We didn't evolve.  We were created.  We adapted to our environments and learned new ways.  Are we still evolving?  No, but we are continually adapting.

"cooked foods was responsible for the evolution of primitive ape-like creatures into modern humans"

That's the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read on this website.

I can't believe you posted that.

Oh well, we are all entitled to express our thoughts I suppose.

I agree.  This is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read.  We were created by the Father above.  Humans were not monkeys before they were human and learning to cook the food catapulting evolution simply doesn't make any sense.  If you don't believe we were created then I challenge you to try and prove that God is not real and that Jesus was not the son of God.  You can also look into Laminin a trio of proteins in our bodies that literally is the "glue of life".  I have taken a lot of biology classes, and nothing I have ever read has led me to believe in evolution from nothing or the big bang theory.

I ate raw for a month and found it virtually elimnated my food cravings. However... it was very time consuming because I am a foodie and was experimenting with all the raw food recipes. That being said... I have adjusted and now try to incorporate raw food in to 40% of my daily diet. This can be quite simple by adding fruit to breakfast and eating big salads for lunch. I am drinking green smoothies which I find refreshing and help keep my energy levels up.

Regarding the spin of evolution... well who knows what really happened. I only know that humans are the only creatures who cook their food ... and I don't think it's necessarily all that healthy especially when it comes to animal products.

Casey:

The theory of Evolution has been accepted and tested for over 100 years.  We have many many recently discovered bones that help prove that humans slowly evolved from a particular kind of monkey.

I ask you to prove that god and jesus exists.  I see no proof of them anywhere.  You can't ask me to prove that god doesn't exist when I don't believe in it anyway.

Just try cooking without opposable thumbs!  Not very safe ;<)

I agree "rochestermom"! but want to add; "In all things moderation" and "there is a time and a season for all things". Summer seems a great time to go raw and winter begs for comforting warm soups a crockpot meals!

The raw food movement is ridiculous. Reminds me of the "rationale" for drinking wheat grass juice, the Atkins diet and combining proteins which allegedly magically create the correct molecules in our systems, or some such rubbish.

It's all throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If one thing is good, then go hog wild, it all has to be this way.

Certainly some foods are best raw, but there are many others that will benefit our bodies more through processes, such as cooking.

Balance.

For those calling the argument "stupid," please be a little more open minded. This is not the author's unique argument, it is a scientific theory advanced most notably in 1999 by anthropologists Richard Wrangham of Harvard University, Gregory Laden of the University of Minnesota and Harvard colleagues David Pilbeam, Jamie Jones and NancyLou Conklin-Brittain.

Sure, a scientific theory is not absolute truth. But this particular theory is based on comparing an earlier form of human, to put it crudely, (the specimen is referred to as "Lucy,") with humans today. If we were "created" as the human form we are today, how do you explain Lucy?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/08/990810064914.ht m

"The researchers link the advent of tuber cooking to changes in body size and tooth size that separated Homo erectus from earlier hominids such as australopithecines, of which "Lucy" is the most famous specimen...."The process of human evolution had much to do with food and how it was prepared," said Laden. Australopithecines like Lucy had huge teeth suitable for chewing all day long, and males were much bigger than females. But 1.9 million years ago, things changed. Teeth got smaller, and both sexes increased in size. Females increased in size more than males, and so the size gap between the sexes shrank. Homo erectus had arrived, and cooking of tubers made the difference."

Science has nothing to say about God. Science and evolution are not necessarily antithetical. You can still believe in a Creator who created the first matter, which eventually evolved into various life forms including our own.

Please be respectful to the author and his arguments.

You are immersed in the proof every moment.

Sorry you feel that away....there is still hope.

Science has nothing to say about God. Science and evolution CREATION are not necessarily antithetical. You can still believe in a Creator who created the first matter, which eventually evolved into various life forms including our own.

I meant to say "creation"

Where did you get the information about how most foods don't lose nutrients while cooked?  This doesn't sound right to me.  I have heard from numerous sources that the best option is chewing raw food thoroughly, which makes the nutrients best available to the digestive system, and that many of the nutrients/phytonutrients are depleted after cooking.  What is your source for this?

