Theory of Evolution

[Guest guest]

At present I believe the Theory of Evolution to be false. I’ve come to

that conclusion after reading chapter 9 called Origins in David Wolfe’s,

Sunfood Diet Success System. Once you read that chapter you may think

that the theory of evolution just doesn’t make sense anymore.

 

Here are a couple of paragraphs to get you thinking.

 

“The utilitarian aspect of the Darwinian theory is quite subjective. The

utility of “adaptation” is relative to the use sought to be made of it.

A species without feathers has no need for feathers. A feather which

gradually evolves would be a positive disadvantage over the millions of

years necessary to perfect the feather. Furthermore, how did this

process start? For an adaptation to be utile, it must be ready; while it

is being prepared it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not

Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.

 

Why is it that the “lower” forms (e.g. the horseshoe crab), those which

are simpler (less fit?) have not died out, and have not yielded to the

principle of evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for

vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not “evolve” into

something “higher?” “ from page 113.

 

There are many more convincing arguments if you read the whole chapter.

 

Roger

 

 

 

Have you tried the Raw Diet many times but failed to stick with it? Now

you can learn the Motivational and Dietary Secrets to success on a 100%

Raw Food Diet. From Infinite Potential and Raw Food Coach, Roger Haeske,

the author of Your Hidden Power - eClass, Infinite Tennis and

http://www.superbeing.com <http://www.superbeing.com/> . Go to

http://www.superbeingdiet.com <http://www.superbeingdiet.com%20/> to

learn how to go 100% RAW.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Roger,

 

I have just re-read through David Wolfe's ninth Lesson on Evolution and

his rejection of Darwinism.

 

It reminds my of my reason for thinking that his book should quite

simply have been started at Lesson 11.

 

His poetry and philosophy should not be compared with his enlightenment

on diet. He alludes to his engineering training somewhere and his mind

works that way.

 

When he finds a seeming inconsistency due to some component not being in

keeping with some factor such as the formation

of feathers, he rejects the entire theory of evolution. He does not

seem to understand that anything can be beyond his comprehension and be

tenable. I think he should watch an embryo grow into an animal or a

bird. Of course having rejected Darwinism, he is not obliged to offer

his alternative theory of the origin of species? What sends his new

species maker into production, I wonder?

 

Somewhere in his chapter he says that man is not an omnivore because he

is obviously vegetarian and this is proven by the better health that

comes from eating vegetables and fruit. Such logic does not impress me.

 

 

Put simply his understanding of the subtle mutations in the theory of

evolution could do with some evolution itself.

 

Peter

 

PS I have just found this sitting in my " draft box " unsent - so

belatedly here it comes.

 

Roger Haeske [roger]

07 July 2003 18:30

rawfood

[Raw Food] Theory of Evolution

 

 

 

At present I believe the Theory of Evolution to be false. I've come to

that conclusion after reading chapter 9 called Origins in David Wolfe's,

Sunfood Diet Success System. Once you read that chapter you may think

that the theory of evolution just doesn't make sense anymore.

 

Here are a couple of paragraphs to get you thinking.

 

" The utilitarian aspect of the Darwinian theory is quite subjective. The

utility of " adaptation " is relative to the use sought to be made of it.

A species without feathers has no need for feathers. A feather which

gradually evolves would be a positive disadvantage over the millions of

years necessary to perfect the feather. Furthermore, how did this

process start? For an adaptation to be utile, it must be ready; while it

is being prepared it is inutile. But if it is inutile, it is not

Darwinian, for Darwinism says evolution is utilitarian.

 

Why is it that the " lower " forms (e.g. the horseshoe crab), those which

are simpler (less fit?) have not died out, and have not yielded to the

principle of evolution? They remain in the same form they have had for

vast expanses of the fossil record. Why do they not " evolve " into

something " higher? " " from page 113.

 

There are many more convincing arguments if you read the whole chapter.

 

Roger

 

 

 

Have you tried the Raw Diet many times but failed to stick with it? Now

you can learn the Motivational and Dietary Secrets to success on a 100%

Raw Food Diet. From Infinite Potential and Raw Food Coach, Roger Haeske,

the author of Your Hidden Power - eClass, Infinite Tennis and

http://www.superbeing.com <http://www.superbeing.com/> . Go to

http://www.superbeingdiet.com <http://www.superbeingdiet.com%20/> to

learn how to go 100% RAW.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Admittedly I don't claim to be an expert on the Theory of Evolution.

 

Much of his argument makes much more sense to me than what is purported

in evolution. The main point this brings up in relation to diet is that

we have not evolved to eat meat. Most people agree that we were once

mostly fruitarians, eating fruits, roots, shoots, nuts and vegetables.

 

I also agree with other things he wrote earlier in the book. Not much

into poetry myself. I do question whether he actually wrote that chapter

at all. Since it has a completely different tone or style of writing

than the rest of the book.

 

But from my current understanding including the fact that I've read in

several places that supposedly even Darwin didn't believe in his own

theory toward the end of his life. I of course don't know if that is

really true. But we can see that people adapt but they are not healthier

with these adaptations.

 

Got to run. Can talk more later, Roger

 

Have you tried the Raw Diet many times but failed to stick with it? Now

you can learn the Motivational and Dietary Secrets to success on a 100%

Raw Food Diet. From Infinite Potential and Raw Food Coach, Roger Haeske,

the author of Your Hidden Power - eClass, Infinite Tennis and

http://www.superbeing.com <http://www.superbeing.com/> . Go to

http://www.superbeingdiet.com <http://www.superbeingdiet.com%20/> to

learn how to go 100% RAW.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I liked the alternative ideas brought up in Wolfe's book, too. They

are not his own words since there is an existing school of thought

that is against darwinism, but I've turned against the traditional

theory of evolution as well after reading Wolfe's book.

