Natural Weight Loss With the Evolution Diet in 30 Days

How many diets have you tried?

Have you tried surviving on cabbage soup or eating nothing but protein? Most people have tried all sorts of elaborate diets but end up either putting on more weight, having extreme cravings or feeling so sick that they just can't continue.

Over the years of working in the health and fitness industry, I've discovered what fat loss programmes work through scientific research and trial and error. My evolution diet I have found to be by far the most effective and as you read on you will see why. For me, this isn't even a diet but a healthy eating plan that I personally employ on a day to day basis.

Evolution explains why most diets fail

We only have to look back at our evolution to see why most diets fail. Many diets rely on a starvation principle that heavily limits the amount of calories you can consume on a daily basis. This does cause weight loss short term by muscle wastage and water loss but very little of this weight is actual fat. These starvation diets actually cause us to store fat for survival and in turn put on more weight in the long term.

Heavy calorie reduction causes a severe reduction in leptin (protein), which in turn signals a starvation response in our body. This response reduces our metabolic rate and increases our hunger. It is believed that this response originates back to our ancestors and the "Hunter Gather Days", when food was often scarce. Our body's developed a way to conserve its most valuable energy source, body fat, in order to survive longer.

So starvation or heavy calorie restricted diets are not the answer. Not only do these diets cause you to put on more fat in the long term (yo yo dieting) but they also slow down your metabolism, the exact thing you need to increase to burn more fat.

The best way to diet is to eat natural

Everyone is different and we all have different requirements for vitamins, minerals and general nutrients; a lot of this is determined by our genetics and cannot be changed. However, we do all have one thing in common - we evolved eating natural foods. Foods that we picked from trees & bushes, dug out of the ground or animals that we chased down and killed.

Although the world has evolved at a very rapid rate our bodies have not. We are still uncomfortable sitting for long periods of time, require regular exercise, get headaches and eye problems using computers, suffer in really over crowed areas etc.

Our body's still crave and require the natural foods we ate and drank many years ago. Processed foods, simple sugars, contaminated water, and artificial stimulants are still alien to our bodies. All of these unnatural products (toxins) are stored in our fat cells while our body decides what to do with them.

We are suffering from an internal anxiety as our body stores toxin after toxin.

Following this diet will strip you of this toxic fat.

Follow this diet for 30 days and your body will release all of these toxic fat cells. The ugly fat will disappear! In order to achieve this you need to return to the natural foods that we have evolved to eat and process comfortably.

To find out what the Evolution diet involves and how to put it into practice download your free copy from my website below.

GB Personal Training is run by Greg Brookes a fully certified Health and fitness consultant. Based in Hampstead London NW3 he offers personal training and advice to people wishing to make the most out of their health. Visit http://www.gbpersonaltraining.com for a complete list of free downloads and advice.

Evolution by Natural Selection

The theory of Natural Selection is the belief that individuals within a species survive and thrive according to positive and beneficial traits. The more productive and advantageous qualities an individual has, the better their chances are to survive and propagate within a species. The entities without profitable traits or negative ones will eventually die out. This is the basics of Natural Selection by Survival of the Fittest.

Darwinism

Where trouble crops up is when the foundation of Natural Selection morphs into Darwinism. When Charles Darwin wrote his books On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man he tried to explicitly leave out a Divine Hand and explain evolution strictly with Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. He completely disregarded the possibility of design.

Morality

The biggest problem with the no Creator hypothesis is the question of morality. It's obvious humans possess a morality; therefore it needs to be explained. Darwin argued that morality was only a product of survival of the fittest. He postulated that it was nothing more than the positive behaviors of sociability. Being social was a good thing for humans to have, helping in the survival of the race. As time passes on, the social behaviors for protection and mating become more enhanced and intricate turning into what we now see as morality.

