View Single Post
  #61   ^
Old Sat, Dec-06-08, 00:06
awriter's Avatar
awriter awriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,096
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 225/158/145 Female 65
BF:53%/24%/20%
Progress: 84%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBoGuy
The problem is that while humans did indeed change their diet out of necessity to survive, their bodies did not biologically evolve to consume this new energy source due to a simple mutation that (knocked out) a gene found in animals from the human body.

Oh! That explains everything. You don't understand how evolution works.

No problem; I'll explain it to you.

Evolutionary Rule 1: No living organism can 'change their diet' - out of necessity or otherwise - unless the species adapts to digest it. Adapt, as in, evolve. Evolve, as in develop whatever internal organs or chemical processes necessary to digest and thrive on that food. Thrive, as in do better eating that food, than on whatever food has been eaten before. Fat fits that rule, by the way - carbohydrate doesn't.

Evolutionary Rule 2: Adaption will only (can only) take place if it adds to the species survival in some way. Otherwise the few members of the species who decide it would be peachy-keen to eat venomous toads, for instance, die immediately. And being dead, they don't get to pass on their genes to offspring - nature's very wise way of dealing with idiots. In fact, there's a national contest - The Annual Darwin Awards - that celebrates the men and women who perform acts so incredibly stupid that they remove themselves from the gene pool - thus saving the rest of us the trouble. Whenever I see someone drive down the the highway going the wrong way I know I'm watching a Darwin Candidate at work. They don't always win the award, but I figure there's always next year.

Evolutionary Rule 3: Adaptation only goes in one direction: toward species survival, not away from it, regardless of how something may or may not suit one particular individual. Thus, your idea that our species ate something that didn't further our survival, yet somehow became part of our evolution is utter nonsense. Based on your previous posts, I'm not sure you have the intellectual ability to grasp this fact, but I'm hoping you'll try. You will actually have learned something if so.

That evolutionary adaptation must always go in one direction - toward survival - is so true, that Dr. Sharon Moalem (a medical student with a Ph.D. in neurogenetics) had to write an entire book to answer a question about Rule 3 that occurred to him one day: how do human diseases fit this rule? If Rule 3 is true, he wondered, then wouldn't Diabetes, Cancer and even the Bubonic Plague have evolved to serve some survival purpose for our species? But how could that possibly be?

Well, turns out - it be. All the above diseases evolved to help our species survive. Survival of the Sickest: A Medical Maverick Discovers Why We Need Disease is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read, and it is also the book that also taught me about epigenetics (another refutation of your theory that you should read - if you read anything other than ideological propaganda).

I have no doubt that you will ignore these facts however, as you have ignored all the posters who have pointed out your factual errors in post after post. Swooper and Pooper indeed! Too bad they don't give an award for that.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links