Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

13 Questions Evolution Can Answer, Intelligent Design Cannot
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub ^ | Steve Bratteng

Posted on 02/12/2009 10:24:51 AM PST by steve-b

Stephen Bratteng, a biology teacher at Westwood High School in Austin put this together. I got the list from him when I heard him testify in favor of solid science in biology textbooks, in hearings before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003:

1. Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections?

2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?

3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as sharp does not have these flaws?

4. Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States?

5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?

6. Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?

7. Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn’s disease and asthma?

8. Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?

9. Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year?

10. Why do people given anti-diarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?

11. Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?

12. Why do older men often have urinary problems?

13. And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?


(Excerpt) Read more at timpanogos.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: biology; evolution; id; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 next last
To: Filo

Notice that there is no reasoning in your response. Just the usual empty dogmas. So it’s true, you don’t believe in the existence of factories and engineers.


51 posted on 02/12/2009 11:11:11 AM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Small, incremental changes are merely adaptation and therefore do not rule out initial intelligent design. How can life evolve if it never existed?

“Evolution is not the study of life’s ultimate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest meaning. Evolution, in fact, is not the study of origins at all. Even the more restricted (and scientifically permissible) question of life’s origin on our earth lies outside its domain…Evolution studies the pathways and mechanisms of organic change following the origin of life” - Renowned Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould

I like this quote too:

“One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid” - James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA

52 posted on 02/12/2009 11:11:23 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Sorry about the spelling errors....


53 posted on 02/12/2009 11:12:13 AM PST by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jeliota
Speaking of philosophy...

Descartes was sitting in a bar having a drink. The bartender walks up and asks Descartes if he'd like another.

Descartes responds "I think not!", and promptly disappears...

54 posted on 02/12/2009 11:14:32 AM PST by IYAS9YAS (Obama - what you get when you mix Affirmative Action with the Peter Principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Small, incremental changes are merely adaptation and therefore do not rule out initial intelligent design.

Can you name or list any possible evidence or line of evidence that could rule out ID?

What could rule out the unspecified activity of an unspecified agency having unspecified capabilities, doing unspecified things at unspecified times and places, for unspecified reasons?

55 posted on 02/12/2009 11:16:27 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
Why don't YOU ask the Geocentric FReeper Creationists if they are just pulling people's legs?

I take people at their word. If they represent themselves in thread after thread as a vehement Geocentricist I have no recourse other than to deal with them as a Geocentricist.

I can see why they would be an embarrassment to your side, but it is hard to deny that they exist, and you have no basis for your pretense that they are faking it.

56 posted on 02/12/2009 11:17:52 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as sharp does not have these flaws?

While I've got a little spare time, let's point out another bit of incoherence in evolutionary apologetics. There are plenty of creation articles out there that point out that the human eye is, in fact, well designed, and there are good reasons for the supposed "flaws" that evolutionists ignorantly cite. But those are easy to dig up and I'll not rehash them now.

What's worth pointing out now is that evolutionists try to have it both ways. One the one hand they have that wonderful religious blind faith that natural selection has incredible powers of engineering talent, able to craft superbly designed, complex, integrated systems like a human eye. Read the secular literature and you will never cease to be amazed at the complexity and detail and refinement of biological systems like the eye. Evolutionists claim that natural forces are competent to produce such results.

But then on the other hand they expect you to believe those same forces are so incompetent that they cannot fix simple flaws.

That's incoherent. It's like the old idea of junk DNA being "useless," when, as a Cornell geneticist prof. who has become a creationist pointed out to me in 2003, maintaining "useless" DNA carries a significant metabolic cost. If it were really useless it should be rapidly deleted by natural selection. Since it wasn't, it raised his suspicions as an evolutionist. And now he's no longer an evolutionist...

57 posted on 02/12/2009 11:18:18 AM PST by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
You exude far more smugness than thoughtfulness. I think correct response to your list is: And your point is what? What does Heimlich have to do at all with the topic? Furthermore, what kind of idle or untrained mind could sit around attaching him and his technique to a debate on the origin of existence.

I don't even have a strong opinion on the topic. But if you were doing high fives with yourself as you wrote this list, you are a bit deluded about it's coherence, it's effectiveness, and how smart you think it makes you look.

58 posted on 02/12/2009 11:18:52 AM PST by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970
Notice that there is no reasoning in your response. Just the usual empty dogmas. So it’s true, you don’t believe in the existence of factories and engineers.

This isn't a venue in which I feel the need to "show my work."

Evolution is well documented and extremely well supported by science and data. ID is the exact opposite.

