Early human diet explains our eating habits

Early human diet explains our eating habits
The size of the human brain had a great deal to do with the food choices of our ancestors. Credit: Shutterstock

Much attention is being given to what people ate in the distant past as a guide to what we should eat today. Advocates of the claimed palaeodiet recommend that we should avoid carbohydrates and load our plates with red meat and fat. Its critics, on the other hand, argue that these are the same ingredients that would set us up for heart attacks. Moreover, these animal-derived foods require more space to produce on our crowded planet filled with starving humans.

A factual foundation for the debate is provided by a review of the eating patterns of and how we adapted to digest starches softened by cooking. The researchers contend that it was digestible starches that provided extra energy needed to fuel the energy needs of bigger brains, rather than extra protein from meat to grow these brains.

But the most striking thing about is just how variable they have been and the adaptations that have taken place. Furthermore, the American evolutionary biologist Marlene Zuk in her book Paleofantasy contends that these dietary adaptations are not fixed on what our ancestors ate in caves at some time in the past.

So are our energy, or protein, needs much different from other mammals of similar size? Brains demand a lot of energy but so does the liver and the digestive tract. The extra nutrition that we need for brain work may be counterbalanced, at least partially, by a lesser need for:

  • a long gut to process poor quality foods, or
  • a large liver to handle nasty chemicals in these plant parts.

Once built, a large brain does not require extra sources of protein to maintain its activities.

My studies on the dietary requirements of savanna-inhabiting herbivores highlight how these animals must cope with the when most herbage is brown and indigestible even with the aid of microbial symbionts in the gut.

But carnivores do not have this problem because the dry season is when weakened herbivores are most readily killed, especially when they concentrate around scarce waterholes.

The role of carbs among early humans

Meat has long been part of human diets, along with carbohydrates provided by fruits, tubers and grains. We can get by without it, obtaining protein from milk or, with some planning, from legumes.

The early humans that consumed most meat were the Neanderthals, who lived in Europe many thousand years ago, but were not our ancestors. Meat formed the crucial lean-season food for the Neanderthal people during successive winters when plants were seasonally buried under deep snow, but later also for the modern humans who spread through Eurasia and displaced them around 40 000 years ago.

Unlike tropical Africa, meat could be stored during the freezing winters of the far north to provide a reliable food source, especially in the form of large carcasses of elephant-like proboscideans.

This led to a wave of large mammal extinctions as humans spread rapidly into Australia and entered the Americas towards the end of the last Ice Age. By that time hunting technology had been honed and meat routinely supplemented plant food, but the latter remained the dietary staple for African hunter-gatherers like the Bushmen or San people into modern times.

The food journey within evolution

Coping with the intensifying dry season in the expanding African savanna was a critical issue for human ancestors during the evolutionary transition from ape-men to the first humans between three and two million years ago. How did our ape-men ancestors gather sufficient to eat during this time of the year when nutritious fruits and leaves were scarce?

This was when meat, or at least the marrow left within bones, could have become a nutritional fallback, probably acquired by scavenging from animal carcasses not completely consumed by big fierce carnivores, along with underground storage organs of plants.

Obtaining this meat required more walking and hence longer limbs, hands freed to carry, security in numbers and stone weapons to throw at threatening carnivore fangs, but not much expansion in cranial capacity. These were features of the early Australopithicines.

At this early time, another branch of ape-men, placed in the genus Paranthropus, took a different adaptive route. They developed huge jaws to chew on tough plant foods extracted from underground storage organs to get them through the dry season.

The last representative of this genus faded out nearly a million years ago when this strategy eventually became unviable. About that time the lineage leading to early humans discovered cooking, or at least how to use it effectively to make starches stored by plants more readily digestible, according to the article in The Quarterly Review of Biology.

Adding this reliably found source of energy to the proteins acquired more opportunistically by hunting animals or gathering shellfish provided the means to survive through seasonal bottlenecks in food availability and build even bigger brains and the adaptations that followed.

A supporting adaptation was to store more body fat to get through the lean periods, especially among women supporting dependent offspring. This works against us now that foods supplying carbohydrates are plentiful.

The modern day dilemma

The problems we currently face are that we retain a craving for sugar, which was scarce the past, while most of the starchy carbohydrates we eat are highly refined. This means losing out on the other nutrients in plant parts like minerals and vitamins, and most basically fibre.

A meat-based diet could have a role to play for people who have a propensity to store fat by filling the gut for longer and alleviating desires to snack on sweets between meals. More important generally is the need to exercise so that we are hungry enough to consume sufficient food to provide the scarce micronutrients that we also require for healthy bodies.

