Brenda, I didn't "bite" your head off - in fact, I didn't mention you at 
all in an individual specific direct attack way (although raw brain may 
be quite healthy!).  I was noting my reasoning on how neolithic 
religions don't find their origins in the paleolithic due to extensive 
neolithic dietary recommendations AND practices found extensively in 
religious writings and practices.

I didn't say I was religious, just that I was raised in a Christian 
tradition, specifically Mormonism.  One can be very spiritual and not 
religious at all with regards to any specific religious dogma.  As to 
eating grains, I think the evidence is good that we haven't adapted for 
it well, if at all yet, on a genetic basis.  As to eating cooked meat, 
that is not so clear cut. I think the evidence is mounting that cooking 
was around for a long time before the taming of grains, several hundred 
thousand years of regular fire use with perhaps fire usage going back 
almost a million years ago.  That's long enough for some adaption.  I 
moved my beef eating to "rare" and particularly like raw ground beef, 
but otherwise I cook reasonably well done for other beasts.  The genes 
for eating raw however are still going strong.

The new testament speaks in terms of "the bread of life", neolithic 
roots.  The Jewish health code is alive and well even today, and it 
isn't paleolithic.  The Old Testament (most common collection of 
biblical texts, not comprehensive) has quite a few food laws that may 
not be common knowledge for many self-professed Christians since almost 
none that I've ever discussed religion with has ever read their bible 
cover to cover.  I've got a about a dozen readings under my belt and 
note there are many things in the Bible that many Christians don't know 
about and don't want to know about.  While you Brenda may wish to ignore 
biblical diet recommendations and still claim Christian status (most 
Christians ignore a lot of the bible so you're in good company), that is 
a personal choice (and wise I believe to ignore biblical anachronisms) 
and not a truly "believing" one.

A quick search of the internet will find a lot of discussion on those 
food laws.  There are bible references about the usage of "wheat", 
"barley", "bread", "corn"(not available until after the discovery of 
America), "flour", "millet", "spelt", "unleavened bread", "butter", 
"cheese", "curds", and "milk".  They provide bible references if one's 
knowledge of the bible isn't as extensive as it ought to be.  Wine is 
not paleo but is found extensively in the bible as well.  There's even a 
book on this subject with a particular spin called "The Maker's Diet" 
which I acquired once and found of little use.  The bible also has 
prohibited "Unclean" foods including pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, 
dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, most insects; birds include eagles, 
sparrows, crows; seafood includes catfish, sharks, scampi, octopus, 
squid, shellfish, whales.  "The fatted calf" is neolithic (no paleo 
fattens his animals before taking them to lunch), and finds it roots in 
pagan sacrifice belief systems providing the parasitic priesthood system 
free food and the best parts of the animal.  A real paleo kills his own 
meat and doesn't need a parasitic priesthood to do it for him.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Health/2009/05/Super-Foods-of-the-Bible.aspx
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/qt/foodsofthebible.htm

The bible is not paleo and one cannot use it to justify a paleo diet and 
is full of neolithic beliefs, neolithic practices, and neolithic dietary 
practices and is far far away from a paleo system of any kind.  Biblical 
diet recommendations and paleo diet and health benefits are 
incompatible.  One can take their dietary advice from good research 
which supports a paleolithic diet as more beneficial than any other or 
one can take their dietary recommendations from the neolithic based 
bible but one cannot do both as a "true" believer an any of the 
neolithic based religions.

