quote:Originally posted by beverly: Kwea, if I may say so, steven did not say they were the only source.
quote:you moron,
Why are you insulting him? I realize he has been insulting in return, but there is a certain, cumulative dogpiling effect that must be taken into account here.
I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.
Bev, I edited it out before you posted.
But I HAVE been listening. To you, to AJ, to Bob, to Dag, to CT.....none of the above have insulted my intelligence, my personal beliefs, my eating habits, or my education level. steven has, more than once.
I am sick of rehashing this every single time he think we need to be "educated"? He is patronizing, ignorant, and hostile, and I have had enough of it. I tried, but in this very thread he started in again. I had not insulted him before, nor done anything other than start this very thread to give him a forum for his thoughts, a chance to defend his beliefs.
You want to take issue with how I am discussing this with him now? That is fine. I am tired of allowing HIM to be confrontational, but not allowing anyone to take umbrage at his slanted, ignorant, limiting views.
Please keep in mind that I have been nothing but respectful of others in this thread, even when they disagreed with me. I offer respect to anyone who offers it to me. I think a lot of what you have said in this tread makes a lot of sense, and I am glad this thread exists because of some of the things I have heard in here.
But to have someone keep telling me over and over how smart HE is, and how stupid I am....well, since this is just a repeat of the other 5 threads, I decided to fight back this time.
If he wasn't such a coward, you would be able to see all of the other threads. Perhaps you would understand why I am so frustrated at this point.
But when someone doesn't deserve respect, and you give it to them anyway, you only encourage their poor behavior.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it not fair? I know that steven isn't listening. But Kwea wasn't listening either. I pointed that out. I've seen others do the same.
In fact, everyone keeps saying that steven is trying to claim things, and when I listen to what he is actually saying, I'm not sure he is trying to do that.
In short, I don't think people are listening to him *either.*
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I rest my case. Y'all ain't listening either.
That's not fair beverly. While I agree that Kwea's insult was not in the spirit of this community, it wasn't all she said.
I am a He.
I feel I have been MORE than fair, MORE than one time, for MORE time than is reasonable to steven.
I also tried editing it, but things move fast here. It came out a lot more harsh than I intended. It was meant as a reference to all of his "genusis" remarks, to be honest.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
But he was listening. He was also insulting - which he corrected - but he WAS listening. His response took into account what steven said.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Bob, did you read my last post about clay?
A full summary of Dr. Price's findings:
1. He found crooked teeth in nearly every group he studied, but far fewer in groups that were not eating a Westernized, white flour/sugar/canned foods diet. He also found higher incidences of tuberculosis, birth defects, birth complications, and other health problems in people not eating a traditional diet.
2. He found identical types of problems among animals fed a deficient diet in experiments, including Pottenger's.
3. He found that his older patients, raised on local, fresh, unrefined foods, had straight teeth, and their crooked-toothed offspring were not raised on this kind of diet. He was a dentist for over 30 years, and he had plenty of chances to see this.
4. All the groups he studied valued organ meats, shellfish, fish eggs, and fish for the exact same reasons--to improve reproduction and health. These foods also happen to be extremely high in vitamins and minerals, much more so than muscle meat or most fruits and vegetables.
Any questions? I'd like to hear from Beverly now on fast-growing grass and raw dairy nutrient content.
beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when someone doesn't deserve respect, and you give it to them anyway, you only encourage their poor behavior.
I very much disagree. I have found that when people are repeatedly treated with disrespect, they become more and more defensive and disrespectful of others. It is far, far worse when they feel dogpiled.
I know that steven has reacted poorly. But I honestly expect more of Hatrack. I'm sorry that the general patience has been worn down. But I haven't been convinced yet that steven would behave better if he were treated better from the start. I wasn't here for what happened in the middle, but I saw what happened at the start, and it wasn't pretty.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
He believes that they are right, and you know what? That is OK. I don't have any issues with that. Honestly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. Malnutrition causes a wide variety of problems in humans including birth defects, beri-beri, scurvy, ricket and a host of other problems. It is a likely source for developmental abnormalities in children.
