Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
shpongled

Plant/human symbiosis & the fall of humanity

62 posts in this topic

Just because some groups remained on the continent doesn't mean they still had access to the unimaginably complex assortment of fruit chemistry. None of the groups that remain today in africa flood they're systems with this 24/7, as we did for millions of years. So they would be subject to the same changes in neural structure and function that we know do occur given the scientific data available.

Ok, but we are talking about evolutionary time scales here. We all got separated from the symbiosis around roughly 200,000 years ago when we were forced out due to climate change and loss of forest. How would the tropical diet be holding humanity back? These fruit, these chemical factories-increased brain activity, memory, immune functions, and basically it changes everything , as you can see once you look at the data.. Wouldn't it make more sense that junk food and McDonalds are holding us back more since they are literally damaging to us? And our hormone pumped, pesticide laden, processed food we fill the market with which we know for a fact is bad for us? Don't you find it odd we build(diet) the most chemically complex and sensitive organ known to man out of garbage and expect it to work properly? when in fact it was being built and fueled by the most complex assortment of chemical factories known to ever exist, and it suddenly lost this and was built by foods that literally have the opposite affect on our hormones and all around functioning?

What is your definition of "temperate foods"? The biological data that outlines the affect these plant chemicals would have on our system is very well supported, as i showed in the article. And brushing that all under the rug while clinging to the current paradigm is exactly what the psychological data predicts we'd do

Just to clarify - Are you implying that the preferred environment of early H.s. such as Omo 1was the more dense tropical jungles?

Are you further not addressing the apparent role that faunal nutrition sources played in the development of the brain of earlier members of the lineage?

As to such concepts as dramatic "civilization destroying" global basin rise during the Holocene, simple math will alleviate concerns in this regard:

http://research.rmutp.ac.th/paper/cu/VorisSupplement.pdf

As a side note, referencing those such as Hancock may not improve your position.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to disagree with the statement that we cannot digest raw meats, there is sushi in Japan, tartars in Europe,people eat raw meat everyday around the world. We have fangs for a reason to rip meat from the bones of animals. I myself enjoy eating raw meats.

I remember the British documentary series Walking with prehistoric man that proposed mans brainpower increased due to the fact that humans started eating meat providing them with the essential amino acids required for brain development.

I also recall a documentary on chimpanzees (cannot recall the title sorry to say) that states they are omnivorous, chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if this example will illustrate my thoughts on this but here it goes anyway.If a species evolved to the point that it no longer had a tail the need for the brain function required to manipulate it is no longer required and eventually the brain would adapt to its hosts need.Otherwise one would likely be subject to phantom limb experience and I would be trying to pick up my beer with a tail I no longer had.I think that as a species it is part of our make up to adapt to our environment dictates,as well as adapt to the influence that we have had on our environment.

The world has been ending for the last 58yrs that I've been here and for some reason it's on back-order as there seems to be a shortage between supply and demand,oh well maybe next year.This is only a personal opinion from a guy that knows that the only time the world ends is where I die,until then I've got plenty to keep me amused.Man breaks things down to its simplest forms in order to discover its nature,what is unique to it.In order to fully understand it we need to return it into it's environment in order to understand its effect on it's environment.Unfortunately we have only begun to understand a few pixels of the picture.Our progress in understanding,modifying,and adapting both physically and intellectually is ongoing and and will continue no matter how much we scare ourselves.jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - Are you implying that the preferred environment of early H.s. such as Omo 1was the more dense tropical jungles?

Seems likely that it would be the prefered climate of any primate, especially since they're still there today.. Again some of what i saw in this thread may sound odd at face value, given the conventional, orthodox view, especially without reading the article. The article does go further into this.

Are you further not addressing the apparent role that faunal nutrition sources played in the development of the brain of earlier members of the lineage?

It was never my intention to give a layout of the entire theory, but a brief summary of key points, there is more on that in the guys book and a free .pdf is in the article..I'll just add my opinions; If faunal nutrition played such a significant role then why don't we see carnivores/omnivores all over the place with large, intelligent brains like us? Why would, as i outlined in the posts above, there be such a strong connection between fruit and intelligence/big brains? The biological mechanisms for the proposal your referring to aren't very well supported in my opinion, and information regarding how a diet high in fruit would affect human development is very straight forward and well supported by high school level biology.

"As to such concepts as dramatic "civilization destroying" global basin rise during the Holocene, simple math will alleviate concerns in this regard:

http://research.rmutp.ac.th/paper/cu/VorisSupplement.pdf

As a side note, referencing those such as Hancock may not improve your position."

I don't agree with the guy on everything. But to disregard all of his work just because some if it seems a bit to "out there" or unorthodox doesn't seem right either. Much if it is well evidenced. He's done some great work in his book underworld at gathering evidence from many researchers that indicate the rise in sea level didn't occur so gradually as one might assume, but often in spurts. As temperature rose giant lakes of melted water on top of the glaciers would burst they're barriers- resulting in dramatic rises in sea level almost over night, among other things like earthquakes and geological changes from the weight displacement. The "myths" of coastal ancients and modern people worldwide recall essentially the same situation.

