In Victoria Boutenko's book "Green Smoothies", much of her book is based on the theory that we come from monkeys.

I know there is physical evidence on how we evolve 'within' our species, i.e. height, width, skin color, wisdom teeth, levels of amylase, etc., but I've yet to see the physical evidence of how I evolved from another species.

You may want to take a course in evolutionary genetics. I did and it pulled together everything from fossil records to genetic analysis and selection to make evolution the only plausible scientific explanation for why things are the way things are. Plus a basic understanding of genetics will reveal that evolution and genetic change has been a constant driving force for millenia. It's not a smoking gun you should be after but the totality of all the evidence. Evolution need not conflict with creationism if you consider the possibility of evolutionary creationism.

Interestingly, the next stage of human evolution may not be left to chance... with increased overlapping of machine technology and biotechnology, humans will one day transform into immortal biomachines with massive intellects and hopefully friendly intentions. Some think this will happen within our lifetimes.

As regards to the book mentioned, I think humans are so far removed from monkeys that we have developed a diet all our own... in fact probably many diets depending on your ancestry. But surely some daily greens are a wise choice no matter where you came from.

jono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may want to take a course in evolutionary
> genetics. I did and it pulled together everything
> from fossil records to genetic analysis and
> selection to make evolution the only plausible
> scientific explanation for why things are the way
> things are. Plus a basic understanding of
> genetics will reveal that evolution and genetic
> change has been a constant driving force for
> millenia. It's not a smoking gun you should be
> after but the totality of all the evidence.

good post jono.

smilebig,

we didn't come from monkeys (or maybe it depends on what you mean by monkeys).
extant primate species have common ancestors, and have branched off of the primate "tree" at various points in history.

here is a good website, with 5 parts to it.

[www.talkorigins.org]



> Evolution need not conflict with creationism if
> you consider the possibility of evolutionary
> creationism.

occams razor is one reason not to believe in this hybrid

another is that it is dependent upon god, a concept superfluous to the first half of the phrase "evolutionary creationism"

and god concept would need to be given some sort of support with logic or evidence prior to discussion of evolutionary creationism.

Fresh,
What a sensible and logical post. Does my heart good!
Smile,
Nora

Strong evidence for evolution in humans and other animals

Anatomical vestiges
- Wings on ostriches
- Hidden eyes in blind salamanders
- Flightless beetles with wings under fused wing covers
- Dandelions reproduce without fertilization yet retain flowers and pollen

Vestigial anatomy in humans
- Appendix
rudimentary version of the much larger caecum (that exists in other primate ancestors) that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals.

- Coccyx
The coccyx is a developmental remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system. the tail exists in current primates and ostensibly in our primate ancestors.


Molecular vestigial characters
- Vitamin c
the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning

Atavisms
- living whales with legs
- newborn human babies with tails

Smilebig,
I don't think anyone has ever observed evolution directly. Mostly because we don't live that long. Just as we can't see x-rays, radio waves etc...There are a number of scientific 'observations' which are not done directly, or to which people make conclusions based on indirect evidence. Isn't it sort of like solving a crime to which there aren't any living observers?

Jono,
What makes people kling to a creator so much? what necessitates 'evolutionary creationism'?

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


evolution observed again...


[news.nationalgeographic.com]

>>Jono,
What makes people kling to a creator so much? what necessitates 'evolutionary creationism'?<<

I don't know, I don't necessarily subscribe to this idea but I do have an eery sense that there are as yet undetectable forces at play in this universe/infiniverse like karma and perfectly strange coincidences (guiding forces) that make you wonder what's really going on. Are we part of some game or learning machine or is there really no rhyme or reason at all.

You can pick a protein in the human body, just about any protein, say cytochrome-C or myosin, or whatever, and compare the nucleotide sequence for that in a human to that in a bonobo. The result is that the entire sequence is highly conserved, i.e. you will find very long stretches of nucleotides that are exactly the same. Based on expected normal rates of mutation and observed differences in particular proteins they put the divergence of humans from their ape-like relatives at 4-6 MY.

We have exactly the same genetic code as not only monkeys but also bacteria, archaea, and plants. TTT codes for phenylalanine, CCG codes for proline, etc. There are start codons and stop codons, exactly the same for all living creatures. Same for strawberries, wheat, pigs, E. coli, and humans. All life has this same code.

That's much more interesting to me that saying, well somebody waved a magic wand and this creature was created. It only begs the question: what made the magic wand waver?

ooh fresh, your big brain is so hott. ;D
i loves me a smarty pants.
tell me more about the appendix? i've always wondered about that, 'specially since i don't have mine anymore.
did you ever read the book Patty by farley mowatt? if you have you'll get the appendix reference and if not pick it up! it's pretty cool.