The best advice is to eat lots of things: if you can afford it and justify its planetary costs to produce, but also all kinds of good , as least refined and processed as you can obtain (apart from wines).


Explore further

Big brains needed carbs—The importance of dietary carbohydrate in human evolution

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: Early human diet explains our eating habits (2015, August 31) retrieved 22 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-early-human-diet-habits.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
241 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 31, 2015
Using archeopaleolithic diets to determine what contemporary humans should eat makes as much sense as using the relations between their couples as a guide for contemporary marriage.

Our anatomy and physiology have changed a lot since the introduction of agriculture and looking at those effects they far outweigh our previous adaptation. Humans 100,000 years ago never had crooked teeth. Look at us. Agriculture gave rise to lighter jaws with less room and teeth now get crowded. If what was the case 100,000 years ago is so important that wouldn't be a successful mutation, but it is, suggesting that the environment is consequentially different and that a direct comparison is not particularly useful as a guide for the present.

Aug 31, 2015
Eating right isn't that hard. Just don't eat junk food. You know it's junk when you're eating it, but it's so deep friend or salty or cheesy or sweet that you can't control yourself. But you should. You know it's bad, you know it's killing you slowly with it's swansong of delicious calories. Want to lose weight? Drink water/tea/coffee (without sugar), eat simple foods with few ingredients. Spices taste good without making you fat. Garlic, cumin, Basil, oregano, pepper, a little butter and olive oil. You can eat good without eating junk. And that's just a greek/italian selection. Middle eastern spices may be even better for you! You don't need 2000 calories, the food pyramid is a lobbiests' wet dream. 1500 or 1600 is fine. Try fasting sometimes for 15 or 16 hours between meals and your belly will shrink to compensate. It's totally healthy unless you have hypoglycemia or diabetes, then talk to your doctor first.

JVK
Aug 31, 2015
A dietary phytochemical alters caste-associated gene expression in honey bees http://advances.s...e1500795

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.
Excerpt: "Animal models are often used to model human physical and mental disorders. The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, the development of the brain and behavior, mental health, longevity, diseases of the X chromosome, learning and memory, as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli (Kohl, 2012)."

Clinically Actionable Genotypes Among 10,000 Patients With Preemptive Pharmacogenomic Testing
http://www.medsca...24253661

Excerpt: "Taken together, these data highlight the potential of panel-based pharmacogenotyping to identify actionable variants."

The variants are nutrient-dependent and link the honeybee model to humans.

JVK
Aug 31, 2015
Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants
http://dx.doi.org...ure11690

Excerpt: We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years.

Placing that fact into the context of the diet of "modern humans who spread through Eurasia and displaced them around 40 000 years ago" is pseudosceintific nonsense, which cannot be placed into the context of anything known to serious scientists about cell type differentiation in all living genera.

Aug 31, 2015
The food we ate made us what we are. The choices made were made based on practicality and opportunity not what some left wing politico wants them to be. It makes a lot of sense to eat what got us here. No matter how politically incorrect it is currently. Some are trying to make us into their ideal not what we are. Men and women are what their ancestors ate, too bad for the modern leftist.

Aug 31, 2015
"Establishing the age of each mutation segregating in contemporary human populations is important to fully understand our evolutionary history1, 2 and will help to facilitate the development of new approaches for disease-gene discovery3. Large-scale surveys of human genetic variation have reported signatures of recent explosive population growth4, 5, 6, notable for an excess of rare genetic variants, suggesting that many mutations arose recently."

"Our results better delimit the historical details of human protein-coding variation, show the profound effect of recent human history on the burden of deleterious SNVs segregating in contemporary populations, and provide important practical information that can be used to prioritize variants in disease-gene discovery."
http://www.nature...690.html

To be cont.


Aug 31, 2015
In Bible times about 2000 to 6000 years ago, also supported by secular paleontology in Canaanite cultures, hand ground barley baked as cakes or loaves constituted about 60% of calories for the nomadic poor who could not afford the costlier wheat. The remainder was made up with milk and cheese, pulse or lentils and with meat from lambs and oxen eaten on special feasts. And a vegetarian "manna" constituted the sole diet of millions for 40 years during the Exodus who suffered few of the numerous diseases in the affluent Egyptians they had left behind.

Aug 31, 2015
Continued



Placing that fact into the context of the diet of "modern humans who spread through Eurasia and displaced them around 40 000 years ago" is pseudosceintific nonsense, which cannot be placed into the context of anything known to serious scientists about cell type differentiation in all living genera.


"Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants" is in no way in conflict with "modern humans who spread through Eurasia and displaced them around 40 000 years ago".

Another reading comprehension fail by JVK.