Whether or not they're recollections of a civilization lost to the flood are true, there still remains a mountain of evidence for this theory coming out of biology, psychology, etc. The book doesn't go into this or Hancocks work from what i recall, to me it seems related though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in effect a 'fly-by' post, so I have to apologize for that.

Off of the top of my head, what about other animals that did/do share a large portion of our ancestor's diet? would they not have also benefited from this 'magic food'? Why were humans the only animal to reap the rewards, so to speak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to disagree with the statement that we cannot digest raw meats, there is sushi in Japan, tartars in Europe,people eat raw meat everyday around the world. We have fangs for a reason to rip meat from the bones of animals. I myself enjoy eating raw meats.

I remember the British documentary series Walking with prehistoric man that proposed mans brainpower increased due to the fact that humans started eating meat providing them with the essential amino acids required for brain development.

I also recall a documentary on chimpanzees (cannot recall the title sorry to say) that states they are omnivorous, chimps are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.

Chimps do occasionally eat meat but really only in times when fruit isn't available, as far as i understand it. I remember some study where, when presented with one or the other, they would choose fruit every time. The vast majority of they're diet is plants and fruit. We seem more similar behaviorally to bonobos, which eat even less meat. Given that we are even more capable bipeds than both of them, we could travel further distances faster to acquire what we needed and so its not far fetched to suppose we were more specialist fruit eaters than even they tend to be- especially considering all of the other physiological info that suggests this which i briefly touched on. And the amino acids in fruit are a much more viable and chemically rich source for the essential fatty acids necessary for brain development than those available in meat.

I don't want to get too far off topic into digesting raw meats..but as far as that goes..the meat available in africa (there was no sushi etc) isn't something you see people eating raw, and in many cases doing so can even be dangerous. Of course there is always exceptions. We simply don't have similar canines as carnivores, not by a long shot. There is also tons of evidence similar to this: all red meat is bad for you, new study says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is in effect a 'fly-by' post, so I have to apologize for that.

Off of the top of my head, what about other animals that did/do share a large portion of our ancestor's diet? would they not have also benefited from this 'magic food'? Why were humans the only animal to reap the rewards, so to speak?

Well, they certainly are reaping benefits from it. Just take a look at the level of intelligence displayed by bonobos, chimps, and similar animals that eat a lot of fruit and have done so for evolutionary time scales. Its far beyond anything else we're aware of. Even the intelligence of parrots and fruit bats dwarf they're cousins who don't eat as much fruit, or any of it at all.

The thing with humans seems to be that we were involved in ever more intertwined symbiosis with many many species of fruit for tens of millions of years, and this initiated an internal, runaway feedback loop with the pineal gland which is stimulated by fruit and pumps chemicals with a similar affect. Perhaps other primates will/have reached similar levels at one point in time and then died out, who knows. I think a good way to look at it is to keep in mind that it really isn't a coincidence the most complex and chemically sensitive organ we've ever seen evolved in the most bio-chemically rich environment we know about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chimps do occasionally eat meat but really only in times when fruit isn't available, as far as i understand it. I remember some study where, when presented with one or the other, they would choose fruit every time. The vast majority of they're diet is plants and fruit. We seem more similar behaviorally to bonobos, which eat even less meat. Given that we are even more capable bipeds than both of them, we could travel further distances faster to acquire what we needed and so its not far fetched to suppose we were more specialist fruit eaters than even they tend to be- especially considering all of the other physiological info that suggests this which i briefly touched on. And the amino acids in fruit are a much more viable and chemically rich source for the essential fatty acids necessary for brain development than those available in meat.

I don't want to get too far off topic into digesting raw meats..but as far as that goes..the meat available in africa (there was no sushi etc) isn't something you see people eating raw, and in many cases doing so can even be dangerous. Of course there is always exceptions. We simply don't have similar canines as carnivores, not by a long shot. There is also tons of evidence similar to this: all red meat is bad for you, new study says

Ok I see your point, but consider this... there is substantial evidence of stone tools used by man specifically used to carve meat from animals and supporting marks on bone fragments that tells us that these tools were used for that purpose. Man has been eating meat (cooked or raw) for a very very long time. It is in my opinion that humans need both to function properly. I will give an example of this. I have several extreme vegan friends that will only eat raw fruits and veg, all of them state that they require supplements given to them by their doctor to function. There are certain fatty acids, and nutrients you can only find in meats and meat byproducts such as eggs and milk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I see your point, but consider this... there is substantial evidence of stone tools used by man specifically used to carve meat from animals and supporting marks on bone fragments that tells us that these tools were used for that purpose. Man has been eating meat (cooked or raw) for a very very long time. It is in my opinion that humans need both to function properly. I will give an example of this. I have several extreme vegan friends that will only eat raw fruits and veg, all of them state that they require supplements given to them by their doctor to function. There are certain fatty acids, and nutrients you can only find in meats and meat byproducts such as eggs and milk.