However, believing morality is nothing more than random selection and a merciless survival of the strong leads to some troubling conclusions. If this idea were true, you would have to be ready to rate the inferiority or superiority of races and individuals. Obviously this would lead to condoning and excusing slavery and eugenics. The weak, handi-capped and supposed inferior should be eliminated because they would bring down and hamper the forward progress of the strongest and smartest.

All Reasonable Arguments

To anyone with simple observation skills and a common intelligence it is obvious that this is not how the human race operates. The question of evolution and the origin of life is a hotly debated topic to this day. Although you might not know it by the popular culture, many people and scientists disagree on Darwin's version of Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. Reasonable arguments should be included and debated for an honest investigation into the questions around evolution and the origin of life. Evolution by Natural Selection should not be defined by Darwinism, and Intelligent Design should be considered as part of the investigation.

Are you tired of being reticent or timid about discussing current events or history? To improve your knowledge and critical thinking at your own pace and speed visit Homestudyresources.org. This is the site I visit and personally use to learn new subjects in a wide variety of subjects. The best professors with significant input from customers, the resulting products are the #1 learning tools available anywhere. Never again fear joining the conversation, your opinion is valid so express it!

Darwinian Natural Selection - An Unproven Theory of Evolution

It is fashionable nowadays to blame Anglo-Saxon culture and ideology for the recent mishaps of imperialism and capitalism. A few of us in the science and engineering community are happy to contribute to this fashion with a critique of a very particular Anglo-Saxon idea. We have within our sights perhaps the most cherished idea of the Victorian era, Darwin's theory of natural selection. While we have been musing in the stuffy coffee rooms of our technical faculties over the lack of any real scientific evidence for this theory of evolution, many secularist-humanist scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins in particular, have been championing Darwin as the bulwark of the European scientific enlightenment. Dawkins' commitment to science is understandable in the historical context of the European Christian churches' antagonism with scientific progress and, in the past decades, the US evangelical churches' disavowal of evolution in favour of creationist myths. However, Dawkins suggests that natural selection is an accepted scientific law and the primary biological process by which evolution takes place. This is not the case, as I hope to explain below.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was superseded by Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" in 1859. Briefly, the difference between these two theories is as follows. Defining evolution narrowly as the adaptation of biological organisms across generations to a changing environment, Lamarckian evolution is the result of a direct chemical interaction between each and every organism and the environment, whereas Darwinian evolution applies selectively to organisms that happen to have inherited random mutations favourable to survival and reproduction. Let's say that a change in the environment occurs around time zero. Lamarck proposed that all organisms, in struggling to deal with the changed environment, contain responsive chemical processes within the biological organs that pass hereditary traits to offspring, which naturally predispose the offspring to be more adapted to the changed environment. In this case, evolution takes place from one generation to the next at the same time (time zero) that the change in environment is taking place. However, in Darwin's view, it is random mutations that affect the adaptability of organisms in future generations. Hence, a random mutation in a singular organism, which takes place during reproduction many generations prior to time zero, leads in successive generations to a select group of organisms within the wider population carrying this mutation. When the change of environment takes place, it so happens that these mutated organisms are more capable of survival and reproduction than the rest of the population (including segments of the population with other mutations that are not favourable in the changed environment).

I'd like to put forward two criticisms of Darwin's theory. The idea of randomness in nature has been superseded by chaos theory. This theory states that in dynamic natural systems the outcome of any process, although appearing to be random and apparently bearing no connection with the starting conditions, is in fact the result of a very complex set of physical processes. In other words, the outcome of a particular natural process is extremely sensitive to the starting conditions, and widely different results are obtained with rather small changes in the starting conditions. In this case, any mutation during the reproduction of an organism is the result of chaos in nature, not randomness, and is highly dependent on the environment that the organism lives in at the time of reproduction. We may not be able to predict what mutations will take place, but we can say that mutations are intimately related to the environment. Furthermore, if we think of a chaotic biological process in terms of a complex set of chemical reactions, we can also speculate that the reactions would tend towards thermodynamic outcomes with respect to the environment. This tendency is adequately expressed by the Chatelier-Braun principle, which states that a reversible chemical reaction acts in the direction counter to any change in environmental conditions. Such thermodynamic principles are empirically verifiable and, if applicable to biological reproduction, would be consistent with a Lamarckian notion of evolution.