Aug 31, 2015
The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts http://www.amazon...00FBJG86

"In this iconoclastic and provocative work, leading scholars Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman draw on recent archaeological research to present a dramatically revised portrait of ancient Israel and its neighbors. They argue that crucial evidence (or a telling lack of evidence) at digs in Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon suggests that many of the most famous stories in the Bible—the wanderings of the patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt, Joshua's conquest of Canaan, and David and Solomon's vast empire—reflect the world of the later authors rather than actual historical facts."

The Exodus never happened.

Sep 01, 2015
N-d/p-cae: a model
@jk
a DEBUNKED model
for refute, see JONES: http://www.socioa...ew/24367

the rest is comprehension FAIL by jk - See Vietvet posts

.

It makes a lot of sense to eat what got us here. No matter how politically incorrect it is currently
@Porgie
yes and no.
if you aren't going to have the same work load or exercise, why have the same diet as prior humans - kinda like the Amish around here: you don't see fat Amish here despite the high caloric intake and protein/carb high diet because of the work load typical in a day.

this is different from most people so adjustments need to be considered for everything, not just food intake

it is more about balance than historical menu's IMHO

Sep 01, 2015
And a vegetarian "manna" constituted the sole diet of millions for 40 years
@hrfJC
can you provide empirical evidence that the situation you described above existed? other than the bible, because the bible has been proven to be inaccurate as a historical text as well as in it's authorship as printed.

thanks
milk and cheese, pulse or lentils and with meat from lambs and oxen eaten on special feasts
AFAIK mixing meat and dairy (cheese) is not kosher in Judaism, but that was only told to me by a few Jewish people and a Rabbi
but you can also find that published elsewhere, like here: https://en.wikipe...er_foods

Sep 02, 2015
The Exodus never happened.

Quoting Finkelstein and Silberman needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Their dates are based on what Kathleen Kenyon decided happened at Jericho. She, for whatever reason known only to herself, totally ignored the contemporaneous pottery and instead looked for something that was "ABSENT", namely the Cypriot pottery. She did this even though Jericho was definitely off the trading route and hence very unlikely to have said pottery. Having found none she concluded that Jericho was razed sometime in 1500BC instead of around 1450BC.
But she made a big mistake by basing her findings on the absence of evidence ->>> English archaeologist Garstang had earlier found a copy of Cypriot pottery in his diggings and hence her dates were founded on error. Of course those who don't want to believe in the bible all jumped on the bandwagon and drowned out all voices to the contrary. But now archaeologists are ready to correct the error.
.....continued below...

Sep 02, 2015
Exodus never happened...

Consider this: The only reason anyone could ever have known about Jericho was that the bible recorded it's position and history. There was no other history document that had that information in it at the time. Then, furthermore, the biblical record asserted that the wall had fallen down and the city was burned. The context also makes it clear that this occurred in spring time.
So what was found ? Exactly that - Kenyon herself recorded that the wall had fallen down and provided a ramp UP the earthen rock base wall that protected Jericho. THEN, after the wall came down - her own record - the city was burned by assailants, not by an aftermath of an earthquake. The time of year was just after the harvest since in all houses pottery was still FULL of newly harvested grain [and burned] - hence the spring time.
Nothing was taken from the city - except what the disobedient character did.

The pottery gives the right dates. Exodus happened.

Sep 02, 2015
The bible is a historical document - an eyewitness account of our origins.

Since we are referring to the bible I might as well mention that in the beginning, before the great flood, all humans and animals were vegetarian. This is shown clearly in Genesis 1 verse 29.
Then, only after the flood did the LORD give permission for humans to eat animals and presumably for animals to eat others AND God put the fear of humans into the animals for their own protection. You can read it in Genesis 9 verses 1-3. The instruction is very clear and very direct. Totally unmistakeable.
As for human beings themselves - they were intelligent from the beginning - able to farm[Cain] and keep flocks[Abel]. plus in Gen 4:21 it shows that they could make music, tools and forge metal - already long before the flood.
This article simply shows one set of people's speculation as to what happened in the past, hence it's equally valid to present the biblical viewpoint.

Sep 02, 2015
Oh, in case you don't believe the flood happened, just look at the current paleontologist statements that most fossil beds are the result of MEGA local floods.

The problem with that bit of sleight of hand is that those local floods seem to have happened simultaneously ALL around the world.

Now we're really talking big, big flooding here. Flooding so severe as to move sediment [ and LARGE dinos ] over areas as large as 50000 square kilometres up to 50 meters deep, judging by the uniformity of the rock formations. With some very large rocks being transported hundreds if not thousands of kilometres from their original formation.
How else do you think the Grand canyon, the Fish river canyon and most other major canyons formed? By that small river down below?
So, please, divest yourself from the illusion that the biblical flood didn't happen. The only reason people don't want to connect the dots between their so-called local floods is that it would acknowledge the biblical truth.


