Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Varemia

Human ancestors have been using rocks as weapons for a couple million years. That's how we hunt, and it's why we don't need all the survival mechanisms. If we can teach our offspring how to use the tools, then they won't need the gene for brute force survival either. That's why our brain size increased over time. Our survival slowly depended more and more on remembering how to use tools and inventing new, better tools.

I don't know why you're so opposed to this idea.

So we originally killed cattle with stones?

reply to post by colin42

Errr dont tell me you also believe when the aliens dropped us off they also built a Quicky Mart, McDonalds and a Kuntucky fried?
We were hunter gatherers. We first used rocks and sharp sticks. How long does it take to do that? Please dont tell me that we never progressed through the Hunter gatherer stage as native people still live that life style now.

You may find it hard to pick an apple in the winter and prehistoric shops would not have a freezer section. There are many animals that travel vast distances to find food your response is asinine stupidity.

So your dissagreeing with me and you believe that animals wash there hands, process there food, prepare plates and dishes, wash the dishes, and cook there food. Ya, there is no difference.

Your next point is just as bogus. Any animal does what it has too to survive. Wolves stalk prey to a point of exhaustion and then go in for the kill when it is weakened. Elephants travel vast distance just for water, some die while travelling. There are thousands of examples.

It's a good point and I think our presence here on this planet has caused most of this trouble, in addition to global warming which is also our fault. I think your missing the point here. Your comparing instinct against our higher intelligence. Granted even if you cut your finger and bleed on the floor the cells will rush to fresh parts of the drying blood just to try to stay alive. All living things would no acception but its the extent of the process we go though that is different. Sure a bear has to get wet to fish, we build a boat and nets. It's once again adaptation.

I could show you we were scavengers but whats the point? Every animal will take advantage of a free meal even lions.

Ok so when was the last time you sat down to a half slaughtered carcass for a free meal? Ok thats just stupid when there are easier ways to get food. When was the last time you walked though an orchard and picked apples cause they are free. It's not condusive to our lifestyle because we have a social structure where we use trade work and money to allow us that processed access for us. You might easily miss whats going on here and just think its changes we made and now we are living with them. Your wrong, why did we make those changes to begin with? It's because we needed to fill the supply and demand which couldn't be met through natural channels. We don't eat naturally becuase we cant. Again, we are not from here. Food is not readily accessable here for us, so we have to go out to get it. Granted some other species do too, but they don't go through what we do.

And the grass thing AGAIN. You have a nack of twisting any and all answers to suit your very limited world view.

Look its real simple, a woman has to get her source of calcium from somewhere and it's not naturally cows milk so where is it suppose to come from? Someone mentioned that calcium is found in high levels in grass. Now cows eat grass so thats probably where they get it from. If the purpose in this convo was to figure out how to cirvumvent the cow because we aren't suppose to be drinking his milk, it was the next logical solution to go straight to the grass.

You have proved beyond doubt however the need for the scientific method because without it we would have made no progress at all.

Without our adaptation we would be DEAD. It's a cold reality. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to adapt if we actually fit in. As I have proven over and over we aren't from here. IMO had we of evolved, we would fit in. So right now our evotlution is sucking pretty bad, I mean come on man, we are drinking cows milk for gods sake.

its difficult to separate subject from object when multi-perceptive..isnt it> need to amd fro ...4division? reply to post by itsthetooth

stone? storm? cell?
or the reason for/to
grow ..up ?

moon?
"
1. What is a 13-Moon Calendar?

A 13-Moon Calendar is the logical and natural way to count the 365-day year cycle. Instead of 12 months which are 28, 29, 30, or 31 days long, the year is instead measured into 13 months, each one an even 28 days. 13 moons of 28 days each gives 364 days - plus 1 "day out of time," a day of celebration and forgiveness, to acknowledge the passing year and welcome in the new year. :"



Storm is the 19th glyph, and isnt it a Skywalker www.13moon.com...
kesava - sky walker?
stones from the sky?
krsh-
-nah
19=23?

krshna name is numbered as 23

nAma 23.kezezezv> - kEsavah

One with lovely locks of hair.
kEsavAya namah
The name can be derived from the word kesa - hair. He is beautiful not only
because he has Lakshmi with Him, but because He is naturally beautiful.
"prasastah kesAh santu asya iti kesavah".

