Comments on: Is It The Meat, or Cooking The Meat? http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html Expressing Our Primal Genes for Lean Health, Vitality and Attractiveness Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:03:40 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2037 Richard Nikoley Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:47:29 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2037 <p><br /> David:</p> <p>Sorry, my "are you kidding" remark was meant to be taken as no, didn't read it.</p> <p>I skimmed through a few pages, then went to the punchline and I'm sorry. There is simply not a shred of value there, for me. The essentiall conclusion is that we need the metaphysics of a creator as a foundation for morality.</p> <p>I rejected that nearly 20 years ago. When asked what the purpose of life is (as they address), I always reply with a question: WHOSE life?</p> <p>It is, as always, the same old ancient antagonism: individualism vs. collectivism. I find that the purpose of my own life is compatible enough with most people and how they pursue purposeful values in their own that I get along fine. As for the rest, well, that's why I keep myself well armed. The very last thing in the world I need is an authoritarian guiding light to "tame the beast." I'm very content to take my chances.</p> <p>Sorry; I respect your choice to believe, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in people's hand wringing over the prospect of a wholly material universe. I am a materialist, but one who believes in human free will; or, at least, understands that believing we have free will is tantamount to having free will.</p> <p>Enough said.</p> David:

Sorry, my "are you kidding" remark was meant to be taken as no, didn't read it.

I skimmed through a few pages, then went to the punchline and I'm sorry. There is simply not a shred of value there, for me. The essentiall conclusion is that we need the metaphysics of a creator as a foundation for morality.

I rejected that nearly 20 years ago. When asked what the purpose of life is (as they address), I always reply with a question: WHOSE life?

It is, as always, the same old ancient antagonism: individualism vs. collectivism. I find that the purpose of my own life is compatible enough with most people and how they pursue purposeful values in their own that I get along fine. As for the rest, well, that's why I keep myself well armed. The very last thing in the world I need is an authoritarian guiding light to "tame the beast." I'm very content to take my chances.

Sorry; I respect your choice to believe, but I'm not the slightest bit interested in people's hand wringing over the prospect of a wholly material universe. I am a materialist, but one who believes in human free will; or, at least, understands that believing we have free will is tantamount to having free will.

Enough said.

]]> By: David Brown http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2036 David Brown Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:55:31 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2036 <p>Glad to move on, Richard, after you answer my question. Did you read this essay? <a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf</a> </p> <p>I don't claim to be super intelligent but I do study a lot; mostly nutrition literature at this juncture.</p> <p>The above essay is about the origin of life rather than evolution. Scientifically, we often observe the adaptation and natural selection that result from random gene expression which may or may not be modulated by environmental factors. </p> <p>In the plant and animal kingdoms, random gene expression enables varieties of species to adapt to environmental changes or colonize new environments or simply change for no apparent reason.</p> <p>Changes in physical form and biological function can be observed when plants or animals get introduced into novel environments. These changes are termed dauermodifications, a form of cytoplasmic inheritance evolutionists tend to ignore. (Google: Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction or Dauermodifications for further discussion)</p> <p>I've read hundreds of nutrition books of all sorts. I am so weary of the speculation regarding our supposed adaptation to one form of diet or another. The fact is, the human species is highly variable physiologically and biochemically. Consequently, both the micro nutrient and macro nutrient mixes ingested must be both appropriate and adequate for a person to enjoy sound health or for an organism to thrive in its environment. </p> <p>This is a great blog and I've been following it for several weeks. I urge you readers, who are truly serious about understanding how nourishment works, to read "Biochemical Individuality" by Roger J. Williams, PhD and "Food for Nought" by Ross Hume Hall, PhD. I'm not saying these authors never brought evolution into the picture. Almost everyone assumes it happened. The books are just well worth reading in terms of their analysis of the impact of industrialization on human health. </p> Glad to move on, Richard, after you answer my question. Did you read this essay? http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf

I don't claim to be super intelligent but I do study a lot; mostly nutrition literature at this juncture.

The above essay is about the origin of life rather than evolution. Scientifically, we often observe the adaptation and natural selection that result from random gene expression which may or may not be modulated by environmental factors.

In the plant and animal kingdoms, random gene expression enables varieties of species to adapt to environmental changes or colonize new environments or simply change for no apparent reason.

Changes in physical form and biological function can be observed when plants or animals get introduced into novel environments. These changes are termed dauermodifications, a form of cytoplasmic inheritance evolutionists tend to ignore. (Google: Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction or Dauermodifications for further discussion)

I've read hundreds of nutrition books of all sorts. I am so weary of the speculation regarding our supposed adaptation to one form of diet or another. The fact is, the human species is highly variable physiologically and biochemically. Consequently, both the micro nutrient and macro nutrient mixes ingested must be both appropriate and adequate for a person to enjoy sound health or for an organism to thrive in its environment.

This is a great blog and I've been following it for several weeks. I urge you readers, who are truly serious about understanding how nourishment works, to read "Biochemical Individuality" by Roger J. Williams, PhD and "Food for Nought" by Ross Hume Hall, PhD. I'm not saying these authors never brought evolution into the picture. Almost everyone assumes it happened. The books are just well worth reading in terms of their analysis of the impact of industrialization on human health.

