Re: Occam's Razor/GLUTEN INTOLERANCE

[Guest guest]

Re: Occam's Razor

Nenah suggested that aliens were responsible for gluten intolerance. Space

aliens. I felt it was introducing a superfluous entity as there are other,

simpler explanations available and cited Occam's Razor. She replied she did not

know what Occam's Razor was, and also responded asking what it is, and I

replied. Since it was clearly not relevant to the original subject line about

gluten intolerance, I changed the subject line.

==============

Actually, if you reread my post, I did NOT say or suggest that aliens were

responsible for gluten intolerance.

in NJ had written:

" SOMETHING is missing here. gluten is in a lot of worldwide

foods...yet we can't digest it....i just don't buy the fact that wapf says raw

milk and soaked, sprouted, fermented grains are good for you, and that so many

of us can't tolerate them. WHY?????? "

I replied:

" Relevant to the above, a couple of years ago a very provacative 2-part article

by Lloyd Pye appeared in Nexus magazine, called DARWINISM: A CRUMBLING THEORY. "

I then clarified in a second post:

" My point is, this guy's data that tiny little grains logically could not have

naturally evolved given the circumstances, suggest that perhaps humans were

never intended to eat grains, no matter where grains come from. "

Mr. Pye goes through an analysis of genetics step-by-step and I can't find any

flaws in his analysis. If you read his analysis instead of allowing yourself to

get sidetracked on a point you find ridiculous, you may find that some questions

may pop up, such as " Are humans really meant to eat grain? "

It's possible to follow Pye's logical discussion of genetics without subscribing

to his conclusion (about aliens). Obviously what I wrote is true: this is indeed

a " provocative " article.

Nenah

[Guest guest]

> It's possible to follow Pye's logical discussion of genetics without

subscribing to his conclusion (about aliens).

Well, I didn't find it logical. But even if it was logical, it really isn't

possible to follow it without " subscribing to his conclusion, " because his

whole theory is based on the foundation of intervention. He even calls his

position " Interventionism. " He says that humans came here intact. No wonder

we can't eat gluten, we're from outer space!

> " My point is, this guy's data that tiny little grains logically could not

have naturally evolved given the circumstances, suggest that perhaps humans

were never intended to eat grains, no matter where grains come from. "

I don't see any reason to say " intended, " I think a more correct observation

is simply that humans DID NOT eat gluten grains, or large amounts of grains

at all, and therefore it would seem logical and obvious that a lot of humans

couldn't eat them. Gluten grain agriculture was limited to certain regions

of the world and is a very recent development in human diet. There's no need

to go far afield to establish a realistic argument that we aren't optimized

for diets containing gluten. We certainly don't need to go into outer space.

That is why I mentioned Occam's Razor.

> Obviously what I wrote is true: this is indeed a " provocative " article.

The ARTICLE does not provoke me nor do I find it provocative. What

" provoked " me was that you offered it as a reasonable explanation of gluten

intolerance.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

[Guest guest]

[Nenah] Mr. Pye goes through an analysis of genetics step-by-step and

I can't find any flaws in his analysis. If you read his analysis

instead of allowing yourself to get sidetracked on a point you find

ridiculous, you may find that some questions may pop up, such as " Are

humans really meant to eat grain? "

It's possible to follow Pye's logical discussion of genetics without

subscribing to his conclusion (about aliens). Obviously what I wrote

is true: this is indeed a " provocative " article.

[MikeP] Well, the fact that humans really are not meant to eat grain

is already well-known and follows from the conventional

variation/selection view of evolution, so I don't see why it would be

necessary or desirable to appeal to a fruitloop theory of genetics to

reach this conclusion that nobody seriously doubts.

