3

votes

Do you follow a paleo diet and NOT believe in evolution?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created October 09, 2012 at 7:52 PM

I assume most people who believe in following a paleo lifestyle also believe in evolution. But I'm interested to find out if there's anybody out there who doesn't. I for one just finished reading The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, a book that basically says evolution is proven. No longer a theory.

If you are paleo and don't believe in evolution, how do you reconcile the two?

E32abdc9a483de43def522faf81ed4e9

(0)

on March 25, 2014
at 04:52 AM

I am finding it very disappointing to see that although people are incredibly supportive on this site, they've saved my bacon a lot this past 11 days, the disrespect shown about God and religion is hugely disappointing.

I am a Christian and I am currently a proponent of Paleo. I see no reason at all to be an Evolutionist to accept the value of Paleo eating. To my thinking, God designed our systems this way. There is so much science and personal life experiences for all of us that lead us to these conclusions.

Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

(4400)

on October 12, 2012
at 12:13 PM

Convergent evolution! Or perhaps a little bit of interbreeding amongst distant relatives?

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on October 12, 2012
at 12:55 AM

Faith is belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence. There is no exception for something for which there is logical proof or material evidence against. And before you start slinging insults about education, you might want to revisit an elementary school English class.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 11, 2012
at 05:22 PM

Did we evolve to read Sisson and Taubes? I don't think so. The Paleo diet evolved from WAPF and Atkins. Currently there are some mutant strains....

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Well, I'm sure this forum discussion has left everyone very enlightened and lots of minds have been changed today.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 09:30 PM

@LLM I'm not here to argue evolution. I'm here to clarify that the statements made here about what the Bible does or does not say are incorrect. It goes both ways. Besides, my faith is my own and certainly not chosen blindly. The nature of my faith is between my and God, and it precedes any speculations I may have about origins of the earth.

Medium avatar

(379)

on October 10, 2012
at 08:46 PM

For the record, I believe in evolution. I asked the original question because I wanted to know what brought people here who do not believe in evolution. I didn't ask about religion, that's a separate topic. I still haven't seen an answer here that makes any sense. People who don't believe in evolution are literally choosing to ignore lots of information out there that proves its existence. The Paleo Diet is based on evolution, you can't ignore that.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:28 PM

God had to use bread to soak up all the blood that he spilled.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:27 PM

@LLM I'm aware of evolutionary theory. I'm aware of observations that support the theory and I'm aware of aspects of the theory that are still....evolving...haha. So yeah. Being aware is good.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:04 PM

Consider that Eden is a metaphoric garden, where all the forces of adaptation are at play. It's a neolithic concept. What happened before is not as important as what happened after. Farming just IS, plows, domesticated animals and bread exist practically from the beginning of Genesis. The dietary laws probably predate the Neolithic period though. It's only recently that pork and shellfish became safe to eat

D1728f99db66ff91d695a6df5cd38b02

(1368)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:01 PM

Its still a fact.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:31 PM

LikesLardinMayo, congratulations, you failed the reading comprehension test. If you stop insulting people, read the actual question, and then read my answer, you might figure it out. It makes much more sense to go annoy Dawkins because how can he believe in evolution, but not eat paleo? Harry, yes. The good atheists are liberty minded. The bad, well, if you've watched the history channel, you know what happens when they get power. Dawkins has written enough- you ought to be able to find ample evidence of his coercive mindset.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:27 PM

Sorry LLM, but they don't make sick so I eat them. I like the dialectic here. I don't view paleo as an Atkins-influenced phenomena either. Meat and motion is 80% of the paleo distinction, and I'm avid about those two things.

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on October 10, 2012
at 11:23 AM

The FSM can't be Paleo because he's made from a wheat product!!

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 10, 2012
at 11:04 AM

Well, according to a literal interpretation of the the bible, there was no death, and no meat before "the fall". So rather than "Edino" the word you're probably looking for is "vegan".

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:30 AM

Evolutionary theory doesn't include the phrase "God Dunnit"

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:28 AM

@Michelle - Micro and Macro Evolution? I don't care how you want to blind yourself but go read an Anthropology text book so you can at least understand what you are choosing to ignore. You owe it to the world to not just listen to the bible thumpers but to really understand what the experts are saying before you say they are wrong.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:24 AM

@JayJay - I'm a Buddhist and I am aware of the fact of Evolution. In case you aren't aware of it Buddhism doesn't have a Pope, no one speaks for Buddhists but the individual Buddhist.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:21 AM

Both make me sick as a dog. So now what? Can I also add that if you are opposed to Paleo why are you on this site? Troll much?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:20 AM

LOL No. This is a simple template for the SORTS of food which we are best adapted to eat. Adaptation is based on evolution, not based on what some genocidal sky-wizard says.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:53 AM

Don't forget that the Hebrew God liked the smell of burning meat...or that Darwin's theory devolved from observations of selective breeding to trait. The Neolithics were not dummies agriculture-wise, and within a couple of millennia had "created" the commonly farmed foods by the same principles Darwin observed.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:42 AM

