Post by genebo on Apr 14, 2015 20:50:02 GMT
Here is an interesting post from Greg Palen on the polljersey discussion group:
Here is a theory an Amish grazing client posed to me recently:
(1) In the beginning, all mammalian milk was A2 Beta Casein, whether human, bovine, equine, ovine, canine, etc (just as it remains today, the one exception being bovine).
(2) The enzymes that allow digestion of milk solids would thus be present in all mammalian digestive systems. Why would these enzymes differ for a substance that has a mirrored composition (different only as to relative concentration of its components) ?
(3) At some point in prehistory in the bovine, the Beta Casein gene mutated into variants (A1, B, C, etc) and this created caseins unrecognized by the human digestive enzymes.
(4) At a much more recent point, we developed mechanical processing of milk to produce a legally standardized "food product" that altered the digestive chemistry of milk as its main "raw" ingredient.
(5) Thus, problems such as lactose intolerance could be created in this way, attributable not to one single occurrence, but as a symbiosis of two unrelated events.
We have a profound and thus in some ways naive faith in scientists and their "scientific method" (which says always trust data, even if we have to invent interpretations, but never trust observation)-- but on what evidence can we postulate what constituted the digestive enzymes of ancestors prior to any biochemistry systems that would define such substances (the archaeologic record of such substances not being comprised of stone, bone, carbon or other such nearly nondegenerative material being obviously lacking even to the unschooled)?
We must accept that a great deal of what science teaches us is ultimately based on some theory (the "theory" of evolution of species) (the "theory" of relativity) (the "theory" of global warming as only occuring since man discovered carbon-based energy) (the "theory" that depressive inbreeding effects are strictly ancestral -- rather than being actuated by undesired homozygous gene pairings resulting from "like to like" matings) (the "theory" that the quantitative fraction of the genotype is the sole determinant of phenotypic expression)
The typical basis on which scientific theory runs into debate with the layman's consideration is the difference between linear (mathematical and chemical) cause and effect, and the more difficult to interpret biological series of interrelationships and chain reactions, where it is also necessary to sort between causative effects and associative reactions.
You can always admire the magnitude of mental effort it takes to envision a comprehensive explanation of the origin and evolution of anything. But to declare any such intellectual problem as "solved for all time" is in reality no different than to accept science as if it was our secular religion-- thus I have always been unprepared to go that far in accepting any human theory of anything.
If scientists can deny the possibility of any God form on the basis of lacking empirical data, I can affirm the possibility of any scientific theory being flawed on the basis of an alternative interpretation of (or overlooking some of) the data. You can either see causality and thus creative harmony in all things, and proceed with confidence in the practicality of any chosen endeavour, or you see nothing but randomness and chaos and find something to fear daily.
Somewhere in the mental middle between these two empirical extremes lies the extent of individual human consciousness of all existence.
Greg Palen