Fluffydragon:

I am very sorry that you don't believe in either God or Jesus.  I would say that your comment makes me angry but it just makes me sad.  God and Jesus are real.  You cannot deny that Jesus was an actual person.  Whether or not you accept Him as the Son of God is your choice.  God gave us all free will and I believe that free will is simply that you have the choice to believe or not to believe.  I do not mean that I don't believe in microevolution because adaptation have been proven.  However Macroevolution simply has not.  I have studied evolution and I don't believe in it.  If you can honestly believe that the intricacies of life "just happened", then that's on you.  I KNOW that God is real.  He is the Creator and controller of everything.  And if you ever get to the point where you do believe, then your life will be forever changed.  I can promise you that. 

And I can challenge you to go into an indepth study to prove that God is not real.  Because if you honestly did, I believe you would find out differently.  And I sincerely hope you do.

commandcenter:  it is our opinion and we commented on it.  I apologize for the hurting the author's feelings if indeed we did.  but If they throw it out there, it's going to be talked about by extremists of all kinds.

Caseygoins,

You wrote: "This is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read.  We were created by the Father above.  Humans were not monkeys before they were human and learning to cook the food catapulting evolution simply doesn't make any sense.  If you don't believe we were created then I challenge you to try and prove that God is not real and that Jesus was not the son of God."

I don't know how Fluffydragon feels, but I know that many people cannot say definitively that a higher power, "God," doesn't exist. However, you seem to be VERY certain that "macroevolution" doesn't exist. You don't "KNOW" that God exists and Jesus is the son of God. You BELIEVE.  That's why it's called faith.

 “I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure - that is all that agnosticism means.”

 Clarence Darrow quotes (American Lawyer, Speaker and Writer, 1857-1938)

I figured there would be more FSM people here.

"Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."

There's also a shocking correlation between Global Warming and the lack of Pirates.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

well whatever, i am very faithful.  and i am very certain that it doesn't exist.  and i am very certain that God is real.  If you don't feel that way, i'm sorry for you too.  You can call me ignorant if you would like.  But what did nietzsche say: it's better to believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong.  I believe.  I am not ignorant for believing.  Have a nice life.  Peace out.

Hah, thanks Alecto.

67alecto: lol way to lighten up the mood.  Have a good day.  And tell the flying spaghetti monster I said hello.

casey, let me ask you something.

If I found undeniable, solid, 100% spiritual and physical proof, that can be measured and re-tested to prove that god absolutely, completely and totally does not exist, would you believe it?

I didn't think so.

67alecto - rAmen!  

fluffydragon - thank you for your rational post.

Just about everyone else - I did not see one word about faith in the article above, so why did creation have to be brought up in a conversation about science?  The two have nothing to do with one another.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."  - Mohandas Gandhi 

Casey, I don't call you ignorant, I call you unwilling to evaluate evolution because you simply don't want to believe it could be true.

And yes, I can deny Jesus existed, quite easily.

I stopped being christian around the time I found out all my friends were going to hell for being non-believers.  There was a lot more to it than that alone, but for many reasons, I felt I had to walk away.  Yeah, god gave us free will.  But if we exercise it, we're denied eternal salvation.  Awesome.

I seriously doubt you have 'studied' evolution and found it lacking.  I don't care about what you want ME to prove to you.  I don't have to prove anything to you, nor you to me.  I don't care to do any 'in depth' study of god, nor know where to start.  I have read the Bible and find it contradictory, full of hate and a vengeful god instructing his followers to rape and kill in his name.

Personally caseygoins, I have no problem with your faith. I respect you for holding steadfast to often unpopular beliefs. I hope it gives you joy and comfort. I have known many spiritual and faithful people who are exemplary human beings.

What I have a problem with is you cutting down a perfectly valid scientific theory as "STUPID" so non-chalantly simply because it doesn't align with your faith.

Fluffydragon:

I didn't say you called me ignorant.  I am sorry you had to walk away.  I have actually studied evolution, maybe not indepth, and to be honest with you I typically don't comment on this issue in blogs because I know not everyone believes.  And I don't like to push it on people.  It really wasn't directed towards you either.  I was just posting my opinion and my belief.  But you and "commandcenter" came back at me.  I probably wouldn't believe you if you found some undeniable proof because I have had proof over the years that He is real.  But about Jesus, it is historically proven that He was a person on this earth, whether or not you believe in Him.  And I have read the bible as well and I don't get the raping in his name part.  But as Commandcenter pointed out, it is about faith.  I don't like different religions.  I don't go to church as often as I should.  But I do have faith. 