The second criticism relates to Richard Dawkins' extension of Darwin's theory. Dawkins is a proponent of gene determinism. Genes are said to be the unit of selection, whereby 'random' mutations in DNA during cell division or gamete (ovum or sperm) production lead to selected genes (those that survive and are readily reproduced in the changing environment). He further proposes that in effect genes are self-propagating physical entities ('selfish replicators' in his terms) and their influences extend far into the phenotype. This leads to the absurd view amongst advocates of Darwinian evolution that, essentially, women have not contributed to human evolution. Their argument is as follows. Since a woman produces all her lifetime's ova at one time, whereas a man produces sperm throughout the course of his life, mutations are much more likely in the case of the male gamete, and therefore men are primarily responsible for human evolution. The geneticist Steve Jones at UCL takes this line of thought to an end-of-evolution conclusion: 'human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West' [The Times, 7 October 2008]. In fact, the scientific evidence is pointing to the womb as the primary location of biological adaptation, not through selection but a natural process of chemical responses to environment factors. The evidence is emerging from the relatively new field of epigenetics, particularly the work of Moshe Szyf and co-workers at McGill University in California. The headlines such as "Nurture Takes the Spotlight" [GeneImprint, 25 Apr 2006], "DNA is not Destiny" [Discover, 22 Nov 2006], and "Environment Becomes Heredity" [Miller-McCune, 14 Jul 2008] speak of a revolution (literally) in science, returning to a Lamarckian notion of evolution.

In conclusion, Darwinian natural selection is not only an unproven theory, but more and more a discredited theory. In addition, the latest research suggests that human biological evolution is not centred on our genetics, and certainly not on sperm-centred genetic mutations, but the wider systems biology of the womb.

Dr Mortaza Sahibzada is a research associate at Imperial College London. He can be contacted at m.sahibzada@imperial.ac.uk.

Evolution By Natural Design - The Merging Of Parent Genes In The Fertilised Ovum

The polarized debate between Richard Dawkins forceful advocacy of Darwinian theory and the religious Christian belief in intelligent design has left little room for alternative theories of evolution. Evolution - the adaptation of species to their natural environment - does take place; as a phenomenon it is not up for debate. The phenomenon of evolution is as close to fact as science can provide us with facts based on evidence. Without the science, we would not have the technological civilization that we enjoy today.

But what is up for debate is the process by which evolution takes place. Since Charles Darwin, the most commonly taught theory is the process of natural selection (along with sexual selection, which we will come to later). This theory is synonymous with the cultural idea of the 'the survival of the fittest'. More recently, Dawkins has revised this theory with respect to the science of genetics, as follows. During the division of cells, e.g. in the production of sperm, the random mutation of a gene can take place when the replication of DNA is imperfect. If it so happens that a particular genetic mutation promotes an organism's ability to flourish in its natural environment, then the gene will survive along with the organism.

In most animals, this is essentially a sperm-centred process of evolution. The integrity of genetic replication during sperm production is often compromised in the course of a male's lifetime, providing many chances to pass on genetic mutations. The female produces relatively few eggs and does so only for a short period of time, providing much less genetic variety through mutation. The female's contribution to evolution is considered possible through sexual selection. The theory is that, through the process of natural selection, sensory faculties have evolved which work in conjunction with the nervous system within the unconscious processing centres of the brain. This enables the animal to further its chances of survival by sensing and, through the unconscious, being compelled to procreate with the fittest mate. Evolution, in this case, is driven by instinct, which is a product of evolution.

