Correct Interpretation of Evolution and Raw Eating

[Guest guest]

Dear Joe,

 

What a profound and a fundamental argument. The digestive system is

millions of years old so we have to look at the big picture. I love

that! I think it is simple, straightforward, and brilliant. The only

thing I would say is that man invented fire long time ago, I forget

when. But in cold climates, it would make sense to heat up the water and

drink tea and stuff, don't you think? Should we ignore that when we are

feeling cold, we like to get warm, some how. Drinking hot water, hot

soup, etc. might be part of our background at some level, right? I know

that when I am feeling cold in the morning, I love to drink lot of hot

Chai. I like the act of boiling water, feeling the steam, putting tea in

and preparing it.

 

I would love to put some of this great stuff on my blog if anyone is

interested in good organized writing using subtitles.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

Joe Postma wrote:

> 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

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Harsha

Yes it is simple isn't it, for me it was like a veil being lifted and

suddenly everything made so much more sense! Our digestive system has

been designed for raw food.

I don't know how old the animal digestive system is. But I know that

the Cambrian Explosion occurred around 450 Million years ago, when all

sorts of animal life suddenly appear in the fossil record. There were

animals before this though, so we could easily say that the animal

digestive system has been around and developing for over half a

BILLION years!!! Thats half a billion years of a digestive system

eating raw food! The last few tens of thousands of years of eating

cooked isn't going to change that.

In regards to fire and eating warm. Well, fire certainly has allowed

man to populate the entire earth. There is no way we would have been

able to migrate and settle in the Northern climates or cross the

Bering Bridge to North America without having had fire to keep us

warm. It is the fundamental of all human technologies. We simply are

not naturally designed to live in the cold - no fur!

 

And, certainly we can not always predict when we will feel cold. That

should be obvious. I know cave-men were smart, but I am sure even

they couldn't always predict when a cold-front would move in!

Sometimes the weather can just change unexpectedly and get cold, and

certainly drinking something warm helps the body to keep warm. Or how

about waking up and the fire has gone out and there's first snow on

the ground? Doesn't matter how many buffalo hides you're wearing,

you're going to feel that cold as soon as you get out! Who knows how

far back drinking a warm tea on a cold night or morning goes...it

likely started right at the beginning with the conquering of fire! It

must be an age-old tradition. I know ALL native North American tribes

had tea. So, Tea started with fire, and I think the purely natural

tea's are even fairly good for you.

 

If you want to write about this idea please do. I think it will

satisfy a lot of people who prefer a scientific connection to the

philosophy of raw food - I mean, a scientific connection other than

saying " fruits and veggies are good for you " . This big picture view

point of our half billion year old animal digestive system (which

expects raw food) really ties it all together. It would be difficult

to argue against.

 

It can be very difficult to properly interpret the vast amount of

knowledge we have about the world today. The hunter-gatherer ideas

are indeed true - we were hunter-gatherers for a long time and that

history certainly does have some influence on us today. But faced

with such a fascinating idea, many people forget about the bigger

picture, the picture of our basic animal design, which stretches all

the way back to the very first animals, and all the 100's of millions

of years in which animals have been eating raw food.

 

Enjoy your tea. Just make sure it has no caffeine in it!

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

rawfood , Harsha wrote:

>

> Dear Joe,

>

> What a profound and a fundamental argument. The digestive system is

> millions of years old so we have to look at the big picture. I love

> that! I think it is simple, straightforward, and brilliant. The only

> thing I would say is that man invented fire long time ago, I forget

> when. But in cold climates, it would make sense to heat up the water

and

> drink tea and stuff, don't you think? Should we ignore that when we are

> feeling cold, we like to get warm, some how. Drinking hot water, hot

> soup, etc. might be part of our background at some level, right? I know

> that when I am feeling cold in the morning, I love to drink lot of hot

> Chai. I like the act of boiling water, feeling the steam, putting

tea in

> and preparing it.

>

> I would love to put some of this great stuff on my blog if anyone is

> interested in good organized writing using subtitles.