Have a good day.

commandcenter:  I apologize for calling it stupid.  but I was not the only one who called it stupid and I didn't see you saying anything to that person unless your comments were directed towards both of us?

Another gem:

"There are many redeeming qualities of the people of other religions and what they believe. I have many things in common with people who just want to do the right thing and “live and let live”. I just wish that people who preach other religions would realize that they, and the people that wrote the religions, are fallible and that there is a highly likely chance that no one here understands why we are here and exactly how we should be conducting ourselves. I would like to be able to live my life in a manner that I see fit without being persecuted. I am being persecuted by the overly religious and when I read this site I find that I am not the only one who feels that way.

Modern regions’ practice and doctrine is based on the brain power of men (no women’s opinions were even considered) who thought that the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and that a good bleeding could pull the demons out of you. I think the human race is smarter and more evolved than that today. I do not know why people are so against thinking for themselves? I guess it is just easier to blindly follow."

http://www.venganza.org/2010/08/missing-the-point/

I have no idea why religion was even brought into this.  If you don't agree with one part of the article, okay.  You're free to think what you think.  But to dismiss it completely because one section doesn't connect perfectly to your own beliefs is extremely ignorant.  I'm agnostic, so I've heard both sides of the stories.  Both have their ups and downs.   However, religion and science do not co-exist.  Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence.

I don't have a huge opinion of the raw vs. cooked food debated persay.  I DO think that whole foods over processed foods are a better nutritional choicce and with the propensity of processed pre- packaged junk out there, RAW is one way of assurring that you avoid this. That said,  I think whatever works for you, you should embrace it.  

As for evolution.... there is a difference between the process called evolution (which is a scientific fact, and yes people ARE still evolving...just like every sexually reproducing organism on the planet) and Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which is a THEORY precisely because it explains something which cannot be reproduced in a lab and therefore accepted as a scientific law. The evidence supporting his theory is SO STRONG however, that it can reasonably be accepted.  But not everyone is reasonable when it comes to such things.  Evolution Theory does not presuppose that there is no divine creator, nor does it support that notion.  I recommend anyone who TRULY wants to understand what they are talking about when they say they have an opinion on it do some reading and get their facts straight.

So, back to food...

I love the idea of consuming more of a raw diet, but it wasn't entirely practical for me. I transitioned up to about 75 percent raw for about a month. I loved the way I felt, but I struggled to actually get enough calories even though I always ate till full.

Has anybody else gone raw and struggled to get enough calories??

It takes FAITH to believe both.  However, there were EYEWITNESSES to Jesus's exsistence.  I choose to believe in creation.  I work with young adults and without fail, those who believe in creation, are living much more happy and prodictive lives.  I believe it's because they know they have PURPOSE.  They believe that when they were created, it was with a destiny in mind, rather than just taking up space on the planet.  They believe there will be a day when they stand before the One who lovingly created them, therefore, they live their lives with purpose and an awareness that when this life is over, they will give an account for how they lived their lives. 

I personally haven't gone raw, but I have eaten mostly "raw" foods on many days.  I can definitely say it is harder to get all your necessary calories out of eating that diet.  It is a lot of maintenance as well, and would probably make it very difficult to eat outside of your own kitchen.  To be honest, I think eating "raw" is just another trend just like Atkins was, and will die off in a few years.

I read this daily...I've never seen it go so far off-base and away from the topic at hand! 

(Cindy...you go girl! )

Can we please just drop the ridiculous creationism vs. evolution debate?  People believing in evolution will still believe that, and those believing in creationism will still believe in that.  In the end, does it really matter?  We're all human beings; we just have different thoughts and ideas.  Lets keep the discussion on the article at hand: Raw diets, good or bad?

The order that scientists believe "evolution" happened in is the same order that the book of Genesis says that Creation happened, many years before Darwin.  Could God have taken the micro-organisms, fungi, plants, and animals off at every step? 