 

I think the biggest evidence is the " missing link " . It's still

unclear how exactly man evolved from ape. Scientists have yet to

establish the link, all there is still today is just educated

guesses.

 

Also, nature makes no mistakes. A creature with physical deviations

or mutations will die, it will not reproduce and start a new species.

 

It's such an interesting topic and I'd love to have the time to learn

more about it, but then again I don't think a humble being such as

homo sapiens will ever find out the truth or the actual course of

things. We really are not that clever.

 

/Mimi

[Guest guest]

Hi Mimi,

 

I do not believe there is such a thing as a missing link. We did not evolve

from apes. Both we and apes evolved from a similar type of creature. The

American Museum of Natural History in NYC is a great place to visit to

appreciate the progression.

 

Creatures with physical deviations live all the time and reproduce. Mutations

do not die. We are slightly different from our parents. We have not died.

There are those born with triple x chromosomes and they do not die. Evolution

does not happen over night. It is a gradual process. It may take 50, 000 years

for a new specie to develop.

 

Fred

 

raw_peas <no_reply > wrote:

I liked the alternative ideas brought up in Wolfe's book, too. They

are not his own words since there is an existing school of thought

that is against darwinism, but I've turned against the traditional

theory of evolution as well after reading Wolfe's book.

 

I think the biggest evidence is the " missing link " . It's still

unclear how exactly man evolved from ape. Scientists have yet to

establish the link, all there is still today is just educated

guesses.

 

Also, nature makes no mistakes. A creature with physical deviations

or mutations will die, it will not reproduce and start a new species.

 

It's such an interesting topic and I'd love to have the time to learn

more about it, but then again I don't think a humble being such as

homo sapiens will ever find out the truth or the actual course of

things. We really are not that clever.

 

/Mimi

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Mimi,

 

Life itself is an incredible miracle. Only a tiny fraction

of it is understandable to man. That does not mean that it is

not there or that it is not evolving.

 

Some mutations die out but are you sure that they all do?

 

There are many dimensions to evolution and mutation. A very

few of them are even yet known.

 

Consider how insects can change their forms. Look

at the down on young birds and think about feather formation again.

Consider that there were a lot of " animals " flying around without

feather 200 million years ago... It is way too soon to reject evolution

even though our understanding of it will change for certain.

 

I agree, this may be a bit wide for a raw food forum

 

Peter

 

raw_peas [no_reply ]

11 July 2003 07:34

rawfood

Re: [Raw Food] Theory of Evolution

 

 

 

I liked the alternative ideas brought up in Wolfe's book, too. They

are not his own words since there is an existing school of thought

that is against darwinism, but I've turned against the traditional

theory of evolution as well after reading Wolfe's book.

 

I think the biggest evidence is the " missing link " . It's still

unclear how exactly man evolved from ape. Scientists have yet to

establish the link, all there is still today is just educated

guesses.

 

Also, nature makes no mistakes. A creature with physical deviations

or mutations will die, it will not reproduce and start a new species.

 

It's such an interesting topic and I'd love to have the time to learn

more about it, but then again I don't think a humble being such as

homo sapiens will ever find out the truth or the actual course of

things. We really are not that clever.

 

/Mimi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's still

unclear how exactly man evolved from ape.

 

Makes you wonder why there are still apes...

 

Cathe

 

 

[Guest guest]

> It's still

> unclear how exactly man evolved from ape.

-

Conventional anthropolology has long since given up on the man decended from

apes theory. Current theory now being turned into scientific " Fact " by

carbon dating and DNA samples is that Man and Ape had common ancestors but

each developed in it's own direction.

> Makes you wonder why there are still apes.

-

There are apes because the configuration has survival value.

And to make the food connection, their diet fits the food available in their

environment..

That's what Darwinism is all about. Any change in the DNA sticks around if

it has survival value and dies out if it does not.

The jury's out on whether human survival value will outweigh our destructive

tendancies.

rusty

 

-

" cathe " <cathe

<rawfood >

Friday, July 11, 2003 7:53 AM

Re: [Raw Food] Theory of Evolution

 

 

>

>

>

> It's still

> unclear how exactly man evolved from ape.

>

> Makes you wonder why there are still apes...

>

> Cathe

[Guest guest]

Rusty,

 

>There are apes because the configuration has survival value. And to

make the food connection, their diet fits the food available in their

environment.. That's what Darwinism is all about. Any change in the DNA

sticks around if it has survival value and dies out if it does not.<

 

 

The point about humans is that their natural habitat died out long ago.

Furthermore there have been several

adaptations. In fact humans have been through so many diet changes that

nature does not have the slightest chance of a adapting and catching up.

 

Since the introduction of farming some ten thousand years ago, it has

reach epidemic proportions. To name but a few:

 

grain from the middle east with bread making,

Wine and mead from pre-Roman and Roman times

Beer in the Dark ages along with some sticky new bread

Dairy from the Normans,

Sugar, potatoes and tobacco from the Elizabethans

This lead to jam hundreds of preservatives

Chocolate from the Restoration

Coffee 17 century

Distilled gin

Tea from 18 century

Bottled fruit

 

 

Of course all this is trivial compared to the 20th Century.

 

Pasta from Italy

Soy from the Orient

Coca cola from San Francisco

Freeze dried,

shrunken,

canned,

pasteurised,

radiated,

micro waved,

neutered,

chemicalized

UDH

 

Lets say 20 major new innovations per decade.

 

 

And we wonder why are hospitals are full up and one of the largest

pursuits of man is healthcare. And anybody who dares say that mankind

lives on a demented diet is referred to in a hushed voice as a diet

crank!

 

Peter