3 ms·

I think to claim it's pseudoscience is to claim it's more than a hypothesis. The OP did no such thing. The virtual certainty is from his perspective, not yours

by duaneb 11y ago

I think to claim it's pseudoscience is to claim it's more than a hypothesis. The OP did no such thing. The virtual certainty is from his perspective, not yours (or mine). EDIT: I would also strongly recommend divorcing our DNA from our gut in this case; they are two different things, and both certainly influence our metabolic processes.

ajross 11y ago
> I would also strongly recommend divorcing our DNA from our gut Why? The gut flora has its own DNA, and it absolutely coevolves with the rest of the organism. It's non-sensical to say that we're "adapted" for something via one mechanism and not the other. Adaptations use the full spectrum of evolvable media (including culture, for that matter) by definition. They aren't separable unless you can literally point to a specific gene or bacteria or cooking practice. And we can't.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > It's non-sensical to say that we're "adapted" for something via one mechanism and not the other. And yet, that's exactly what you implied—that our current metabolic process is entirely the result of the 10k years of change in the gut bacteria, NOT the previous hundreds of thousands of years we spent persistence hunting protein and gathering nutrition.
  - ajross 11y ago
    What? No, I said there was clear evidence that our systems (as a whole, though I specifically referenced gut flora as the evidence) had adapted to our existence as agrarian grain eaters. And that makes argument from the position of "our systems are really intended to be scavengers" pretty suspect. Basically, any argument of what we are "supposed" to eat in that context is pseudoscientific garbage. The real science says we need to pay attention to agriculture.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      > The real science says we need to pay attention to agriculture. What's the source in question here? I've now completely lost you. Gut flora is elastic and can't tell us much about anything but what we eat in our own lifetimes. I see zero evidence anywhere I look that we should use this flora to figure out which diet maximizes long term health. If anything, it's more indicative of what we are eating than what we might eat that would be better.

by duaneb 11y ago

ajross 11y ago

> I would also strongly recommend divorcing our DNA from our gut Why? The gut flora has its own DNA, and it absolutely coevolves with the rest of the organism. It's non-sensical to say that we're "adapted" for something via one mechanism and not the other. Adaptations use the full spectrum of evolvable media (including culture, for that matter) by definition. They aren't separable unless you can literally point to a specific gene or bacteria or cooking practice. And we can't.

duaneb 11y ago
> It's non-sensical to say that we're "adapted" for something via one mechanism and not the other. And yet, that's exactly what you implied—that our current metabolic process is entirely the result of the 10k years of change in the gut bacteria, NOT the previous hundreds of thousands of years we spent persistence hunting protein and gathering nutrition.
- ajross 11y ago
  What? No, I said there was clear evidence that our systems (as a whole, though I specifically referenced gut flora as the evidence) had adapted to our existence as agrarian grain eaters. And that makes argument from the position of "our systems are really intended to be scavengers" pretty suspect. Basically, any argument of what we are "supposed" to eat in that context is pseudoscientific garbage. The real science says we need to pay attention to agriculture.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > The real science says we need to pay attention to agriculture. What's the source in question here? I've now completely lost you. Gut flora is elastic and can't tell us much about anything but what we eat in our own lifetimes. I see zero evidence anywhere I look that we should use this flora to figure out which diet maximizes long term health. If anything, it's more indicative of what we are eating than what we might eat that would be better.