RE: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)

From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 21:55:52 MDT

  • Next message: Harvey Newstrom: "RE: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)"

    Harvey Newstrom wrote:

    > gts wrote,
    >> The key point is that, from a paleodieter's perspective, the *burden
    >> of proof* is always on those who would deviate from the default
    >> paleodiet. It's a question of who has the burden of proof.
    >
    > It never ceases to amaze me how often debates on the Internet
    > lead to the argument over "burden of proof."

    Again, I'm relating the paleodieter's perspective. If you do not accept the
    argument from evolutionary science that we are best adapted to a diet devoid
    of grain and dairy and legumes then obviously you won't accept the notion
    that the burden of proof should be on those who advocate a deviation from
    the paleodiet.

    I don't think that is especially unreasonable, Harvey. Do you accept the
    argument from evolution science? It is about 4 million years of evolutionary
    history vs about 10,000 years since the dawn of agriculture. According to
    calculations by Dr. Boyd Eaton, a specialist in dietary anthropology, 99.99
    percent of our genetic makeup was formed prior to the advent of dairy and
    agriculture.

    > And personally, I can't imagine anybody arguing *history* as evidence.

    Interesting. This is also an infamous argument of the creationists in their
    debates with evolution scientists. "Macro-evolution (the evolution of new
    species) can't be true empirical science," they say, "because
    macro-evolution has never been duplicated in a laboratory. It's only an
    argument about historical evidence."

    Unfortunately macro-evolution is supported only by arguments about
    historical evidence. Do you take it as science nonetheless?

    -gts



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 22:01:04 MDT