There are many problems with this theory, the primary objection being the self-referential or self-fulfilling argument. The interpretation of observations that leads a scientist to formulate a theory cannot entirely be separated from his or her instinct. If, as the theory goes, an animal may be driven to procreate through instinct, then surely a scientist can be driven to formulate a theory through instinct. If humans reside in a civilisation wherein a primary instinct is to be the fittest, this would provide the frame of reference for many of their cultural ideas and scientific theories. There are alternative frames of reference.

Hypothesis

I would like to propose an egg-centred process of evolution, which I will call 'natural design'. The proposed process is not singular; it is composed of a multitude of genetic processes. From the outset I would like to distinguish this theory from both natural selection (1) and intelligent design. Firstly, this is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain how species adapt and develop new functions through genetics. However, it is not related to the notion of selection, whereby the fittest survive and procreate. In this hypothesis, evolution takes place through processes that are subject to the laws of nature (chemistry, physics and biology) - evolution happens by design according to nature. Secondly, I am not attaching intelligence to the design. I am suggesting that nature may have determined particular courses of genetic development, not through intent, but through the activity (or reactivity) of matter, including genetic matter, that is governed by the physical and chemical laws of nature.

Every good hypothesis begins with a good question. Hence, what determines the genetic make-up of the single-cell embryo after the egg has been fertilised by a sperm? In other words, what is the process by which two parents' DNA merge into one? Scientists have found it impossible to predict the outcome of the merging process because of its chaotic nature. From chaos theory we understand that the apparently random outcomes of nature are not, in fact, random. The outcome is indeterminate because of the complexity of nature (which is composed of a multitude of processes) and in particular a highly sensitive dependency on the initial condition (e.g. initial temperature and initial composition). Very small changes in the initial condition lead to far and away, random-appearing outcomes.

Even though the process of DNA merging in the egg is subject to chaos, let us imagine some of the processes involved and the effects of environmental conditions. Firstly, genes are chemical compounds, just like any other chemical or biochemical (natural) compounds. They are subject to the same physical laws of nature as any other compounds involved in chemical reactions. Part of the process of merging the two sets of DNA, therefore, involves the formation of physi-chemical bonds, and therefore gene clusters (complexes) within the product DNA. If the kinetics of this process is sufficiently fast, we can apply the laws of thermodynamics (2). Secondly, any two genes may have originated by evolution in completely different environments (parts of the world or times in history).

What are the thermodynamic rules for the attraction of compounds with significantly different chemical and other potentials? A strong bond may form to enable the two potentials to coexist and provide new function. If a bond between two genes is extremely strong, it may lead to the recession (condensation) of other genes. Thirdly, foreign compounds in the environment may be involved in the chemical reactions. For example, a virus in the egg may become part of the product DNA (could this lead to immunity?). Fourthly, environmental temperature and other factors would directly impact on the products of the gene reactions by Le Chatelier's principle - a Lamarckian notion of evolution. Fifth, and not last, and not least, the emotional and physical condition of the mother when the egg is fertilised would affect the baby's DNA.

Notes

(1) I am not suggesting that evolution is limited to the genetics of natural design. Whereas the first mechanism of evolution may well have been natural selection based on (imperfect) single cell division in the earliest forms of life, the advent of sexual reproduction in animals based on the combination of two sets of parent genes may have heralded a new mechanism of evolution. Furthermore, there are other mechanisms of evolution documented elsewhere, such as genetic drift. Others have speculated that evolution is by no means limited to genetic processes.

(2) It is assumed in the new theory is that the kinetics of gene merging in the egg is sufficiently fast, so as to allow us to apply the laws of thermodynamics. We should also consider the repercussions if the process is kinetically limited in any way.

Mortaza Sahibzada graduated in chemical and bio-process engineering from the University of Bath, carried out doctoral and postdoctoral research at Imperial College London, was a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, and a postdoctoral research fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering at Edinburgh and London. He can be contacted by email (mozsahib@yahoo.co.uk).