2. A diet which consists primarily of white flour and refined sugar will not result in proper nutrition.
3. There are likely important nutrients which have not yet been identified by science.
4. The proper dose for any nutrient is critically important. All known nutrients cause health problems when consumed in too large a quantity and most also cause health problems when consumed in too small a quantity.
5. Many aspects of the 21st century American diet are not ideal and result in significant health problems for many people.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:His response took into account what steven said.
:bristling:
OK, now I feel like I'm not being listened to.
You cited Kwea's insult as the reason you could rest your case that we weren't listening to Steven. I pointed out that the two were not incompatible - that is, Kwea could be insulting AND still be listening to steven. I don't see why you think that means people aren't listening to you. The response demonstrates that the poster listened and disagreed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sorry Kwea, I'm not sure why I made that error. I've known you were a he for some time.
I know, it's not a big deal. Besides, I keep posting as JenniK, so I guess I am a little confused....
Not like that, silly!
Bev, read his posts again. We have talked about confounding variables over and over again, but steven keeps speaking in declaritive statements, insisting we either agree with his personal beliefs or admit we are morons.
He keeps calling us morons sideways, using passive-aggressive behavior, without actually using the word moron.
The problem, bev, is that you haven't heard steven speak of regrowing teeth, or heard him call modern dentistry a bunch of quacks out to hurt their patients. You have seen him dismiss YEARS of specialize training by insinuating that they and their whole profession don't care about the welfare of their patients, and imply that the entire western medical proffession does more harm than good.
I hate it when doctors talk down to me, assuming that I couldn't possibly know anything about medicine. After all, I "just" work in retail. They don't know (and perhaps you don't, as I don't know how much of my personal history you know) that I spent 3 years working at USAMRIID, one of the best research facilities in the entire world. I have personally participated in over 12 medical studies, and have participated in numerous biological confrences with some of the worlds leading microbiologists and pathologists in attendance.
I am not a doctor, but I know a lot more about medical research than steven ever will.
But I have still taken the time to attempt to engage him in meaningful discussions 5 times now. I didn't insult him, I listened to his points, such as they were, and tried to be understanding of his views. I didn't care if he ever changed his mind, I just wanted to let him know why Price isn't the worlds leading authority on anything.
I refuse to treat him as an equal any more, at least as far as science and medicine is concerned. He is a member of this community, to be sure, but his opinions are not medically sound, nor is his logic convincing.
I am tied of being fair-minded to someone who behaves badly every single time you try to engage him in conversation.
Take that as you will. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, please reread what I said first in that post. Read what steven said. Read the issue Kwea took with it. Note that steven did not say what Kwea says he said.
quote: but steven keeps speaking in declaritive statements
Kwea, did you notice he used the word "can" in his post? I thought what he said was quite reasonable. This is *why* I said you were not listening to him. I understand you are frustrated, and that can toy with our judgement.
Perhaps it is easier for me to take his words at face-value because I haven't been through what you have been through. Maybe he really is beginning to come around and y'all haven't realized it yet.
Kwea, perhaps I am blind, but where did steven say that all birth defects are caused by malnutrition?
quote:by insinuating that they and their whole profession don't care about the welfare of their patients
While this would be a gross mischaracterization of doctors, I have felt for years now that doctors are biased towards serious maladies and are less caring about quality-of-life issues in general. Maybe that is unfair of me to say, but I can kinda see where steven is coming from, though I think he has taken an extreme point of view.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Do any of you geniuses deny that malnurition causes birth defects, including bone malformations?
Where is the word "can"?
In MY post. Not his. He is espousing a wonder-diet that cures ALL ills.....without considering any number of confounding variables.
Including genetics.
Bob posted some other things that could have caused bone defects...and steven called him a moron, along with all the rest of us. Bob never said malnutrition didn't contribute to bone defects....have you heard ANYONE here say that to him?
Bev...he makes these types of statements all the time. He says that poor teeth are caused by poor nutrition, and discounts all other variables. He says teeth are the only indicator of good health, and ignores confounding variables and other possible explanations. He claims that almost ALL of society ills are cause by diet, and ignores the many other possible explanations for most of the problems he cites.
I don't think I was too far off thinking that this was another of his all-inclusive, blanket statements.
