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments work, >shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond >that way. > > Consider this for a moment. You're basically saying " if it weren't for the brave/smart cooked-food-eaters, we'd all still be in the Stone Age " to a raw foodist. It's like saying to a member of PETA " if it weren't for medical testing on animals, we'd be in terrible shape " . What do you THINK my response is going to be? I've seen SO many people's health issues healed by a raw food diet, including my own. I don't have time for silly justifications like this. It isn't helping heal people. Healing people is most of why I'm on this group, or any nutrition group. I come to learn and teach about healing. Your theory is doing nothing but getting in that way of that. I have better things to do with my time, like helping teach people how to eat to be healthy, and reading messages here to learn how to eat healthier. Generally, avoiding overly-cooked food is an excellent way to better health. Stop, please stop. Can you not see how this isn't helping anyone's health? People can find all kinds of justifications to overly-cook their food. You don't need to help that process. It takes care of itself just fine. > > Not only that, there's not even any good support for your theory, that I am aware of. Anthropologists and archaeologists won't touch this nonsense with a 10 foot pole. Show me even ONE prominent anthropologist who actually thinks this makes sense. One. Please. I'm begging you. > > I really would like to respectfully request that you DROP this, until/unless you can find a prominent, degreed, and hopefully tenured anthropologist who wholeheartedly agrees with this crazy theory. > > I don't know what else to say. I thought this group was about healing through nutrition, not justifying unnecessary cooking of food. Don't you even realize that many of Dr. Price's tribes ate raw organ meats all the time, and still do today? They do it specifically for their health. They even SAY THAT. Did you know that? Bet not. Good gravy. God save us from armchair scientists. > > Mike > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 As far as 's Law goes, I was SAYING that its exponential nature means that in only a few decades we will probably have most scientific questions answered. I don't see the point in idle speculation here. We leave idle speculation to the people who believe that a high-carb, high-grain diet is the ideal diet, or whatever the theory of the hour might be. Here, we focus on what has works for tens of thousands of years. What is known to work, known to be true. At least, that's mainly why I'm here. Any old time you can find a prominent, degreed, tenured, highly-published anthropologist who actually likes that book, you let me know. I'll be right here waiting (but not holding my breath, if you know what I mean). We both know that, if the publisher had any AVAILABLE to give reviews, they'd have USED them. There weren't any, and there won't ever BE ANY. I feel like I should be thanking you, though. I'm getting all kinds of interest in the raw food diet, general empathy, etc. via emails. It's all due to you, too. LOL Keep it up. You're making my case for me, better than I am. Mike > > > > > >viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be true, >but has plenty of support. > > > > What support? Why would slightly more advanced primates need chemicals totally foreign to their body chemistry to evolve larger brains than the slightly less-advanced primates they themselves evolved from? No other species has ever needed such a thing to evolve a larger brain. The kinds of chemicals in cooked food are extremely different than what can easily be found in the environment of most organisms. The only exceptions might be in the case of natural grass fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense to study whether or not there's been accelerated evolution around active volcanic areas, where vegetation is often burned/cooked? > > > > > > > > > > >Every time I respond to one of your accusations, you shift the >ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he does, he just studies >ants. There are no serious scientists who support it--well, if there >are, they come from societies that don't like raw food (!!!). > > > > Forgive me, I had not done my E.O, biography homework yet. I did a little reading and found out that he's really just an ant expert. Had I known that, I'd have ignored any reference to him. AS far as serious scientists go, look, asking zoologists and primatologists about human evolution is like asking an orthopedic surgeon to do a heart transplant. Scary, no? LOL > > > > > > > > >You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out >that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you >accuse me of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you >(despite the fact that I told you I was happy to hear cases for >eating more raw than she endorses). And you then appeal to your >longevity on this list as grounds for ... for what, exactly, I'm not >sure. > > > > Did you have a point somewhere in that paragraph? I'm desparately looking for one, and I can't find one. You had been flailing in your previous posts, and I was hoping to allow you to keep flailing. You weren't adding to your credibility by doing so, so I was only too happy to help you keep it up. > > > > > > > > > > This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier >comments, can you please try to 1) respond to the propositional >content of what I say and not what you think I am trying to get at by >some kind of indirect means, > > > > you haven't made any scientific points worth addressing, yet. Nothing you've said is something I haven't thought of. Therefore, I continue to be unwilling to accept a tremendously odd theory. > > > > >2) propose another evolutionary argument >for the posited brain >increase, if you prefer, but understand what an >evolutionary >argument involves, > > > > How about, I don't really CARE why? Why do we have to come up with a reason, or set of reasons? What's interesting about