Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, May-10-06, 14:50
JaneDough's Avatar
JaneDough JaneDough is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,218
 
Plan: Atkins' OWL
Stats: 294/237.6/149 Female 5'8"
BF:oodles
Progress: 39%
Location: Under the Golden Gate
Default The Evolution of LC

Let me say that I am NOT trying to start a religious debate of any kind. I'm just wondering if the majority of people here believe evolution has been an integral component of the human diet. So many posts incorporate the idea, that I wonder if its assumed most of us accept it as fact.

: insert white flag emoticon here :
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, May-10-06, 17:15
LilaCotton's Avatar
LilaCotton LilaCotton is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,472
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 229/205/170 Female 5'6"
BF:I have Body Fat!??
Progress: 41%
Location: Idaho
Default

You know, you can be a Christian and still look at the world and know that to some degree evolution has been an ongoing process.

Having said that, yes, I believe evolution has a part in what people can eat and stay healthy. If you look at the disease rates in various ethnic cultures who now eat completely different than they originally did there's no doubt about it. Think of all of the native Americans who've developed diabetes after eating a Western diet. I believe it all stems from 'survival of the fittest'. An example of this is in South America. Many natives of South America eat very spicy food. Hot peppers act as somewhat of a preservative in foods so foods could be prepared and still eaten later. It is theorized those who didn't like the spiciness would end up with food poisoning, thus the survivors would be those who liked the peppers and passed on that gene.

No doubt about it, people do adapt and those who don't die out, which brings to mind Charles Darwin's actual theory of evolution. I can't even remember the name of the book now, but years ago I read either his biography or something else. It was extremely fascinating to learn that what I'd been taught all my life as Darwin's theories were never his own.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, May-10-06, 18:28
Sunday's Avatar
Sunday Sunday is offline
Transmogrifying
Posts: 294
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 300/294/160 Female 5 feet, 7 inches
BF:
Progress: 4%
Location: SE Michigan
Default

Absolutely. Whether you believe that homo sapiens developed over time from more ancient species, or that we entered the Earth at a run, pursued by a flaming sword, it's impossible to deny that in the past ten thousand years (to pick a number out of the air) agriculture and food processing systems have developed and changed, and the human body along with it.

A tremendous amount of that change has been beneficial. Better nutrition is available to more people than in human history (I said available; I didn't say people necessarily choose to eat it), and fewer children die from rickets or beriberi or other nutritional deficiency diseases. We're taller and stronger, with better teeth and eyes. People live longer, and stay healthier longer. A smaller (but still noticeable) amount of it has been less than good: farmland stripped of its richness; cows, pigs and chickens fattened with chemicals; frankenfoods; the vast warehouses of manufactured food-things that barely have a nodding acquaintance with fresh broccoli or free-range chicken; the sweeping obesity and diabetes crises, to name only two.

We are blessed with a staggering array of things available for eating, that may have come from a mile away or across the world away, shipped by refrigerated or freezer truck or train or plane, made by artisans on a farm or in a factory, kept fresh and brought to local markets. I can easily get my hands on ingredients my grandmother never heard of. Evolution still has a hand in the way humans change, but now personal choice has a bigger role.

Last edited by Sunday : Thu, May-11-06 at 05:35.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, May-10-06, 21:20
paulm's Avatar
paulm paulm is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 113
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 215/185/190 Male 6'1"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Arizona
Default

Interesting discussion! I'm not big on evolution as it is (IMHO) an unproveable theory. There are too many gaps between species and lack of transitional species to link one form to another. There are some that would appear to fit as the transitional species, but the vast majority (thousands and thousands and thousands) of the transitional species do not exist. Also, some of the man/ape skeletons (or a very small part of a skeleton like a couple of old bones) have been found under further scrutiny to not be what they appear (like Lucy, Nebraska Man, Neanderhal Man, etc). I'm just not seing any proof of evolution at all.

So, how about evolutions effect on diet. That seems like a stretch to me as well. I don't consider the advancement of agriculture the same as evolution. We create/fabricate new foods but that's not the same as evolution, that's just us making up new stuff to eat. Blah, blah, blah so no I guess I don't see that evolution (if there even is such a thing) has any effect on diet.