The creation/evolution argument aside, the article does help me understand something.  I've always been warned that cooking kills nutrients, yet I've had problems with my stomach and the thought of some veggies raw could make me turn away in disgust.  That cooked vegetables are more absorbable of nutrients makes more sense, because the body craves what it needs, and I of course crave mostly the more easily-digested cooked vegetables.  Thanks for letting me know!

Original Post by: mjh018

So, back to food...

I love the idea of consuming more of a raw diet, but it wasn't entirely practical for me. I transitioned up to about 75 percent raw for about a month. I loved the way I felt, but I struggled to actually get enough calories even though I always ate till full.

Has anybody else gone raw and struggled to get enough calories??

Alot of the recipes I was trying had things like nuts, seeds and avacadoes.
I bought a dehydrator and tried the sprouted raw breads and crackers which are really fabulous.

I REALLY WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP FIGHTING AND KEEP THIS ABOUT FOOD.

So from what I gather I am assuming that a lot of these posters also believe that the planet is 10k years old.  Why do you let your superstition blind you?  You are getting your science from an outdated irrelevant book written by primitive man.  Think about it.

Sorry folks.  Evolution is fact.

how is this stupid, it makes perfect sense. please keep your crazy religions out of my weight loss regime

I don't know why the topic has veered off from food, but I find this new conversation much more engaging :)

First things first:

"I apologize for calling it stupid.  but I was not the only one who called it stupid and I didn't see you saying anything to that person unless your comments were directed towards both of us?"

You know when kids get into an argument and they whine on and on about "he did it!" and "she started it!" and you don't give a damn who actually did it or started it? Now read your post and tell me in how many ways this resembles that. Come on, are you really complaining that you were the only one pointed out even though someone else may have called it stupid? Commandcenter referenced that to you because she was talking to you in the first place. There is nothing wrong with that. Not to mention, I really don't think we need to call out each person in order for everyone to learn something; this is not kindergarten.

I think it's funny and a little annoying when peope have nothing good left to say that will help their argument and so they go ahead and attack the other person with the most absurd things. For example: *argument between two kids has been going on for some time now* "Oh yeah? Well that's just stupid!" (Read: I give up, you're right, I have nothing better to say to support my claim but I don't want it to show so I'll just go ahead and call it stupid. Ha!)

Secondly:

Evolution is fact, no doubt. You know why? We have something called proof. I  know you keep saying you have undeniable proof of god, but that's so completely wrong. Nobody has proof of god and if they did then I don't think this argument would still be going strong.

Furthermore, anyone who does not believe in god has nothing to prove; not because the claim that there is no god is false (not saying it is false, I am very obviously athiest, I only didn't know how else to phrase my point), but simply because you cannot disprove the claim. If you made the claim that somewhere in the world there is a rock that gives extraordinary power to its posessor, do you honestly expect me to search every single rock in the world in order to disprove that claim? Not only is that impractical, it is impossible. It would, by default, be your responsibility to find that one rock and provide undeniable evidence to prove your claim.

That said, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. So please, if you ever have another one of these arguments, don't include the whole "prove that there is NO god" position as part of your argument unless you want to be laughed at by your opposing debator. Not only is it one of the weakest arguments, it's also incredibly illogical.

---

As far as the whole raw vs. cooked food goes, I agree that it needs to be a balance of the two that feels right for your body. The theory presented in the artical above is interesting and poses some interesting questions.

nawnsie: hahaha, best comment here yet by far.

Alecto, you crack me up!!!! I wish everyone could live and let live, alas, not so.

Okay, this blog is NOT the place for theological discussions, IMHO. I found the article to be really interesting and it explains a lot to me.

I also have heard that food loses nutrients in cooking - most notably when being boiled. That's why I steam the foods I cook, or I bake them (so as not to add a bunch of grease & breading with frying). When I "fry," I really just saute in a little oil-based spray.

That said, I prefer the taste & texture of fresh fruits & vegetables for the most part, as compared to their cooked counterparts. And there's nothing anyone can do to a fresh fruit, to make it more healthy - all desserts do is add sugar and fat to nature's bounty.

