4 ms·
That's precisely why the "nature intended us to" argument doesn't really work for me when I hear people trying to convince me to try the Paleo diet. Whatever th
by desigooner 16y ago
That's precisely why the "nature intended us to" argument doesn't really work for me when I hear people trying to convince me to try the Paleo diet. Whatever the benefits might be (besides making the author of those books a good chunk of money), they can be garnered by other means. What I hate even more is when a few devotees of such diets go on a slant about vegetarianism/veganism etc. etc.
- xiaoma 16y agoNot only that, but our "nature" has changed considerably since those times. Evolution has been far faster, likely 100 times faster the past several thousand years than it was before civilization. 15,000 years ago, nobody was lactose tolerant, nobody had blue eyes and who knows what else was different.
- JoelMcCracken 16y agoThat isn't evolution, it is a diversification of our genetics. There are lots of things that many humans are intolerant to which would have probably been a really big weakness in the past. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection. There needs to be significant culling pressure for real evolution to happen.
- jshen 16y ago"Humans are no longer subject to natural selection." What? Are you sure? Because we most certainly are subject to natural selection.
- JoelMcCracken 16y agoYes. But not to any significant degree that will cause a change as a species.
- jshen 16y agowe most certainly change as a species. Something as simple as choosing who to reproduce with affects the distribution of genes that are passed on to the next generation. A more obvious example of the sorts of changes we can still go through is sickle cell.
- btilly 16y agoI'm sorry, but anyone who says this has failed to understand evolution. Evolution is a slow process. But there is no reason to believe that it is going any slower today than it ever did in the past - we're just being selected for different things than in the past. (For instance carelessness about birth control.)
- Liron 16y agoNo, he's right. The most powerful force shaping the future is intelligence. Natural selection on biological genes is orders of magnitude slower.
- btilly 16y agoThe fact that intelligence is shaping our future faster than evolution does not affect the fact that evolution is still proceeding at the current moment in our species.
- torkins 16y agoNo, he's wrong. Natural selection doesn't speed up or slow down, it just is. Each passing generation there are pressures put on the spreading of human genes, and those pressures are the manifestation of natural selection. Whether those pressures are different now than before, or whether they shape "the future" is irrelevant to the biological impact of natural selection.
- hackinthebochs 16y agoSure it does, in the sense that there are fewer selective pressures on us, and those pressures are weaker. Our intelligence is able to overcome many of the pressures our environment exerts on us.
- xiaoma 16y agoIt is evolution, and it speeds up with higher populations. As for natural selection, consider that only small changes in allele frequencies add up quickly through the generations. Also, sexual selection is very much a force. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33322719/Cochran-Gregory-10-000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution http://www.scribd.com/doc/33322719/Cochran-Gregory-10-000-ye... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving/
- nollidge 16y agoNatural selection is just one component of evolution. Genetic drift and, especially, artificial selection are certainly in full swing. And anyway, I completely disagree that we're no longer subject to natural selection. We're always subject to natural selection. We're not immune to everything.
- nollidge 16y agoActually, everybody was lactose intolerant 15,000 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerant#History_of_genetic_prevalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerant#History_of_g...
- AlecSchueler 16y ago"15,000 years ago, nobody was lactose tolerant"
- nollidge 16y agoUgh, sorry, yes. Totally misread that.
- JoelMcCracken 16y agoI went from being a vegetarian to the paleo diet (or, actually, the "primal" variant). I thought about making this really long, but instead, realize that primal/paleo people use the primitive human as a model, a "common sense" starting base, and then apply liberal amounts of scientific knowledge to get a working solution. It has changed my life. When I follow the diet, it has been pretty impossible not to lose weight. That's with eating as many eggs, as much butter, and as much natural, delicious, other whole foods as I can stuff myself with.
- Cushman 16y agoSecond this. I am as critical as anyone of the naturalistic fallacy, and don't generally subscribe to the idea that what worked for cavemen will work for me. However, the metabolic science is there if you read it, and I can't argue with the profound effect switching to a diet based on meat, eggs and other sources of saturated fats has had on my body. I eat as much as I want, whenever I want, I'm never really hungry any more, and I've been losing fat and gaining muscle without thinking about it at all. It's pretty incredible.
- mortenjorck 16y agoA good friend of mine made the same transition (vegetarian to paleo) and says the same: it changed his life.