Jono,
Yeah, I get that feeling as well. The problem that I have with a concept of a creator is that it implies that one has to do something, or follow something. At least that seems to be the major theme of every major religion on earth. The most spiritual experiences that I have had didn't have any such expectation. I want to say it was an experience of complete acceptance and love. But telling someone about that only caused this person to bring up some nagging contradictions, like why then is his sister dying of cancer? Or why does anything experience anything unpleasant? That seems to be in contradiction to most peoples idea of love and acceptance.

coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ooh fresh, your big brain is so hott. ;D
> i loves me a smarty pants.
> tell me more about the appendix? i've always
> wondered about that, 'specially since i don't have
> mine anymore.
> did you ever read the book Patty by farley mowatt?
> if you have you'll get the appendix reference and
> if not pick it up! it's pretty cool.


oh, coco, you crazy...

no, never read that book...

I've been reading the David Wolfe book called the Sunfood Diet Success System and there is a chapter that criticises the theory of evolution. He claims there are several flaws in the theory.

One flaw is that there is apparently no (fossil) evidence of a species transitioning from one to another. Another is that carbon dating is inaccurate. There are others.

He quotes from a couple of different books that argue against evolution.

His point seems to be that humans cannot have evolved to properly digest cooked foods and that we are 'designed' to eat raw vegan foods.

Personally, I think he is a bit out of his depth in this chapter. I don't really see why he feels the need to oppose the theory of evolution in order to support his argument.

Gary

Fresh--
I love your brain too; your examples of evolution are wonderful and I will put them on a notepad and save them somewhere for a future conversation.

Jono--
>Are we part of some game or learning machine or is there really no rhyme or reason at all?<
My feeling has always been that evolution makes sense... and that it also fits in beautifully with the game or learning machine that we're living in. I see synergy; I don't see any controvesy. Some even speak of evolutionary consciousness; I don't see it as taking away from any of the beauty of the universe or the grandeur of the grand cosmic order.

Gary,
I think its great that a raw foodist addressed the evolution issue in some manner. I happen to have a lot of trust in evolutionary theory, and saying it isn't true is a bit of a problem for me.

I think I understand why he wouldn't like it. He's an essene and a minister as far as I have heard. Maybe he views evolution as a threat to his authority or the authority of the essene religion.

Evolution has been used as an arguement against a raw food diet. My loving partner uses that one alot. After all we as a species have gone through a period of cooking. I don't know if that has changed us in someway. I do know that a completely cooked diet is not good for me. Neither are processed foods, fried foods, food additives, trans fats etc. I react poorly to them, and I think humanity and the earth would benefit from them being outlawed.

It could be that cooking in any form is harmful to food, but there are degrees of harm, some induce ill health much more quickly and intensely.

I believe in creation. I believe Biblically-based creation supports the raw foods lifestyle.

I can already feel the heck I'm gonna catch for this one.

In peace,
Smile

Well, seeing as everyones putting in their thoughts into the melting pot, I'd like to add a new spin. I have no "evidence" for this as its nature is both significant but rhetorical.
I reckon that we don't evolve or have evolved but exist only now, and our history will always assume a form required for its justification... crazy maybe ?

smilebig Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in creation. I believe Biblically-based
> creation supports the raw foods lifestyle.
>
> I can already feel the heck I'm gonna catch for
> this one.
>
> In peace,
> Smile


I'm with you, Bigsmile. I won't deny my Creator, Jesus.

Its my understanding that when people say that don't believe in "the theory of evolution" they mean specifically in Darwin's theory of Evolution and Natural Selection.

I include myself in that group

What David Wolfe and others I think are getting at, is not that species haven't developed over time...but that there are significant gaps or leaps in development..and that there are no 'transitional' species according to the fossil record that would imply adaptation to adverse or advantageous situations.

I'm no science expert, but i'm really into museums..and I went the D.C.'s Natural history museum last winter, I spent some time analyzing most of the displays rather then looking. It was very clear...in my critical eye, on how everything was DESIGNED to relay a concept of evolution..blatant or not...but I found one very strong flaw which was so shocking to me...I'll keep that to myself for now

one example i'll let out...one species of these massive deer supposedly died out because its antlers actually got too big..what would be the reason for 'adaptation' there?

so...based not on extensive research, but in observation of how disease and hubris manifests especially, the Mutation Theory makes far more sense, and that 'Natural Selection' theory just seems like one big justification of modern control-thinking.

I also don't recommend taking stock in any information from Victoria Boutenko as proof or as a 'solution' to anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2007 02:35PM by anaken.

Just to clarify

- diversity of species from common ancestors..probably true...

- species 'changing in time' from less complex (primoridal beings) to ones of greater complexity....no doubt IMO

- because of "natural selection"...not at all true IMO

- biological need for certain foods based on a 'common ancestor'..pure speculation...and based on people's experiences of NOT eating this way...most likely false.