And the question about factories and engineers is misleading BS.

A typical straw man from the ranks of those without a fact supporting their beliefs.

That, my friend, is real dogma.
59 posted on 02/12/2009 11:20:05 AM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Minn
What does the origin of existence have to do with evolution?

Heimlich and his technique are quite pertinent to the question of evolution.

60 posted on 02/12/2009 11:22:19 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

This whole list can be lumped into one category, regarding creationism as believed by Christians:

Why would a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?

And the answer is simple and covered in a book by C. S. Lewis called The Problem of Pain, among other publications.

The Bible covers it too. A good example is morning sickness. God told Eve that childbirth would be “painful” yet she would still be horny. ;)


61 posted on 02/12/2009 11:23:55 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

If they had discovered any real evidence that would rule out intelligent design, evolution wouldn’t still be called a theory, now would it?


62 posted on 02/12/2009 11:31:11 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Why would a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?

That question might interest you, but a biologist would ask a different question:

Why do so many features in living things look like the result of small, incremental changes?

63 posted on 02/12/2009 11:33:03 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Exactly!


64 posted on 02/12/2009 11:33:52 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
If they had discovered any real evidence that would rule out intelligent design, evolution wouldn’t still be called a theory, now would it?

Yes it would, just as there are theories of gravity.

Why do you ask?

65 posted on 02/12/2009 11:34:27 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

You on Crack?


66 posted on 02/12/2009 11:34:37 AM PST by TFMcGuire (Life is tough. It is even tougher if you are stupid--John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

And why do some people look less like apes than other people? Are the less-ape-resembling people more evolved than the more-ape-resembling people?


67 posted on 02/12/2009 11:42:04 AM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

“Evolution” is moving in the opposite direction.....we are getting more hairless.......because we no longer need “hair” to survive the cold.

Polartec works quite well.


68 posted on 02/12/2009 11:45:32 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry (1/27th Infantry Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: js1138

No, there are alternative theories to gravity that have been posited..an evolution in thought, if you will...however, gravity itself is still a law.


69 posted on 02/12/2009 11:51:43 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Will have to figure out why then I have to keep shaving my legs .... hmmmm


70 posted on 02/12/2009 11:51:55 AM PST by SkyDancer ("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad, Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: js1138
What does the origin of existence have to do with evolution?

Nothing I guess, if you're real smart and want to show up the whole class with your grasp of dictionary definitions and semantic minutia. Do you think maybe it has something do do with ID? You know the 'D' part? Funny how people convinced of their own cognitive specialness, while preening to show it, often reveal astonishing obtuseness.

Heimlich and his technique are quite pertinent to the question of evolution

Apparently that's self evident. Maybe it's often kicked around by those with lot's of time on their hands to debate this stuff. But, for us pedestrian types, can you explain what a chicken bone in a throat has to do with the origin of man? And please don't respond with "What does the origin of man have to do with...?". That's just a variation of "I know you are, but what am I?"

71 posted on 02/12/2009 11:56:10 AM PST by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
gravity itself is still a law.

Laws are formulas depicting a mathematical relationship among measurable phenomena. They are not explanations.

Theories are explanations. Theories never become laws.

Words like evolution, however, can have more than one usage and definition. Evolution can refer to various theories of descent with modification, and it can also refer to the forensically fact of common descent.

72 posted on 02/12/2009 11:56:55 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: abclily; TerP26; allmendream

The point of the question is hippos supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, and there are no more dinosaurs. Horses supposedly evolved from Eohippus, and there are no more Eohippi. Yet, man is supposedly evolved from ape, but apes and man coexist.

Consistency, please.


73 posted on 02/12/2009 11:58:44 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Minn
But, for us pedestrian types, can you explain what a chicken bone in a throat has to do with the origin of man?

I'm sorry that you have time to write, but not time to read. I'm sorry that you lack the curiosity to ask questions when confronted with an interesting juxtaposition.

74 posted on 02/12/2009 11:59:52 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Minn
Do you think maybe it has something do do with ID? You know the 'D' part?

I'm not aware of anyone in the intelligent design movement who talks about the nature or attributes of the "D". I read a lot of ID websites, and most will ban you if you ask who or what the "D" is.

75 posted on 02/12/2009 12:02:34 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
The point is that there is no requirement that the progenitors of a species die off in totality upon the differentiation of an offshoot.

Just as when Americans descended from Europeans, there was no requirement that Europeans all die off in totality for Americans to separate and grow distinct from them.