Of course there is evidence we ate meat after we left the jungles. This theory isn't refuting that, but the evidence shows that once the fruit symbiosis was lost we went on survival diets that included meat and many other things. This doesn't refute the theory at all, especially since that was after our brains started decreasing in size. I'm not sure which ones you mean in your last sentence, but many primates and humans live very healthy lives and have done so for a long time without dairy, meat, or eggs. All these fatty acid requirements can be supplied by a plant-based diet. We also have to take into account that the wild foods are far more nutritious than what is at the grocery store, and the soil/bugs on them could provide further nutrients now lost by our pesticide filled, genetically modified "food".

Yeah many vegans/vegetarians are unhealthy and don't eat in a way that fulfills they're requirements, ( so are many meat eaters). Many seem to go vegan or veggie as some sort of statement against meat, and other reasons apart from being really health oriented. They don't consider the foods and nutritional requirements necessary to maintain a healthy life style at that level. I know many like this, but myself and others who have been at this for a while live very energetic and healthy lives. I know one who has been raw vegan for several years and blood work showed all her nutrient levels were fine, even b12. You don't need supplements, you just need to figure out what works for you and that can take a bit of practice. On a side note: I don't get sick anymore as i used to when eating processed foods and meat a lot, and my energy and mental processes seem much more fine tune. Theres a lot more that changes once you combine diet with these other techniques the article talks about which is beyond my ability to really explain well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there is evidence we ate meat after we left the jungles. This theory isn't refuting that, but the evidence shows that once the fruit symbiosis was lost we went on survival diets that included meat and many other things. This doesn't refute the theory at all, especially since that was after our brains started decreasing in size. I'm not sure which ones you mean in your last sentence, but many primates and humans live very healthy lives and have done so for a long time without dairy, meat, or eggs. All these fatty acid requirements can be supplied by a plant-based diet. We also have to take into account that the wild foods are far more nutritious than what is at the grocery store, and the soil/bugs on them could provide further nutrients now lost by our pesticide filled, genetically modified "food".

Yeah many vegans/vegetarians are unhealthy and don't eat in a way that fulfills they're requirements, ( so are many meat eaters). Many seem to go vegan or veggie as some sort of statement against meat, and other reasons apart from being really health oriented. They don't consider the foods and nutritional requirements necessary to maintain a healthy life style at that level. I know many like this, but myself and others who have been at this for a while live very energetic and healthy lives. I know one who has been raw vegan for several years and blood work showed all her nutrient levels were fine, even b12. You don't need supplements, you just need to figure out what works for you and that can take a bit of practice. On a side note: I don't get sick anymore as i used to when eating processed foods and meat a lot, and my energy and mental processes seem much more fine tune. Theres a lot more that changes once you combine diet with these other techniques the article talks about which is beyond my ability to really explain well.

I must say, you yourself pose very well organized intelligent arguments supporting your views. I am not versed enough as a dietician to fully refute much of your statements about nutrition, hopefully someone else who is more familiar can until I've done more research.

On a personal note I felt better and more aware/alert after propery balancing my intake of meat/fruit/ veg. Everything in moderation.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it can take a bit to get used to the change in diet, and there can be detox- so that scares some away to who don't recognize it when it comes.

I'm not a dietitian either and am open to any evidence that is contrary to what I've been saying.. but if you just read the book a bit (free .pdf in the beginning of the article i linked in the first post) i think instead of just continually looking for ways to refute it many here would begin to see where i'm coming from, and the massive amount of evidence supporting the general ideas behind the theory. Really, its a fascinating read. I've been studying neuroscience for a while and it lines up well with the data i encounter all the time.

Its great to look for contrary evidence and possible things that don't line up, but its also important to be at least look into things with an open mind and consider the possibilities/information and question even your own assumptions and favored position. A balance is necessary to avoid try and avoid dogma/bias as much as possible, from both sides of any fence..

If there is even the slightest chance or indication something is wrong with the development of our brains, then we should immediately check it out in the most objective way we can to make sure. To quote Tony from the interview..

"It should be virtually impossible to find any supporting evidence for such a profound theory if there was no real problem with the development and structural integrity of our neural system in the first place. If there were only ancient accounts of the diagnosis, or any supporting biological data, or initial support from some of society’s sharpest minds, then it should at least ring alarm bells. That all those elements exist and in addition our collective behavior has long been thought by many to be insane indicates something really serious just doesn’t add up. If everything is fine then the theory would be a no-brainer to refute, and we should at least have no fear in thoroughly checking it out."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprising then, that diseases related to deficiencies in such chemicals (like Alzheimer as i pointed out in the article) are on the rise?

I'm going to disagree with this somewhat. The reason that "modern man" has trouble with heart disease and cancer is that we are not built to last 100 years. Only the few luck individuals get to long, long old age. The earliest humans, and those who founded the first civilizations lived hard lives that only lasted till 35 to 40 on average. I'd be surprised if the Early People you are talking about lived long enough to be susceptable to Alzheimers, Cancer or Heart Disease.

We know its bad for our stomaches, immune system, mood, etc. Fast food has been linked to depression. http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/04/01/fast-food-linked-to-depression/36798.html And poor food has (not surprisingly) been linked to brain damage http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/trans-fats-brain-damage_n_1173487.html Not to mention a new long term study on 20,000 individuals found all read meat shortens life span.

