Primitive human probably started out by scavenging what he could to survive, gradually developing his hunting and gathering skills. Maybe he found larger animals dead from natural causes then later developed tools to catch and kill his prey. Maintaining this subsistence level lifestyle for almost 2 million years before mankind began to dabble in agriculture just barely 10,000 years ago. This is mankind’s prehistoric past…or so we are told.
This would seem logical should we consider the evolutionary model of primal man emerging into the world with only the most basic of instincts without the knowledge or time to wait for a harvest of grain. Instead, he goes by the easiest route of grabbing the closest living thing and rips away at its raw flesh. Seems logical, but is it true?
The Eat Right for Your Blood Type diet claims blood type O as the oldest blood type. This assumption is based on the fact that blood type O would be the suitable blood type for a meat-based hunter-gatherer diet. Yet this assumption is based on the previous assumption of our origin.
However, actual microbiological research and DNA analysis carried out over two decades ago revealed that it is the A blood type that our ancestors started off with. Even later research confirms A and not O as the oldest blood type.
The A blood type is the “proverbial classic vegetarian” blood type. According to the Eat Right for Your Blood Type diet, people with blood type A have difficulty in digesting animal protein due to a lack of hydrochloric acid in their guts. This blood type also has problems with dairy products and lactose intolerance. Whole grains, fruits and vegetables is recommended for humans with this blood type that researchers inform us is actually the oldest human blood type.
Interestingly, this is exactly the kind of diet described in Genesis 1:29 that was originally intended for mankind. It is written in our blood that we began life eating grain and fruits. This is something that cannot be erased. But why is it so difficult for the established scientific community to simply accept and teach this?
It could be because of the great difficulty to explain mankind’s agricultural origins. The origins of agriculture has been a riddle for evolutionary thinkers, a matter on which Darwin himself declined to speculate. One of the thorniest issues of agricultural origins is that there seems to be no developmental stage. Every ancient civilization seemed to have emerged with pretty complicated agricultural techniques, systems and methods. This includes efficiently engineered irrigation systems, seasonal planting and harvest, and advanced knowledge in the processing of grains and fruit to produce products like flour, oil, wine and beer. Simultaneously, another amazing leap of advancement is their production of bread and noodles and other flour based items for consumption.
In order to understand how amazing these things are, think about this -we still use all these indispensable products today. We still basically use the same agricultural techniques and methods even thousands of years later!
Another great “mystery” of ancient agriculture is the seeds used for cultivation. The earliest records of grain cultivation show the use of ‘hybridized’ varieties of seed. These are seeds that have been designed and engineered for cultivation. Time to experiment and learn about plant life would be needed as well as the technological know how to develop these seeds from wild varieties. It’s hard to imagine a hunter-gatherer finding both the time and incentive to go about such a tedious and strange task. And yet the development of these seeds were so well done that we are still using the same basic primary grain supposedly developed and used by ‘primitive man’.
Think about it. Have we developed a single type of new grain in the past ten years? I am not talking about a variant or a mixture of existing grains. I mean a truly new cultivar. How about in the past hundred years? How about the past thousand years? How could these ‘hunter-gatherers’ have done so much more at the start of time than we could in a thousand years?
Accepting our agricultural origins would mean having to revamp our established evolutionary models. It would entail having to answer questions that some would prefer remain unasked. Would you prefer to know the truth about your past or would you rather keep living on a flat earth for fear of falling off the edge?
No comments:
Post a Comment