it? Until we have a much better understanding of DNA biochemistry, it's all guesswork. In 15 or 20 years, computers will probably be fast enough to prove or disprove any theory in a few seconds. Until then, it's a waste of time to theorize. I'm referring to 's Law here, and if you don't understand the implications of it, please don't argue. > > > > > > >- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the logical structure >of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments work, >shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond >that way. > > > > Consider this for a moment. You're basically saying " if it weren't for the brave/smart cooked-food-eaters, we'd all still be in the Stone Age " to a raw foodist. It's like saying to a member of PETA " if it weren't for medical testing on animals, we'd be in terrible shape " . What do you THINK my response is going to be? I've seen SO many people's health issues healed by a raw food diet, including my own. I don't have time for silly justifications like this. It isn't helping heal people. Healing people is most of why I'm on this group, or any nutrition group. I come to learn and teach about healing. Your theory is doing nothing but getting in that way of that. I have better things to do with my time, like helping teach people how to eat to be healthy, and reading messages here to learn how to eat healthier. Generally, avoiding overly-cooked food is an excellent way to better health. Stop, please stop. Can you not see how this isn't helping anyone's health? People can find all kinds of justifications to overly-cook their food. You don't need to help that process. It takes care of itself just fine. > > > > Not only that, there's not even any good support for your theory, that I am aware of. Anthropologists and archaeologists won't touch this nonsense with a 10 foot pole. Show me even ONE prominent anthropologist who actually thinks this makes sense. One. Please. I'm begging you. > > > > I really would like to respectfully request that you DROP this, until/unless you can find a prominent, degreed, and hopefully tenured anthropologist who wholeheartedly agrees with this crazy theory. > > > > I don't know what else to say. I thought this group was about healing through nutrition, not justifying unnecessary cooking of food. Don't you even realize that many of Dr. Price's tribes ate raw organ meats all the time, and still do today? They do it specifically for their health. They even SAY THAT. Did you know that? Bet not. Good gravy. God save us from armchair scientists. > > > > Mike > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 I won't research this any further, nor do I care about disciplinary differences, but Foley is an anthropologist and Pilbeam is in the department of anthropology at Harvard and the Curator of Paleoanthropology in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Both have positive blurbs on the back cover of Wrangham's book, as can be viewed on amazon.com. I'm sure there is something wrong with them, as well, just as it is obviously not part of traditional cultures to ever cook food. Faster computers don't have anything to do with generating data or testing theories per se, but be that as it may, we can await the final answer on all the sciences to be spit by HAL. I'm very happy you had the chance to make some new friends on my account. Bill > > > > > > > >viable scientific hypothesis that may or may not turn out to be true, >but has plenty of support. > > > > > > What support? Why would slightly more advanced primates need chemicals totally foreign to their body chemistry to evolve larger brains than the slightly less-advanced primates they themselves evolved from? No other species has ever needed such a thing to evolve a larger brain. The kinds of chemicals in cooked food are extremely different than what can easily be found in the environment of most organisms. The only exceptions might be in the case of natural grass fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense to study whether or not there's been accelerated evolution around active volcanic areas, where vegetation is often burned/cooked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Every time I respond to one of your accusations, you shift the >ground. E.O. doesn't say it, well, if he does, he just studies >ants. There are no serious scientists who support it--well, if there >are, they come from societies that don't like raw food (!!!). > > > > > > Forgive me, I had not done my E.O, biography homework yet. I did a little reading and found out that he's really just an ant expert. Had I known that, I'd have ignored any reference to him. AS far as serious scientists go, look, asking zoologists and primatologists about human evolution is like asking an orthopedic surgeon to do a heart transplant. Scary, no? LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > >You try to portray me as too " anti-raw " for the room, so I point out >that I'm squarely in the middle as far as this list goes, and you >accuse me of trying to turn the Sally Fallon groupies against you >(despite the fact that I told you I was happy to hear cases for >eating more raw than she endorses). And you then appeal to your >longevity on this list as grounds for ... for what, exactly, I'm not >sure. > > > > > > Did you have a point somewhere in that paragraph? I'm desparately looking for one, and I can't find one. You had been flailing in your previous posts, and I was hoping to allow you to keep flailing. You weren't adding to your credibility by doing so, so I was only too happy to help you keep it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is really getting tiresome. In keeping with my earlier >comments, can you please try to 1) respond to the propositional >content of what I say and not what you think I am trying to get at by >some kind of indirect means, > > > > > > you haven't made any scientific points worth addressing, yet. Nothing you've said is something I haven't thought of. Therefore, I continue to be unwilling to accept a tremendously odd theory. > > > > > > >2) propose another evolutionary argument >for