4 ms·

You believe that humans evolved to eat certain foods, but you ignore that we also evolved to be lazy and avoid unnecessary exercise. Maybe we evolved to eat eve

You believe that humans evolved to eat certain foods, but you ignore that we also evolved to be lazy and avoid unnecessary exercise. Maybe we evolved to eat everything we could get our hands on and to live to 40 years old in order to propogate. What about the fact that we evolved to carry and support tons of parasites? (look up the guy who walked barefoot around latrines in the 3rd world to pick up worms which he carries and is willing to sell you... he'd not a crackpot, either) What about the fact that we did not evolve to be immune to smallpox (and all the others), maybe we are supposed to get it. I'm not taking sides here, I'm saying that you are being selective about what you choose to believe in a way that is not entirely supported by science. Yes you can selectively come up with science to support your beliefs, but what this article is about is how for many many years in modern times we all arrogantly believed the wrong science. Your comment strikes me that you are not reading the news story about sugar as a cautionary tale against believing things that could quite well not be true. I myself doubt that there is a magic diet that makes us live a long time, because living a long time is not something we evolved for; rather, we evolved to eat anything we could get our hands on because living thru times of shortage was more important than maybe having an allergy that made us gassier. 2nd order effects have a lot of trouble overcoming firsts. And if you enjoy exercise, great! but if you don't enjoy it, remember that the hour you spend running will not lead to you living an hour longer, so you just shortened your overall enjoyable life, while you also increased your carbon footprint which is a socially selfish thing to do. See what I mean? these things just cannot be reduced to formulas for how we should live.

cholantesh 11y ago
I disagree with the parent, but there are several issues with your post as well. For starters, it's wrong to suggest that there's a direction or purpose to evolution[1]. The current shape of human life is no indication that we have 'progressed' from where we previously were, or where we will be in the future (as far as evo bio is concerned). As such, to suggest that we were 'supposed' to get smallpox because we did not evolve a natural immunity to it is not a statement that conforms to our understanding of evolution. Neither does it make sense that, because in the developed world, people have tended to become more sedentary, it is a desired end goal for humans to become 'lazier'. If that were the case, we should also be willing to argue that childlessness is the desirable state for living organisms, as the more education and wealth humans accumulate, the less likely they are to have children[2]. I don't fully follow your reasoning on exercise, but as it is intended to counteract the documented effects of overeating, I'm not sure it is a sound thesis to suggest it won't increase your lifespan. 1: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM
- brashrat 11y ago
  I used "we evolved" in the sense that he used it so I could communicate with him; in actuality, I subscribe to the Selfish Gene hypothesis where "we" really don't matter at all. Our genes compete for survival against not surviving. They compete against each other inasmuch as they are in competition but otherwise they cooperate in the sense of accepting each other as part of the environment in which they propogate. there is a direction and purpose to evolution, it's: replicate or cease to exist.

cholantesh 11y ago

I disagree with the parent, but there are several issues with your post as well. For starters, it's wrong to suggest that there's a direction or purpose to evolution[1]. The current shape of human life is no indication that we have 'progressed' from where we previously were, or where we will be in the future (as far as evo bio is concerned). As such, to suggest that we were 'supposed' to get smallpox because we did not evolve a natural immunity to it is not a statement that conforms to our understanding of evolution. Neither does it make sense that, because in the developed world, people have tended to become more sedentary, it is a desired end goal for humans to become 'lazier'. If that were the case, we should also be willing to argue that childlessness is the desirable state for living organisms, as the more education and wealth humans accumulate, the less likely they are to have children[2]. I don't fully follow your reasoning on exercise, but as it is intended to counteract the documented effects of overeating, I'm not sure it is a sound thesis to suggest it won't increase your lifespan. 1: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkSO9pOVpRM

brashrat 11y ago
I used "we evolved" in the sense that he used it so I could communicate with him; in actuality, I subscribe to the Selfish Gene hypothesis where "we" really don't matter at all. Our genes compete for survival against not surviving. They compete against each other inasmuch as they are in competition but otherwise they cooperate in the sense of accepting each other as part of the environment in which they propogate. there is a direction and purpose to evolution, it's: replicate or cease to exist.