I should have been more clear. I meant to say not All Modern Food is junk. You can get good food if you go looking for it. There are ways to eat that will extend your health and lifespan dramatically. Thus I don't believe that we are in some kind of Fall of Humanity, due to diet. It is not the human animal that is the problem, it is the diet and bad choices relating to that diet. No superfood is needed for humanity to thrive.

Well our physiology, including teeth and digestive system, was relatively how it is now long before we started cooking, and we simply don't have the teeth or stomaches to eat raw meat. Sure we can adapt on a survival diet, but all we get from this is energy- not the complex assortment of neuro-chemistry necessary to run the neo-cortex optimally. Our closet cousins who still live in the jungles, the primates, eat 95-100% plants! We also don't create our own internal vitamin C internally..meanwhile: all other omnivores and carnivores do! This is because we were getting plenty of it from our plant-based diet. If we were omnivores, then we also wouldn't need to create our won vitamin D from sunlight, since we would have been getting it from the meat. This is just a few things that point towards a fruit based diet.

I can agree to most of that, but as you almost pointed out, all other apes do eat animal proteins when they are available. Even Gorillas will eat bugs and other small animals. Humans just took it a step further and hunted to get large amounts of protein meats.

As to fire. There is not real difinitive known start to it's use, but it was commonly used between 200,000 and 1 million years ago by the Homo Erectus and other pre-Homo Sapien species. When modern man started to evolve in Africa about 200,000 years ago, fire was a well known and used tool.

So it could be argued that humans actually evolved to eat using/requiring fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm going to disagree with this somewhat. The reason that "modern man" has trouble with heart disease and cancer is that we are not built to last 100 years. Only the few luck individuals get to long, long old age. The earliest humans, and those who founded the first civilizations lived hard lives that only lasted till 35 to 40 on average. I'd be surprised if the Early People you are talking about lived long enough to be susceptable to Alzheimers, Cancer or Heart Disease.

? many children get cancers of all sorts. You might want to take a look at these. (there is many more studies to be found on google)

fruit reduces heart disease risk

“Increasing fruit and vegetable intake from five to eight servings a day prevents heart attacks and prolongs life. For every additional serving above two per day, there is a four percent decrease in the rate of heart disease deaths " http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/17/eurheartj.ehq465.abstract

links on fruit and cancer..

fruit helps prevent cancer in children

fruits have anti-cancer powers

Also, breast cancer drugs like tamoxifen and exemestane are basically synthetic

equivalents of these plant chemicals called flavonoids.

There are many groups that lived very long lives without knowledge of disease until eating more like westerners. You can find more on that on page 40 of the authors book here: LEFT IN THE DARK

As for Alzheimers, in the article i recalled how:

"Research into Alzheimer’s also supports the idea that we are chronically deficient in the chemicals abundant in a fruit, and that this is just a further symptom. Recently it’s made headlines that hundreds of dementia patients could be helped by a “drug breakthrough”. Dementia seems to be halted and reversed by drugs with the same sort of activity we see among these fruit chemicals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22087826 . A quick search on google reveals many fruit chemicals with the same exact properties. If this is the case, then when we were flooded by an incredibly rich cocktail of flavonoids way beyond current research parameters then, relatively speaking, our reference points for dementia are invalid." We could also apply this last sentence to many other diseases which have been shown to be helped or prevented by the chemicals in fruit.

I can agree to most of that, but as you almost pointed out, all other apes do eat animal proteins when they are available. Even Gorillas will eat bugs and other small animals. Humans just took it a step further and hunted to get large amounts of protein meats.

As to fire. There is not real difinitive known start to it's use, but it was commonly used between 200,000 and 1 million years ago by the Homo Erectus and other pre-Homo Sapien species. When modern man started to evolve in Africa about 200,000 years ago, fire was a well known and used tool.

So it could be argued that humans actually evolved to eat using/requiring fire.

Well, we would have gotten a hefty amount of insects simply from the amount of plants we ate in the jungles, and there are many plant/nut/tuber sources of protein as well- which especially viable sources when eaten in those high amounts. Gorillas are strictly herbivores and like many other of our closest cousins will virtually always choose plants over meat unless its really necessary from the loss of a food source.

Fire may have been used by some groups but that doesn't mean the ones who stayed most connected with the symbiosis used it, and if they did it doesn't necessarily imply that it was used to cook. Keep in mind we're talking millions of years here and the symbiosis began to break down around 200,000 years ago, so it would make sense that at least some groups would have used fire around that time and/or eaten some meat.

Edited by shpongled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

? many children get cancers of all sorts. You might want to take a look at these. (there is many more studies to be found on google)

Yes, just as some children have arthritis. But the elderly are killed by a factor of 20 by cancer... percentage wise, today. And the elderly (over 65 years old) die at a rate 50 times as often. So 20 x 60 = 1200. The elderly are 1200 times more likely to die of cancer then a child under age 15.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_08.pdf

Age has a lot more to do with dying then a somewhat bad diet.