the posited brain >increase, if you prefer, but understand what an >evolutionary >argument involves, > > > > > > How about, I don't really CARE why? Why do we have to come up with a reason, or set of reasons? What's interesting about it? Until we have a much better understanding of DNA biochemistry, it's all guesswork. In 15 or 20 years, computers will probably be fast enough to prove or disprove any theory in a few seconds. Until then, it's a waste of time to theorize. I'm referring to 's Law here, and if you don't understand the implications of it, please don't argue. > > > > > > > > > >- when someone who shows difficulties analyzing the logical structure >of arguments and understanding how evolutionary arguments work, >shoves a finger in my face and shouts me down, I might just respond >that way. > > > > > > Consider this for a moment. You're basically saying " if it weren't for the brave/smart cooked-food-eaters, we'd all still be in the Stone Age " to a raw foodist. It's like saying to a member of PETA " if it weren't for medical testing on animals, we'd be in terrible shape " . What do you THINK my response is going to be? I've seen SO many people's health issues healed by a raw food diet, including my own. I don't have time for silly justifications like this. It isn't helping heal people. Healing people is most of why I'm on this group, or any nutrition group. I come to learn and teach about healing. Your theory is doing nothing but getting in that way of that. I have better things to do with my time, like helping teach people how to eat to be healthy, and reading messages here to learn how to eat healthier. Generally, avoiding overly-cooked food is an excellent way to better health. Stop, please stop. Can you not see how this isn't helping anyone's health? People can find all kinds of justifications to overly-cook their food. You don't need to help that process. It takes care of itself just fine. > > > > > > Not only that, there's not even any good support for your theory, that I am aware of. Anthropologists and archaeologists won't touch this nonsense with a 10 foot pole. Show me even ONE prominent anthropologist who actually thinks this makes sense. One. Please. I'm begging you. > > > > > > I really would like to respectfully request that you DROP this, until/unless you can find a prominent, degreed, and hopefully tenured anthropologist who wholeheartedly agrees with this crazy theory. > > > > > > I don't know what else to say. I thought this group was about healing through nutrition, not justifying unnecessary cooking of food. Don't you even realize that many of Dr. Price's tribes ate raw organ meats all the time, and still do today? They do it specifically for their health. They even SAY THAT. Did you know that? Bet not. Good gravy. God save us from armchair scientists. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Who would you rather have operate on your heart, a heart surgeon or an orthopedist? When all of the most prominent paleoanthropologists, etc. endorse this idea, I'll be willing to read the book. Until then, it sounds (to me) like an orthopedic surgeon writing a book about his wonderful new insight into heart surgery, that will change the world. I'm not saying there's no chance this is true, simply that it's highly suspicious that the most prominent paleoanthropologists are conspicuously not praising these ideas. Mike > > I won't research this any further, nor do I care about disciplinary differences, but Foley is an anthropologist and Pilbeam is in the department of anthropology at Harvard and the Curator of Paleoanthropology in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Both have positive blurbs on the back cover of Wrangham's book, as can be viewed on amazon.com. I'm sure there is something wrong with them, as well, just as it is obviously not part of traditional cultures to ever cook food. Faster computers don't have anything to do with generating data or testing theories per se, but be that as it may, we can await the final answer on all the sciences to be spit by HAL. I'm very happy you had the chance to make some new friends on my account. > > Bill > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 Kelvin, > haha... u must be frustrated bc mike never admits any mistakes or > wrong when flagged by u or alex, et al. to continue this back and > forth is only an exercise in mental foreplay and wasted effort wen ur > one objective is to point out certain flaws or considerations and the > other is to maintain position and 'win' a debate. > > in other words... why other anymore? this can continue ad nauseum wen > any valid point made is sidestepped or changed to argue another > related but new point. > > kelvin via cell > (i wonder who the 1 vegan mike was implying on this big list of readers...) Keep going. No discussion is wasted on this list. Trust me. I have been here longer than most. There are many lurkers on this list who are quite discerning, and learn a lot from the back and forth. Personal attacks are silly and tend to drive people away, but never think that making a coherent argument is lost around here. It is not. Many of the major posters don't post as frequently as they once did, if it all, because well...life gets in the way, but this group, IMO, is a goldmine, precisely because of the open nature of the discussion and the willingness of people to go head to head. There are a few folks whose style and tactics could use some improvement, and occasionally the discussion degenerates to name calling and personal attacks, but even then, if you have something solid to say, such styles can be great foils in which to make your point. -- " One hears that, in foreign lands, people are now learning to swim, lying on the floor, with the aid of equipment. In the same way, one can become a Catholic or Protestant without experiencing life at all--by reading books in one's study. But to become Orthodox, it is necessary to immerse oneself all at once in the very element of Orthodoxy, to begin living in an Orthodox way. There is no other way. " --Fr. Pavel Florensky 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.