Last edited by paulm : Wed, May-10-06 at 21:25.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, May-11-06, 00:37
nawchem's Avatar
nawchem nawchem is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,479
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 29/25/12 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 24%
Default

I think humans can procreate far sooner then they are likely to die from eating too many carbs so there would be no selective process leading to genetic differentiation in the species. Populations carrying genes for diabetes are proliferate for that reason. Most scientists think humans are weaker today then in the past because so many of the weaker ones historically would have died from infections, childhood diseases and in childbirth are able to survive now because of medical intervention.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, May-11-06, 08:06
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,178
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I don't necessarily think every thing humans have adopted is necessarily good for them, or the rest of the world's creatures. While agriculture allowed us to have a really dense population, is that actually a good thing in the end? Am I happier being a person driving a car 45 minutes to and from work each day, spending 8 or more hours in a florescently lit office than I would have been naked human armed with a stick? Probably not, I think I would have probably been just about as happy either way.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, May-11-06, 12:51
Wyvrn's Avatar
Wyvrn Wyvrn is offline
Dog is my copilot
Posts: 1,448
 
Plan: paleo/lowcarb
Stats: 210/162/145 Female 62in
BF:
Progress: 74%
Location: Olympia, WA
Default

I think evidence of what our pre-agricultural ancestors ate is useful as it fills in gaps in our knowledge of physiology (and thus nutritional requirements), and interesting because it helps to explain the evolution of the human brain.

Wyv
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, May-11-06, 23:14
LilaCotton's Avatar
LilaCotton LilaCotton is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,472
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 229/205/170 Female 5'6"
BF:I have Body Fat!??
Progress: 41%
Location: Idaho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulm
There are too many gaps between species and lack of transitional species to link one form to another.


Now see, I completely agree with this--there's more science against that type of evolution than for it (and I'm not a brainiac, just different things interest me).

However, there is much to ask about the various groups of people and how they've adapted over time to the diets they eat. I can think of example upon example where world-wide different groups of people are healthy and none of these groups eats identical type food. The one thing they do have in common is that they remain healthy as long as they eat the type of diet to which they're accustomed. And as I said earlier much of it has to do with 'survival of the fittist' where people with problems often time died out before they could reproduce.

Quote:
Most scientists think humans are weaker today then in the past because so many of the weaker ones historically would have died from infections, childhood diseases and in childbirth are able to survive now because of medical intervention.

If they aren't yet, they will be. When I was a child I had every childhood disease there was and came through them fine, and why? Because my parents passed down natural immunities to me. In the early days of white folks in Hawaii, almost the entire island population was wiped out by a case of measles. Again, why? Because none of these people had any natural immunity to the disease. Say we go several generations down the road and childhood illnesses are wiped out to the point no one any longer needs vaccinations and for whatever weird reason measles sprung up again, how many people would die from it?

On the one hand, no one wants to lose a loved one to a disease or birth defect. But on the other hand, each person who survives that disease or has surgery to correct a birth defect and passes on the genes makes the human race weaker. It's hard to win in any case.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 12:46
grandpa grandpa is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 315
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 240/200/170 Male 68 in
BF:
Progress: 57%
Location: Oklahoma
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
I don't necessarily think every thing humans have adopted is necessarily good for them, or the rest of the world's creatures. While agriculture allowed us to have a really dense population, is that actually a good thing in the end? Am I happier being a person driving a car 45 minutes to and from work each day, spending 8 or more hours in a florescently lit office than I would have been naked human armed with a stick? Probably not, I think I would have probably been just about as happy either way.


If only I could find a job where I could do both
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 13:16
WesleyT's Avatar
WesleyT WesleyT is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 155
 
Plan: Dr Greg Ellis
Stats: 10/10/10 Male 186 Cm
BF:
Progress:
Location: Antwerp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
I don't necessarily think every thing humans have adopted is necessarily good for them, or the rest of the world's creatures. While agriculture allowed us to have a really dense population, is that actually a good thing in the end? Am I happier being a person driving a car 45 minutes to and from work each day, spending 8 or more hours in a florescently lit office than I would have been naked human armed with a stick? Probably not, I think I would have probably been just about as happy either way.

the difference is you wouldnt live, my life is saved because medication/hospitals; yeah overpopulation is a bad thing, but i love my life too much
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 14:13
jorelq's Avatar
jorelq jorelq is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 869
 
Plan: VLC
Stats: 235/226/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 16%
Location: Orange County, CA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilaCotton
You know, you can be a Christian and still look at the world and know that to some degree evolution has been an ongoing process.

Having said that, yes, I believe evolution has a part in what people can eat and stay healthy. If you look at the disease rates in various ethnic cultures who now eat completely different than they originally did there's no doubt about it. Think of all of the native Americans who've developed diabetes after eating a Western diet. I believe it all stems from 'survival of the fittest'. An example of this is in South America. Many natives of South America eat very spicy food. Hot peppers act as somewhat of a preservative in foods so foods could be prepared and still eaten later. It is theorized those who didn't like the spiciness would end up with food poisoning, thus the survivors would be those who liked the peppers and passed on that gene.

No doubt about it, people do adapt and those who don't die out, which brings to mind Charles Darwin's actual theory of evolution. I can't even remember the name of the book now, but years ago I read either his biography or something else. It was extremely fascinating to learn that what I'd been taught all my life as Darwin's theories were never his own.


I came across these defintions of which it would be true that a Christian has no problems with the first two.