I didn't find the article provocative at all. It was simply boring or

amusing and doesn't present a theory I can take seriously at all. He

takes great pleasure in colorfully dismissing profound ideas

(variation and selection) that are extremely durable and plausible to

me. He is not much different than creationists actually, some of whom

I'm sure have also written very logical and fact-filled arguments

against post-Darwinist theories.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

Please cut to the chase for me here; i have neither the desire nor

the inclination to read that 2 part article, especially if it

pertains to space aliens.

is the author suggesting that the reason we 'can't' (if we truly

can't; i'm still not sure i buy it, LOL) digest gluten is because

space aliens introduced it to our planet, so, Q.E.D., we were never

MEANT to eat it and thus we cannot digest it? is that the gist?

laura

--- In , " Nenah Sylver " <nenah@b...>

wrote:

>

> Re: Occam's Razor

>

> Nenah suggested that aliens were responsible for gluten

intolerance. Space aliens. I felt it was introducing a superfluous

entity as there are other, simpler explanations available and cited

Occam's Razor. She replied she did not know what Occam's Razor was,

and also responded asking what it is, and I replied. Since it

was clearly not relevant to the original subject line about gluten

intolerance, I changed the subject line.

>

> ==============

>

> Actually, if you reread my post, I did NOT say or suggest that

aliens were responsible for gluten intolerance.

>

> in NJ had written:

> " SOMETHING is missing here. gluten is in a lot of worldwide

> foods...yet we can't digest it....i just don't buy the fact that

wapf says raw milk and soaked, sprouted, fermented grains are good

for you, and that so many of us can't tolerate them. WHY?????? "

>

> I replied:

> " Relevant to the above, a couple of years ago a very provacative 2-

part article by Lloyd Pye appeared in Nexus magazine, called

DARWINISM: A CRUMBLING THEORY. "

>

> I then clarified in a second post:

> " My point is, this guy's data that tiny little grains logically

could not have naturally evolved given the circumstances, suggest

that perhaps humans were never intended to eat grains, no matter

where grains come from. "

>

> Mr. Pye goes through an analysis of genetics step-by-step and I

can't find any flaws in his analysis. If you read his analysis

instead of allowing yourself to get sidetracked on a point you find

ridiculous, you may find that some questions may pop up, such as " Are

humans really meant to eat grain? "

>

> It's possible to follow Pye's logical discussion of genetics

without subscribing to his conclusion (about aliens). Obviously what

I wrote is true: this is indeed a " provocative " article.

>

> Nenah

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> is the author suggesting that the reason we 'can't' (if we truly

can't; i'm still not sure i buy it, LOL) digest gluten is because

space aliens introduced it to our planet, so, Q.E.D., we were never

MEANT to eat it and thus we cannot digest it? is that the gist? <<

No, that space aliens introduced US to this planet. To quote the article,

" Humanity did not evolve from monkeys or apes but, like them, either arrived

on Earth intact or developed here as a result of extraterrestrial

intervention. "

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

we bought a house and are taking care of a lawn for the first time.

there are many dirt patches in our so-called lawn so i am gradually

putting down top soil and reseeding it.

and so i have been watching grass grow. watching it come up, so

very, very fine and thin and that bright, pale green...and i can't

mow it til it's at least 4 in. tall so its roots will be established.

all this watching of grass growing has got me to thinking.

the old, established grass keeps sending up those seed part of the

grass...and i mow it of course.

BUT. when cows are eating grass, they are also eating grain at the

same time, as grain is the grass seed.

so what i was thinking is this.

aren't we supposed to be eating whole foods? granted, we often eat

the egg yolk without the white (as in shakes) or the shells, of

course. and we often eat the cream of the milk without eating the

skim part as well.

we know we shouldn't be eating refined sugar, but that we can chew on

a piece of raw, whole sugar cane. and that it's best to have whole

grains (soaked, fermented or sprouted) but not white flour.

so cows, when they eat grass, are eating the WHOLE grass, seed, or

grain, and all.

we're not supposed to feed cows just the grain part.

so maybe gluten, which i'm sure is present in the grass seed in very

small amounts, can be handled in tiny amounts, as long as it is,

maybe, consumed with the grass from which it comes.

i don't know. just a thought.

laura

> > It's possible to follow Pye's logical discussion of genetics

without

> subscribing to his conclusion (about aliens).