Humans are very unique beings capable of infinite consciousness.

I think Hotema's spaceship theory is just as plausible as any other.

Hopefully its a different jesus than what the fanatics worship.

Mislu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully its a different jesus than what the
> fanatics worship.



Ha Ha Mislu, IMO there never was such a creature!

I believe very much in the existance of Jesus and his gentleness, adherence to natural laws, simplicity and humbleness.

But the beauty of the Bible has been botched by the greed and ignorance of leaders using it as a tool of manipulation. I like reading the unadulterated books of the Essenes - very peaceful.

[zeitgeistmovie.com]

i can't understand why you would say that you don't believe something, anaken, without studying it. there are many aspects of darwinian evolution. here's a website that popped up for me, there are many others.

>- because of "natural selection"...not at all true IMO

[www.talkorigins.org]

>one example i'll let out...one species of these massive deer supposedly died out because its antlers actually got too big..what would be the reason for 'adaptation' there?

not sure what you're getting at, but perhaps you mean the antlers are like ostrich feathers on males (large and unwieldy?). this is another part of Ev. theory that is explained quite nicely.

My experience with religion was so bad that I cringe at the word jesus. I picture some overweight cretin who is racist, homophobic and supports the war effort where ever it occurs. Also who eats breaded meat fried in trans-american fats... at least that is what is what I associate jesus with. I know there are people in the minority who say that there is a different jesus. I just hope that can overturn that type of thing.

"i can't understand why you would say that you don't believe something, anaken, without studying it"


You mean why should anyone derive conclusions without consulting the massive amounts of fragmented, convoluted, idiosyncratic documentation put forth by ignorant, self-serving and biased organizations and individuals?
Why would anyone trust their own beliefs before everyone else's?


***Hmmm, let me work on that one....


There's a wealth of information in each one of us - impossible to describe, prove, demonstrate to others.

It's nice for you that you've got it all sewn up, Fresh and best of all, you've got back-ups! by authoritarians!


But I bet you wouldn't say that of someone who agreed with you, but hadn't studied up.

Awesome answer, jono! You're my hero!!

jono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may want to take a course in evolutionary
> genetics. I did and it pulled together everything
> from fossil records to genetic analysis and
> selection to make evolution the only plausible
> scientific explanation for why things are the way
> things are. Plus a basic understanding of
> genetics will reveal that evolution and genetic
> change has been a constant driving force for
> millenia. It's not a smoking gun you should be
> after but the totality of all the evidence.
> Evolution need not conflict with creationism if
> you consider the possibility of evolutionary
> creationism.
>
> Interestingly, the next stage of human evolution
> may not be left to chance... with increased
> overlapping of machine technology and
> biotechnology, humans will one day transform into
> immortal biomachines with massive intellects and
> hopefully friendly intentions. Some think this
> will happen within our lifetimes.
>
> As regards to the book mentioned, I think humans
> are so far removed from monkeys that we have
> developed a diet all our own... in fact probably
> many diets depending on your ancestry. But surely
> some daily greens are a wise choice no matter
> where you came from.

Re; the rest of your post, well-thought out and interesting. Re; this particular part:

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one example i'll let out...one species of these
> massive deer supposedly died out because its
> antlers actually got too big..what would be the
> reason for 'adaptation' there?

There are actually many possibilities that would not negate the concept of 'natural selection'. Don't forget that nature doesn't exist in a vacuum. Competing evolutionary elements could (and no doubt have) come into confict. For instance (speculation): The deer's antlers get larger as a part of their sexual display and competition between males. This is fine because their food source (let's say it's the small shoots and leaves, and tender bark on small trees) is easy to harvest because there are no large trees in their territory. Why aren't there any large trees? Perhaps because of the predation of other species, or because of the weather. All of a sudden (over a period of a few decades, say), the region changes, and the plentiful food sources are now protected from grazing by mature trees growing too closely together for the deer to forage between. And the species gets displaced by a species more capable of adapting to the changing circumstances.

aquadecoco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

thank you for that spanking aqua. one of my flaws is that i come across as you have described, but my intent and belief is not as bad as you think it is.

i look forward to your expose' on string theory!

let me rephrase.

here's what i responded to..

"I'm no science expert"
"so...based not on extensive research,"

darwinian theory is not simple. it requires quite extensive study actually.

so i would be interested in hearing from you anaken, if you wish to share,
about what the

- one strong flaw is
- what natural selection is and why it doesn't make sense
- maybe some clarification on the deer antler thing, unless seabucktho has already spoken about it satisfactorily.

pm if you wish.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2007 09:40PM by fresh.

I think we do niot come from monkeys but we come from humans. Plus people find older and older human bones.