As a dentist, I can't resist this one! Tooth decay is a product of
capitalist "civilization." While the results of tooth decay could be severe
(abscesses could lead to death), before there were refined carbohydrates
(like white flour and sugar) tooth decay was relatively rare. In fact,
before mass production, tooth decay was the "priviledge" of the rich, who
could afford such luxuries as white flour and sugar. Honey, raw sugar and
maple syrup were used in some cultures, and but not being produced
commercially, these were not readily available to most people.
I'm sure there are better examples of anti-evolutionism!
David
At 10:19 AM 3/1/98 GMT, Durant wrote:
>....
>> So Brad, I disagree, it is not the perks of the office meeting or a
>> businessman's lunch that keeps capitalism going, it is the perverting of
>> life to a language that defines reality as a competition which of course is
>> reinforced with sciences current love affair with evolution. Let me ask you
>> a question? Why do humans have bad teeth? If evolution was all it is
>> cracked up to be, surely we could have evolved out of tooth decay. If you
>> have no teeth, it is pretty hard to chew grain or a hunk of meat.
>>
>
>I had only time to glance through, but this caught my eye,
>as I cannot understand the gist of it.
>What's your problem with evolution?
>Before you knock it, read up on it, you seem to
>have the time... The few thousand of years
>since human lifespan started to be longer is
>bagatelle in evolutionary timescales.
>People used to die by the time their teeth
>decayed. Besides, evolution is basically a random
>process, there is no "ultimate reason" for all
>the bits and pieces we have, if something not
>hindering survival, it may stay if it is related
>with an otherwise important gene. I haven't read up
>on it, but this is my impression.
>Science has no "love affair" with anything;
>if the theory works, it is kept, if it found wanting and
>one found approximating reality better, it is chucked.
>This is not a postmodernist crap of "changing paradigm"
>as the new theory often contains but updates the old one.
>
>Eva
>....
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Thomas Lunde
>>
>>
>>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
