Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pointless comparison really. The rock shape doesn't change. The roots grow around it. You only have a point if you can compare two objects intertwined with their original shape from the beginning.
No. The point is, anyone who looks at a tree growing around a rock is going to assume that the rock was already there, and the tree grew around it to fit the rock. Nobody's going to look at that and say, "oh my god, what a miracle it is that this rock fits perfectly into the roots of this tree!" They know that the tree just grew around it; it's obvious.
So why would the same people assume that the world we live in was designed to be a perfect fit for humans? The world was already here - we just evolved to fit into it. It's not some great mystery.
Think about our food and the problem of diabetes. You can't get diabetes unless you eat refined foods.
If you eat raw honey (3 times sweeter than sugar) - you will not get diabetes. You can eat it all day long and it wont give you diabetes.
The reason it doesn't it that it contains all the necessary nutrients needed to metabolize it correctly just like the rest of natural organic food.
Now think about that. If we evolved then it means we must have evolved to handle ALL foods because none of them in a natural state will give us diabetes.
Even assuming your premise holds, that's essentially an example of the anthropic principle.
For example, one of my questions about evolution is why did man evolve with sensitive taste buds? Ok, I can understand the need for hot vs cold sensory nerves but why taste? Why does taste have anything to do with the survival of the human body and promoting ingesting food?
Taste and smell helps us identify and recognize what's good to eat and what isn't. Rather important for survival.
Quote:
If anything, it is counter productive as taste makes people enjoy food and over induldge which causes harm to the human body.
Having the opportunity to consistently overindulge is an extremely recent phenomenon. Most of human prehistory - and much of history - has been characterized by perpetual living on the brink of starvation.
Having the opportunity to consistently overindulge is an extremely recent phenomenon. Most of human prehistory - and much of history - has been characterized by perpetual living on the brink of starvation.
The ignorance of even basic human history is stunning, isn't it?
Even assuming your premise holds, that's essentially an example of the anthropic principle.
That principle sounds like it only applies to the philosophical sense. I believe that these observations are not only showing their awesome compatibility to our spirit but to our physical being (our body and nutrition).
Taste and smell helps us identify and recognize what's good to eat and what isn't. Rather important for survival.
Having the opportunity to consistently overindulge is an extremely recent phenomenon. Most of human prehistory - and much of history - has been characterized by perpetual living on the brink of starvation.
While taste and smell are important to what we recognize is good to eat there is even more significance to it than that. Our bodies will change how something smells and taste depending on the nutrient density of the body. This is a known fact and show far more how intelligent our food was designed for us.
I disagree with your analysis of the history of man being characterized by perpetual living on the brink of starvation. On the easy basis of the fact that only the majority of significant starvation events would be recorded to begin with due to the cost of print or development of writ.
I disagree with your analysis of the history of man being characterized by perpetual living on the brink of starvation. On the easy basis of the fact that only the majority of significant starvation events would be recorded to begin with due to the cost of print or development of writ.
It wasn't recorded, hence it didn't happen? Not sure I follow the argument. And I did kinda put "prehistoric" in there for a reason.
It wasn't recorded, hence it didn't happen? Not sure I follow the argument. And I did kinda put "prehistoric" in there for a reason.
I'm saying there was no accounting mechanism to record that data and any data we do have would be skewed by the fact that famines would be recorded over non famines (times of plenty) due to costs. You have to understand my position - I'm a logical thinker and I have a power over others in this regard and that is because I'm not afraid or concerned about ever being wrong or proven wrong. This gives me a greater level of logic in my thinking because I don't have to constantly poison my own thoughts with protecting or promoting an illogical or irrational position.
We're not talking about humans a few hundred or even a few thousand years ago - we're talking about hundreds of thousands, even millions of years ago. Australopithecus didn't have a way of carving into the side of a rock, "ugh - lots of us are hungry this week." When humans were first evolving on the grasslands of Eastern and Central Africa, the environment was harsh and food often hard to find - as it still is in that ecosystem. Of course there were periods of famine; animals that evolved to crave foods that were high in energy (fats, sugars) or electrolytes like salt had an evolutionary advantage.
I'm saying there was no accounting mechanism to record that data
That's sorta what prehistoric means, yes.
Well, actually... We know that hunter-gatherers fought (fight) like crazy over territory. It's considered likely that 25-30% met their end in inter-tribal skirmishes. You can support about 1 person per square mile until you start farming. And it's not hard to go beyond that density. What happens then? You fight over food, until the equilibrium is restored. Farming sucked - longer hours, less healthy people - but it let the population density rise without being caught in the "kill your neighbor or starve" dilemma.
Quote:
and any data we do have would be skewed by the fact that famines would be recorded over non famines (times of plenty) due to costs.
We can look at customs, population shifts etc. -we don't have to have a scribe noting that he ate well that day. Why, to pick an example, do you think 18th-century rural workers ran to the cities - the unhealthy, stinking, polluted cities of the early industrial revolution? Because life in the city meant a fair chance that you'd have enough to eat. Sure, morbidity was sky-high - the cities were so unhealthy, they couldn't repopulate themselves. But it beat being one bad harvest away from starving.
Why do you think the horse collar ended the Middle Ages? Because of its impact on food production.
Man's ability to feed himself has been the limiting factor throughout most of history.
Quote:
You have to understand my position - I'm a logical thinker and I have a power over others in this regard and that is because I'm not afraid or concerned about ever being wrong or proven wrong. This gives me a greater level of logic in my thinking because I don't have to constantly poison my own thoughts with protecting or promoting an illogical or irrational position.
I guess I will have to take your word for that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
