Isn't dietary unhealthiness proof of evolution?

[CplFerro]

It just occurred to me: If man were created, why do civilised diets give us a variety of diseases? We're programmed to like sugar, fat, and salt, and modern diets partake of these greatly. If we are designed by a higher power, we're surely designed to live in cities, with access to such diets - thus, why the disease rates?

Are we to imagine we were designed to subsist on fresh vegetables and rabbit stew? Isn't that proof positive we evolved, now that under modern conditions of production and consumption we have the opportunity to bypass our regular diets and gorge on all that sugar, salt, and fat?

Intelligently Designed...for a heart-friendly diet!

(& I wonder how many ID'ers are lard-asses.)

[jon]

But suffering gives us a chance to feel closer to God, and dying young because of an unhealthy lifestyle takes us to Him sooner. Clearly, human illness, suffering and premature death are all signs of God's love ;)

[drkitten]

It just occurred to me: If man were created, why do civilised diets give us a variety of diseases?

Because of Original Sin, obviously. All the bad things about the modern world were introduced by Adam eating that damned fruit.

There's nothing particularly original about this argument or the creationist rebuttal; I think that the anti-Darwinists were attributing appendicitis and cholera to that damned fruit in the late 1800s.

[Ceritus]

Funny thing is, there is a good chance it is evolution in action. Perhaps the people with less restraint to eating sugars fats ect will die w/o reproducing quicker than those with restraint. I mean a fat slob vs a lean attractive person is less likely to reproduce unless they have other inherent qualities. Maybe in thousands of years from now it will be mainly lean mean human machines.... ofcourse this is all null and void if there ever is a food shortage.

I am getting close to the fat slob end of the gene pool though..... Damn that pasta! 6ft 210lbs and counting =\

[UserGoogol]

It only refutes intelligent design if you assume that God would have created a universe as good as possible. Theologically that sort of assumption makes sense, but most sensible religious people have enough sense to realize that the world is profoundly subpar and find excuses for God's peculiar design choices. One might argue, for instance, that the various health conditions connected to overeating are simply because God, in his ineffable wisdom, hates gluttony.

That said, the evolutionary origins of dietary unhealthiness is certainly interesting.

[kellyb]

Well, I'm not honestly convinced that moderate salt intake or animal fat is bad.
Sugar is a little different, but when it comes in the form of fruit, it's not bad, either, necessarily. In fact, craving sugary fruits is good.
I think there's an evolutionary reason behind most of our dietary cravings.
We did evolve in constant quasi-starvation, you know?

[jon]

It only refutes intelligent design if you assume that God would have created a universe as good as possible. Theologically that sort of assumption makes sense, but most sensible religious people have enough sense to realize that the world is profoundly subpar and find excuses for God's peculiar design choices. One might argue, for instance, that the various health conditions connected to overeating are simply because God, in his ineffable wisdom, hates gluttony.

That said, the evolutionary origins of dietary unhealthiness is certainly interesting.

Of course, what God views as the best of all possible universes might not be the best from the human point of view - it might be a pretty crappy place for us to live. Again, this idea isn't original (see Leibniz, for example).

[Fnord]

Actually, any assumptions about God are apt to be inaccurate. You know ... "He works in mysterious ways" and all that.

I find it odd that our bodies create their own means of destruction -- cholesterol, osteoporosis, certain cancers, et cetera.

I mean, why design something in one's own image and include an auto-destruct mechanism?

[skeptigirl]

Well, I'm not honestly convinced that moderate salt intake or animal fat is bad.
Sugar is a little different, but when it comes in the form of fruit, it's not bad, either, necessarily. In fact, craving sugary fruits is good.
I think there's an evolutionary reason behind most of our dietary cravings.
We did evolve in constant quasi-starvation, you know?If you look at the time frame for human evolution, it is very slow. The factors that led to our genetic makeup today reflect a range of conditions over millenniums.

As we immigrate to new environments, or the environment changes, it is our intelligence and adaptability that make us a successful species. Organisms which become specialized and cannot adapt become extinct when the environment changes.

For an example of how slow evolution is and how we adapt in the meantime, just look at skin color. It took thousands of years for skin color in populations to change. Dark skinned persons who immigrate to latitudes away from the equator do not suddenly start having light skinned children, neither do their children fail to thrive with less sunshine though they may have vitamin deficiencies.

Light skinned people who immigrate to equatorial latitudes have relatively high rates of melanoma. Children who are more resistant would have to have children more resistant who would have to have children even more resistant for many generations before something like melanoma would result in evolution of darker skin in the offspring.

The dark skinned people living in low Sun areas can take vitamins and the light skinned people in high Sun areas can wear hats, proper clothing and use sunscreen. So we can adapt rapidly using our intelligence. But evolutionary mechanisms are slow for species with slow reproductive rates. (By slow that includes how long until offspring can reproduce as well as how fast the population grows or turns over.

You need to use your intelligence to get the right amount of exercise and to eat the right diet for optimum health, evolution won't produce McDonald's adapted humans until long after the last McDonald's is gone.

[CapelDodger]

From a normal point of view, it's not surprising that we haven't yet evolved in response to an environment of supermarkets, fast food, globalisation and marketing. We evolved in an environment where fat, sugar and salt had to be found before a lot of competition. Our appetites are stimulated by these so that we gorge when they're easily available and make that extra bit of effort when they're less easily available (honey, for instance, or waving sticks en masse at a leopard to scare it off its kill).

Forest instincts in a mall environment. And people drive to the mall ...

So, that's the normal point of view. The ID point of view should presumably be that we were designed for a forest life, not an urbanised (gays gravitate to cities, you know) industrial society. Or possibly that the urbanised industrial society is the god's gift but it's a new Garden of Eden. What did the god's first big issue with his prototypes concern? Diet, that's what. Look it up, you'll see. Cain and Abel? Farmer and shepherd, diet again. Nobody's ever suggested an incestuous gay lovers' spat was behind that. Hello? It's not about the sex, guys, it's about the diet - start preaching that. "Under-Size Me" - that's like supersize in reverse, with a portion going to the poor. Pressure McDonald's to sign up.

[The Mad Hatter]

I would anticipate a creationist response that goes something like this:

Humans were created perfect. We lived in the garden of Eden, and our desire for sugar, fat, and all those tasty things was a hunter-gatherer survival mechanism (though in Eden, I can't imagine needing very many survival mechanisms). Then we fell, became corrupt, developed agriculture, and started stuffing ourselves with these. In other words, we were perfectly suited to the environment God wanted us to be in, and we humans left by our own "free will" to our current one.

I'm sure it's full of holes, but I can guarantee you'll get it from a few creationists.

[skeptigirl]

Mad Hat's post made me think of another aspect here. Are you using an argument that discredits intelligent design as evidence of evolution?

That's not necessary but it also is a bad hypothesis. What you should be asking is, "are my constant guilt feelings about not living a 'healthy' lifestyle evidence I wasn't well designed?" :alc:

[Orangutan]

Because of Original Sin, obviously. All the bad things about the modern world were introduced by Adam eating that damned fruit.

Oh yeah, you'd like that, then men would be to blame. Don't you know women are to blame for all the worlds problems? Eve ate the fruit.
;)

[CplFerro]

Oh yeah, you'd like that, then men would be to blame. Don't you know women are to blame for all the worlds problems? Eve ate the fruit.
;)


Dear Orangutan,

I'll bet if Adam had have shaken out of his mental fog and declined to eat the fruit, he would have found of a way to dispose of any core or pit and hoped the whole thing would just blow over without God being any the wiser. It's only because he ate it too that God found out.

Cpl Ferro

[dbruey]

Evolution depends on the reproduction of the species to continue. Most unhealthy diets result in things like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. But those diseases don't prevent people from reproducing (unless they have some side effect, Viagra being the solution for one such side effect.) Many of the problems that will beset an unhealthy adult in their 30s or 40s or later are not serious enough to prevent reproduction. By the 40s, most people who are going to reproduce have already done so.

As far as being obese, I believe there is, generally speaking, no natural selection advantage to being thin.

[Fnord]

As far as being obese, I believe there is, generally speaking, no natural selection advantage to being thin.

When being chased, you don't have to outrun the hungry lion, just the fat people behind you... ;)

[CplFerro]

When being chased, you don't have to outrun the hungry lion, just the fat people behind you... ;)

Better to be skinny and starving than fat and scrumptious.

Cpl Ferro

[Starthinker]

I am getting close to the fat slob end of the gene pool though..... Damn that pasta! 6ft 210lbs and counting =\

Wow, I'm only 1 inch taller than you but weigh 100 pounds more. Damn that one inch, damn it to hell!

[skeptigirl]

Evolution depends on the reproduction of the species to continue. Most unhealthy diets result in things like obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. But those diseases don't prevent people from reproducing (unless they have some side effect, Viagra being the solution for one such side effect.) Many of the problems that will beset an unhealthy adult in their 30s or 40s or later are not serious enough to prevent reproduction. By the 40s, most people who are going to reproduce have already done so.

As far as being obese, I believe there is, generally speaking, no natural selection advantage to being thin.
While you have a point about the reproductive years, it is thought grandparents must have a role or natural selection wouldn't have us caring for them when they got feeble.

And obesity is actually affecting the majority of children in some areas.

And, you are ignoring the slow speed of evolution in humans in your conclusions.

[patnray]

Perhaps the problems with diet are due to our intelligence.

A few years ago I read an article comparing diets and intelligence in primates. The less intelligent primates ate a low quality, high fiber diet. Food moved through their digestive tracks rapidly because there was little nutrition to extract. But they didn't have to work hard or remember much to eat - they could eat most any fibrous plant. More intelligent primates ate a higher quality diet and food moved more slowly through them because there was more nutrition to extract. But they had to remember where the good foods are found, what seasons they ripen, and work harder to find them.

Human intelligence and technology has made possibly extremely rich foods. Our diets are vastly different than they were even 1000 years ago, which is not nearly enough time to adapt via evolution. OTOH, we are now knowledgeable enough to recognize what constitutes a healthy diet and have a wide choice of nutritious foods available...

[skeptigirl]

Could be a chicken and egg problem there with determining which is cause and which is effect, patn.

[The Mad Hatter]

While you have a point about the reproductive years, it is thought grandparents must have a role or natural selection wouldn't have us caring for them when they got feeble.

It could also be a side effect of kin selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection), but I guess it depends how we're programmed.

[skeptigirl]

Yes, a lot of stuff is just random. Not everything is selected. Some stuff is attached to selected things and goes along for the ride.

[casebro]

Wow, I'm only 1 inch taller than you but weigh 100 pounds more. Damn that one inch, damn it to hell!

Well, I'm at the top 1 percent of height, but only the top 2 percent by weight. The medicos specify "weight in proportion to height". Doesn't that make me 50% under weight?