Paleo isn't a diet based on evolution. It has too many modern associations, from the Luddites to Atkins. It's a system that excludes foods our ancestors ate, promotes foods that they had no possibility of eating, and sets it all in a rigid modern structure.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:56 AM

Besides, the Bible highlighted people within a certain subgroup and certain geography. Besides the vague reference in the tower of Babel, and the concept of a world-wide flood, there's really no mention of what's going on in other parts of the world with other people. We can't really say what is or isn't going on, according to scripture. But that's not the point of scripture, anyway,In a sacred view, it's the gradual unveiling of a promise, a love letter from Christ to His bride. In a secular view, it's a collection of historical text. It's not meant to be our science textbook.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:47 AM

For example on the dating theories, there is gap creationism, young-earth, old-earth, day-age and others. Some suggest the "days" of creation were not literal 24 hours days but perhaps thousands of years. Some say there was a huge gap of time between the creation of "heaven and earth" and the creation of everything else. Me? I believe what I read. God created everything. He did it in a certain order. And it was good. How long he decided to take in our human understanding of time doesn't matter a bit to me.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:40 AM

The Bible doesn't specifically date the universe nor map the eras within. Dating even based on the Bible is theoretical, and I know people who hold to many different variations of the age of the earth who believe in a literal creation. I personally don't subscribe to any theory of the age of the world because 1) I'm not 100% convinced by any "theory" I read on it, 2) I find it arbitrary in the end. I don't discount them as plausible theories, but I'll live on just fine not picking one of them to believe. I accept that there is plenty I will not know about this world.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:24 AM

well according to the bible the paleolithic era never existed so there is some conflict of interest there. i'm not a scholar on evolutionary theory by any means but from my brief exposure there is plenty of evidence to support macroevolution as well. i'm not an atheist and i believe in a higher energy level often referred to as "god". there is a metaphysical aspect to this world that is highly unknowable to us as humans and i think that's part of the great mystery of life. religions act like they know the secrets of the universe and its just false advertisement. no one knows its that simple.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:00 AM

@Jake Indeed. I'm a creationist. Grew up as such. Even some of my science textbooks were creation-based. Even in those, micro-evolution is not at all disputed. It's not difficult to believe that we descend from the faster guy running from the bear, and that genes mutate and get passed on (says the redhead). Basic concepts of natural selection do not conflict with the Bible. The idea of a common ancestor (MACROevolution) is where things get more theoretical. But I've never had to compromise my faith to grasp the evolutionary nature presented as "paleo."

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:56 AM

Can you only agree with portions of current evolutionary theory and still think that there is room to improve it like this guy? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/darwin_critic_w058001.html

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:54 AM

Paleo folks already tend to have over-inflated egos, do we really need folks pumping more hot air in in an frenzy of superiority of the uneducated? Close.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:52 AM

You've demonstrated adaptation, and are playing very loose with words like fact and proof.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:48 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/darwin_critic_w058001.html Ahh, so he is critical of pieces of the theory.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:44 AM

And why is Christianity the only one under the gun....Can you be Buddhist and believe in evolution? Does the Dalai Llama believe in evolution?...Hmmm, I think I'll google that.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:41 AM

Good point jake...who said that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive anyhow?

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:37 AM

...Using a buffalo as representation of fulfillment, physical or not, would be pointless, for example. It simply speaks their language to use bread as the allegory. Eating bread was never a demand of the law in the OT. And in the NT, even Paul says (in concerning food, no less, though particularly in response to exercising personal freedom in Christ to consume food sacrificed to idols, because that food in particular holds no inherent spiritual value) that "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:32 AM

@JeJ just because someone understands evolution doesn't make them an atheist ...

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:28 AM

Bread being a "staff of life" is NOT a Biblical term. Any similar verse from the Bible I've found for being a distant reference to this term was not at all trying to defend the consumption of grain, but as a representation of Christ's body, or of general nourishment. You can't argue that people ate what was simply available. The people within the Bible were living in a time and place in history where agriculture was largely a mainstay. And they were poor. And the image of bread had cultural significance.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:16 AM

The same people close these because a) they are against the policy and b) we've been here for a while and get tired of seeing a million repeats. If you really need to get off on talking about religion, go check out the old threads and jerk over there.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:13 AM

God, I can't believe I'm defending this. I used to be a member of a freaking skeptic's society. I just don't think it's worthwhile for a bunch of atheists to stand around patting each other on the back about how they came to the right conclusion at the expense of alienating and being condescending to a whole group of people who could benefit from a health message regardless of how they got there.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:11 AM

Sure. Sounds good. Okay, now see, that's about all we need to discuss. If you want to be creationist and just cover your eyes when the evolution comes in to play, go right on ahead. I don't care how you logic that shit out in your head. That's the part that we don't need to get into because it is unnecessarily argumentative. Yes, we will discuss evolution. No, we don't need to step through your personal religious background.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:05 AM

