Choosing the Focus of Our Attention (WAS: Correct Interpretation of Evolution and Raw Eating)

[Guest guest]

Joe, you write:

___

But the most popular evolutionary interpretation of man's ideal diet usually

comes in the form of the " Paleolithic " diet ....

....

How does this " bigger picture " understanding of evolution and our digestive

system help us understand raw food?

___

 

First, the most popular model is called the " hunter gatherer " . This " paleo "

thinking is very much on the fringe ... just as is our RF vegan thinking.

 

Second, as I've written before, all majority opinions are wrong. Really!!! I

completely agree, Joe, that the evolutionary approach to comprehending our

species' optimal diet is a flawed choice ... though I'd approach the

conversation a bit differently.

 

When scientists observe the " natural " diet for all other species, scientists

merely observe those species living in their respective natural habitats. In

other words, throughout most of biology (zoology), " ideal diet " refers to

what is observed. Then of course, we feed to poor things monkey chow and the

like, anyway. Good lord ... but that's fodder for another discussion.

 

Continuing ... observation of the distant past is absolutely NOT the best

way to go here. By this, I mean that this approach simply does not, in

general, provide us with " best evidence " (to borrow a term from law). This

is so largely because evidence from the past is so very fragmentary in

nature, most of the evidence we would love to have is nonexistent. So all

conclusions we might draw MUST, from a practical standpoint, arise from an

abundance of speculation on our part.

 

In contrast, we have access to an abundance of evidence (rather than of

speculation) based upon observing and studying the design of our species and

those of similar species. This abundance of evidence arises in much the same

manner as when we closely study and analyze the design of a car or family of

cars.

 

Why not rely upon what is already well-tested and known to work at least

reasonably well? Why not just start there?

 

That's my approach, I rarely refer to our origins in explaining what I teach

or how I live. The conversations just go off into utterly nonsensical

directions, because so few people have even a shred of real background. One

would have to keep up, for example, with the ongoing field of genetic

research and its latest love-fest, epigenetics, to realize where the

mainstream of science is going, and then one would have to internalize all

this, adapt and respond accordingly, etc. One would have to keep up with

various other developments in physics, etc., as well.

 

Anyone here (other than me) currently doing this?

 

In the absence of people so educated, it's really far more effective to take

an entirely different route in our conversation, in my opinion, and as you

suggest, Joe. Simply observing our own design yields plenty of constructive

information, then comparing that design to those of similar animals

(comparative anatomy) provide most of the remaining awarenesses we require

to eat and live healthfully. Then the sciences of movement (physics, and

when applied to humans, exercise physiology) provide us with most of the

fine tweaks (refinements) we might ever need.

 

At the foundation, Joe, I believe you've captured the essence perfectly

with:

___

 

We have a digestive system of the animal kingdom. Seriously, the entire

animal kingdom - reptiles, birds, mammals, insects (are they in the animal

kingdom?), etc - have a digestive system which takes food in by the mouth

and expels waste out the other end. This digestive system is common to all

species within the kingdom, with of course species-level peculiarities - but

that's okay, it's still the same basic design.

___

 

While this statement is not quite accurate in every respect--some of the

designs vary a bit more than you might imagine--it does capture the spirit

of the matter ... and for now, perhaps that's the best place to pause.

 

Best,

Elchanan

 

_____

 

rawfood [rawfood ] On Behalf Of

Joe Postma

Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:50 AM

rawfood

[Raw Food] Correct Interpretation of Evolution and Raw Eating

 

 

Hi All,

 

As some of you may be familiar with, there have been conflicts between the

" evolutionary " ideal diet, and the Raw-food diet. Essentially, the raw food

diet says we should eat raw fruits and veggies and a few other things like

nuts, and that's it. And we all know here how healthy that makes us. But

the most popular evolutionary interpretation of man's ideal diet usually

comes in the form of the " Paleolithic " diet, where eating cooked meat is a

significant part of our diet along with cooked root veggies and such. I

have discovered the problem with this interpretation, and found a solution

for the raw-food diet which agrees with evolution. Maybe some of you

already have the correct interpretation, but for me this is new.

 

Some raw foodists have been so uncomfortable with evolutionary

interpretations of our diet that they have been led to reject evolution in

total, which I feel is a shame. The theory of evolution, like all other

scientific theories, is benign. Scientific theories are not simply thought

up by some person who thinks a lot and " wants " to shake up the status quo.