"selective evolution": This refers to genetic variation that gets selected through successive generations. In short, this is just genetics, and this what natural selection has to do with. Importantly, this kind of evolution involves no mutation. This includes the examples you bring up such as dog breeding and covers the selective breeding of everything from farm animals to plants. This is the type of evolution you're referring to when you talk about "survival of the fittest".
"mutative evolution": This type of evolution involves mutation of existing genetic information. This covers things like color-blindness, bacterial resistance to drugs, sickle-cell anemia, etc.
"creative evolution": This is the kind of evolution that claims to create new features or structures of an organism that didn't exist before, and requires an increase in genetic information. This covers the "goo to you", or "monkey to man" evolution, and includes such things as the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled, prokaryote cells from eukaryote, the origin of the cell, and the very creation of life from non-living matter.

Its the 3rd one where the real debates begin. And, as a believer, I do not buy into. Cats have always been cats, fish - fish, dogs - dogs and man - man. I have yet to run across a monkey man although many of my friends are quite hairy.

Jorel
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 14:47
tom sawyer tom sawyer is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,241
 
Plan: Atkins-like
Stats: 215/170/170 Male 70
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Hannibal MO
Default

Evolution doesn't keep you from making bad choices, it just makes you pay for them.

I think evolution is the most likely explanation, although I agree that the story that is created from the few specimens of man's supposed predecessors is weak at best. Seems like scientists are good at taking a minimum amount of information, and creating a best guess story and then building elaborate scenarios from there. Its like a house of cards.

What I do believe firmly, is that we've been hunting for a long time. The stone weapons show that.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 21:23
paulm's Avatar
paulm paulm is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 113
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 215/185/190 Male 6'1"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Arizona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LilaCotton
Now see, I completely agree with this--there's more science against that type of evolution than for it (and I'm not a brainiac, just different things interest me).

However, there is much to ask about the various groups of people and how they've adapted over time to the diets they eat. I can think of example upon example where world-wide different groups of people are healthy and none of these groups eats identical type food. The one thing they do have in common is that they remain healthy as long as they eat the type of diet to which they're accustomed. And as I said earlier much of it has to do with 'survival of the fittist' where people with problems often time died out before they could reproduce.


If they aren't yet, they will be. When I was a child I had every childhood disease there was and came through them fine, and why? Because my parents passed down natural immunities to me. In the early days of white folks in Hawaii, almost the entire island population was wiped out by a case of measles. Again, why? Because none of these people had any natural immunity to the disease. Say we go several generations down the road and childhood illnesses are wiped out to the point no one any longer needs vaccinations and for whatever weird reason measles sprung up again, how many people would die from it?

On the one hand, no one wants to lose a loved one to a disease or birth defect. But on the other hand, each person who survives that disease or has surgery to correct a birth defect and passes on the genes makes the human race weaker. It's hard to win in any case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jorelq
I came across these defintions of which it would be true that a Christian has no problems with the first two.

"selective evolution": This refers to genetic variation that gets selected through successive generations. In short, this is just genetics, and this what natural selection has to do with. Importantly, this kind of evolution involves no mutation. This includes the examples you bring up such as dog breeding and covers the selective breeding of everything from farm animals to plants. This is the type of evolution you're referring to when you talk about "survival of the fittest".
"mutative evolution": This type of evolution involves mutation of existing genetic information. This covers things like color-blindness, bacterial resistance to drugs, sickle-cell anemia, etc.
"creative evolution": This is the kind of evolution that claims to create new features or structures of an organism that didn't exist before, and requires an increase in genetic information. This covers the "goo to you", or "monkey to man" evolution, and includes such things as the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled, prokaryote cells from eukaryote, the origin of the cell, and the very creation of life from non-living matter.

Its the 3rd one where the real debates begin. And, as a believer, I do not buy into. Cats have always been cats, fish - fish, dogs - dogs and man - man. I have yet to run across a monkey man although many of my friends are quite hairy.

Jorel



Excellent points!!! I guess my post was directed towards "creative evolution", whereas I see no proof of (I was not aware that there were three "different" types or definitions).
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Fri, May-12-06, 21:32
paulm's Avatar
paulm paulm is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 113
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 215/185/190 Male 6'1"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Arizona
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tom sawyer
I think evolution is the most likely explanation, although I agree that the story that is created from the few specimens of man's supposed predecessors is weak at best. Seems like scientists are good at taking a minimum amount of information, and creating a best guess story and then building elaborate scenarios from there. Its like a house of cards.


The thing is that from a science perspective there really isn't any other explanation on how we end up where we are today. I just don't think that science will ever be able to offer an positive answer on this question and that just drives people crazy. People want to figure stuff out and this one just can't be from a science perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, May-15-06, 09:19
tom sawyer tom sawyer is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,241
 
Plan: Atkins-like
Stats: 215/170/170 Male 70
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Hannibal MO
Default

There's no shame in saying "we don't know", but you can't get a scientist to do that. They are always going to defend the latest best guess as being the gospel, regardless of the weakness of the evidence.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:20.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.