But...what the hell.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:05 AM

I voted to close this for one simple reason - Those who understand evolution already get it and those who don't are just bringing up this nonsense to pull a Jimmy Moore. I didn't vote to close because it was argumentative. I voted to close because it is pointless to have another thread (there are at least 3-4 already) where a bunch of creationists start praying for the rest of us.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:03 AM

The purpose of these forums is to discuss an eating template based on evolution via natural selection. Eating based on a fairy-tale is the antithesis of this entire website.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:59 AM

@Ray RAmen. However, I'm more worried about creationism then religious belief. Who cares about heaven and God. That doesn't hurt anything. The denial of reality based on not faith or belief but willfull ignorance is what is troubling. The fact of Evolution is fact, belief in God is based on faith. Denial of evolution isn't belief or faith...it's dogma.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:57 AM

How about we ignore Dawkins and look at actual science, the stuff Mat LaLonde was talking about. Guess what? That requires evolution. So does what Robb Wolf does, and Kurt Harris. Plugging your ears and acting like a child won't change the fact that evolution is supported by evidence and Genesis isn't.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:48 AM

Who knows. I think my single largest source of bible information is Dan Savage during his rants. EITHER WAY, I don't care what you believe in your spare time, it doesn't effect how I think about how I eat. Arguing for the sake of arguing and getting into a biblical discussion (which I will NOT be able to keep up with in ANY capacity) is not the purpose of these forums.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:25 AM

@raydawg i agree. it truly baffles me that people can look at evolution with all its evidence and still come to the conclusion that somehow the world just showing up makes more sense to them.... that phenomena is almost as perplexing as evolution itself.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:49 AM

Evolution is easy enough to prove. Take some bacteria, change their environment, keep repeating that over and over, compare them several thousand generations later vs the original. Congrats, your little bugs evolved. Repeat with slightly higher order animals such a nematodes or fruit flies, or other short lived animals, until it gets too difficult due to the life span of the critter being too long for you to do a meaningful experiment at which point, you extrapolate and say we know it works for all these guys, we're sure it'll work for other critters.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:47 AM

He "wants to control people"??

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:43 AM

@LikeLard, now you're just mincing semantics. Belief in a lie requires faith. I'd sooner believe in a flying spaghetti squash monster than cretinism, er, um, I mean, uh, creationism. :)

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:42 AM

ok, so explain to me how you know that something is a fact. a fact has to be supported by evidence (aka proof). otherwise it's called an opinion.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:40 AM

I'd rather watch the Looney Toons - at least they're honest. :) Doesn't matter what anyone believes, evolution exists regardless of faith.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:12 AM

A fact is an observation of reality.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:18 PM

really? please, enlighten me. how does something become a fact?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:17 PM

It's a legitimate question and an important one. *Perhaps there are people out there that do not ascribe to evolution but still enjoy the benefits of paleo. How do they do that? What system of rationalisation do they employ?* This indiscriminate hijacking of questions - often by the same people - is frankly rather tiresome.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:16 PM

really? please, enlighten me. how do something become a fact?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:13 PM

You don't prove facts.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:13 PM

It's a legitimate question and an important one. Perhaps there are people out there that do not ascribe to evolution but still enjoy the benefits of paleo. How do they do that? This indiscriminate hijacking of questions is frankly rather tiresome.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:32 PM

I'm more of a Hitchens fan...

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:31 PM

Maybe God was just having a "fat" day?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:31 PM

Oh, didn't you get the memo? The NT pretty much neutralizes anything said in the OT. Except for what is most convenient for the reader to have as their cause du'jour ;)

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:30 PM

Ah yes - the self protecting religion meme. How silly of me. Bacon is my religion. How long before y'all ban me from talking about that!

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:28 PM

last i checked evolution wasn't a religion or political.....

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:18 PM

I'm just gonna add this - I know she is a moderator and I have no complaints with her as a moderator. She does a good job. Nor do I disagree with the facts that Jimmy Moore really needs to stay away from Paleo and Jack Kruse is a nit-wit. I even think Richard is pretty crude. It's the dishonest and evangelical nature of her attacks that I have a problem with. She isn't worse than any of those she is spitting at but I am not 100% sure she is a lot better.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:18 PM

Don't get your knickers all twisted, borofergie. From the FAQs: "Questions about politics and religion are not allowed on PaleoHacks as they inspire strong, emotional reactions that quickly devolve into insults. This is not a discussion board nor a blog, this is a place for questions that can be answered!" For more Paleo Diet hacks: FAQ - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/faq#ixzz28qJt1stG

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:15 PM

Faith is belief without evidence and their is actual evidence that Creationism is wrong. You can deny it but that stops being Faith and becomes a personal bigotry. Don't tar the moderate and rational religious people of the world with your lack of education.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:14 PM

Grains are natural, whole foods. They aren't Paleo. As for "who does anything by the OT"....most of the intense Christians who are creationists. Genesis is in the OT. That should be obvious.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:12 PM

@Ed - If you say so. The tendency on these sites is for people to say 'Oh well you are just a fan boy' or some nonsense. I actively dislike her. She's a nasty, mean, piece of work and in spite of trying to avoid her websites (both of them) I still find myself agreeing with her blog post about being Paleo and a Creationist. You like her? Fine. I don't.