>

> Well, I didn't find it logical. But even if it was logical, it

really isn't

> possible to follow it without " subscribing to his conclusion, "

because his

> whole theory is based on the foundation of intervention. He even

calls his

> position " Interventionism. " He says that humans came here intact.

No wonder

> we can't eat gluten, we're from outer space!

>

> > " My point is, this guy's data that tiny little grains logically

could not

> have naturally evolved given the circumstances, suggest that

perhaps humans

> were never intended to eat grains, no matter where grains come

from. "

>

> I don't see any reason to say " intended, " I think a more correct

observation

> is simply that humans DID NOT eat gluten grains, or large amounts

of grains

> at all, and therefore it would seem logical and obvious that a lot

of humans

> couldn't eat them. Gluten grain agriculture was limited to certain

regions

> of the world and is a very recent development in human diet.

There's no need

> to go far afield to establish a realistic argument that we aren't

optimized

> for diets containing gluten. We certainly don't need to go into

outer space.

> That is why I mentioned Occam's Razor.

>

> > Obviously what I wrote is true: this is indeed a " provocative "

article.

>

> The ARTICLE does not provoke me nor do I find it provocative. What

> " provoked " me was that you offered it as a reasonable explanation

of gluten

> intolerance.

>

> Christie

> Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

> Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

> http://www.caberfeidh.com

[Guest guest]

> Please cut to the chase for me here; i have neither the desire nor

> the inclination to read that 2 part article, especially if it

> pertains to space aliens.

>

> is the author suggesting that the reason we 'can't' (if we truly

> can't; i'm still not sure i buy it, LOL) digest gluten is because

> space aliens introduced it to our planet, so, Q.E.D., we were never

> MEANT to eat it and thus we cannot digest it? is that the gist?

>

> laura

I am an alien coming out of the closet, lol. I have lumbar #6 which

only we aliens - 10% of the population - possess. And no, I don't

consume gluten either. I'd venture to say many of you others fit into

this category as well. Come out and be proud! Alien rights. Aliens

propogated here thousands of years ago; they didn't just introduce

gluten. Some of us are space aliens, THAT's why we can't tolerate

gluten. We bow down to that Glutenator in the North Wet, who has

freed us from the bondage of guilt and shame.

Full of it tonight,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

that makes absolutely no sense.

so, space aliens deposited us here, and that's why we can't digest

grain cuz it's not of our native planet whatever they might be.

so how come we can eat everything else? (except maybe tree bark?)

laura

> >> is the author suggesting that the reason we 'can't' (if we truly

> can't; i'm still not sure i buy it, LOL) digest gluten is because

> space aliens introduced it to our planet, so, Q.E.D., we were never

> MEANT to eat it and thus we cannot digest it? is that the gist? <<

>

> No, that space aliens introduced US to this planet. To quote the

article,

> " Humanity did not evolve from monkeys or apes but, like them,

either arrived

> on Earth intact or developed here as a result of extraterrestrial

> intervention. "

>

> Christie

> Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

> Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

> http://www.caberfeidh.com

> http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>> so cows, when they eat grass, are eating the WHOLE grass, seed, or

grain, and all. <<

What you have to ask yourself is, what kind of grass did cows evolve eating?

Or rather, the ancestor of the cow, as the cow is a fully domesticated

species, shaped and crafted by humans.

The cow's wild ancestor, the aurochs, is extinct. It used to have a range

that covered parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Wheat, the major gluten grain, was developed in the Middle East. There's no

reason to think that the aurochs ever ate any gluten, even though they ate

grasses, with the heads in season.

Also, modern grains are much starchier, and the heads much larger, than wild

grasses. We have selectively bred them to be that way. We cannot really look

at an entirely manipulated animal species, the cow, and an entirely

manipulated plant species, grass/grains, and deduce anything about their

natural interrelationship. Neither of them would even exist without our

intervention.

