Good story about food and chemicals.

[jedstivers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -labe.html

 

[sim.-ang.king]

It's Chemicals!

 

[Bigfoot]

There ain't no telling what we eat. 7 dust must be good for ya. Mamaw put it on everything.

 

[Richardin52]

"'I wanted to erode the fear that many people have of 'chemicals', and demonstrate that nature evolves compounds, mechanisms and structures far more complicated and unpredictable than anything we can produce in the lab."

Since when are the chemicals in blue berries, bananas etc. unpredictable?

Of course everything is made up of chemicals. The difference is we (our bodies) have evolved using certain chemicals like water for instance or chemicals found in food we have been eating for thousands of years.

We did not evolve using large amounts of some chemicals or many newly developed chemicals and certainly not by mixing some of the newly developed chemical with other chemicals we consume.

That's where the difference is not in the realization that all things are made up of chemicals.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

"'I wanted to erode the fear that many people have of 'chemicals', and demonstrate that nature evolves compounds, mechanisms and structures far more complicated and unpredictable than anything we can produce in the lab."

Since when are the chemicals in blue berries, bananas etc. unpredictable?

Of course everything is made up of chemicals. The difference is we (our bodies) have evolved using certain chemicals like water for instance or chemicals found in food we have been eating for thousands of years.

We did not evolve using large amounts of some chemicals or many newly developed chemicals and certainly not by mixing some of the newly developed chemical with other chemicals we consume.

That's where the difference is not in the realization that all things are made up of chemicals.

Prove that a person has evolved and then we'll discuss the remainder of the nonsense.

 

[Richardin52]

I will try to explain how something can evolve as simply as I can for you.

Take for instance a flock of chickens and a dog that chases them and kills the slow ones, after a while only the fastest ones will survive and have offspring. In a few generations you will have a flock of faster chickens.

Over time the chicken may develop longer legs with more power or they may develop better flight. In other words they have evolved into something different than their ancestors.

Most people that are not from northern European decent are lactose intolerant because they do not come from a line of people who consumed milk. They cannot handle the "chemicals" found in milk. However if their ancestors had used milk their bodies would have built up enzymes that could have broken down these "chemicals" and it would have been passed down through generations. They would have evolved differently.

 

[greybeard]

To most dogs, 100% of the chickens are slow.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I will try to explain how something can evolve as simply as I can for you.

Take for instance a flock of chickens and a dog that chases them and kills the slow ones, after a while only the fastest ones will survive and have offspring. In a few generations you will have a flock of faster chickens.

Over time the chicken may develop longer legs with more power or they may develop better flight. In other words they have evolved into something different than their ancestors.

Most people that are not from northern European decent are lactose intolerant because they do not come from a line of people who consumed milk. They cannot handle the "chemicals" found in milk. However if their ancestors had used milk their bodies would have built up enzymes that could have broken down these "chemicals" and it would have been passed down through generations. They would have evolved differently.

I guess I still just don't get the religion of evolution. But, I will concede that I'm a big believer in real science to understand the natural world and it's complex and amazing order.

What you just described was a population of chickens that were diverse in original status, and became less diverse in the final status. The genetic material of their population as a whole actually became smaller. And because of this, they are now a suppose to be a different species? The genes, the ones in the final chickens and were also there in the original population make the final chickens a different species? Would they still be able to mate with the original chicken? I bet they would. Is the Angus used commonly for beef production in the US a different species than milking shorthorn? One was selected for milking, so that is correct under the same rational- Si? As you specialize to the point of having one particular type, you actually take genetic material away from the population, not add to it. Only in mutation does something get added, and this way more often than not isn't a positive.

You are describing natural selection. It isn't the same as one species involving into another. That would take an addition of and in reality a complete exchange of significant volumes of genetic information. There is no supporting evidence,at least without some crazy big holes that require serious faith in evolution. Prove the theory of evolution, it hasn't been done.

Appreciate the complexity of the human brain, end result. Look at the simplicity of the one cell bacterium, early beginning. Apply the second law of thermodynamics, it doesn't jive my friend.

 

[Richardin52]

Who said anything about species?

You said you did not understand how we could evolve over thousands of years so our bodies could get used to some chemicals and not others. I do not think people who are lactose intolerant are a different species do you?

I do think some people have developed with a body that cannot tolerate some "chemicals". I also think that new chemicals introduced into people who are not used to those chemicals can have a negative effect depending on the chemical and the person.

Just look at the people with allergies for instance. They may have an allergy to certain foods or certain chemicals sprayed on the food or in their environment because it is a poison to their system. Their body cannot tolerate some chemicals and some people may die quickly or get cancer because of it.

Now take a bunch of newly developed chemicals that no one has ever ever had contact with and put them throughout the population. What will be the effects on the population? Well now that's the 64 dollar question isn't it.

 

[Bigfoot]

I don't believe in evolution. The cell theory debunks that. I do believe that a species can adapt to its surroundings over a period of time. The fact that they adapt proves a grand design. Hey, thanks for explaining it so simpletons like us could understand it. Next explain to us the hardy-Weinberg theory. We might find that interesting as well.

 

[Richardin52]

Don't know a thing about the hardy-Weinberg theory.

I do know the definition of evolve though;
e·volve (-vlv)
v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves

v.tr.
1.
a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.

b. To work (something) out; devise: "the schemes he evolved to line his purse" (S.J. Perelman).

2. Biology To develop (a characteristic).

3. To give off; emit.

v.intr.
1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.

 

[Bigfoot]

I get what you are saying. In effect giraffe necks could conceivably be getting longer over time. The ones with the longest necks would have access to more forage. Breed back better, and produce more viable offspring, than their shorter necked counter parts.

 

[mwj]

I think the Daily Mail is about as reliable news source as the enquirer or the weekly world news! :cowboy:

 

[cmf1]

Could it be a confusion of evolution vs adaptation?
Evolution is faith (or lack of faith) based.
Adaptatation is apparent and factually supported.
No missing link needed to explain faster chickens.

 

[TexasBred]

To most dogs, 100% of the chickens are slow.

Maybe the old dog just gets a bit slower. :lol2:

 

[jedstivers]

I think the Daily Mail is about as reliable news source as the enquirer or the weekly world news! :cowboy:

It's a better source than the networks. You'd be surprised at what they break first before American news does. That being said it does have a lot of tabloid stuff to skip.
I started reading it after I noticed all the links from drudge to it.

 

[regolith]

For evolution to occur isn't it a requirement that the negative trait affects either survival (to breeding age) or breeding?
Otherwise you just get the situation we have now where defects are passed down and circulated throughout the human population, because the defective ancestors are fully capable of breeding.

I've always thought there was something in the theory of regional adaptation to diet, if it's an 'old wives tale' only then I'll edit that to "it's common for people who are used to a healthy diet that has sustained their last several generations to not do well on transfer to a new area and different diet".

Richardin52: are you familiar with what used to be called an 'elimination diet'. It's designed to clearly identify those poisons by adding them back into the diet one at a time.

 

[greybeard]

A Doctor was addressing a large audience in Tampa .
'The material we put into our stomachs is enough to have killed most of us sitting here, years ago. Red meat is awful. Soft drinks corrode your stomach lining. Chinese food is loaded with MSG. High fat diets can be disastrous, and none of us realizes the long-term harm caused by the germs in our drinking water. However, there is one thing that is the most dangerous of all and we all have eaten, or will eat it. Can anyone here tell me what food it is that causes the most grief and suffering for years after eating it?'
After several seconds of quiet, a 75-year-old man in the front row raised his hand, and softly said,
'Wedding Cake.'