>

> Namaste and love to all

> Harsha

[Guest guest]

Joe,

 

Thanks for the post. I've been using that argument for a while. It

occurred to me too, to be the most logical argument. But, as our

ancestors began their written records sometime AFTER they were using

fire and weapons, they didn't record the part about running away from

animals (no weapons) and consuming an entirely raw food diet, so

people went with what was in our most recent history. When parents

are feeding their offspring certain foods (animal products and cooked

foods) it is easy to start with including that in the belief system

and then trying to substantiate that diet.

 

The earliest known fire, as was discovered several years ago, was

about 2 million years ago. Before that discovery, fire was believed

to be discovered around 800,000 years ago, with most being 400,000

years old, as I understand it. Of course, the greatest motivation for

fire is cold, so when was the first COOKING??? All I know is it came

sometime AFTER fire was discovered. It could have been well over a

million years after! I have been wanting to know when the first pots,

etc. for cooking were discovered. How old were they? That is another

piece of the puzzle that I do not have. Anyone know?

 

I had written some of these thoughts about food and evolution here:

soystache.com/raw.htm

 

Jeff

[Guest guest]

On Sunday 21 October 2007, Joe Postma wrote:

> Scientists

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

> are genuinely interested in the truth.

 

Oh Joe! hehe.

 

Everyone has a hidden agenda, although it may not always be

hidden, its called self-interest.

 

 

Awareness 11--Our Illusion About Others - A de Mello.

 

" So if you stop to think, you would see that there's nothing

to be very proud of after all.  What does this do to your

relationship with people?  What are you complaining

about?  A young man came to complain that his girlfriend

had let him down, that she had played false.  What are you

complaining about?  Did you expect any better?  Expect the

worst, you're dealing with selfish people.  You're the

idiot --  you glorified her, didn't you?  You thought she

was a princess, you thought people were nice.  They're

not!  They're not nice.  They're as bad as you are -- bad,

you understand?  They're asleep like you.  And what do you

think they are going to seek?  Their own self-interest,

exactly like you.  No difference.  Can you imagine how

liberating it is that you'll never be disillusioned again,

never be disappointed again?  You'll never feel let down

again.  Never feel rejected.  Want to wake up?  You want

happiness?  You want freedom?  Here it is: Drop your false

ideas.  See through people.  If you see through yourself,

you will see through everyone.  Then you will love

them.  Otherwise you spend the whole time grappling with

your wrong notions of them, with your illusions that are

constantly crashing against reality. "

 

--

the kneeling fool

[Guest guest]

Wow thats amazing...it's that old hey?

Yes you point out a great question: when did we actually start

cooking our food? I wonder if they found charred bones or anything

like that in those old fire pit remains.

Very good explanation though about the belief system, thanks a lot.

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

 

rawfood , Jeff Rogers <jeff wrote:

>

> Joe,

>

> Thanks for the post. I've been using that argument for a while. It

> occurred to me too, to be the most logical argument. But, as our

> ancestors began their written records sometime AFTER they were using

> fire and weapons, they didn't record the part about running away from

> animals (no weapons) and consuming an entirely raw food diet, so

> people went with what was in our most recent history. When parents

> are feeding their offspring certain foods (animal products and cooked

> foods) it is easy to start with including that in the belief system

> and then trying to substantiate that diet.

>

> The earliest known fire, as was discovered several years ago, was

> about 2 million years ago. Before that discovery, fire was believed

> to be discovered around 800,000 years ago, with most being 400,000

> years old, as I understand it. Of course, the greatest motivation for

> fire is cold, so when was the first COOKING??? All I know is it came

> sometime AFTER fire was discovered. It could have been well over a

> million years after! I have been wanting to know when the first pots,

> etc. for cooking were discovered. How old were they? That is another

> piece of the puzzle that I do not have. Anyone know?

>

> I had written some of these thoughts about food and evolution here:

> soystache.com/raw.htm

>

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Yes you're right Neal. I am the perfect example - purposefully trying

to use evolution as an argument for eating raw. But is this a hidden

agenda, or is it truth, or is it a lucky coincidence? haha I guess I

can admit that as a scientist, I do strive to make my hidden agenda as

close to what seems to be the truth - as difficult as defining what

the truth is, cause none of us " really " know.

