3 ms·
The "plenty of time" of time argument only shows that Cordain's reasoning is not bulletproof -- it doesn't refute it. Just because it's possible to adapt to a
by jonahx 14y ago
The "plenty of time" of time argument only shows that Cordain's reasoning is not bulletproof -- it doesn't refute it. Just because it's possible to adapt to a new condition doesn't mean we will, or that our adaptation will be complete. Lactase persistence may be evidence of evolution in a relatively short time, but by the same token lactose intolerance is evidence of its failure.
So while it's a fair point of criticism of the paleo argument, it's not enough to dismiss it. If you find a flaw in the proof of a theorem, you have not disproved the theorem.
- jonny_eh 14y agoThat's shifting the burden of proof. It's Cordain that is making the claim and promoting a diet, he should provide the evidence, not Zuk.
- jonahx 14y agoThese are orthogonal issues. Yes, Cordain should provide proof for the diet he champions. Separately from that, she has written a book called "Paleofantasy" which implies proof that the diet's precepts are invalid. Hence from her side showing that they might be invalid is not enough.