There is a debate about fat-soluble vitamins, the daily requirement and its efficacy to treat diseases or infections. This debate reveals how little is known about fat-soluble vitamins.
A blood test cannot determine the amount of stored fat-soluble vitamins or what are normal levels for these vitamins. Yet, there is evident that people are malnourish. The growing number of people with health problems for industrialized nations highlights the quality differences in the food versus non-industrialized nation. The use of petroleum-based fertilizers disrupts the microbial ecology of the land and the result is a crop that produces lower amounts of minerals and vitamins than the wild-type plant. The U.S. began using this type of fertilizer in 1913.  The first sign of a problem was the dust bowl of 1933 but the decrease levels of vitamins in the food was undetected. This problem has been insidious and has increase in severity with each generation because the first dose of fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and minerals occurs in the womb and the next dose from breastfeeding thus creating a generational downward step. For perspective, there is the growing number of younger people with health problems, the need for more vaccines in children, and the heavily medicated elderly (critical low levels of fat-soluble vitamins). Tracing the molecular pathway of diseases and infections there is always one or more fat-soluble vitamins involved or rather the under expression of its functions, as in a chronic viral infection (herpes or HIV). As for the debate about an inactive fat-soluble vitamin causing harm, there is no upper limit. The body regulates fat-soluble vitamins intake, metabolism, and storage. To underscore fat-soluble vitamins importance to human health, it drove evolution to develop storage cells because source is seasonal and the environmental factors are constant. 

I know of people, after restoring vitamins A and D regulations and reconstitution of storage cells, and water-soluble vitamins and minerals, that have cured insomnia, eczema, psoriasis, herpes, migraine headache, chronic fungal infection and others diseases. The health of any specie depends on the consumption of vital molecules and humans are not exceptional. This basic requirement for the accumulation of vitamins and mineral supports Darwin’s argument, survival of the fit.

Darwin did not know of stem cells when he considered his theory of fitness for survival and reproduction. The greater value of fitness is regeneration and longevity, the gene SIRT1. The activating pathway for stem cells, Wnt/B-catenin, is related to vitamin D and vitamin A respectively. The gene SIRT1, which is linked to longevity, is related to niacin pathway.  Evolution intended for fit species to fully utilize stem cells, from the consumption of food that has high vitamins and minerals content and not from the advent of modern medicine.

Reproductive female require a greater amount of vitamin A and D because when a female is pregnant, she must share her stores with the developing fetus. Every aspect of development is dependent upon the metabolism of vitamins and minerals. Nine months later a healthy human is born and is able to survive or fend off microbial organisms. No human should need vaccines. Human evolved in a microbial environment.  The immune system, developed over millions of years, can identify and defeat any microbe when it can metabolize vitamin A and D stores for complete eradication.

When every human cell is fully loaded with vitamins and minerals then the specie does not develop cancer. For instance, the area around Chernobyl nuclear accident is seeing a return of land and aquatic life. The animals are normal and flourishing yet, the land is toxic to humans. So why do animals survive from eating the plants? We know that animals of industrialized nations can develop cancer just as humans. The difference is the quality of the food. The system in animals or mammals that remove damage or cancerous cells from the body depends upon the metabolism of vitamin A and D mainly and other vitamins and minerals. The gene that prevents melanoma growth is regulated by vitamin D, and body odor is because of vitamin D deficiency. Evolution did not fail the human specie but rather industrialized agriculture failed to provide humans with the high quality content needed for human health, survival, reproduction, and the evolutionary potential of stem cells.

There was a meeting, at the U.N., of emerging industrialized nations to discuss the growing incidents of diseases and infections, normally found in western civilizations. What this gathering could have discovered is the relationship of food and health. Instead the group found modern medicine. In addition, their livestock and agricultural insects will also suffer with health problems.

In a malnourish society, it is easy to see the ramifications on the physical health. The insidious impact is to mental health. The mental illness of a society affects its citizen in various ways, of which is ones ability to interact with others in forming healthy relationships with spouse, family, and other members of society. Humans are compassionate and a cooperative specie. Yet, if we were only to follow the news or the entertainment community then we will discover the dark side of human behavior or cheaters within a community. When fit, we are better than this and have the potential for greatness: Einstein, Angelo, Bach, and Jobs.