Similarly all the Romance languages of Europe developed from Latin, but they changed as time went on and people developed new accents, words, phrases, and rules of language. Latin is a “dead” language, but there was no requirement that it die out completely and not develop into Italian.

Similarly the apes that exist now were not the same species that existed way back when, just as Italian is not the same language as Latin.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

76 posted on 02/12/2009 12:08:27 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: HomeschoolMomma

Wheat and wheat gluten are not inherently processed.

In poor areas of the world where wheat is the primary crop people eat a whole lot more of it than they do in wealthy countries.

Americans don’t actually eat all that much wheat.


77 posted on 02/12/2009 12:20:57 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
Just think if you were Homo habilis Annie and had to shave.....about 2 million years ago. ....another million years wearing clothes and we'll all be hairless and Gilette will be out of business.
78 posted on 02/12/2009 12:22:32 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (1/27th Infantry Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Come on now.....they didn’t “outlaw” DDT.....they just said that if a developing country USED DDT....they’d lose all their international funding.

.....and malaria deaths immediately jumped tenfold.


79 posted on 02/12/2009 12:24:11 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (1/27th Infantry Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Filo

I think Mount Rushmore is a good example. When you see it, you know instantly that it was designed, and is not the result of natural forces. How do you know that? What are you detecting? Do you think you could design a computer program that could sift through photographs and pick out which ones were the result of design? You can see how you might be able to start down the road to actually being quantitative.


80 posted on 02/12/2009 12:24:50 PM PST by kc8ukw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?

Anti-European bias.

AFAIK, not a single "European" disease originated in Europe. All originated either in Asia (vast majority) or Africa, spreading into Europe.

So why are they always referred to as European diseases rather than as Asian (or even Eurasian, which would at least be accurate) diseases?

81 posted on 02/12/2009 12:25:13 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

EVERYONE knows that Boston is the Hub of the Universe.....that’s why it’s called the Hub.


82 posted on 02/12/2009 12:25:58 PM PST by ElectricStrawberry (1/27th Infantry Wolfhounds...cut in half during the Clinton years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?

Because people tried to breathe the food instead of eating it. It's not a design flaw but user error.

83 posted on 02/12/2009 12:27:47 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
An explanation can become fact (or law) if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true. Theories are unproven, and that includes evolution. Therefore, intelligent design as well should not be discounted and should be accepted as an alternate theory for the beginning of all life forms. Simply, I do believe in evolution, but not that we came from pond scum, there was an intelligent designer in the beginning. That's my theory and I'm stickin' to it!

Here's a question to ponder...

Our DNA is 98% the same as monkeys thus supposedly proving we evolved from apes. But consider our DNA is also exactly 50% the same as a banana. Going by the logic, is that why some of us have dry skin that peels? ; )

84 posted on 02/12/2009 12:34:17 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

But we’ve been wearing clothing for a very long time ... almost as long as men going slowly bald ... well women also. I like to tickle evolutionists on questions they don’t seem to have an answer to .... }:-)


85 posted on 02/12/2009 12:34:32 PM PST by SkyDancer ("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad, Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Why fight like cats and dogs over it?

You'd think that the anti-evolution crowd would have enough faith in their views that getting the reassurance of others wouldn't be necessary.

86 posted on 02/12/2009 12:40:15 PM PST by the_devils_advocate_666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Regardless of your views on intelligent design, CREATIONISM can answer ALL your questions! Praise the LORD!


87 posted on 02/12/2009 1:12:09 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
But consider our DNA is also exactly 50% the same as a banana.

Last I read, only ten percent of the banana genome had been mapped. Do you have a reference to your claim?

88 posted on 02/12/2009 1:17:07 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I'm sorry that you have time to write, but not time to read.

When I google 'Heimlich', all sorts of keywords paring it with things like 'evolution' "id" and so on, I come up with nothing other than this page. What exactly would I read if I weren't so incurious? What juxtaposition? It's as If I said "ID is crap because all people from Maine have bad acne." And when you asked me what the hell I meant by that, I replied that you should read more. Huh?

And why the desperate desire by the Darwinists to score cheap little debating points? Why the insecurity? What does Heimlich have to do with evolution vs. ID? Simple question, no?

I'm sorry that you lack the curiosity to ask questions when confronted with an interesting juxtaposition.

I'm sorry you can't understand that 'can you explain...' is a question that I asked because I have the curiosity you claim I lack. So one more time: What do Heimlich, choking, and his maneuver have to do with the debate? what juxtaposition? An answer sans some implication of your intellectual superiority would be appreciated out here in Hicksville.