An additional interpretation for this name, which is supported by VishNu
purANa, is given by Sri Sankara. This interpretation says that kesava derives
from the fact that KrishNa is the destroyer of the demon Kesi who was sent
to kill the child KrishNa by Kamsa.
"yasmAt tvayaiva drshTAtmA hatah kesI anArdana: |
tasmAt kesava nAmnA tvam loke jneyo bhavishyati || "
However, the name kesi-hA appears later on in the stotra, and this literally
means the destroyer of kesi. So a different interpretation here will be
appropriate since otherwise there is the punarukti dosha, or the fault of
repetition. In fact, the name kesava itself repeats later on in the stotra, and
we will wait to see what interpretation the great vyAkhyAna kartAs are going
to give us at that time (kesavah kesi-hA hari: ).


nAma 24. puéuéué;aeÄeÄeÄm> - purushOttamah

The Supreme amongst the purushas (i.e., individual souls).
purushOttamAya namah
Purushebhya: uttama:, purushANAm uttama:, purusheshu uttama: are all
possible derivations for this nAma.
We find the uttama purusha (purushottama) described in more detail in the
Gita in sloka 15.16 and 15.17. Here the purushas are described as of two kinds;
1. the kshara or those who have the association with prakrti and are under
the bondage of samasara, and
2. the akshara or the muktas who are released from bondage.
The uttama purursha is different from either of these kinds of purushas, and
is the paramAtmA who supports the acetana and the chetanas who are either
the baddhas (purushas under bondage) or muktas (purushas released from
bondage)..
In Gita 15-18, Lord Krishna summarizes the above as follows:

"yasmAt ksharam atIto'ham aksharAdapi cottama: |
ato'smi loke vede ca pratithah purushottama: ||
"Because I am superior to both kinds of purushas - the kshara and the
akshara, all the srutis and smrtis praise Me as purushottama."

vishNu sahasra naama roopam



kirtimukha.com...

reply to post by RebelRouser

yes it all comes down to morals. thats what separates us from animals. why does nothing else have morals like a human.

Every time you've made a claim that we're somehow unique from animals based on our behaviors, you've been given evidence showing animals exhibit the exact same behaviors. This time is no different.

we clearly dont fit in with the other million species around us.

We clearly do. It's just that the Bible tells you that we're unique and beautiful snowflakes, so you reject any and all evidence to contrary.

all transitional fossils u guys present can be argued by scientist that its either a man or an ape. no damning evidence anywhere. show me more pics. idc cause i come to the same conclusion with all of em. u show me one with a human skeleton with a monkey tail and baboon length arms and maybeee ill start hearing u out. but in reality

I posted links to information about A. sediba earlier in this thread. It has mosaic features, that is it has features that belong to both genus Australopithecus and genus Homo. Maybe instead of constructing straw man arguments revolving around mixtures between every imaginable species out there, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron's crocoduck, you should do some more reading on what claims are made by common ancestry and start asking for evidence of transitional species that may have existed instead of ones that there's no reason for.

replace God with evolution here and u got the right idea. its you guys that have stonewalled. u keep peddling the same crap at us that's still accepted/and denied at the same time by many people. a.k.a. not solid evidence

You obviously failed to understand the context and content of what Tyson was getting at. Let me clarify it for you. Over the course of our history, we've attributed nearly every unexplained phenomenon to God(s). Earthquakes, lightning, disease, thunder, wind, tides, volcanoes… God did it. Except some people didn't accept that answer and kept on looking. So every time you invoke a phenomenon that isn't fully explained as evidence for God, you're the one writing the name God on a box of scientific ignorance. And that box gets emptier and emptier every day.

Evolution doesn't disprove God. Evolution, if you'll pardon me anthropomorphizing a scientific theory, doesn't care about God. At all. It simply seeks to explain the observable facts.

then once u figure out that whole mess u started and start realizing just because nat geo presents a show where computer animated grasslands flood in like a tsunami of grass that sweep over the earth does not make it factual.

You need to separate what you see in terms of artists' renderings based on scientific research and the research itself. The conclusions of scientists aren't based on the artists' renderings, the renderings are based on the conclusions of scientists.

what, did these man to be apes just wake up one morning and their tree was an island in the middle of the grasslands? they would move with the jungle. trees dont just disappear and get replaced with grass fast enough to not give the monkeys enough time to stay with the jungle setting they live in. its even better when they show u real footage of monkeys living exactly like that too. in a tree in the middle of the grasslands and stilll not becoming humans? whats their deal? that atmosphere right? cause back then it was easier with the old atmosphere..walk on 2 feet? to this day no monkey has ever made that transition. put them wherever u want and $1000 says it still wont happen. its scientifically proven its uncomfortable and they just wont do it (aside for more than a few seconds) they literally cannot function that way. so why would many generations just decide they'd sacrifice that pain to stay safe. now why wouldn't any other spices have the same dilemma? if u can buy a fish becoming a man over a long enough period of time, then why cant a gazelle grow monkey arms and climb trees to stay away from a predator? like ive said many times. i know evolutions real. but ur version of it and mine differ extremely. there's no species becoming a completely different species out there. i mean realllly change. like a rabbit to a fox, or a bear to a buffalo. this is the same concept u agree with. but

Good luck in your quest for a crocoduck.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Without our adaptation we would be DEAD. It's a cold reality. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to adapt if we actually fit in. As I have proven over and over we aren't from here. IMO had we of evolved, we would fit in. So right now our evotlution is sucking pretty bad, I mean come on man, we are drinking cows milk for gods sake.

While there were problems with everything you said in that last post, I'm going to focus on this. You seem to have a hard time grasping that all the problems you have with evolution are due to recent developments. We not only survived for 200,000 years, but we thrived. We essentially became the dominant species on the planet. Now if you were to take away our modern conveniences and threw us back out into the wild most would probably die. Those who survived however would be those that were better suited to living in the wild. Their offspring would then have the traits that increased their chances at survival in the wild. This would continue until we were once again a species that thrived in that environment. This is evolution. The opposite happened to bring us to where we are today. Once civilization emerged the strongest and fastest was no longer what was needed. Instead it was the smartest and those most able to work as a group. Despite what you want to believe, humans fit in perfectly with their environment and may be the premier example of evolution within a species.

reply to post by FLaKK

Humans are omnivours, our digestive tract is able to acquire and digest all the nutrients it needs from animal and vegetable matter. Having said that i do not believe in processed foods, Foods designed to maximise shelf life by the addition of chemicals not normally found in nature.

This is a major clue people, can you spot whats going on here? The question is WHY are we processing food? Well he gave the answer its to maximise shelf life. So now the question becomes why do we need to maximize shelf life? It's because the food that we need to eat, at the frequency and amounts that we need to eat are not NATURALLY available.

Now here is where I call BS on evolution because if you look at primates, they have a healthy diet made for them. You could say they fit in here. There is food here made specifically for them. If we evolved, why did we leave that oh so needed diet? You can't dare tell me we are better off being unhealthy. If I'm wrong there is only one answer. GMO's take on a balance of good / bad traits (if I read it correctly), it is possible that we gave up some things like diet to take on other things that could be seen as good. I call BS on the theory but thats what I read.

I work in the processed food industry and one of the main problems is the bacteria Listeria. Having been indoctrinated on the terrible reprecussions of outbreaks of this disease and how easily it can grow even at -8C on food products it's no wonder we introduce measures to stop the growth of this bacteria. Listeria loves food! we sanatise our equipment with quat amines and perform a swab at points along the production line before production commenses but we now have to accept raw materials that have been sulphonated prior to production.

Another heads up people, most forms of adaptation will be rejected by mother nature. Listeria threatning our oh so wanted processed food line is one of hundreds of examples I have. My favorite is our shoes. We made shoes to adapt to walking in this harsh terrain and mother nature kicked back at us by giving us fungus on our feet. So we adapted once again and made socks. Redundant adaptation.

I t's always bothered me why food products have to be so acidic, i'm not saying i's bad for you but to bombard foods with high levels of acidic sulphates is not good.

It's an adaptation price we pay for keeping it safe. We aren't suppose to be doing it is the whole point.

I did some research recently on dental decay in the UK and people who need extractions has soard. Dental visits have quadrupled here in the last 15 years. People who say to me quote: I don't know why but this last few years my teeth have gone all of a sudden,: unquote

It's complex, and I wouldn't dare say our intended diet wouldn't hurt our teeth, everything hurts teeth to some degree. I suggest a view of Lloyd Pye's star child video and check out this alien skull that has adult teeth and five more waiting to come down. In the bible we were originally suppose to live 1000 years but after punishments we were sentanced to 120. There is no doubt IMO that we are suppose to get SEVERAL sets of teeth if we did actually get to live our 1000.

If i want to eat meat i'll go to my butchers and ask for a cut of meat and cook it myself rather than go to Burgerking or Mcdonalds thats for sure.