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:58 PM

"Creationism is the religious belief..." Faith.

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:56 PM

Closed as "subjective" by 2 Canadians and 3 Americans. Seriously, in Europe we're able to talk about this kind of shit like adults without offending anyone (that doesn't deliberately want to be offended).

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:51 PM

Hmmmmm - only on an American forum could NOT believing in evolution be regarded as "subjective and argumentative". I think that it's a fair question.

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:48 PM

@LLM, whether or not you like MM is not relevant to your answer. Thus, your comment that you don't like her is gratuitous.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:21 PM

If you got here by feeling connecting to your evolving ancestors- great. If you got here by feeling good eating a natural whole-foods diet and just so happen to not jive with the evolution thing- great. You get to the same conclusion, and unless you are planning on heading off into research it won't affect your day to day life. Arguing about beliefs never works.

3eca93d2e56dfcd768197dc5a50944f2

(11697)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:18 PM

Which is why, us Orthodox, believe more in the "new deal" (new testament) rather than the old one. Because it's a change of contract. And while Jesus did break bread, he didn't insist on anyone eating bread.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:17 PM

Who does everything to the old testament though? Anyone wearing only cotton and stoning their non-virginal wives on their wedding night? But I am getting waaay way way out of my depth here, I literally have never been to a church, both my parents are atheists. My point was, agree to disagree. You aren't going to say something that will tick all the boxes to turn someone into an evolution believer. No one is gong to say something to make me throw out evolution for a bible. But both sides can agree to live optimally in peace (hopefully).

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:58 PM

I suppose you more or less say that with... "you might come to the same food choices but you aren't really doing an Evolutionary anything."

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:56 PM

I don't think it has to be actually. Perhaps to eat "paleo" you would have have a strong opinion that evolutionary theory is correct, but you could easily eat a "paleoish" diet in accordance with observed HG's on the basis of their greater health. You really don't have to go all the way back to the paleolithic to come to an approximate conclusion of the paleo diet.

2e5dc29c61f97d335ffb990508424719

on October 09, 2012
at 08:54 PM

I've met Dawkins. He is a poupus ass. I believe in evolution. His problem is that he claims to have a monopoly on reason.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:41 PM

No, but the Bible suggests that grains are the "Staff of Life" and if one were going to eat according to the Old Testament they'd need to eat grains.

4f1b5248fa85c735438f8a3bca274971

(97)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:41 PM

I reckon if there were twinkies back then they would have hunted them. mmmm twinkies

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:33 PM

Can I just say that belief in creationism isn't faith. Faith is belief without evidence, not in spite of evidence. Which isn't to say that God might not have done the evolution thing (not what I believe).

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:03 PM

That question is closed, but I think it pretty much covers what will be said here.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:02 PM

http://paleohacks.com/questions/55746/run-ins-with-creationists-closed#axzz28pZw4wVi

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (379)
  • Views
    4.4K
  • Last Activity
    1377D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

11 Answers

5
Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:26 PM

evolution is a fact and not something that you can decide to believe or not believe. it has been proven. whether people want to leave their cave or not is up to them but the fact remains.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:16 PM

really? please, enlighten me. how do something become a fact?

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:49 AM

Evolution is easy enough to prove. Take some bacteria, change their environment, keep repeating that over and over, compare them several thousand generations later vs the original. Congrats, your little bugs evolved. Repeat with slightly higher order animals such a nematodes or fruit flies, or other short lived animals, until it gets too difficult due to the life span of the critter being too long for you to do a meaningful experiment at which point, you extrapolate and say we know it works for all these guys, we're sure it'll work for other critters.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:52 AM

You've demonstrated adaptation, and are playing very loose with words like fact and proof.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:18 PM

really? please, enlighten me. how does something become a fact?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 09, 2012
at 11:13 PM

You don't prove facts.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:12 AM

A fact is an observation of reality.

D1728f99db66ff91d695a6df5cd38b02

(1368)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:01 PM

Its still a fact.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:42 AM

ok, so explain to me how you know that something is a fact. a fact has to be supported by evidence (aka proof). otherwise it's called an opinion.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:25 AM

@raydawg i agree. it truly baffles me that people can look at evolution with all its evidence and still come to the conclusion that somehow the world just showing up makes more sense to them.... that phenomena is almost as perplexing as evolution itself.