Sep 02, 2015
in case you don't believe the flood happened, just look at the current paleontologist statements that most fossil beds are the result of MEGA local floods
@Fred
1- personal conjecture- there is NO evidence of a global flood, and basic physics and common sense can demonstrate that the Noah ark MYTH is false
remember, the animals went in BY SEVENS (GEN 7:2), only the unclean were by TWO's
if there were "statements" as you claim, then link them: and do NOT link creationist sites trying to promote the bible
https://www.youtu...hXQTMOEc

2- the bible can be proven false in the first few chapters of genesis:
why would an "all knowing" omniscient omnipotent deity create plants (GEN 1:11-12) before sunlight/moon (GEN 1:16-17)?

Plus, there is the whole authorship issue

the bible is a book of MYTHS promoting a violent religion filled with prejudice

Sep 02, 2015
The problem with that bit of sleight of hand is that those local floods seem to have happened simultaneously ALL around the world
@fred
some other problems with your flood myth:
MONKEYS
unless you are Jewish or you are of a select house, biologically, then you are an evolved monkey (See GEN again- there was a world to send Cain into that was not descendant of Adam) so...
then there is the whole problem with biological diversity in humans. if the flood existed, there would be an incredibly small (singular) choke point that could be determined (two primary genetic sources)
but lets skip that for a moment and talk animal distribution: did the selective distributions of isolated evolved animals from islands like Madagascar, Australia etc get BEAMED back after the flood? because there isn't enough time to distribute them world wide after a flood...

this doesn't even address trees that exceed the "stated age" of the xtian earth found in Cali!

shall i continue?

Sep 02, 2015
if the flood existed, there would be an incredibly small (singular) choke point that could be determined (two primary genetic sources)

Well to be more precise a small group of people forming the surviving gene pool.
This is exactly what current research shows in case you're out of the loop. Plus if you do the maths, even with the most generous of parameters, you end up with the current world population from the 8 (eight) survivors of the flood.
Which by the way brings up two enormous problems for the evolutionary story -
1) If humans have been around for say 100k years, then where is everybody? Where are the hundreds of billions of people one would expect from such a long existence - do the maths.
2)Since the human genome is deteriorating extremely fast - so fast that we won't last for another 10k years, just how did it last the supposed 100k years????


Sep 02, 2015
if the flood existed, there would be an incredibly small (singular) choke point that could be determined (two primary genetic sources)

As for the diversity - you seem to be not too well informed about the rapidity of gene expression under changing environmental conditions. Otherwise you'd not be asking this question. Given the dispersion of groups of people that took place after the tower of Babel incident, it stands to reason that populations of people adapted rapidly to the environments they found themselves under. remember that in the early days of human existence, they had far longer lifespans than we have now, so they were able to multiply and exist better under adverse conditions.

Sep 02, 2015
the bible is a book of MYTHS promoting a violent religion filled with prejudice

Please show me the general widespread violence that currently exist in the Christian and Jewish communities as a result of this promotion from the bible.
If you cannot point to any then one has to conclude that your assertion is of mythical proportions.
Furthermore, the bible has proven archaeologists wrong time and time again. Go check out the museums for verification of biblical history. Plus - if you look at the Jericho issue - in the next tell of Hazor, a confirmation of the biblical narration is found on a dug up tablet that names the king of Hazor - Jabin. Now please tell me which other historical record has been able to pinpoint such exact information? Oh, yes, none.

EWH
Sep 02, 2015
If antediluvian man was vegetarian, why was Abel raising and butchering sheep?
"And Abel also presented some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions..."

Anyway, biblical literalism is insane, since it contradicts itself in hundreds of places, many of which even the absurd sophistry of apologists can't get around. See http://bibviz.com/ for an interactive map of biblical contradictions.

Sep 03, 2015
Please show me the general widespread violence that currently exist in the Christian and Jewish communities as a result of this promotion from the bible
@Fred
you don't watch the news at all, do you?
Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, ... these places don't ring a bell?
if your religion is one of peace, why is there violence at all?
in fact, considering the source is all the same, what would you consider the holy wars?
This is exactly what current research shows in case you're out of the loop
well, since i am "out of the loop", it would be a good idea if you would link the validated studies published in reputable journals which support your claims... apparently you don't ever read Otto's posts, because he has linked hundreds of sources destroying the bible's credibility

also note, don't bother with creationist links: there is no science in them
and that is proven here:
https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

Sep 03, 2015
If you cannot point to any then one has to conclude that your assertion is of mythical proportions
@Fred
so, since i can demonstrate widespread violence all due to religious differences (and all because of different interpretations of the same religion, BTW) simply by asking you to read the news of the middle east, what would that state about you? do you really want to go there, sky-faerie boy?
the bible has proven archaeologists wrong time and time again
and unless you can provide evidence of this claim, it is called: Personal Conjecture without Evidence
(some people would also call it a LIE)
Go check out the museums for verification of biblical history
the ONLY museums that "validate" biblical anything are the xtian ones, or that Ken H idiot's theme park/museums, etc
again: you claim this, but you can't link evidence? considering your claim, this should be easy for you to do...

where is the proof?

Sep 03, 2015
@Captain Stumpy:

The famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr said:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

Perhaps you need to come down to earth - the evolutionary fairy tale has led you astray to the point of abandoning all reason.


Sep 03, 2015
Plus if you do the maths, even with the most generous of parameters, you end up with the current world population from the 8 (eight) survivors of the flood
@Fred
you mean: if you do the math and assume there was no:predation, war, homicide, suicide, or ANY OTHER factors... IOW- No, it doesn't
Which by the way brings up two enormous problems for the evolutionary
no, it doesn't
what freaking maths are you doing? surely you also understand that birth mortality rates pre-1900 were astronomically high, right? (because, that would affect your "maths") and that it was not uncommon for a light wound (say, a cut) to become infected and kill... and lets not even get into the arguments that you IGNORE already mentioned at the beginning of this post!

that isn't even a "nice try"... that is "wishful thinking" and delusional belief at it's most apparent!
so no point discussing your specific points since you are not showing any "maths" or methods

Sep 03, 2015
@Captain Stumpy.
you don't watch the news at all, do you?
Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, ... these places don't ring a bell?

Who do you think is causing the violence? Is it the Jews or those who want to annihilate the Israeli state? Is it those who follow the Judeo-Christian bible or those who abide by the Islamic creed?
Perhaps you need to make a clear distinction between the two because your hatred for the Christian bible and religion is causing you to desire to paint it with the same brush as that of the Islamic violence.
So if you are able, please show us where in the world Christians and Jews are the cause of widespread violence due to their belief in the bible or Tanakh.


Sep 03, 2015
The famous evolutionist ... said
@Fred
and the famous Truck Captain Stumpy said
a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in a cultural art form that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic, and to music

https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s
it doesn't matter what someone's OPINION is... only what can be (in laymans terms) proven... the scientific method provides non-biased EVIDENCE

you believe in a religion that is falsified by reading their book and tenets... their hypocrisy is evident
to say
Perhaps you need to come down to earth - the evolutionary fairy tale has led you astray to the point of abandoning all reason
is a clear, concise demonstration of delusional belief over reason, logic and empirical evidence
feel free to refute ANY of these studies referenced
http://talkorigin...comdesc/

Sep 03, 2015
@Captain stumpy, we are simply throwing arguments at each other to no avail. I am fully aware that you have set your mind in concrete and sucked up the whole evolutionary tale so nothing I write will convince you otherwise.
Likewise, I have moved from that grand lie to what makes a lot more sense to me and will never go back to it.
So enjoy your life with your worldview and I'll do the same in mine.

Sep 03, 2015
Who do you think is causing the violence? Is it the Jews or those who want to annihilate the Israeli state?
@Fred
OPEN YOUR EYES
the people trying to kill the jews (Islam) follow the same bible you do: muslim, judaism,xtian are ALL based upon the old testament bible (Abrahamic)
https://en.wikipe...eligions

So if you are able, please show us where in the world Christians and Jews are the cause of widespread violence due to their belief in the bible or Tanakh
see link above... actually READ it. your xtian origins are all the same...
or couldn't you figure that out with the demonstrations in the xtian faith alone? you don't wonder WHY there are so many different factions?
really?


Sep 03, 2015
we are simply throwing arguments at each other to no avail
@Fred
no, you are arguing. i've proven my point with substantiating evidence. all you have done is make some claims that are not supported in ANY way
I am fully aware that you have set your mind in concrete
No, i follow the EVIDENCE
there is EVIDENCE for Evolution, which is why it is a Scientific Theory (you should learn what that means)
there is NO evidence for your claims, and you've not provided ANY proof, either... which means that i can refute it by simply saying it is wrong
nothing I write will convince you otherwise
Not unless you can corroborate it with EVIDENCE
So enjoy your life
Running away because you can't prove ANYTHING you've written?
imagine that... another xtian simply LYING to get attention
that is a sin, you know

and i truly DO enjoy life... as well as SCIENCE

Sep 03, 2015
@EWH
If antediluvian man was vegetarian, why was Abel raising and butchering sheep?