 

I guess it all comes down to truthiness.

 

Joe

 

 

 

rawfood , the kneeling fool <kneel.pardoe

wrote:

>

> On Sunday 21 October 2007, Joe Postma wrote:

> > Scientists

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

> > are genuinely interested in the truth.

>

> Oh Joe! hehe.

>

> Everyone has a hidden agenda, although it may not always be

> hidden, its called self-interest.

[Guest guest]

I am the perfect example - purposefully trying

> to use evolution as an argument for eating raw.

 

I just use the fact that we are an animal, and what every single other

animal does; they eat raw and they all eat the same diet---what their

species was designed for. They all quit mothers milk, etc. These are

common, universal guidelines. What opportunistic paleolithic man had to

do to survive is hardly any guideline. Nobody strives to dress in

loincloths, to go barefoot all the time, or do anything else like

cavemen. It's interesting to me that everyone holds cavemen up as some

expert nutritionist then, etc.

[Guest guest]

Thanks Joe for your detailed answer. The cave persons probably made a

big leap forward when they discovered how to rub two pieces of wood to

make a fire. They were probably soon boiling leaves in wooden pots and

drinking tea after that, especially when it got cold. It just seems to

follow logically. Maybe they were making vegetable stews as well as Dr.

Fuhrman recommends.

 

Ultimately, the best we can do is experiment with different foods and

ways of eating and see what works. The most accepted and proven

approach to good health is to eat a nutritious and a low calorie diet.

Raw foods are big part of that. May our inner intelligence guide us on

the right path.

 

Harsha

 

 

Joe Postma wrote:

> Hi Harsha

> Yes it is simple isn't it, for me it was like a veil being lifted and

> suddenly everything made so much more sense! Our digestive system has

> been designed for raw food.

> I don't know how old the animal digestive system is. But I know that

> the Cambrian Explosion occurred around 450 Million years ago, when all

> sorts of animal life suddenly appear in the fossil record. There were

> animals before this though, so we could easily say that the animal

> digestive system has been around and developing for over half a

> BILLION years!!! Thats half a billion years of a digestive system

> eating raw food! The last few tens of thousands of years of eating

> cooked isn't going to change that.

> In regards to fire and eating warm. Well, fire certainly has allowed

> man to populate the entire earth. There is no way we would have been

> able to migrate and settle in the Northern climates or cross the

> Bering Bridge to North America without having had fire to keep us

> warm. It is the fundamental of all human technologies. We simply are

> not naturally designed to live in the cold - no fur!

>

> And, certainly we can not always predict when we will feel cold. That

> should be obvious. I know cave-men were smart, but I am sure even

> they couldn't always predict when a cold-front would move in!

> Sometimes the weather can just change unexpectedly and get cold, and

> certainly drinking something warm helps the body to keep warm. Or how

> about waking up and the fire has gone out and there's first snow on

> the ground? Doesn't matter how many buffalo hides you're wearing,

> you're going to feel that cold as soon as you get out! Who knows how

> far back drinking a warm tea on a cold night or morning goes...it

> likely started right at the beginning with the conquering of fire! It

> must be an age-old tradition. I know ALL native North American tribes

> had tea. So, Tea started with fire, and I think the purely natural

> tea's are even fairly good for you.

>

> If you want to write about this idea please do. I think it will

> satisfy a lot of people who prefer a scientific connection to the

> philosophy of raw food - I mean, a scientific connection other than

> saying " fruits and veggies are good for you " . This big picture view

> point of our half billion year old animal digestive system (which

> expects raw food) really ties it all together. It would be difficult

> to argue against.

>

> It can be very difficult to properly interpret the vast amount of

> knowledge we have about the world today. The hunter-gatherer ideas

> are indeed true - we were hunter-gatherers for a long time and that

> history certainly does have some influence on us today. But faced

> with such a fascinating idea, many people forget about the bigger

> picture, the picture of our basic animal design, which stretches all

> the way back to the very first animals, and all the 100's of millions

> of years in which animals have been eating raw food.

>

> Enjoy your tea. Just make sure it has no caffeine in it!

>

> Joe

>

>

>