89 posted on 02/12/2009 1:21:46 PM PST by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: js1138

>>Why do so many features in living things look like the result of small, incremental changes?<<

And I think that is a valid question. But it is not really related to the former question, except that both deal in perception of facts, as opposed to facts themselves.


90 posted on 02/12/2009 1:23:05 PM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: js1138
In the universe, all locations are equidistant from the point of origin, since spacetime is expanding from a singularity.

But is it expanding in all directions at the same absolute rate?

91 posted on 02/12/2009 1:26:30 PM PST by frogjerk (It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish - Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

INTREP


92 posted on 02/12/2009 1:37:18 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware of socialism in America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Things You Don't Need to Know: We share 50% of our DNA with bananas…

It is also said that we share 40-50% of our DNA with cabbages...

That is much better than the Darwinist's claim that we are Garbage Pail Kids, LOL!

93 posted on 02/12/2009 1:41:04 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

well we are somewhat related to bananas as are all living things on earth. Just depends how far back you want to trace.


94 posted on 02/12/2009 1:46:20 PM PST by TerP26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Your link goes nowhere. Your source’s references go to dead web pages.


95 posted on 02/12/2009 1:47:31 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
But it is not really related to the former question, except that both deal in perception of facts, as opposed to facts themselves.

It's true. Prior to Newton, people gave unrelated explanations for the orbits of planets and the falling of objects. Some perceptions lead to increased understanding, and some perceptions lead nowhere. Just depends on what your goals are in organizing your perceptions.

96 posted on 02/12/2009 1:54:10 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Worked for me when I clicked on it directly out of my post to you. Here is the non-html version:

http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

It cites Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London as saying this.

Here's another link to an interview with him where he mentions that:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s456478.htm

97 posted on 02/12/2009 1:55:29 PM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Minn

Choking is the result of a kludge in our breathing and eating pathways. The question is: is the design of our airway the result of an incompetent designer, or is it the result of a series of slight modifications?


98 posted on 02/12/2009 1:56:38 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: kc8ukw
I think Mount Rushmore is a good example. When you see it, you know instantly that it was designed, and is not the result of natural forces. How do you know that? What are you detecting? Do you think you could design a computer program that could sift through photographs and pick out which ones were the result of design? You can see how you might be able to start down the road to actually being quantitative.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
99 posted on 02/12/2009 1:58:48 PM PST by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Wheat and wheat gluten are not inherently processed.

In poor areas of the world where wheat is the primary crop people eat a whole lot more of it than they do in wealthy countries.

Americans don’t actually eat all that much wheat.

Thats where your wrong! Check out the website I posted before you judge. Do a little research. There is "hidden" wheat and gluten in so much food, you would never realize. Next time you are in a grocery, look at every label, and I mean carefully look. You'll be surprised what you find. Its an additive in many hidden forms. And by processed, I meant processed foods. Almost all processed food have a form of wheat/gluten in it. A large percentage of American diets come from processed foods.

Humans cannot eat "raw" wheat; it would kill them. It must be processed. In poorer countries, the grain of choice is rice (middle and far east) or corn (South America). It has to do with growing conditions. There is a "wheat belt" where wheat can grow. Those countries are the ones that eat more wheat and inheritantly have more of the health problems. Statistically the only two nations that consume more wheat are China and India (www.nationmaster.com). However, I am not sure of the studies in relationship to the rate of Celiac Disease in those countries.

The wheat in the wealthier countries like the US is genetically modified to have higher gluten levels, plus we add gluten to products, which is the offending part of the wheat. As a celiac and the parent of a celiac, I have done a lot of research into this.

Hidden sources of wheat/gluten in American Diets...

Cereal Binding

Edible Starch

Filler Hydrolyzed Plant Protein

The following items may or may not contain gluten depending on where and how they are made, and it is sometimes necessary to check with the manufacturer to find out:

Artificial Color

Artificial Flavoring

Caramel Color

Coloring

Flavoring

Food Starch

Maltodextrin

Modified Food Starch

Modified Starch

Mono and Diglycerides Monosodium Glutimate (MSG)

Mustard Powder

Natural Flavoring

Smoke Flavoring

Starch

Base food for yeast

So even if it doesn't say the word "wheat" or "gluten", it still can contain wheat/gluten! Even the glue on envelopes and the stuff that holds pills together has wheat gluten in it. You consume more wheat gluten than you realize.

Want to learn more...www.celiac.com

100 posted on 02/12/2009 2:01:53 PM PST by HomeschoolMomma (YES SHE CAN! Sarah Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson