DescentBB

Spidey wrote:Evolution also gave you a big brain, to help you with such problems.

Example:

A few years back (actually quite a few) it was learned that the signals to stop eating that the gut sends to the brain, is not based on how much you eat, but how long you have been eating.

Think that big brain of yours can figure out a way to use that info to help control weight?

vision wrote:My god, I can't believe what I'm reading. I'm... speechless.

I'm actually going to delete the link to this board now. I can't get past the irony of this much ignorance and anti-science on forum dedicated to a science-fiction game. Maybe science-fiction is to blame and it makes people think all science is fiction and they can't tell actual science from fantasy? I don't know.

See you later, randomly.

Top Gun wrote:I really would love to put my finger on when this place transformed into Rednecktopia.

“If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”

Elbert Hubbard

Top Gun wrote:I really would love to put my finger on when this place transformed into Rednecktopia.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Evolution also gave you a big brain, to help you with such problems.

Example:

A few years back (actually quite a few) it was learned that the signals to stop eating that the gut sends to the brain, is not based on how much you eat, but how long you have been eating.

Think that big brain of yours can figure out a way to use that info to help control weight?

That's the problem Spidey. We know that we are eating way more calories than we can burn, but our brains and the corresponding stop eating signal is set up for foods that don't have a lot of carbohydrates or sugars, but instead contain a lot of bulk and lower nutrition. Now we have junk that is loaded with fats, sugars and carbs, packed into small, easy to eat portions AND it's so tasty, our stop eating sensor is being overridden by the pleasure we're getting just from eating. Man-made foods are just as addicting as any drug to our brains and I surmise that was intended from the start by food manufacturers.

flip wrote:I think the the term 'evolution' is too loosely defined these days. If it means an organisms ability to adapt to it's surroundings by subtle changes that affect it's survivability, there is a case for that. If on the other hand you mean a complete change of structure that effectively changes from one species to another, you have your work cut out for you. It's like Spidey just said, the term evolution is so loosely thrown around now, that it is even used as an explanation of how ALL organisms store energy. I think for the sake of honesty, everything should be tested under the law of physics first and then when reliable evidence is collected, it should be weighed against the theory of evolution. I would bet that a great deal of evolutionary theory would not stand up to the Laws of Physics.

flip wrote:Lol, this is exactly my point illustrated. Roid here wants to tell me what he has been told. I already know all that. My arguments are based on the contentions that arose while studying the material. I call it "asking the right questions"

EDIT: In fact I think this was touched on in another thread, but a scientific theory cannot be proven true, it can only be proven wrong. Which is the logical and honest sequence to seek the truth. You have an idea you think could be true but there is no way to know for sure. The most honest approach is to then try to disprove it. If you cannot, it will stand.

Spidey wrote:That’s a valid point, but you are still in control of what you eat.

And don’t expect any sympathy from me, my Type2 means I can’t even eat donuts.