There are many groups that lived very long lives without knowledge of disease until eating more like westerners. You can find more on that on page 40 of the authors book here: LEFT IN THE DARK

I'd have to read that to actively believe it. I'm not aware of any group prior to the 20th century that regularly had a population that lived past 60.

What are you considering very long lives? 60? 80? 100?

As for Alzheimers, in the article i recalled how:

"Research into Alzheimer’s also supports the idea that we are chronically deficient in the chemicals abundant in a fruit, and that this is just a further symptom. Recently it’s made headlines that hundreds of dementia patients could be helped by a “drug breakthrough”. Dementia seems to be halted and reversed by drugs with the same sort of activity we see among these fruit chemicals http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22087826 . A quick search on google reveals many fruit chemicals with the same exact properties. If this is the case, then when we were flooded by an incredibly rich cocktail of flavonoids way beyond current research parameters then, relatively speaking, our reference points for dementia are invalid." We could also apply this last sentence to many other diseases which have been shown to be helped or prevented by the chemicals in fruit.

That is an interesting article on that Alzheimers drug, but it does not specify the active ingredient or if it was derived from a plant. Your other link says that flavonoids are simply anti-oxidants.

Most Alzheimers site say to eat fruit...

http://www.livestrong.com/article/107155-dark-fruits-vegetables-prevent/

Diet

The Alzheimer's Association recommends eating fruits and vegetables with dark skin to protect brain cells against the damaging effects of Alzheimer's disease. These foods are beneficial because they contain high levels of antioxidants. Types of dark fruits and vegetables include eggplant, spinach, red bell peppers, apples, blueberries, raisins, plums and cherries. Consume these fruits and vegetables with the skin intact as many of the antioxidants are located there.

Anti-oxidant Plant and Origin

Eggplant = India

Spinach = Persia

Bell Peppers = South America

Apples = Central Asia

Blueberries = Northern Temperate regions

Raisins = Near East/Armenia

Plums = Norther Temperate regions

Cherries = Northern Temperate regions

All the fruit that is recommended is Temperate Zone fruit.

Well, we would have gotten a hefty amount of insects simply from the amount of plants we ate in the jungles, and there are many plant/nut/tuber sources of protein as well- which especially viable sources when eaten in those high amounts. Gorillas are strictly herbivores and like many other of our closest cousins will virtually always choose plants over meat unless its really necessary from the loss of a food source.

Virtually all sites online that reference gorilla's diet will say they eat insects, grubs and other small animals.

Antelope and monkey DNA in gorilla feces.

This might just be due to the gorillas eating ants that ate monkey/antelope DNA, but then you're still admitting that gorillas eat a lot of ants.

Fire may have been used by some groups but that doesn't mean the ones who stayed most connected with the symbiosis used it, and if they did it doesn't necessarily imply that it was used to cook. Keep in mind we're talking millions of years here and the symbiosis began to break down around 200,000 years ago, so it would make sense that at least some groups would have used fire around that time and/or eaten some meat.

I think a possible arguement could be made either way. My point being that when modern humans were evolving toward the current form, they had access to fire and meat, there is just not good evidence they only ate fruit. It is just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course there is evidence we ate meat after we left the jungles.

"We" (Homo sapiens) didn't exist as a species when our ancestors "left the jungles". If those ancestors hadn't turned to hunting on the savannah's, then it is almost certain that "we" (Homo sapiens) would not exist today.

We only exist because our ancestors started hunting and eating meat.

Humans just took it a step further and hunted to get large amounts of protein meats.

Our ancestors (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster and possibly Australopithecus garhi) all used Oldowan stone tools which can be associated in many cases with use in butchering, etc. In the case of A. garhi this is slightly controversial, but quite possible.

This puts the 'starting' of hunting and eating meat as a major part of hominin diet back some 2.6 million years, well before "we" arrived on the scene.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, just as some children have arthritis. But the elderly are killed by a factor of 20 by cancer... percentage wise, today. And the elderly (over 65 years old) die at a rate 50 times as often. So 20 x 60 = 1200. The elderly are 1200 times more likely to die of cancer then a child under age 15.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_08.pdf

Age has a lot more to do with dying then a somewhat bad diet.

You said all of those diseases were only age related. I was merely pointing out that this wasn't true by citing children.

The fact that these fruit chemicals help so much with the prevention and treatment of these diseases (and more) implies that when we at a plant filled diet we would obviously be less susceptible to them.

That is an interesting article on that Alzheimers drug, but it does not specify the active ingredient or if it was derived from a plant. Your other link says that flavonoids are simply anti-oxidants.

"simply" really doesn't do them justice. Even the loss of a flood of anti-oxidants (for millions of years) would have an impact.

And your missing the key bit. The alzheimer "breakthrough" drug they're talking about is so helpful because its an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. That was the point, i never said it was derived from a plant- i don't know. The point is that flavonoids in fruit are also acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, which is why all of these things are helpful for those with alzheimers. From the study:

"Flavonoids are new promising potential natural compounds for treating Alzheimer's disease (AD). Actually most promising drugs for symptomatic treatment of AD are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEI)"

Virtually all sites online that reference gorilla's diet will say they eat insects, grubs and other small animals.

