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