Autotrophs - Next Step In Human Evolution?

Vernadsky was certain that man is an energetic creature that can nourish himself from the energy of space. Some people can prove it today that it is possible to live a normal life without physical food.

Wrap your minds around that one. People going 60+ years without food.

drops of "heavenly" water penetrated into his mouth

I am not to sure if this is a true story, although I do trust the source of the article, but it seems a little fair fetched in some respects. Although I would not doubt it if it does become the norm.

Could this be the next leap in the evolutionary track of humans?

I have never heard anything about this before. Kinda CO-RAZY

I for one am going to give it a try, no grocery bill

english.pravda.ru...

www.sunpath-designs.com...

[edit on 14-1-2005 by _BLiND_]

Are you saying you trust pravda as a source?

You do hear more different stories of autotrophs every year. I remember last year they found that guy in Asia who had his godess come to him and tell him he didn't have to eat anymore, as to glorify the godess, and he hadn't eaten in 70 some odd years.

If there was a global famine or something, then definately this would be the next stage of human evolution, because all that would be left to reproduce would be autotrophs.

It is obvious that every organism requires energy to survive. They have to get this energy somehow.

Biologists make the distinction between photo-autotrophs, which get their energy from light, and chemo-autotrophs, which get their energy from the reduction of certain chemicals like H2S. Both methods require a lot of sophisticated enzymes. Photo-autotrophs require a special organelle.

If human autotrophs exist, they can't be photo-autotrophs or chemo-autotrophs. We simply don't have the chemical pathways required. There are no other known methods to get energy. None of the animals with which we share a close common ancestor seems to be a autotroph. Therefore, I think it is very unlikely that any human is autotrophs.

It is also unlikely that we'll ever evolve to become autotrophs, because this skill isn't required for us to survive and the systems required for autotrophy are to complicated to evolve in a short period of time (geological timescale).

Here's a fakir who says he lived for 63 years without food. All of the villagers supported his claim and apparently it was verifid over a ten-day period by scientists. --No water for ten days!

When interviewed, he said that he was sustained by 'water' that dripped 'from a hole in the palate'.

Who knew you could live on snot?!


www.niejedzenie.pl...
www.ananova.com...

reply to post by amantine


"It is also unlikely that we'll ever evolve to become autotrophs"
True people may not evolve into autotrophs naturally for many many years but we did not need to naturally evolve resistances/vaccines to diseases, wings to fly, or prosthetics to replace lost limbs.

Photo-autotrophic and Chemo-autotrophic humans are possible.
It's only time before technology "evolves" to meet these needs.

reply to post by _BLiND_


It's insane for everyone to assume that human beings will change into this kind of being. I've seen no data (have you?) to suggest that this is something new for mankind. It is simply getting press now. And the article did say that people could train themselves to be autotrophs, so it then stands to reason that we're all perfectly capable of it already. If the human race were to give up food, it would then be a matter of choice, rather than one of genes. Just ween ourselves off of food and water.. Most people are too foolish to even give up addictive substances like nicotine and caffeine, so I have my doubts about this no food bit catching on.

I don't accept "evolution" in every sense. There are the observable, factual changes which takes place - various features appearing or taking precedence in a population, for instance - but there is no observed paradigm change among kinds. We see species die out, but we do not see new kinds come into being. Selective breeding of dogs and cats, for example, can only give you dogs and cats. Human beings, like so many other life forms, happen to be adaptable. We see it in skin tones around the world, not to mention other such basic characteristics, and I think we see it in this autotrophic phenomenon. We have in-built capabilities of which we oftentimes remain unaware! That doesn't make these abilities new, doesn't mean we're "evolving" into something new. It just means we don't understand ourselves at all.

So, really, I just wish people would stop making stupid assumptions about things like evolution. The Earth isn't necessarily even so much as 1 billion years old, but hey, evolutionists want it to be that old so their theories will hold up, and there is no serious evidence against the claim. Evidence for it is based on assumptions, other theories, as are all dating methods, since they can never be confirmed. People need to realise that we don't know as much as most people assume we know. We *think* we know things, but that's not the same. Evolutionists are "religious" in their own foolish ways when they assuming old earth, assume macroevolution and assume that this phenomenon of autotrophy is some new biological improvement. Let's just see some serious study of the phenomenon in the medical and biological fields. Let's focus on the facts, not such wild conjecture.

reply to post by lockheed


"Obvious" to you, perhaps, but famine is nothing new, and I know you're no expert in human genetics. If a group of people was able to survive with no food or drink at all in such a situation, then yes, they would survive where others would die. And yet, I don't think it's as much a genetic disadvantage that would take the others down as not being prepared to give up on food and drink. If the Pravda article is entirely genuine, people can train themselves to be autotrophs, and so it is those who adjust themselves to that type of existence who succeed at it. That's just as much behaviour and circumstance as genetics, if not much more so. It's a foolish assumption to make right now, that only some people have the genes for it, and it's especially unfounded to say that it's something new. For all we know, there were more such people in the past, but now only a few exist this way. I'd bet real money that this capability is at least very common among humanity, if not a univeral feature, but people enjoy eating and most do what they learn to do while growing up. It's those few weirdos who really go for something as extraordinary as fasting for years. It's just rare, not new.

reply to post by amantine


Your answer is full of evolutionist rhetoric. We have no non-human ancestors, guaranteed. No lifeform on this planet has an ancestor that is unlike itself. Everything that reproduces makes more of itself, with variation being what is allowed by the variety of its own genetic code (and God knows what all else). Evolutionists wonder why Creationists get worked up - it's because the observed facts of evolution - speciation, adaptation, mutations - are used to create a religious worldview, as it attempts to create a story for not only how life came into being, but how it came to be what it is today. Those claims are not based on fact, but on theories, and those theories cannot be proven, for they are unobservable. And these evolutionists go on to interpret every bit of data in their own way, assuming that rocks can date fossils and vice versa, assuming that fossils are ancient at all when they are created by catastrophic events, and those events cannot be dated. They ignore the fact that the moon is moving away from the Earth, meaning that at some point in the past, it would have been too close, and that alone precludes any billions of years of age for this planet. The moon testifies very directly against it.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by lockheed

 

"Obvious" to you, perhaps, but famine is nothing new, and I know you're no expert in human genetics. If a group of people was able to survive with no food or drink at all in such a situation, then yes, they would survive where others would die. And yet, I don't think it's as much a genetic disadvantage that would take the others down as not being prepared to give up on food and drink. If the Pravda article is entirely genuine, people can train themselves to be autotrophs, and so it is those who adjust themselves to that type of existence who succeed at it. That's just as much behaviour and circumstance as genetics, if not much more so. It's a foolish assumption to make right now, that only some people have the genes for it, and it's especially unfounded to say that it's something new. For all we know, there were more such people in the past, but now only a few exist this way. I'd bet real money that this capability is at least very common among humanity, if not a univeral feature, but people enjoy eating and most do what they learn to do while growing up. It's those few weirdos who really go for something as extraordinary as fasting for years. It's just rare, not new.

I couldn't say it any better myself, but just to support the claim...


You achieve electric arcing inside a vortex which to varying degrees happen to be circles. Vector based geometry is how we experience reality as the structure of energy to mass formed by the presence of torque.



On scales small to large, it's the same pattern. If you're able to train yourself to the torque that bears down on all of existence, you find yourself with an endless supply of energy.


I think my instincts have been telling me to do this for years, but my busy schedule and other chicken # excuses keep me from trying it for real.