A return to fitness begins with the food, organic farming; the practice of returning valuable nutrients to the soil so that is will produce a nutrient dense crop.  However, the process can start with supplementing the food with vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A 25,000 I.U., 6 to 9 per day, vitamin D 5,000 I.U. 6 to 9 per day, zinc 50mg per day(needed to transport vitamin A into the body, metabolism and storage), calcium 1 to 2 grams per day, and total minerals(normally found in natural water and food). Reconstitution of storage cells will take 2 to 3 years because of nine months in the womb and 1 to 2 years of breastfeeding. Restoration of vitamin A and D pathways will take approximately 9 months to a year. Still it is vital to continue for life because life depends upon it.

Fat-soluble vitamins supplements are inactive, as it is in food. Its uptake into the body is regulated and also metabolism and storage.

Future humans may also discover the evolutionary potential of the Homo sapiens brain.

I am sure there is enough here for everybody to critique, so I’ll pick the stuff about Darwin’s fitness. The “survival of the fittest” refers to the number of offspring. It has nothing to do with “physical fitness” (at least not in the way you’re describing here). The rest of your musing on evolution makes very little sense as well. Neither nature nor evolution intended for us to utilize anything. That’s enough for now.

Regarding the flourishment of animals around Chernobyl, you can read HERE to find out that the situation is actually much worse than what they thought it would be.

George - 02 November 2011 01:59 PM

The “survival of the fittest” refers to the number of offspring. It has nothing to do with “physical fitness” (at least not in the way you’re describing here).

I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. You’re right that it doesn’t necessarily have to do with physical fitness, but according to wikipedia Darwin used it as a synonym for natural selection (after it was coined by Herbert Spencer). And natural selection concerns both survival and reproduction, not just reproduction. Sexual selection is closer to what you describe, although it also takes into account other factors than just number of offspring.

Fitness is measured by the number of living offspring at the time of the parent’s death.

Normnature - 02 November 2011 01:37 PM

When every human cell is fully loaded with vitamins and minerals then the specie does not develop cancer. For instance, the area around Chernobyl nuclear accident is seeing a return of land and aquatic life. The animals are normal and flourishing yet, the land is toxic to humans. So why do animals survive from eating the plants?

Hmmm…

George - 02 November 2011 02:40 PM

Regarding the flourishment of animals around Chernobyl, you can read HERE to find out that the situation is actually much worse than what they thought it would be.

By Nick Vinocur

LONDON | Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:01pm EDT

(Reuters) - Radiation has affected animals living near the site of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear disaster far more than was previously thought, a study showed Wednesday, challenging beliefs that local wildlife was on the rebound.

The study showed that numbers of bumble-bees, butterflies, spiders, grasshoppers and other invertebrates were lower in contaminated sites than other areas because of high levels of radiation left over from the blast more than 20 years ago.

The findings challenge earlier research that suggested animal populations were rebounding around the site of the Chernobyl explosion in Ukraine, which forced thousands to abandon their homes and evacuate the area.

I wonder if Nm, will offer a study that supports his Chernobyl’s cool claim?

And then there is that vitamin thing. 
Seems to me a body saturated with vitamins might be a very unhealthy thing indeed:

Worried About Vitamin Safety? Experts Offer Advice
by The Associated Press as reported at NPR news
October 13, 2011
Two studies this week raised gnawing worries about the safety of vitamin supplements and a host of questions. Should anyone be taking them? Which ones are most risky? And if you do take them, how can you pick the safest ones?

Americans Urged To Rethink Dietary Supplement Use
by Richard Knox, NPR’s Morning Edition
October 17, 2011
There’s been an explosion in the number of Americans who take vitamins and other dietary supplements. But do they do any good? And might they actually be doing harm? Two new studies raise serious questions.