Abel was making an offer to God. See why Cain got so angry that he resorted to the first murder!

You are keen to quote from the bible so perhaps you should also have quoted this part here:

Genesis 3:21 - "1 And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. "


The first death from the curse was caused by God himself when he killed an animal to clothe the first humans who were now aware of and ashamed of their nakedness. It was also a clear demonstration of the consequences of their willful act. Exactly the same as what human beings are doing now.

Nothing in the passages before the flood indicates that humans actually ATE the animals.

The bible is much more self-consistent than any evolutionist can throw rocks at.

Sep 03, 2015
enjoy your life with your worldview and I'll do the same in mine
@Fred
one last point, sky-faerie boy: i don't care about a faith at all... that is simply a belief without evidence
however, a RELIGION is a set of codified rules (normally around a faith) that serves ONLY to segregate, divide, cause stress/strife and prejudice, as well as control the stupid or weak

you want to believe in the fairy tale that is the bible, that is your prerogative... but you made CLAIMS as to the scientific and historical veracity of your "holy comic book"... that means the onus pf PROOF is upon YOU

you've provided nothing but wind and delusional belief. NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE AT ALL, not even a disreputable link! but you want people to believe?

now THAT is a delusion, and kinda stupid

you do the maths on that one

Sep 03, 2015
The first death from the curse was caused by God himself when he killed an animal to clothe the first humans
@Fred
1- so why aren't we way overpopulated?
2- not the first "humans", the first "jews"... big difference: after all, Cain was sent into the world marked so that no one else would kill him... if there was a "world", then where did THOSE humans come from?
Where did the wives of the children of Adam come from?
3- assuming that was the first death... how can you prove it other than your bible which has been demonstrated false?
shall i start linking proven false scripture again?

Sep 03, 2015
@Stumpy:
OPEN YOUR EYES
the people trying to kill the jews (Islam) follow the same bible you do: muslim, judaism,xtian are ALL based upon the old testament bible (Abrahamic)


You are sadly mistaken if you think that the Quran and the bible are teaching the same religion or even worshipping the same God.
The Islamic God is unknowable in start contrast to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who invites human kind into His company and wants to BE with them. He makes it quite clear that He wants them to be His people for Him to be their God.

The Islamic view is that Abraham desired to make an offer of Ishmael not Isaac. The Judeo view [biblical view] is that it was Isaac. God is NOT the God of Abraham, Ismael and Jacob. Hence the two gods are very different. I believe that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the one and ONLY God.

Islam is not based on Abraham it's based on the views of Muhammad and include violent extermination of the unbeliever [of Islam].

Sep 03, 2015
@Stumpy:
i don't care about a faith at all... that is simply a belief without evidence

Sorry to disillusion you but you have a terribly BLIND faith. To illustrate with one simple and yet very profound example:

You cannot say with absolute conviction where life comes from. Your evolutionist and godless worldview of necessity requires that life arise all by itself from random physical and chemical processes. No one has EVER witnessed or recorded such an event or is able to demonstrate how such a thing could occur so any belief in such an event is an exercise of blind faith.
This then marks the foundations of your religion. You ARE practising a religion but trying to hide it under the guise of science. But the scientific method utterly rejects and defies that religion.
You have no way to observe or repeat your assertion. Hence it cannot be verified or falsified and in fact the more people bring up falsifications, the more ad hoc explanations you use.

Sep 03, 2015
@Stumpy - have a nice life pal.

Sep 03, 2015
the Quran and the bible are teaching the same religion
@freddyTROLL
i never said they were the same religion, or can't you read? i said they have the SAME ORIGIN! which i PROVED
or even worshipping the same God
HELLO! same origin means same god, oh literate one! spreading your interpretations and sectarian belief of the bible is not going to convince anyone... what you need is EVIDENCE
but you have a terribly BLIND faith
no, i follow the evidence
You cannot say ...where life comes from
never said i COULD ... but lets be very clear here... if you are going to make that argument, then you are simply arguing the "god of the gaps": see

https://www.youtu...kg4hMRjs

Sep 03, 2015
Islam is not based on Abraham it's based on the views of Muhammad and include violent extermination of the unbeliever [of Islam]
@FredTROLLING
except that the Old testament says the exact same thing: you should kill the non-believer
if you've ever read your bible, you would know that
also note: Islam is an Abrahamic religion, or can't you read?
The largest Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (1st millennium BC), Christianity (1st century AD), and Islam (7th century AD)...
https://en.wikipe...eligions
you share origins with the same people you denigrate for their violence, except you are not willing to recognize your own violence in your religion

why is that? fear? or do you feel justified by your religions text? (just like the Islam extremists do, BTW)

i do NOT have a religion at all, but i've studied and experienced MANY different ones
OPEN YOUR EYES TO REALITY