4
518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:07 PM

Agree to disagree. I am not religious, but I think you don't have to believe in evolution to see that taking care of your body makes sense. I'm sure Adam, Eve, and T.Rex didn't squeeze oil out of veggies or hunt twinkies. How people get to their own conclusions is personal.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:28 AM

Bread being a "staff of life" is NOT a Biblical term. Any similar verse from the Bible I've found for being a distant reference to this term was not at all trying to defend the consumption of grain, but as a representation of Christ's body, or of general nourishment. You can't argue that people ate what was simply available. The people within the Bible were living in a time and place in history where agriculture was largely a mainstay. And they were poor. And the image of bread had cultural significance.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:41 AM

Good point jake...who said that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive anyhow?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:31 PM

Oh, didn't you get the memo? The NT pretty much neutralizes anything said in the OT. Except for what is most convenient for the reader to have as their cause du'jour ;)

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:48 AM

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/darwin_critic_w058001.html Ahh, so he is critical of pieces of the theory.

4f1b5248fa85c735438f8a3bca274971

(97)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:41 PM

I reckon if there were twinkies back then they would have hunted them. mmmm twinkies

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:13 AM

God, I can't believe I'm defending this. I used to be a member of a freaking skeptic's society. I just don't think it's worthwhile for a bunch of atheists to stand around patting each other on the back about how they came to the right conclusion at the expense of alienating and being condescending to a whole group of people who could benefit from a health message regardless of how they got there.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:28 AM

@Michelle - Micro and Macro Evolution? I don't care how you want to blind yourself but go read an Anthropology text book so you can at least understand what you are choosing to ignore. You owe it to the world to not just listen to the bible thumpers but to really understand what the experts are saying before you say they are wrong.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:47 AM

For example on the dating theories, there is gap creationism, young-earth, old-earth, day-age and others. Some suggest the "days" of creation were not literal 24 hours days but perhaps thousands of years. Some say there was a huge gap of time between the creation of "heaven and earth" and the creation of everything else. Me? I believe what I read. God created everything. He did it in a certain order. And it was good. How long he decided to take in our human understanding of time doesn't matter a bit to me.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:41 PM

No, but the Bible suggests that grains are the "Staff of Life" and if one were going to eat according to the Old Testament they'd need to eat grains.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:21 PM

If you got here by feeling connecting to your evolving ancestors- great. If you got here by feeling good eating a natural whole-foods diet and just so happen to not jive with the evolution thing- great. You get to the same conclusion, and unless you are planning on heading off into research it won't affect your day to day life. Arguing about beliefs never works.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:48 AM

Who knows. I think my single largest source of bible information is Dan Savage during his rants. EITHER WAY, I don't care what you believe in your spare time, it doesn't effect how I think about how I eat. Arguing for the sake of arguing and getting into a biblical discussion (which I will NOT be able to keep up with in ANY capacity) is not the purpose of these forums.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:24 AM

well according to the bible the paleolithic era never existed so there is some conflict of interest there. i'm not a scholar on evolutionary theory by any means but from my brief exposure there is plenty of evidence to support macroevolution as well. i'm not an atheist and i believe in a higher energy level often referred to as "god". there is a metaphysical aspect to this world that is highly unknowable to us as humans and i think that's part of the great mystery of life. religions act like they know the secrets of the universe and its just false advertisement. no one knows its that simple.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:24 AM

@JayJay - I'm a Buddhist and I am aware of the fact of Evolution. In case you aren't aware of it Buddhism doesn't have a Pope, no one speaks for Buddhists but the individual Buddhist.

3eca93d2e56dfcd768197dc5a50944f2

(11697)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:18 PM

Which is why, us Orthodox, believe more in the "new deal" (new testament) rather than the old one. Because it's a change of contract. And while Jesus did break bread, he didn't insist on anyone eating bread.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:37 AM

...Using a buffalo as representation of fulfillment, physical or not, would be pointless, for example. It simply speaks their language to use bread as the allegory. Eating bread was never a demand of the law in the OT. And in the NT, even Paul says (in concerning food, no less, though particularly in response to exercising personal freedom in Christ to consume food sacrificed to idols, because that food in particular holds no inherent spiritual value) that "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:56 AM

Besides, the Bible highlighted people within a certain subgroup and certain geography. Besides the vague reference in the tower of Babel, and the concept of a world-wide flood, there's really no mention of what's going on in other parts of the world with other people. We can't really say what is or isn't going on, according to scripture. But that's not the point of scripture, anyway,In a sacred view, it's the gradual unveiling of a promise, a love letter from Christ to His bride. In a secular view, it's a collection of historical text. It's not meant to be our science textbook.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:03 AM

The purpose of these forums is to discuss an eating template based on evolution via natural selection. Eating based on a fairy-tale is the antithesis of this entire website.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:11 AM

Sure. Sounds good. Okay, now see, that's about all we need to discuss. If you want to be creationist and just cover your eyes when the evolution comes in to play, go right on ahead. I don't care how you logic that shit out in your head. That's the part that we don't need to get into because it is unnecessarily argumentative. Yes, we will discuss evolution. No, we don't need to step through your personal religious background.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:14 PM

Grains are natural, whole foods. They aren't Paleo. As for "who does anything by the OT"....most of the intense Christians who are creationists. Genesis is in the OT. That should be obvious.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:27 PM

@LLM I'm aware of evolutionary theory. I'm aware of observations that support the theory and I'm aware of aspects of the theory that are still....evolving...haha. So yeah. Being aware is good.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 10, 2012
at 10:26 PM

Well, I'm sure this forum discussion has left everyone very enlightened and lots of minds have been changed today.