One of the red flags I look for is the “cures what ails ya” claim. Another red flag: claims that oppose the results of double blind studies. Yet another red flag: poor grammar.

I could go on, but I’m sure everyone gets the point. Normnature is a spammer and a troll.

You’re almost certainly right, Darron.  Another is the apparent lifting of text from other sources and sticking in here out of context.  However, although Doug is almost as fast as a Hadron Collider particle at deleting identified spam, we do give uncertain ones a fair amount of leeway (enough rope?) before they show their true colors and they go.

Occam

Occam. - 05 November 2011 12:24 PM

...although Doug is almost as fast as a Hadron Collider particle at deleting identified spam…

Your nerd is showing.

George - 02 November 2011 05:59 PM

Fitness is measured by the number of living offspring at the time of the parent’s death.

Still I wonder where you got this from. The wiki mentions two methods for measuring fitness and neither one is that, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)#Measures_of_fitness (they are both per genotype, which makes more sense to me)

Sure, evolution happens on the level of gene. A fact unknown to both Darwin and Spencer. But that’s only a technicality.

...and trolls/spammers tend to have initial messages which go on ad nauseum, far longer than any reasonable person might be willing to read unsolicited from a stranger. I have never read a (good) first post, which ran this long.

yea i didn’t read the OP at all. i’m just here for the evolution stuff

domokato - 08 November 2011 12:11 AM

yea i didn’t read the OP at all. i’m just here for the evolution stuff

No, domokato. You’re here to argue with me on something which is irrelevant and which you don’t probably understand much. The OP incorrectly defined Darwin’s (Spencer’s) “survival of the fittest” and since we are talking about classical fitness here my definition was adequate. Yes, according to the model of classical fitness it is the number of offspring an organism produces and can support. It certainly has nothing to do with sexual selection nor it is really important to go into some of the details you were quickly able to find on Wiki. If you wish, we can open a new thread and discuss this in more detail, but for the purpose of what was said above in the OP regarding Darwin’s fitness, my answer was more than sufficient.

George - 08 November 2011 06:39 AM

domokato - 08 November 2011 12:11 AM

yea i didn’t read the OP at all. i’m just here for the evolution stuff

No, domokato. You’re here to argue with me on something which is irrelevant and which you don’t probably understand much.

I’ve studied biological evolution quite a bit (mostly the modern, not classical stuff) because I work with evolutionary algorithms as a hobby. I also engage in evolution vs ID/creationism debates as much as I can.

The OP incorrectly defined Darwin’s (Spencer’s) “survival of the fittest” and since we are talking about classical fitness here my definition was adequate.

Yes, and I was just asking where you got that from. “Classical fitness”, you say? So I guess Darwin? That’s all I wanted to know. But why use classical definitions when there are more accurate modern ones available? After all, you’re criticizing the OP for inaccuracy.

Yes, according to the model of classical fitness it is the number of offspring an organism produces and can support. It certainly has nothing to do with sexual selection

My quibble was that you left out the whole “natural selection” aspect of “survival of the fittest” and focused only on offspring count. My other quibble was that focusing on offspring count at the time of death of the parent is problematic. Are you saying a cat that has a litter of 8 kittens and immediately dies did better than a cat that raises 4 kittens to adulthood before dying?

nor it is really important to go into some of the details you were quickly able to find on Wiki.

I only used the wiki to double-check what I already knew and to provide a citation.

If you wish, we can open a new thread and discuss this in more detail, but for the purpose of what was said above in the OP regarding Darwin’s fitness, my answer was more than sufficient.

Perhaps you’re right, but since the OP is obviously a drive-by anyway, I took it upon myself to open a debate here.

Look, all I am saying is that when one organism leaves behind more successful offspring than others (we are talking about organisms within the same species; different species differ in their strategies and one cannot compare the fitness of, say, an eagle vs. a chicken) after a period of time its genes will become more dominant in the gene pool. In the end, natural selection operates only by the difference within the reproductive success (i.e., number of offspring). The ability of an organism to go on when measured by its reproductive success is known as Darwinian fitness.