Sep 03, 2015
Your evolutionist and godless worldview of necessity
@fredTROLL
who said i don't believe in a god? How do you know your religion is better than all the OLDER and more established religions that outnumber you?
This then marks the foundations of your religion
i don't have a religion: i have no tenets surrounding a faith which require strict adherence to a delusional or prejudiced worldview, nor do i punish those who dispute the validity of any of my beliefs
you need to get out more
You ARE practising a religion but trying to hide it under the guise of science
the scientific method is not a religion, it is a methodology for investigating the world... fascinating that you can't tell the difference... your religion teach you that one? or are you trying to be a philosophy major?
oops... that would require education, so strike that... obviously you are not going there...

Sep 03, 2015
You have no way to observe or repeat your assertion
@FredTROLLING HARD NOW
except... i do. did you not read the links?
lets start here with Evolution Theory: http://talkorigin...comdesc/

tell me, which of the 65 links, 14 studies, and 23 references that i provided [in that single link] proving Evolution Theory, is wrong? what is actually not proven and validated in those links? (BTW- the studies are validated, which is different than simply "published", if you can comprehend more than basic english... that is a serious requirement of the Scientific method)
the more ad hoc explanations you use
funny thing... you making this argument when you have given ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE
but somehow you think that is legitimate? your argument is better because... why? because you believe? or because your father/preacher said so?

lets get this sorted!
have a nice life pal
i have a BEAUTIFUL one...
running away again because you can't PROVE anything?
NICE

Sep 03, 2015
@Stumpy - have a nice life pal
@freddy proselytizing TROLL
so tell me, seriously: why keep posting unsubstantiated conjecture that can't be proven with any reputable peer reviewed studies????

do you think i am not going to refute blatant stupidity just because you are running away? do you think i won't support my arguments because you are mad? what?

you made a BUNCH of CLAIMS - the onus of proof is upon YOU to support said claims with evidence... but you did NONE of that. you simply pushed your perspective based upon your religions beliefs

I provided links supporting almost all my points... including bible references proving yoru "holy comic" is wrong, but this is not evidence enough for you?
WHY?

now you attack science/scientific method while still not providing evidence of your claim, but somehow this proves me wrong? HOW?

get the point yet?

there is no place for religion in SCIENCE

Sep 03, 2015
there is no place for religion in SCIENCE

I fully disagree with you. The bible is a historical document that contains things that can be tested by scientific methods. it also contains things that cannot be tested. We call them miracles since they so clearly are completely outside the norm of life.

So please tell me if this is what you believe then why you believe in life from the dead materials all by itself. Don't you know that that is RELIGION you're practising?
What is your answer to the question of the origin of life? Please explain how that answer can be regarded as "science"?

Perhaps you should enlighten me what is it that so fully convinces you that the big bang is the true origin of the universe and that chemical and biological evolution is the creator and driver of life?


Sep 03, 2015
I fully disagree with you. The bible is a historical document that contains things that can be tested by scientific methods
@fredTROLL
you already said that...
and MY POINT is that you can't PROVE IT with any scientific methodologyOR EVIDENCE: perhaps you should watch Otto's video?
https://www.youtu...;index=7

things that cannot be tested. We call them miracles
ONLY if there is reputable empirical evidence that it happened to begin with
(PROTIP- it is NOT eyewitness testimony, the worst kind of evidence there is)
there is NO EVIDENCE most of your biblical religious claims happened at all
So please tell me if this is what you believe
i "believe" nothing
i FOLLOW the evidence

like i said, you are arguing the "god of the gaps" argument, and thus you will always be a receding pocket of ignorance as science progresses and learns about the universe

2Bcont'd

Sep 03, 2015
@fred cont'd
Don't you know that that is RELIGION you're practising?
no, it isn't
a "religion" is the codified rules and tenets that are intended to create a pattern of behaviour and actions which segregate others from those who are not like minded
Rules to make you a better follower, so to speak... Basically, religion is all about controlling others, creating prejudice and pushing arbitrary rules onto others for the sake of proselytizing or imaginary goals/beliefs, normally with a series of questionable references to a faith
What is your answer to the question of the origin of life?
that one is simple: we don't know all the data yet, so i have no conjecture to offer as there is not enough evidence

unlike you, i don't mind NOT knowing... because i also know that (like QM, the most successful Theory ever) that with more research (especially fundamental research) comes KNOWLEDGE and evidence which we can use

2Bcont'd

Sep 03, 2015
@fred cont'd
Please explain how that answer can be regarded as "science"?
why should science know everything?
there is no embarrassment in not knowing:
https://www.simon...ngs-out/

http://www.math.u...nman.pdf

Perhaps you should enlighten me
exactly how am i supposed to enlighten you when you refuse to accept (or even READ) the science which produces the evidence which is required to support the argument?