518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:17 PM

Who does everything to the old testament though? Anyone wearing only cotton and stoning their non-virginal wives on their wedding night? But I am getting waaay way way out of my depth here, I literally have never been to a church, both my parents are atheists. My point was, agree to disagree. You aren't going to say something that will tick all the boxes to turn someone into an evolution believer. No one is gong to say something to make me throw out evolution for a bible. But both sides can agree to live optimally in peace (hopefully).

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:00 AM

@Jake Indeed. I'm a creationist. Grew up as such. Even some of my science textbooks were creation-based. Even in those, micro-evolution is not at all disputed. It's not difficult to believe that we descend from the faster guy running from the bear, and that genes mutate and get passed on (says the redhead). Basic concepts of natural selection do not conflict with the Bible. The idea of a common ancestor (MACROevolution) is where things get more theoretical. But I've never had to compromise my faith to grasp the evolutionary nature presented as "paleo."

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 09:30 PM

@LLM I'm not here to argue evolution. I'm here to clarify that the statements made here about what the Bible does or does not say are incorrect. It goes both ways. Besides, my faith is my own and certainly not chosen blindly. The nature of my faith is between my and God, and it precedes any speculations I may have about origins of the earth.

Medium avatar

(2338)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:32 AM

@JeJ just because someone understands evolution doesn't make them an atheist ...

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 10, 2012
at 02:44 AM

And why is Christianity the only one under the gun....Can you be Buddhist and believe in evolution? Does the Dalai Llama believe in evolution?...Hmmm, I think I'll google that.

D41bd7b3d3b962eb0146f471eb632f56

(2029)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:40 AM

The Bible doesn't specifically date the universe nor map the eras within. Dating even based on the Bible is theoretical, and I know people who hold to many different variations of the age of the earth who believe in a literal creation. I personally don't subscribe to any theory of the age of the world because 1) I'm not 100% convinced by any "theory" I read on it, 2) I find it arbitrary in the end. I don't discount them as plausible theories, but I'll live on just fine not picking one of them to believe. I accept that there is plenty I will not know about this world.

3
Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

on October 11, 2012
at 04:58 PM

Silly and fun thread. Basically, if a person doesn't believe in evolution, does that mean they have to think all foods are equally healthy? Of course not. Some fraction might believe that meat and veggies are the most healthful, and believing that doesn't prove evolution any more than my belief in the golden rule means that I must therefore believe in any religion that promotes that. On the other hand, some fraction of creationists will believe that they should eat low fat because science says so. Naturally that they believe in one kind of science but not another is amusing. But then again, most of us here believe in evolutionary science but not (standard) nutritional science, so we're doing the same thing (except I think our reasoning is more sound, but it's still the same notion of accepting what some scientists say but not what others say). Then of course, most nutritionists believe in evolution but manage to fail to apply that knowledge to their nutritional science. Alas, good science is hard, and most people -- including many researchers, apparently -- are not equipped or motivated to sort out good science from bad. What a mess!

So who is more contradictory? The creationist who eats paleo, or the nutritionist who believes in evolution and that grains are more nutritious than grass-fed meat?

Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

(4400)

on October 12, 2012
at 12:13 PM

Convergent evolution! Or perhaps a little bit of interbreeding amongst distant relatives?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 11, 2012
at 05:22 PM

Did we evolve to read Sisson and Taubes? I don't think so. The Paleo diet evolved from WAPF and Atkins. Currently there are some mutant strains....

3
B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:49 PM

Listen to this guy, who follows a Paleo like diet even though he believes that the earth is <6000 y/o. http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/can-a-christian-follow-a-paleo-low-carb-diet/9381

Obviously he's a nutter, but I love the bit where he says that the God is a low-carber, because when Abraham offered him bread "He only ate a morsel".

If you don't believe in evolution, then there really is no point in following an evolutionary diet.

There are genuinely people that refuse to accept that grains can be unhealthy because "bread is mentioned in the Bible, therefore it is blessed by God". Loons.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:40 AM

I'd rather watch the Looney Toons - at least they're honest. :) Doesn't matter what anyone believes, evolution exists regardless of faith.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:31 PM

Maybe God was just having a "fat" day?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:28 PM

God had to use bread to soak up all the blood that he spilled.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:53 AM

Don't forget that the Hebrew God liked the smell of burning meat...or that Darwin's theory devolved from observations of selective breeding to trait. The Neolithics were not dummies agriculture-wise, and within a couple of millennia had "created" the commonly farmed foods by the same principles Darwin observed.