I can go pull quotes from at least 6 other post in this very thread that prove his tendency to do so.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, There is a context to stevens comment that you are missing. steven repeatedly said that Price's photos of children with a good diet and straight teeth and good bone structure along with the photos Price shows of children with a bad diet, crooked teeth and poor bone structure were proof that bad diet caused crooked teeth and poor bone structure. Many of us pointed out that this did not constitute proof and why? Eventually in this discussion steven threw out his comment.
Kwea's response was not solely to steven's comment but to the entire discussion. Having read a good portion of that discussion I presume that Kwea was indicating that our objections to steven's claim that Price's photos proved a causal link between diet and straight teeth was not because we did not believe that poor diet could result in skeletal deformities but because confounding factors which also cause skeletal deformities had not been controlled for in Price's experiments.
Within this entire context, Kwea's response to steven argument was entirely appropriate. No steven never said that malnutrition was the only cause of bad bones. But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: beverly, There is a context to stevens comment that you are missing. steven repeatedly said that Price's photos of children with a good diet and straight teeth and good bone structure along with the photos Price shows of children with a bad diet, crooked teeth and poor bone structure were proof that bad diet caused crooked teeth and poor bone structure. Many of us pointed out that this did not constitute proof and why? Eventually in this discussion steven threw out his comment.
Kwea's response was not solely to steven's comment but to the entire discussion. Having read a good portion of that discussion I presume that Kwea was indicating that our objections to steven's claim that Price's photos proved a causal link between diet and straight teeth was not because we did not believe that poor diet could result in skeletal deformities but because confounding factors which also cause skeletal deformities had not been controlled for in Price's experiments.
Within this entire context, Kwea's response to steven argument was entirely appropriate. No steven never said that malnutrition was the only cause of bad bones. But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.
Exactally. Every time we bring up a possible confounding variable, even if we are not completely refuting his point, steven sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "NEENER NEENER NEENER...PRICE IS RIGHT AND YOU ARE STUPID!!!"
He never allows for any other possibility. His entire belief system is based on how Price's theory is the ONLY reason these types of defects could have happened. NO other possibility is allowed to be offered.
quote:If you accept that, I don't see how it's so incredibly difficult to see that malnutrition can cause poor bone formation after birth as well, during the years when the skeleton is being built, i.e., childhood.
He didn't use the word "all" either. That was in your post.
quote:Bob posted some other things that could have caused bone defects...and steven called him a moron, along with all the rest of us. Bob never said malnutrition didn't contribute to bone defects....have you heard ANYONE here say that to him?
Seems to me he's missed that Bob doesn't disagree with him, he is just providing an alternative cause. People do this when they are defensive.
quote:He says that poor teeth are caused by poor nutrition, and discounts all other variables.
And maybe they are--in part. I was reading in a children's educational book on our home bookshelf (so take with a grain of salt, please) that animals in the wild don't get cavities but animals fed human food do. They don't brush their teeth. We have to brush our teeth to avoid cavities and then often get them anyway. That might not be a nutrition issue so much as a damaged-by-diet issue. But what he's saying really isn't that crazy, IMO. It seems logical that one could eat a diet in which one would almost never eat cavities without any medical assistance.
When you want to communicate with someone, you *must* show them respect or they stop listening to you. You must find middle ground and meet them halfway. You must give them kudos for being "close" so that they know you are hearing them. But if all you do is correct them and never give them any sort of credit even when they say something close to being correct, they will think you are not listening to them. I think that you will find that when you respect someone, even if they say something outrageous, you do these things instictively.
Your refusal to even try to treat him well anymore will only make things worse. I don't know what you hope to gain by it.
I really think things got off onto the wrong foot. Now they are broken, way broken, perhaps beyond repair. There is too much bad blood on both sides.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:beverly, how do you read posts like this as not trying to claim things, to wit that Dr. Price is right.
He believes that they are right, and you know what? That is OK. I don't have any issues with that. Honestly.