]]> By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2035 Richard Nikoley Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:59:56 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2035 <p>You've got to be kidding me.</p> <p>I was a member of the Creation Research Institute as a college student fundamentalist Christian in the 80s. This, after graduating from a fundamentalist Baptist Christian high school.</p> <p>I have been profoundly atheist and an evolutionist going on nearly 20 years. Learned to think for myself.</p> <p>Here's a decent post concerning why I have no interest in "questions" of creationism, "ID," santa claus, easter bunnies, tooth fairies, unicorns or any other _arbitrary_ assertions.</p> <p><a href="http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/asking-right-question.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/asking-right-question.shtml</a></p> <p>Now, this is not the place for this sort of thing. This is a health blog and I do not require that anyone believe in evolution...</p> <p><a href="http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/you-dont-have-to-believe-in-evolution.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/you-dont-have-to-believe-in-evolution.html</a></p> <p>Move on, please. I am not the slightest bit interested, and I _never_ will be.</p> You've got to be kidding me.

I was a member of the Creation Research Institute as a college student fundamentalist Christian in the 80s. This, after graduating from a fundamentalist Baptist Christian high school.

I have been profoundly atheist and an evolutionist going on nearly 20 years. Learned to think for myself.

Here's a decent post concerning why I have no interest in "questions" of creationism, "ID," santa claus, easter bunnies, tooth fairies, unicorns or any other _arbitrary_ assertions.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/03/asking-right-question.shtml

Now, this is not the place for this sort of thing. This is a health blog and I do not require that anyone believe in evolution…

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2008/09/you-dont-have-to-believe-in-evolution.html

Move on, please. I am not the slightest bit interested, and I _never_ will be.

]]> By: David Brown http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2034 David Brown Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:54:33 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2034 <p>Did you read the essay, Richard? </p> Did you read the essay, Richard?

]]> By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2033 Richard Nikoley Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:51:40 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2033 <p><br /> There's probably a tradeoff, but if this is true, it's good news. That is, while the bulk nutrition is greater in the raw, much of it is either inaccessible, or digests in a less optimal way, so that by destroying some of the nutrition via cooking, we actually access more than if raw.</p> <p>Quite amazing to speculate that an irony like that could possibly be the real underlying key to the whole evolution of man enchilada.</p> There's probably a tradeoff, but if this is true, it's good news. That is, while the bulk nutrition is greater in the raw, much of it is either inaccessible, or digests in a less optimal way, so that by destroying some of the nutrition via cooking, we actually access more than if raw.

Quite amazing to speculate that an irony like that could possibly be the real underlying key to the whole evolution of man enchilada.

]]> By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2032 Richard Nikoley Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:48:18 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2032 <p><br /> Well, Mario, if man did indeed develop the control of fire as far back as H. erectus (he'd have known about fire just from seeing plains and forrest fires set off by lightening and lava flows and such -- maybe even scavenged naturally cooked meat), then that would fall right in line. I doubt tubers are going to be much good -- or useful at all -- uncooked, but cooked is an entirely different matter and it becomes a dense source of energy. Moreover, it would serve to tide things over in times of sparse success at the hunt, dramatically improving survival chances.</p> Well, Mario, if man did indeed develop the control of fire as far back as H. erectus (he'd have known about fire just from seeing plains and forrest fires set off by lightening and lava flows and such — maybe even scavenged naturally cooked meat), then that would fall right in line. I doubt tubers are going to be much good — or useful at all — uncooked, but cooked is an entirely different matter and it becomes a dense source of energy. Moreover, it would serve to tide things over in times of sparse success at the hunt, dramatically improving survival chances.

]]> By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2031 Richard Nikoley Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:42:32 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2031 <p>I hope so, as you clearly know all the nuts and bolts and can add value here, just as many other commenters do.</p> <p>The more sane voices out there, the more sanity will be as the future comes rolling in.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> I hope so, as you clearly know all the nuts and bolts and can add value here, just as many other commenters do.

The more sane voices out there, the more sanity will be as the future comes rolling in.

Thanks.

]]> By: Richard Nikoley http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2030 Richard Nikoley Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:39:05 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2030 <p>Yea, and some of us were "created" with tails, complete with vertebra and connective musculature.</p> <p><a href="http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm</a><br /> </p> Yea, and some of us were "created" with tails, complete with vertebra and connective musculature.

http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf

http://www.dimaggio.org/Eye-Openers/tails_in_humans.htm

]]> By: www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnksOfEj6sG-V3F64lFrI-RMtZwwYUwpKw http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2029 www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnksOfEj6sG-V3F64lFrI-RMtZwwYUwpKw Mon, 02 Mar 2009 07:20:38 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2029 <p>I apologize for all of my trolling, Richard. I promise not to do it anymore. I agree on the saturated fat/CAD thing. I was only repeating word for word what persons have countered me with.</p> <p>Very good article.</p> <p><br /> Dirk</p> I apologize for all of my trolling, Richard. I promise not to do it anymore. I agree on the saturated fat/CAD thing. I was only repeating word for word what persons have countered me with.

Very good article.

Dirk

]]> By: walter http://freetheanimal.com/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2028 walter Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:53:51 +0000 http://localhost/animal/2009/03/is-it-the-meat-or-cooking-the-meat.html#comment-2028 <p>I believe I read on beyondveg.org that cooking meat, and making it easier to chew, allowed a gene mutation to survive that shrank the jaw and increased the size of the cranium, and therefore the brain in humans. The gene is MYH16, and it's also discussed in chapter 1 of How Music Really Works, which is a fascinating book covering the evolutionary explanation of why we humans like music.</p> I believe I read on beyondveg.org that cooking meat, and making it easier to chew, allowed a gene mutation to survive that shrank the jaw and increased the size of the cranium, and therefore the brain in humans. The gene is MYH16, and it's also discussed in chapter 1 of How Music Really Works, which is a fascinating book covering the evolutionary explanation of why we humans like music.

]]>