Antelope and monkey DNA in gorilla feces.

This might just be due to the gorillas eating ants that ate monkey/antelope DNA, but then you're still admitting that gorillas eat a lot of ants.

I think a possible arguement could be made either way. My point being that when modern humans were evolving toward the current form, they had access to fire and meat, there is just not good evidence they only ate fruit. It is just speculation.

They are predominantly herbivores, my mistake for not making that clear. I'm not disputing the fact that they eat insects or small animals, as i have already explained.

Our brains began shrinking relatively recently, in evolutionary terms at least. This coincided with our separation from the most complex bio-chemistry there is.

We undoubtedly ate plenty of plants in the jungles. I never said "fruit-only", as your claiming i did. But a large portion would obviously be from it, and perhaps it was. Regardless, Katherine Milton found we lost 95% of the plant chemicals that went into building and fueling our brains for tens of millions of years, all of which read dna and alter how things are built, along with alter the activity of our hormones! How could it just be a coincidence that we lost the vast majority of this biochemistry, our consumption of meat and other foods has risen dramatically, and simultaneously this shrinking has occurred and continually progressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Our brains began shrinking relatively recently, in evolutionary terms at least. This coincided with our separation from the most complex bio-chemistry there is.

In the time since our ancestors adopted meat as a large part of their diet, the hominin brain has increased in size from ~450cc (A. garhi) to ~1400cc (H. sapiens sapiens).

This occurred over the duration of 2.6 million years, and in all this time, the diet for the various hominins existing in that time has not varied much. That any brain 'shrinkage' has only been noted over the last 20,000 or so years, and diet has not changed noticeably for 2.6 million years*, means we can rule out a dietary component for that shrinkage.

The answer is likely to lie in specialisation or some other cultural/behavioural factor for this phenomenon. It might even be that our technology reached the point where our dominance over other animals/competitors was assured by that, and so we didn't have to rely on our brain as much.

*I appreciate the modern diet might be very different to our distant ancestor's. But since this 'shrinkage' started 20,000 years ago we cannot blame that, either. As agriculture is only about 10,000 years old, we can probably rule that out also.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, was sent a link to this thread, thought I would join in the fun…

Firstly my proposal is a NEW interpretation of existing data so (by definition) it will not accord with current interpretations of existing data. Citing current paradigms that do not accord with a new interpretation as evidence of its weakness is no different from saying the earth is flat and everyone agrees when reacting to a novel 'round earth' proposal.

Secondly the essence of the proposal is a highly unique symbiotic association resulting in traits/structure that could not have emerged from either/any of the distinct species. Any traits that were the result of and dependent on the symbiotic association would revert in the event of the association breaking down.

Specifically mammalian genome developing an increasingly inter-dependent relationship with the hormonally rich and bio-chemically complex sex organs of flowering plants.

Before commenting on key points I would have thought in order to debate and/or dismiss a theory it would be necessary to become familiar with the basics. There are several outlines on the sites linked in the article. In addition the context and mechanisms are fairly basic and have been run by many specialists with much more knowledge in key areas than I have or I suspect anyone on this forum has. Initial reaction suggests derisory dismissal is based on belief rather than serious scrutiny.

So an obvious one, evidence for hunting/meat eating tool/fire use ect has been ‘interpreted’ as the means by which our brain expanded and our intelligence emerged etc.

Evidence of these behaviours tell us nothing at all about what may have been going on in the non-seasonal tropical forest. The deeply conditioned expectation that classic selective adaptation must have been responsible for these traits results in any evidence of non forest/symbiotic existence being seen as wholly representative of any given lineage.

Beyond that there are no coherent mechanisms to tie such behaviour/ecology to expansion or more complex neural architecture, only vague inference.

The neural system is less protein rich than most of the rest of the physiology, the idea that protein was somehow a limiting factor has no basis in basic physiology.

The hormone rich sex organs of flowering plans on the other hand are loaded with chemicals that inhibit the action of sex steroids, inhibit the action of aromatase and MAOi and a whole raft of other enzymes. Amongst other things current understanding of basic developmental mechanisms support the proposal that ingesting such a chemical complex would extend developmental windows (handy for growing a large complex brain) inhibiting the ‘masculinisation’ effects of oestrogen, currently cited as being a factor in neural cell retardation and a whole bunch of other effects that appear to support expansion/complexity. Ingesting meat has the opposite effect, reducing developmental windows while failing to provide a constant flood of powerful anti-oxidants.

These and many other points are addressed, it is hardly likely that after twenty years I would have failed to account for anything so obvious or that others who have much greater knowledge would have failed to spot such major flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's quite interesting that the article points to the shrinking human brain as a sign that something bad is happening in our evolution, but the Discover Magazine article in the link actually offers several opinions contradicting this view.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Firstly my proposal is a NEW interpretation of existing data so (by definition) it will not accord with current interpretations of existing data. Citing current paradigms that do not accord with a new interpretation as evidence of its weakness is no different from saying the earth is flat and everyone agrees when reacting to a novel 'round earth' proposal.