Of course he believes that they are right. I don't have any issues with that, either. (I don't agree, but I don't have issues with him believing it.) But your post said "In fact, everyone keeps saying that steven is trying to claim things, and when I listen to what he is actually saying, I'm not sure he is trying to do that." That's what I was responding to. How do you read the post of steven's that I quoted so that you can say you're not sure he's trying to claim something?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread was an attempt at a middle ground, Bev. He didn't do much to keep to it, and was never anything less than ignorant to others.
I at least lasted to page 12 before I lost it. Actually, more like page 34 if you include the deleted threads.
I agree....a lot of what we eat these days IS damaging to our teeth, and a general health. But that isn't all steven says. I don't think you can find me disagreeing with that anywhere in here, either.
The fact that you don't see where I tried, even here, to treat him batter than he deserves saddens me. He doesn't even deserve the amount of time I have already spent on this.
All of this doesn't even address the multiple alts, the deleted threads, the deleted posts, or the repeated aborted discussions. You are seeing 1/5 of the discussion, but still feel I and treating him badly.
posted
bev, You completely ignored my post. steven's post was part of a discussion. If you take it out of context, then you can argue that Kwea wasn't listening but if you look at the whole context you see a different picture. steven had built a strawman for the objections that many have found in Price's work. Kwea was explaining what was wrong with steven's strawman.
We all agree that Kwea shouldn't have stooped to steven's level and called steven a moron. The point is that Kwea clearly had been listening to steven and not just in that single post which you have ripped from its context but through the larger discussion. You are being unfair to Kwea by insisting that he wasn't listening to steven.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the claims steven was making for proof of the point would only be valid if malnutrition was the sole factor influencing skeletal abnormalities.
But he didn't give him a chance to get that far. Granted, I haven't seen past discussions, but when steven lays down his steps of logic begining with true statements, how often do you just say, "yes, I agree with that," and leave it there? I am noticing a lack of this sort of thing in this particular thread, and if this is indicative of past interaction, I can understand steven feeling defensive.
When I am talking with an irrational, unreasonable person, sometimes it is just best to agree with what they said was correct and restate what they said incorrectly to be correct. This minimizes bad feelings and defensiveness. The person feels listened to and respected. You hold off on any attacks or rebuttals until the defensiveness dies down. They will open up and allow for the possibility of being wrong.
When you approach a conversation meekly, the other person is far more likely to be meek in return. If the other person feels that admitting they wrong will result in you exulting over them, they won't want to admit anything.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I'm not sure exactly what steven is trying to claim. Is he claiming that he believes it? Is he claiming everyone believes it? Is he claiming it is true? Is he claiming it is fact? Is he claiming that it is scientifically proven? I'm just saying that when I read that post, I am not sure what exactly he is trying to claim. I am trying to understand that better.
For example, I think there is a subtle but meaningful difference between claiming something is true and claiming something is fact.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, I'm sorry. I had a really visceral reaction when I saw you call him a moron in response to a true statement. I didn't care what the context was. That just seemed wrong to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
We all agree that Kwea shouldn't have stooped to steven's level and called steven a moron.
Hell, even I agree, and changed my post (before noticing others had commented on it) to reflect that.
As I said, it was meant as a direct reference to steven's comments earlier in this thread, and came off a lot stronger than intended.
Regardless of how I feel about his level of knowledge, I was rude. And slow. Had I been a faster typist no one would have known but me.
I doubt I will respond to steven again. He has shown no inclination to discuss this reasonably. That doesn't mean the thread has been a waste though.
Bev, it is all good. I did disagree with your belief of how I treated steven...I really DID try to listen.....but I have just had enough.
Look at the first few pages of this thread. I said play nice. I said don't start a name calling contest. I tried to be respectful even when I disagreed.
Once word, 10 (or 34) pages later, doesn't invalidate what my original intent was starting this thread, or the attempts I have made in previous threads. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, I have no idea which primitive peoples Price studied and my recollection of "tribal" health indicators is fuzzy at best. It could be drawn from completely different populations.
I suspect that health data on truly primitive (i.e., isolate and xenophobic) peoples would be extremely difficult to obtain. That makes me doubt anything that Price might've put in his book since, from what I've been told here, he didn't spend all that much time with each tribe. But expecting there to be corresponding data from all tribes is probably too much to ask. We'd need someone better versed in anthropology to really nail this down.