3
76026e8ef496039d5075440ff731aa0d

on October 09, 2012
at 08:14 PM

"If you are paleo and don't believe in evolution, how do you reconcile the two?"

*faith/f??TH/

Noun:

1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. *

This is what I think you're looking for?

Truth.

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:58 PM

"Creationism is the religious belief..." Faith.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:43 AM

@LikeLard, now you're just mincing semantics. Belief in a lie requires faith. I'd sooner believe in a flying spaghetti squash monster than cretinism, er, um, I mean, uh, creationism. :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:15 PM

Faith is belief without evidence and their is actual evidence that Creationism is wrong. You can deny it but that stops being Faith and becomes a personal bigotry. Don't tar the moderate and rational religious people of the world with your lack of education.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:33 PM

Can I just say that belief in creationism isn't faith. Faith is belief without evidence, not in spite of evidence. Which isn't to say that God might not have done the evolution thing (not what I believe).

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:59 AM

@Ray RAmen. However, I'm more worried about creationism then religious belief. Who cares about heaven and God. That doesn't hurt anything. The denial of reality based on not faith or belief but willfull ignorance is what is troubling. The fact of Evolution is fact, belief in God is based on faith. Denial of evolution isn't belief or faith...it's dogma.

276a5e631b62f8e0793987c0496364bb

(1644)

on October 12, 2012
at 12:55 AM

Faith is belief that is not based on logical proof or material evidence. There is no exception for something for which there is logical proof or material evidence against. And before you start slinging insults about education, you might want to revisit an elementary school English class.

2
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 10:34 AM

I would like to think that obtaining the benefits of what paleo has to offer should be available to everyone regardless of race, colour, creed, sexual orientation or religion.

One possible way of providing evidence for the innate suitability of Paleo dietary practices may in fact be in the Bible:

Consider the passage in the Genesis regarding a place called Eden where Adam and Eve found themselves freshly minted by God and in this place there were no processed carbs.. or processed meat.

Of course, given the paleolithic era is not consistent with a Judeo-Christian history it could be termed something like "Edino" rather than Paleo (after the Aramaic Edinnu for Eden).

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 03:04 PM

Consider that Eden is a metaphoric garden, where all the forces of adaptation are at play. It's a neolithic concept. What happened before is not as important as what happened after. Farming just IS, plows, domesticated animals and bread exist practically from the beginning of Genesis. The dietary laws probably predate the Neolithic period though. It's only recently that pork and shellfish became safe to eat

B3173217a49b5b0116078775a17eb21d

(11488)

on October 10, 2012
at 11:04 AM

Well, according to a literal interpretation of the the bible, there was no death, and no meat before "the fall". So rather than "Edino" the word you're probably looking for is "vegan".

2
6cdc6b1e75690cfcc4804a6c9eaa910a

(2171)

on October 10, 2012
at 09:04 AM

I think in these questions it's important to separate 2 distinct questions:

  1. What impact does food have on the body?

  2. Why does it have that impact?

Many studies show us that eating unprocessed meat, fish, eggs, fruit, veggies, nuts and seeds makes our bodies work better. Good fats are necessary for bodily function. Gluten is inflammatory and largely unnecessary and not beneficial. Sugar makes us fat. These are all studies about the WHAT.

WHY is a whole different question. Everyone seems to answer it based on their pre-existing point of view. If you are an evolutionist, you think that the why answer is because we evolved that way. If you are a creationist, you think that the why is because we were created that way. If you are an intelligent-designist (if that even exists...) then you will think we were designed that way.

Whichever of these (or other) creeds that you follow, you can still reconcile eating unprocessed, natural foods that are good for your body and enhance the body's processes, rather than processed and refined carbohydrates that leach the body of nutrients and make us fat and ill. The fact that this way of eating has been called "Paleo" doesn't make it any less relevant in answering the WHAT question, regardless of your WHY beliefs. If it was called the "Eden" diet or the "ID" diet, then would you approach it differently? Would you reject it just because the why doesn't conform to your way of thinking?

2
0a9ad4e577fe24a6b8aafa1dd7a50c79

on October 10, 2012
at 02:35 AM

I eat WAPF so I follow the ancient Sumerian agriculturalist way of eating.

2
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:01 PM

People like Dawkins do not want to use evolution to explain reality. He doesn't eat paleo, at least not to my knowledge. He wants to control people. This is where evolution is used to metaphorically bash less intelligent people over the head. Before they started pushing everyone into college, there was only about 15% of the population that went- this is probably the appropriate percentage. What I mean by that is now we have a lot more degreed people than we need, and comparatively, the knowledge rattling around in these credentialed people's brains leaves much to be desired. So, 15% of 300 million who could actually handle college level stuff, and then some smaller percentage actually capable of doing biology or anthropology. So what am I saying? Evolution is important, but if you stop pretending everyone is your equal, you could also stop beating them over the head every time they demonstrate they don't understand things as well as you do.