Could you kindly direct us towards relevant data which has been published in scientific journals for peer-review?

Edited by Cybele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

really busy at the moment so i'll be brief. All the concerns people have are well addressed in the research. I've only been familiar with this for around 2 years now so my knowledge is pretty limited. However there is actual doctors, anthropologists, neuroscientists, and many others who support this ( just a few comments by some here )

Its not just some random guy on the internet ;)

Could you kindly direct us towards relevant data which has been published in scientific journals for peer-review?

there is a lot of info in his book with references to studies. A copy is linked to in the article.

Theres also a ton of evidence on his website

http://leftinthedark.org.uk/

many in this first one here especially:

http://leftinthedark.org.uk/files

http://beyond-belief.org.uk/node/7

Edited by shpongled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly my proposal is a NEW interpretation of existing data so (by definition) it will not accord with current interpretations of existing data. Citing current paradigms that do not accord with a new interpretation as evidence of its weakness is no different from saying the earth is flat and everyone agrees when reacting to a novel 'round earth' proposal.

A mew omterpretation usually requires even more evidence then what came before. Because previous analysis of the data missed something, or was misled by missing data. So, then what is the new data? That exotic chemicals can be used for exotic purposes?

What would be the "Circumnavigation of the World by Magellen" of this interpretation? The irrifutable proof?

Secondly the essence of the proposal is a highly unique symbiotic association resulting in traits/structure that could not have emerged from either/any of the distinct species. Any traits that were the result of and dependent on the symbiotic association would revert in the event of the association breaking down.

Since no one is apparently able to live this lifestyle, as the exotic complex fruits are now gone, and the benefits disappeared with the fruit, then how can you proove there ever were any benefits? Even if you can show that anti-oxidents fight many problems, how can you show that these long lost fruits contained them? I've already posted that almost all fruits that almost all Alzheimers sites say contain good anti-oxidents are from Temperate zones, such as Europe and Central Asia. A few are from the Middle East, which is near Africa, but only a bare few are found in Africa, and those in limited areas.

Before commenting on key points I would have thought in order to debate and/or dismiss a theory it would be necessary to become familiar with the basics. There are several outlines on the sites linked in the article. In addition the context and mechanisms are fairly basic and have been run by many specialists with much more knowledge in key areas than I have or I suspect anyone on this forum has. Initial reaction suggests derisory dismissal is based on belief rather than serious scrutiny.

The idea is really fairly basic. One does not have to digest every idea to know if is suspect. I don't need to listen to all the details when my 4 year old says that it was the dog that took the cake from the frig and eat off the frosting. Similarly if I hear that some mysterious fruit can cure the Human Condition and bring Paradise to the world, I become immeditely suspicious. When I then put forward questions that are answered by my Magic Fruit talk, rather then facts, I am not disarmed, but become more suspicous. Why waste time on theorys/ideas that immediately register as suspect/bogus?

So an obvious one, evidence for hunting/meat eating tool/fire use ect has been ‘interpreted’ as the means by which our brain expanded and our intelligence emerged etc.

Evidence of these behaviours tell us nothing at all about what may have been going on in the non-seasonal tropical forest. The deeply conditioned expectation that classic selective adaptation must have been responsible for these traits results in any evidence of non forest/symbiotic existence being seen as wholly representative of any given lineage.

Beyond that there are no coherent mechanisms to tie such behaviour/ecology to expansion or more complex neural architecture, only vague inference.

Non-seasonal tropical forest? There are no seasons in the tropics, other then wet and less-wet. I think what you are implying here is against just about everything modern Anthropology uses as a foundation.

The neural system is less protein rich than most of the rest of the physiology, the idea that protein was somehow a limiting factor has no basis in basic physiology.

Or, meat protein allowed the required resources to become more available to the neural system, and thus allowed the brain to expand/improve. Just as agriculture allowed humans resources to expand technology and art.

These and many other points are addressed, it is hardly likely that after twenty years I would have failed to account for anything so obvious or that others who have much greater knowledge would have failed to spot such major flaws.

20 years? But you just posted that you have less knowledge then many or most specialists. Are you an expert or not?

really busy at the moment so i'll be brief. All the concerns people have are well addressed in the research. I've only been familiar with this for around 2 years now so my knowledge is pretty limited. However there is actual doctors, anthropologists, neuroscientists, and many others who support this ( just a few comments by some here )

I believe you. I just know however that it is possible to find doctors, anthropologists, biologists and zoologists that will put forward just about anything. Look at all those supporting non-vaccination, shark cartilige pills, crystal treatment, magnetism treatment, homeopathy, aura adjustment, past life regression, shakra adjustment, detox footpads and healing prayer.

A degree and title (doctor) only shows you are smart enough to get through college. It does not make one logical, reasonable, or even an authority. I've got a Mechanical Engieering degree, and I went to school with people on the 10 year plan who are out there possibly designing bridges, designing elevator systems and engineering solutions to who knows what. They are only barely capable, yet are degree'd. They might not even be employed in an area they have a degree in, yet they should be respected for that degree and treated as expert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, was sent a link to this thread, thought I would join in the fun…

Firstly my proposal is a NEW interpretation of existing data so (by definition) it will not accord with current interpretations of existing data. Citing current paradigms that do not accord with a new interpretation as evidence of its weakness is no different from saying the earth is flat and everyone agrees when reacting to a novel 'round earth' proposal.