Of course, one might assume that before a person decided to adopt the practices of ANY culture, that person might look into whether those people tend to die young, lose a lot of kids (and women) in child birth, or have a lot of children who fail to reach adulthood.
I'm just saying, before I start feeding off the blood of an emaciated cow as part of my morning routine, I'd at least see how many people who are already doing that live past the age of 40.
Otherwise, it's just "live fast, die young, leave a good looking corpse" (with nice bone structure, of course.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:there is a subtle but meaningful difference claiming something is true and claiming something is fact.
Depends on the subject. When it is something like nutrition, I don't there is something that isn't actually fact but is still True, as if it lived up the Platonic ideal of effective but didn't actually have any measurable effect.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, interesting you should say that about the USDA (and others, really).
A group of (I didn't hear how many) scientists has signed a letter complaining about the intrusion of politics into science and are especially upset about the increasing misuse of science under the Bush Administration. I heard this on NPR, so I haven't actually seen the letter. It sounded like they were citing things like pressure to report (or not report) certain types of data, deliberate misapplication of data, and a few other things.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: thanks for the clarification on kaolin. I was confused because in rats, it actually does serve to detox them from some poisons. I didn't want to go out on a limb and say that it'd only be useful as a treatment of symptoms and that the underlying food poisoning would be unaffected by ingesting kaolin, because I know that at least in some cases, kaolin CAN absorb toxins in the gut and help to render them less harmful.
I have to check the book (sorry, I forgot last night), but I think there were multiple studies, and most indicated little or no effect. (As I know you know, but your average American seems not to, a single study doesn't prove much.)
quote:Originally posted by beverly: But I haven't been convinced yet that steven would behave better if he were treated better from the start. I wasn't here for what happened in the middle, but I saw what happened at the start, and it wasn't pretty.
You joined Hatrack after I did, and steven (under another SN) was posting on this topic BEFORE I JOINED.
IOW, this has been going on for about 4 years or more.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that health data on truly primitive (i.e., isolate and xenophobic) peoples would be extremely difficult to obtain. That makes me doubt anything that Price might've put in his book since, from what I've been told here, he didn't spend all that much time with each tribe. But expecting there to be corresponding data from all tribes is probably too much to ask. We'd need someone better versed in anthropology to really nail this down.
I agree that there is probably no way to find any reliable data here. Which is why I give Price's conclusions the benefit of the doubt. Saying I believe them might be a bit strong, but I am closer to believing than disbelieving.
Example: Let's say that Price wasn't with any tribe long enough to get a real feel for life expectancy or infant mortality rates. But perhaps everyone in each group he visited was in far better health than in any given similar sized groups amongst his own people.
He might have marveled at that. He might have been floored. And maybe they really were very, very healthy people. Maybe it is what they ate. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It is a romantic idea, no? And it *might* even be true. But there is no way to know for sure.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When it is something like nutrition, I don't there is something that isn't actually fact but is still True
To me, fact implies "proven to the extent that all must believe." True can be true without being known by a single soul.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A group of (I didn't hear how many) scientists has signed a letter complaining about the intrusion of politics into science and are especially upset about the increasing misuse of science under the Bush Administration. I heard this on NPR, so I haven't actually seen the letter. It sounded like they were citing things like pressure to report (or not report) certain types of data, deliberate misapplication of data, and a few other things.
Huh. And I thought *I* was sounding all conspiracy theorist. Maybe I'm actually right!
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying I believe them might be a bit strong, but I am closer to believing than disbelieving.
Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him? This is a very serious question. Is it Price himself, that field, because you like what he says, what? Does it extend to everyone who advances hypotheses without setting up reliable studies?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You joined Hatrack after I did, and steven (under another SN) was posting on this topic BEFORE I JOINED.
IOW, this has been going on for about 4 years or more.
Noted. I guess I didn't see the begining I thought I did.
But IIRC, no one knew he'd been here before or remembered him posting on the subject before. As far as they knew, it was the first time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: But IIRC, no one knew he'd been here before or remembered him posting on the subject before. As far as they knew, it was the first time.
quote:Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him?