Steve

Brenda Young wrote:
> OK, it's late, and I am just gonna answer this succinctly, at least in my mind.  You say you have your religion, but you don't believe in it.  That is very strange to me.  On another note, MY CHRISTIANITY has NOTHING to do with what we should eat or not eat, so I don't get the point AT ALL.  My questions are all pertaining to what the Bible talks about, which I wasn't going to get into here, but now I guess I have to.  And they did indeed cook the "fatted calf", although who knows if it was rare or well-done, lol.  There is NOTHING that I am not allowed to eat with my "religion", but when I read this I wonder why about some stuff, is all.  I don't think that is a reason to bite my head off.  I actually probably believe more like you do, but not for your reasons.  I just am not convinced that eating raw meat is better, even though I DO believe that for my dogs, which is a totally different subject, and they are all contentedly sleeping after a
>  wonderful meal of raw chicken legs, yep.  I just have questions, and I don't think it's fair for you to attack people on their religious beliefs, especially when my "religion" has no FOOD RULES, sigh.  
> 
> Love,
> Bren, just trying to figure stuff out...
> 
> 
> Brenda Young wrote:
>> I just have one question.  Not intended to fight with anyone.  But...Paleo is based on the fact that we are still the same creatures with the same nutritional needs as we were thousands and thousands of years ago, correct???  So, um, how does evolution fit in here???  If we have really "evolved", then that doesn't make sense.  Again, I am not on a religious agenda here...I am completely comfortable and happy with my religious stance and will not be convinced otherwise, but again,  how do the two of those mesh with your theory???  I am in the middle of the road, so to speak, with my Paleo thinking and the other stuff.  I, by NO MEANS, think we evolved, boy it's hard to not continue on this, lol, at least as far as nutritonal needs are concerned, so again, how do you equate firmly believing in evolution AND Paleo???  Doesn't make sense to me at all.   And just so you know, I don't think man has evolved from ANYTHING, and neither has his
>  nutritional needs.  You have to pick one side of the fence...or not, I guess.  But the fence part does not make sense to me AT ALL.  Pick one or the other, I guess I would say.  
>> Love,
>> Bren
> 
> Evolution is not a fast process (and not one directional) and evolutionary modern man is between 100,000 and 200,000 years old depending on how/where one defines the changes.  In other words, our ancestors 100,000 years ago are essentially the same as we are today and both groups could likely interbreed (assuming appropriate time machine technology).  How far one can go back in time before one then and now would be able to interbreed is not known, but there is a point.
> 
> Introduction of agriculture has occurred in roughly the past 10,000 years.  Our genes have not had near enough time to adapt to these changes including husbandry (milk).  However, adaption is ongoing and lactose intolerance is less prevalent in the western world and gluten intolerance is widespread but not in everyone.  There are other foods that have achieved some adaption but perhaps another 50,000+ years are needed to adapt to the changes agriculture and husbandry brought to diets.  Hence, the paleo diet is still the best diet and one most like to proved to greatest health benefits, even though this "diet" is different depending on food available and seasonal issues depending on location and latitude.
> 
> For me, evolution explains WHY the paleo diet is ideal and genetic changes over time provide more than sufficient evidence that any version of religion is bound to fail as a viable explanation.  Evolution is full of flaws, flaws that identify a "perfect" god as not a possible explanation for existence.  Evolution has viable explanations for diseases, beneficial bacteria, predators, flawed attributes (blind spot in the human eye), and many other things ancient religions failed to consider and place in their creation and god myths.
> 
> As the saying goes "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" (while not exactly true, is eye-opening none-the-less).
> 
> Scan down to:
> Modern observations
> and
> Modern theory
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
> 
> My religious roots are in Mormonism and they have a "Word of Wisdom" revelation on diet which states to eat meat sparingly and only in winter and to get plenty of wheat("All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts"D&C 89:4 <http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89>).  How wrong is that!  I've yet to read any religious doctrine on nutrition that comes close to a rational paleo diet - usually they are into the neolithic diet additions.  I place modern religious roots clearly in the neolithic era due to respective dietary recommendations even though paleo man likely had his/her superstitions.  Judaism and Christianity are neolithic religions based on diet and Jericho was a thriving city thousands of years before the neolithic Adam myth had him exiting from the garden as the first man.
> 
> The benefits of the paleo diet can be explained by evolution while religious explanations on diet are way off in the weeds (or wheat).
> 


-- 

Steve - [log in to unmask]

"The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher

"Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism"

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html