It would help to read what I was replying to, and what I was actually replying:
GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda."
You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content."
I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said.
Can you spot the difference between yourself and GP, though? One is an assertion; the other is an assertion of no evidence against said assertion.
> "You don't evolve to do anything"
We clearly don't speak the same language. What do you mean by that? I breathe; did I not evolve to breathe?
Where did I state that everything "natural is good" or that anything "artificial is bad"? Who and what are you arguing with?
I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out.
As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything. Evolution is a process, it does not have goals. It is not aiming to get somewhere, or accomplish something. Which is why claiming you "evolved to eat X" is nonsense. Your ancestors evolved the ability to gain nutrition from X, that doesn't mean X is good for you. It means in prehistoric times, the short term gain from being able to gain nutrition from X was greater than any downsides to it (it could cause cancer 100% guaranteed, but if it lets you survive in the short term long enough to reproduce and rear offspring, it will still end up selected for).
> I did read it, you are trying to pretend you said something other than what you post says. You made all the fallacious claims I pointed out.
Clearly we are NOT speaking the same language.
> As for evolution, no you did not evolve to do anything
Clearly, again, we are NOT speaking the same language. You react as if I said "I evolved with the goal of breathing", which is a possible, but improbable, interpretation of what I wrote. I meant "My kind has evolved the ability and necessity to breathe", for which "I evolved to breathe is" a shorthand, acceptable where I live.
And if you can point out how my statement that "I do not claim that there is evidence of difference (I cannot provide any)" can be construed as anything but "There is no evidence of difference" (that I know of), I would be grateful. Because you are calling me a liar in not so many words, and I don't like that in general (but I don't really care either, given we're both anonymous)
You are right, we are not speaking the same language. You are speaking "I want to argue about nothing for no reason", and I am speaking english. Go read the thread again, I did not make any claims other than that your post was full of fallacies. I didn't say "you said juice is healthy". You are accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Grow up.
GP said: "Juice is for most intents and purposes no healthier dan soda."
You said: "There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that pop is any worse for you than a fruit juice of similar acidity and caloric content."
I said: "There is no evidence of difference", which is exactly what you said.
Can you spot the difference between yourself and GP, though? One is an assertion; the other is an assertion of no evidence against said assertion.
> "You don't evolve to do anything"
We clearly don't speak the same language. What do you mean by that? I breathe; did I not evolve to breathe?
Where did I state that everything "natural is good" or that anything "artificial is bad"? Who and what are you arguing with?