Also, while the aurochs did eat grasses and grass heads when they were

around, they also ate other vegetation such as bark, branches and leaves,

other herbaceous plants, some fruits, acorns, and probably other things I

can't remember. They didn't just chow down on an endless summer's grasslands

all year round as domestic cattle do, even those that are grass-fed and

raised to the highest standards.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com

http://doggedblog.com

[Guest guest]

>so maybe gluten, which i'm sure is present in the grass seed in very

>small amounts, can be handled in tiny amounts, as long as it is,

>maybe, consumed with the grass from which it comes.

>

>i don't know. just a thought.

>

>laura

Right.

I have goats.

They LOVE the grass heads. They eat them whenever they can.

However, they can't eat them very often! They only come into

seed once or twice a year, and the ducks and chickens are a

all trying to eat them too. So few of the grass heads EVER

come to ripen, and the goats only get a few mouthfulls

of simi-ripe seed heads.

Now the fact is, that a goat will eat itself TO DEATH

if given a whole container of oats. Really. They just

eat and eat, and their gut bacteria go nuts. But never EVER

in nature does a goat get presented with a bucket of

hulled grain, so this situation does not come up. Never,

in nature, does an animal (or a person) eat a LOT of grain.

Small amounts of green grain, maybe, though for humans

that sort of grain is rather indigestible.

Humans probably didn't have a lot of issues with grain

until they ate a LOT of it. This is still the case: humans

who eat grain but don't get HUGE amounts of it do ok

til they get some amount that overwhelms their systems.

Also, getting it all year round. It could be that chewing on

grain in the fall was no big deal, but when we started

storing it and eating it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner

it started causing more problems.

What gets confusing is that for those of us

with the " allergic " forms of reactions to grains,

very tiny amounts can set us off. But THAT condition

may have started because of the huge amounts of

wheat we USED to eat. I expect that if I'd been born

in Thailand, things would be much different ...

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>I'd venture to say many of you others fit into

>this category as well. Come out and be proud! Alien rights. Aliens

>propogated here thousands of years ago; they didn't just introduce

>gluten. Some of us are space aliens, THAT's why we can't tolerate

>gluten. We bow down to that Glutenator in the North Wet, who has

>freed us from the bondage of guilt and shame.

>

>Full of it tonight,

>Deanna

Hee hee! My Mom, bless her, has a little finger that is crooked,

due to an accident involving concrete steps and a glass and

a cut tendon. There was a TV show called " the Alien " on shortly

after, where the " aliens " had a finger just like hers! So she

just told everyone she is an alien ...

Ok, maybe she is, so then I am too, and THAT's the problem!

Heidi (also full of it tonight).

[Guest guest]

> >> so cows, when they eat grass, are eating the WHOLE grass,

seed, or

> grain, and all. <<

>

> What you have to ask yourself is, what kind of grass did cows

evolve eating?

> Or rather, the ancestor of the cow, as the cow is a fully

domesticated

> species, shaped and crafted by humans.

>

> The cow's wild ancestor, the aurochs, is extinct. It used to have

a range

> that covered parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

>

> Wheat, the major gluten grain, was developed in the Middle East.

There's no

> reason to think that the aurochs ever ate any gluten, even though

they ate

> grasses, with the heads in season.

>

> Also, modern grains are much starchier, and the heads much larger,

than wild

> grasses. We have selectively bred them to be that way. We cannot

really look

> at an entirely manipulated animal species, the cow, and an entirely

> manipulated plant species, grass/grains, and deduce anything about

their

> natural interrelationship. Neither of them would even exist

without our

> intervention.

>

> Also, while the aurochs did eat grasses and grass heads when they

were

> around, they also ate other vegetation such as bark, branches and

leaves,

> other herbaceous plants, some fruits, acorns, and probably other

things I

> can't remember. They didn't just chow down on an endless summer's

grasslands

> all year round as domestic cattle do, even those that are grass-

fed and

> raised to the highest standards.

>

> Christie

And Europe was covered in oak forests from Atlantic to the Russian

steppes, from the Baltic to the far side of the Alps. However, the

modern cow comes from crosses between the different cattle of

various parts of the world, some were indeed from the Fertile

Crescent and from India as well as Africa.

Connie