And I am also saying some guy who thinks Genesis is the literal truth can be told we weren't designed to eat grains, legumes, or dairy, and with a careful reading of the text he could even figure out animal products were okay before God explicitly said they were okay- and since you are the smart one here, don't you think you ought to stop trying to beat people over the head and try to explain things in a way that this guy would understand without violating something so central to his identity?

Another thing you have to realize is that evolution is a basis for which to run the 'paleo' experiment, but once people start running the experiment, and they get all healthy and thin and stuff- even the biggest fundy in the world can look at the results and notice it works. So, they can be paleo because they've seen it work and not refer back at all to evolution. Matt Lalonde, at the orginal AHS took people to task about this very subject, but in his case he wasn't talking about Christains, he was talking about biochemists. Evolutionary theory helps you come up with the hypothesis, which means you've got a starting point for an experiment, but they aren't impressed by that- they are impressed by the outcome of the experiment. And if you are really sciency, your outcomes are repeatable.

Hopefully I have beaten this horse to death. Now go bother Dawkins about his eating habits. Horse is paleo. Feed him some.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:47 AM

He "wants to control people"??

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:57 AM

How about we ignore Dawkins and look at actual science, the stuff Mat LaLonde was talking about. Guess what? That requires evolution. So does what Robb Wolf does, and Kurt Harris. Plugging your ears and acting like a child won't change the fact that evolution is supported by evidence and Genesis isn't.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on October 10, 2012
at 01:31 PM

LikesLardinMayo, congratulations, you failed the reading comprehension test. If you stop insulting people, read the actual question, and then read my answer, you might figure it out. It makes much more sense to go annoy Dawkins because how can he believe in evolution, but not eat paleo? Harry, yes. The good atheists are liberty minded. The bad, well, if you've watched the history channel, you know what happens when they get power. Dawkins has written enough- you ought to be able to find ample evidence of his coercive mindset.

1
Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:36 AM

Most paleos say that they believe in evolution, but deny the basic principle: adaptation. If you can digest grain and dairy products you have moved past paleo evolution-wise. You may have perfectly legitimate reasons not to eat those foods but evolution is not one of them.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:21 AM

Both make me sick as a dog. So now what? Can I also add that if you are opposed to Paleo why are you on this site? Troll much?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 12:27 PM

Sorry LLM, but they don't make sick so I eat them. I like the dialectic here. I don't view paleo as an Atkins-influenced phenomena either. Meat and motion is 80% of the paleo distinction, and I'm avid about those two things.

1
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:37 PM

EDITED -

This is a futile post. If you don't believe in Evolution than you can't possibly eat a diet based on evolution. Hence you aren't eating Paleo. It may look similar but the intellectual underpinnings aren't there and you won't be able to...dare I say...adapt to knew information. The whole idea becomes twisted and pointless and for what? 2000 year old dogma.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on October 10, 2012
at 04:42 AM

Paleo isn't a diet based on evolution. It has too many modern associations, from the Luddites to Atkins. It's a system that excludes foods our ancestors ate, promotes foods that they had no possibility of eating, and sets it all in a rigid modern structure.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:18 PM

I'm just gonna add this - I know she is a moderator and I have no complaints with her as a moderator. She does a good job. Nor do I disagree with the facts that Jimmy Moore really needs to stay away from Paleo and Jack Kruse is a nit-wit. I even think Richard is pretty crude. It's the dishonest and evangelical nature of her attacks that I have a problem with. She isn't worse than any of those she is spitting at but I am not 100% sure she is a lot better.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:58 PM

I suppose you more or less say that with... "you might come to the same food choices but you aren't really doing an Evolutionary anything."

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11488)

on October 09, 2012
at 09:48 PM

@LLM, whether or not you like MM is not relevant to your answer. Thus, your comment that you don't like her is gratuitous.

3846a3b61bc9051e4baebdef62e58c52

(18635)

on October 09, 2012
at 08:56 PM

I don't think it has to be actually. Perhaps to eat "paleo" you would have have a strong opinion that evolutionary theory is correct, but you could easily eat a "paleoish" diet in accordance with observed HG's on the basis of their greater health. You really don't have to go all the way back to the paleolithic to come to an approximate conclusion of the paleo diet.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 09, 2012
at 10:12 PM

@Ed - If you say so. The tendency on these sites is for people to say 'Oh well you are just a fan boy' or some nonsense. I actively dislike her. She's a nasty, mean, piece of work and in spite of trying to avoid her websites (both of them) I still find myself agreeing with her blog post about being Paleo and a Creationist. You like her? Fine. I don't.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 10, 2012
at 07:20 AM

LOL No. This is a simple template for the SORTS of food which we are best adapted to eat. Adaptation is based on evolution, not based on what some genocidal sky-wizard says.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!