Now, as to the idiotic religious babble going on here:  Religion is NOT something people enjoy having shoved down their throats, and when people react in such a ridiculously extreme fashion, they only show themselves up as intolerant, uneducated, socially inept boobs.

The Bible isn't a science book, true, but it is the most scientifically accurate book there is.  Proof dinosaurs existed?  Chekc out Job.  Proof air has weight, proven by man only 300yrs ago, but told to us in Job thousands of years earlier.  Leviticus tells us our blood makes atonement for us.  Proven by scientists as it carries water and nourishment to every cell and more.  "William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life - confirming what the Bible revealed 3000 years earlier."  The DEFENDER'S study Bible.  The Bible even talks about people in caves!  It describes a spherical earth in Isaiah long before Aristotle suggested it.  It's prophecy alone should prove to all that God exists.  The Bible is 100% accurate in predicting the future.  No other sacred writings can say this.  It has tens of thousands of artifacts the support and prove it right.  No other writings can say this.  If you truly study it, you can not prove any of it wrong.  Want to know more?  Check out "Know Why you Believe" by Paul Little. 

Not saying I know all the answers.  Not saying I am perfect.  Not suggesting everyone will believe.  Theory is theory.  Facts are facts.  I have faith in what I can not see, but believe that which I do see in His word to all of us.  I too was born with a sinful nature and will continue to make mistakes.  The difference is I believe in the One who can free me from the consequences.

Wow, somebody opened up a can of worms, how about we talk about politics next!!! this is cracking me up!!

This whole thread just proves why you should keep your religious (and political) views to yourself. 

michellegood: The bible cannot perdict the future. End of story.

True, the bible is as much a book of historical writings as it is a reference book for Christians (and, for Jews, the Old Testament). There is, as far as I have learned, evidence to support the historical perspective of the bible. I have to say I know more about the Old Testament than the Christian bible, but even Jesus is known to have been a real person -- so you are right in saying there is evidence to support the history written in the bible, but you are wrong to say there is evidence to support any predictive or religious claims made in the bible (eg. Jesus is the son of god and Mary was a virgin when she concieved Jesus). I honestly don't know where you guys get that from.

But how can you say it is the most scientifically accurate book the world has seen? A scientifically accurate book, by definition, wouldn't leave room for interpretation, as the bible is so dramatically famous for.

You guys seriously need to fine-tune your definition of "proof".

Ignoring the stupid argument going on,

I love raw foods. So long as the food is fresh it's perfectly safe to eat. It's not always practical, trying to get REALLY fresh meat/fish is hard in England when on a student budget.

To me, many foods actually taste better raw, and strangely most fish make me ill when cooked but I have no problem with them raw.

Also, the amount of nutrients in the food depends largely on how they're cooked. Boiled vegetables for example are dreadful.

Great article!  I think the cooked food catalyst is an incredibly interesting idea.

Dang, there's more arguing about religion than the article itself on this thread!  It's amazing how emotional get when their different beliefs contradict what we find when we analyze the world.

Moving back to raw food does seem a little backwards to me, plus in this fast paced world it's gotta be hard.  I've moved to vegetarianism some time ago, and that in itself was difficult because of the time it takes for food preparation. 

Per neogetz comment, does fish "count" when referring to the raw food movement?  I thought that it was an extension of the vegan movement.

^I have never heard anything of the raw food movement being an extension of the vegan movement; that said, it's likely that a lot of raw foodists are also vegetarian/vegan simply because of the similar implications behind the diet as well as, so I imagine, most people are not willing to eat raw meat (in which case a person like that who is a raw foodist would also be vegetarian by default), not to mention that it's definitely possible that certain type of people gravitate toward those types of food movements...

But I don't think you have to be vegan to be raw. I could be wrong :)

We have been feeding our dog cooked food for years, and many of our neighbours have done so.  In fact it is common practice to feed the dog leftover cooked foods and cooked meals.    The dog foods in teh can do not seem to be raw....am I to assume then that dogs will eventually evolve into something more 'human' too?   There are some people out there who do resemble apes/monkeys .... Raw food or cooked food, it's all about moderation.  Too much of anything has the potential to become harmful

Oh, I forgot I wanted to ask you, neogetz -- did I understand correctly? You eat raw meat? As in, steak? Chicken?