Scientific theories are simply frameworks, for understanding a collection of

observed facts, principles, and predictions. No more and no less.

Scientists generally aren't stupid or have hidden agendas, and most are

genuinely interested in the truth.

 

So, the usual " evolutionary " argument begins with: " if you consider our

ancestors 50 to 100 thousand years ago, and given that our genes change so

slowly that we actually are still living with the genes of those ancestors,

we should eat a diet similar to what those ancestors ate, because this must

be what is natural. And archaeological evidence does indeed show that we

were eating cooked meat and cooked root veggies and things like that. " When

the average person is presented with such an argument, well how can they

disagree? I mean some person is bringing up genes, archeology, 100,000

years,...how can you argue with that? Most people don't know the first

thing about genes and archeology, and so an unfortunate but common response

is to reject evolutionary science altogether because it doesn't agree

with..., raw food for example.

 

So here is the problem: why does the person arguing the " evolutionarily

natural " diet pick 50 to 100 thousand years? I think it is simply an honest

mistake. Though the arguer means well and has good intentions, he/she might

subconsciously choose such a time frame because it justifies the eating of

meat and cooked foods.

 

And so here is the correct evolutionary interpretation: what type of

digestive system do we have? I'm talking big picture here.

 

We have a digestive system of the animal kingdom. Seriously, the entire

animal kingdom - reptiles, birds, mammals, insects (are they in the animal

kingdom?), etc - have a digestive system which takes food in by the mouth

and expels waste out the other end. This digestive system is common to all

species within the kingdom, with of course species-level peculiarities - but

thats okay, it's still the same basic design. This system has been with us

for 100's of million of years!!!!! The genetics that make up and run this

system are so fundamental to being " animal " , it simply must be an almost

static feature of our genetic profile. So, choosing the 50 to 100 thousand

year time frame simply misses out on the bigger picture which is ultimately

much more informative.

 

How does this " bigger picture " understanding of evolution and our digestive

system help us understand raw food? It is a digestive system which EXPECTS

RAW FOOD. Our human digestive system, fundamentally similar and in some

ways identical to all other animal digestive systems, simply expects raw

food. Cooked food simply wasn't part of the 100's of millions of years of

existence of the animal digestive system. Now, some non-critical thinkers

might say " well that may be true, but we know today that cooked food is

better for you " . Well, all of us here think more critically about our food

than that. I am sure we can all agree that for some reason, cooking our

food changes its quality in some fundamental way and our digestive system

simple isn't prepared for it. And, of course, we can use our modern

knowledge and research (which is actually simply re-found lost knowledge of

the past) to show that for our particular species, raw fruits and veggies

are the foods most suited to us.

 

I came to this realization after thinking about someone's post in which he

said " it all comes down to fiber and getting enough fiber in the diet " . At

first I thought that couldn't be it but I pursued the idea. Then it made

sense: it all comes down to denatured vs. natural food. Can we say that

cooking changes the nature of the food, i.e. denatures it? Yes I think we

can all say that, even the non-raw foodist. Can we say that there is a

possibility that denatured food isn't recognized by our 100 million year old

digestive system, which is expecting raw natural food be put into it? I

think we can at least give that a possibility. Do we have modern research

(for those who need it) that indeed eating cooked food causes health

problems? Of course, we have lots of that (though, the majority of our

population is not at all familiar with it - I remember being asked for

scientific references when I told someone that milk (or was it coffee)

wasn't very good for them, ooohh that bugged me!).

 

So it simply comes down to: our digestive system wants raw food, and when we

don't get it we eventually or quickly get health problems. This completely

agrees with evolutionary theory and genetics, and is simply a superior

interpretation than when limiting it to the 100,000 year time frame.

 

So, next time someone tries the evolution argument of 100,000 years on you,

kindly educate them that they are missing out on 100's of MILLIONS of years

of evolution, in which our digestive system has been forged expecting raw

food. And we all here certainly have the knowledge of WHICH types of raw

food are best for us.

 

I've used the 100,000 year cave-man argument myself, even here! But no one

has ever presented this new interpretation to me, so I thought I would share

it.

 

Cheers

 

Joe