Plus, you are trying to fit ANYTHING you read into the paradigm of your religious belief, so no matter what is produced, you will either ignore it or claim it supports your religion (not faith, religion)
this is NO different than conspiracy theorists and their circular logic when confronted by factual evidence

besides, i DID give you one link to read that had supporting evidence and references... why are you not addressing anything in it?
fear of being wrong?

Sep 03, 2015
There is no way science to develops in possitive direction after continue to denying the only one reason for the emergence of being in which we live. And there is no way you to understand me if you keep repeating stupid cliches without understand and test these.
@renTROLL
1- WTF does that gibberish even mean? you didn't find a better interpretation program, i can tell... or you're drunk... which is it?
2- you are the one ignoring the evidence, so it is not cliche when this is pointed out to you
3- perhaps you should start quoting specifics so that people know WTF you are talking about, since you can't seem to focus on the point
4- most importantly: to date, you have offered ZERO evidence refuting ANY of the studies i've linked to you which demonstrate evolution or the various other scientific Theory i've supported, while spouting off religious dogma

until you get evidence, you are simply TROLLING

Sep 06, 2015
Reading the bible, or any other religious text, has no value if the person doing the reading is not willing to interpret the text against the truth and then use what is revealed to determine their position and understanding
@DavidW
except there is a huge problem with that... value and truth are subjective terms and culturally derived
interpretation is also subjective to the individual... by definition then, the bible and any other religious text is subjective, thus it cannot be considered scientific nor can it be considered anything other than philosophical.

Worse yet: a religion/religious text is a codification of rules set forth to determine the status of a person, therefore it is by definition used for establishing prejudice, division, and social pressures to those who accept it's tenets

truth, as you are defining it, is subjective

there is a reason the scientific method has surpassed biblical (or religious) knowledge

Sep 06, 2015
Stumpy, may I kindly ask for some civility in your comments? No matter what your worldview, please kindly refrain from name-calling and personal attacks. People who employ those methods have already lost the debate. And surely you don't want to be looked at like that.


In his last response to DavidW, The Stump was exceeding cordial, as well as civil. I saw no name calling in it. I have observed these "techniques" used more by the people who would have a religious viewpoint as their "pillar of logic".

Sep 06, 2015
Stumpy, may I kindly ask for some civility in your comments? No matter what your worldview, please kindly refrain from name-calling and personal attacks. People who employ those methods have already lost the debate. And surely you don't want to be looked at like that.

@verkle

What do you expect when you insult the collective intelligence of the readers at PO with your religious dogma in lieu of science.


Sep 07, 2015
may I kindly ask for some civility in your comments?
@verkle
sure, as soon as you start exercising integrity, honesty, intelligence and scientific knowledge and quit proselytizing your brand of religious hatred

i noticed that whenever you are debunked you revert back to the old "quit calling me names" argument
- problem is: it is NOT a lie to prove you are a liar, nor is it wrong to point out logical fallacies or inconsistencies in your religious argument

you call it personal attacks or name-calling, but what it is really: you can't make a logical argument that is substantiated by facts, so you start crying foul and boo-hooing

what you should be doing is questioning the illogical reasons you cling to a RELIGION over a validated scientific claim

you are not going to validate a claim with religion unless you are talking quotes... but that is only quoting, not validating a claim

you validate a claim with evidence
THAT is something you've YET to accomplish

Sep 07, 2015
@verkle
one last point
No matter what your worldview, please kindly refrain from
lets be perfectly clear... the scientific method is successful for a series of reasons, most of which boil down to it's adaptability, the evidence and validation through repeatably, experimentation and building upon said knowledge

this is absolutely opposite religion, which dictates a POV and then expects conformity, then uses social (and other) pressures to force adherence

when you stop proselytizing religion on a science site, you will get more civility as well as discourse, rather than scorn and derision

you don't have problems calling everyone a sinner regardless of your personal ignorance of them (and your books rules telling you not to judge), and you don't adhere to your own religious dogma, so why should i take your religion seriously? especially when no one follows the rules in the book!

I don't go to churches and force them to learn physics...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more