For the same reasons steven provides, acutally. Logic and long-time existance. Darwinism. The idea that when life is hard and you have little technology to protect you against the difficulties of living on this planet, you will develop what works well over time in what you eat.
Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them? The relationship animals have with their food has developed over time and works because the animals are still here. We see this in evolution in all kinds of ways. The way things have been for thousands of years are usually that way because they work well.
If you provide the animal higher calorie food alternatives, sure they will take it. But quite often at the cost of the nutrition they need and the food that best suits their physiology. Cows eating corn comes to mind.
Here. Let me illustrate this further. Let's suppose that maybe one of the reasons small tribal groups didn't have larger populations is that food was so hard to acquire. When the technology came along to produce larger amounts of food, there were more calories to go around. But how nutritous those calories were, I personally question.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given the lack of evidence for it, why are you more inclined to believe him?
For the same reasons steven provides, actually. Logic and long-time existence. Darwinism. The idea that when life is hard and you have little technology to protect you against the difficulties of living on this planet, you will develop what works well over time in what you eat.
Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them? The relationship animals have with their food has developed over time and works because the animals are still here. We see this in evolution in all kinds of ways. The way things have been for thousands of years are usually that way because they work well.
If you provide the animal higher calorie food alternatives, sure they will take it. But quite often at the cost of the nutrition they need and the food that best suits their physiology. Cows eating corn comes to mind.
It works the other way around, usually. Animals adapt to what is available in nature, and over time can become dependent on a specific type of food, like kola bears are.
Who knows how many generations died before we came along because the diet wasn't best for the animal at first? It was the only thing available.
I have seen too many animals eat themselves to death on foods that they weren't suppose to eat (or amounts of something as simple as water) to believe that natural=right. At least as a consistent factor.
I don't think you are completely wrong, but that there are other considerations that have to be taken into account.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Do you doubt that animals will be most likely to eat in nature what is best for them?
Yes. Birds will happily feast on fermented berries, even though this makes them drunk and sometimes kills them. Deer have been known to munch on toxic foliage.
There are many other examples.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine, Kwea. I still believe my version is more likely. I am perfectly fine with you disagreeing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are. But keep in mind that animals that eat the wrong thing are less likely to pass on their genes.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Of course there are. But keep in mind that animals that eat the wrong thing are less likely to pass on their genes.
Not necessarily. I mean, if they die, then yes (obviously). And if it causes them to be less attractive to potential mates, be less fertile, or die within their reproductive years.
Moreover, evolution takes a long time to make any significant changes.
You cannot say, "This is the diet they would naturally eat, so it's probably healthier than another diet." It just doesn't work that way.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
beverly, I like you, so please don't take this as another one of my jokes or my proddings or anything like that. I have a real question for you:
Do you want to believe that Price's work is true?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you want to believe that Price's work is true?
My default setting is usually to trust that people are telling the truth. I believe that Price believed that his work is true, that he is not trying to deceive others. Other than that, I don't have a lot of emotion on the matter one way or the other. Not that I am aware of.
It may be that I am predisposed to believe some of his works based on my other experiences and perceptions.
Now, you do realize that a lot of what steven says is not equivalent to Price's conclusions? And you do realize that I am not a Price-disciple, and that some of Price's conclusions are neither disproven nor debunked?
I've given you a real answer to your question, but are you sure your real question wasn't, "How could the beverly I know possibly even come close to believing this bunch of hooey?"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"This is the diet they would naturally eat, so it's probably healthier than another diet."
Just because it isn't always true doesn't mean it isn't often true.
We decided to feed cows primarily grain when their natural diet is grass. It raised the acidity in their stomachs, made their rumens not work properly, made them sick, made us have to give them antibiotics, made the E. coli in their system have to evolve to resist a higher pH in order to survive, which made them better able to survive in our digestive tract and kill us.
What about all the BARF believers? I don't know enough about BARF, so I don't know how much science is behind it.
I am not saying it is always true, but I believe it is often true, perhaps even usually true.
I am often surprised at the subtleties of what has evolved in animals for survival. It really adds to my belief in intelligent design. But you don't have to believe in a creator to marvel at the complexity of how well food and life match each other. I am surprised at the amount of skepticism I am encountering on this, honestly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