With all due respect, Mr Wright, this sounds more like an emotional plea, rather than a scientific statement. If you have no new data to warrant your re-interpretation, and that re-interpretation does not fit the existing data, then the existing paradigms which fit the existing data nicely are perfectly acceptable to judge the relative weakness of your re-interpretation against.

Secondly the essence of the proposal is a highly unique symbiotic association resulting in traits/structure that could not have emerged from either/any of the distinct species. Any traits that were the result of and dependent on the symbiotic association would revert in the event of the association breaking down.

Without going into a breakdown of this, and what followed that I omitted, unless you can show a better 'fit' for your interpretation to the existing data, than the 'existing paradigms' display, then any speculation you might make regarding what your interpretation says about our past has no substantiation.

To do this you, and shpongled, need to address the very real and relevant concerns raised in this thread and show how the existing paradigms are not such a good 'fit', before proposing your new interpretation. All that has been done so far is the promotion of your (and shpongled's) interpretation of the data without showing why it is a better fit to that data than the existing paradigms.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DieChecker-

You just asked to "show you the evidence".. when its already on the many links provided, and in the .pdf of the book, and on his sites...? A few sentences later you said "The idea is really fairly basic. One does not have to digest every idea to know if is suspect.", and yet you haven't even scratched the surface of the idea and admitted so. If your going to try and debate something and ask for evidence you mine as well at least have a rudimentary idea of what it is your talking about, and be willing to look into it when the evidence is provided, instead of just asking again and dismissing.

"Even if you can show that anti-oxidents fight many problems, how can you show that these long lost fruits contained them?"

Spend a few seconds on google and you'll find the answer to that..its rooted in very basic bio-chemistry.

But there is way, way more in fruit than just anti-oxidants, lets not over simplify it. Over 10,000 phytochemicals in some species alone. Fruit (flowering plants) have the most complex genome known to exist. The chemistry it creates is unimaginably complex. Many of these chemicals alter gene transcription and alter the activity of our hormones, among many other things, as we've said.. And did you see my reply to you on the previous page? You'll see your missing the key point when it comes the alzheimers info.

I pretty much agree with your take on those with 'degrees'. I was merely noting the credentials in order to point out that just because I don't know everything there is to know about this doesn't mean there isn't a lot of support from the evidence gathered and other minds who know far more about these topics than me or you.

"20 years? But you just posted that you have less knowledge then many or most specialists. Are you an expert or not?"

All he said was he has ran it by many specialists who had more knowledge than him in certain areas. This theory branches into many many areas and branches of science/inquiry, so i don't really understand how that's so hard to believe. If you look into the idea and supporting evidence and start to understand the context of this instead of just trying to refute it out right without even a basic understanding then it would all make a lot more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, Mr Wright, this sounds more like an emotional plea, rather than a scientific statement. If you have no new data to warrant your re-interpretation, and that re-interpretation does not fit the existing data, then the existing paradigms which fit the existing data nicely are perfectly acceptable to judge the relative weakness of your re-interpretation against.

Without going into a breakdown of this, and what followed that I omitted, unless you can show a better 'fit' for your interpretation to the existing data, than the 'existing paradigms' display, then any speculation you might make regarding what your interpretation says about our past has no substantiation.

To do this you, and shpongled, need to address the very real and relevant concerns raised in this thread and show how the existing paradigms are not such a good 'fit', before proposing your new interpretation. All that has been done so far is the promotion of your (and shpongled's) interpretation of the data without showing why it is a better fit to that data than the existing paradigms.

You didn't read past the first quote in the article, so how can you imply such things?

There is loads of new data appearing all the time in support of this re-interpretation..i have reiterated some of it throughout this thread and pointed towards further links. Your trying to just out right refute something without even looking into it. To refute it on the grounds that we haven't provided any new data that warrants the interpretation is ridiculous given the amount of info, links, and studies made available here.

"unless you can show a better 'fit' for your interpretation to the existing data, than the 'existing paradigms' display, then any speculation you might make regarding what your interpretation says about our past has no substantiation."

Of course.. And this is what basically the entire book, and websites, are about. And what many of the posts/links have been about as well.

" All that has been done so far is the promotion of your (and shpongled's) interpretation of the data without showing why it is a better fit to that data than the existing paradigms."

I have addressed many concerns in this thread with evidence that supports this interpretation better than the conventional one. You and others choose not to look into the links that provide further information, so claiming that "all that has been done is promote your interpretation" doesn't make any sense. These and the studies referenced were often ignored and only sparked the next grasp for any possible refutations, often by those who haven't even looked into it beyond a surface glance. Virtually all of these concerns posted are well addressed in the information provided. If one chooses not to look into the new interpretation, evidence for it and how it fits better, that doesn't mean it is non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.