An EX of mine, her father used to get us wild moose from hunting a few times. Of course it was slightly processed but that darn meat is so lean they have to mix it with things. Darn good too.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Not sure if you realized this yet...but FACTS aren't high up on the list of priorities when it comes to creationism

I'm sorry but your the 3rd wrong person dissagreeing with me on this and I allready provided a link earler from a DR teaching his students that this is correct.

let me post these names also

nAma 37. SvyMÉU>U> - svayambhUh

He who manifests Himself by His own free will.
svayambhUvE namah
Svayameva bhavati iti svayambhUh - One who is self-born.
Sri RAdhA KrishNa Sastri gives the example of how in the case of the birth of
Lord KrshNa to Devaki and Vasudeva, the child was born unlike any other child,
decorated with beautiful jewels, smiling, lotus-eyed, with divya rUpa, etc., and
with no pain or discomfort to the mother. In Srimad BhAgavatam, we find the
following description:
tam adbhutam bAlakam ambujekshNam
caturbhujam sankha gadAryudAyudham |
srIvatsalakshmam galasobhikaustubham
pItAmbaram sAndra payodasoubhagam ||
"(Sri KrshNa at birth) was of magnificent appearance, lotus-eyed, adorned
with sankha, cakra, and gada, with four arms, the kaustubha around his neck,
adorned with pitAmbara (yellow silk cloth) around His waist, and beautiful like
the water-laden cloud".
sadagopan.org 74


nAma 38. zMÉu>u> - sambuh

One who causes happiness to everyone by the beauty of His appearance.
sambhavE namah
1. Sam bhAvayati iti sambhuh - here sam (sa as in Shiva) means sukham or
happiness. This happiness is caused by the sheer beauty of His
manifestation. In RAmAyaNa we see the following passages:
2. "rUpa audArya guNai: pumsAm drshti citta apahAriNam" - (Sri Rama)
attracts the eyes and hearts of beholders by His beauty, generosity,
and similar qualities.
3. "candra kAntAnanam rAmam atIva priya darsanam" - Rama who has a
face lovelier than the moon, and who has an extremely pleasing
appearance.


nAma 39. AaidTy> - Adityah

a) The purusha in the Sun
b) One of the twelve Adityas
c) One who sustains and nourishes everything like the Sun
AdityAya namah
Sri Bhattar points out that this is one example of BhagavAn manifesting
Himself at His will.
We are all familiar with "dhyeyah sadA savtr-manDala madhyavarti
nArAyaNa...." -
Sriman nArAyaNa who is in the centre of the orb of the Sun must always be
meditated upon.
We also have "sa yascAyam purushe, yascAsAvAditye, sa eka:" (taittirIya
upanishad) -
He is one and the same deity who is in the hearts of men and who is in the
middle of the Sun.
Sri Sankara gives the additional explanation that this nAma can refer to Lord
VishNu being one of the twelve Adityas or Aditi's sons. He gives the Bhagavad
Gita in support of this:
"AdityAnAm aham vishNur-jyotishAm raviramsumAn |
marIcirmaruTamasmi nakshtrANAm aham sasI || (10-21)
"Among Adityas, I am VishNu", (the twelfth Aditya) .........

Sri Chinmaya points out that BhagavAn incarnated as Aditi's son in His vAmana
incarnation. Sri Chinmaya also points out that another way to enjoy this nAma
is to realize that BhagavAn is like the Sun in that everything depends on the
Sun for its survival, and so BhagavAn is Aditya or the Sun or the supporter and
nourisher of everything.

nAma 40.pu:u:kra]> - pushkarAkshah

The Lotus-eyed.
pushkaAkshAya namah
www.ahobilavalli.org...


www.inner.org...

reply to post by FLaKK

On the subject of evolution and creationism i studied HND Geology, a subjrct i was fascinated in and we ventured out to a small outcrop of rock. The formation was lower Carboniferous but had several bands of alternating shales, gritstones, coal seams and more undelying shale bands.I then i asked the question why are there so many different layers, then he explained, The earth has gone through so many environmental changes that this explains why we have so much diversity of life.

So he showed me a layer and pointed out that for a layer of rock to change into another layer it must mean a sudden change in environmental conditions. A boundary between layers of rock where one differs from another is a sudden environmental change. Well that has confirmed for me after seeing the evidence that life on this earth has progressed/mutated/ through a series of drastic environmental changes.

If the earth had always remained the same then the rock formations would been the same, ... I only examined a small section of the earths history, written i should say in pages of rock, Its all there.

Here is the proof you guys waited for, rocks are evolving.

R.E.M ... rAMa
Yeah..its a dream -like
psyche*soul)-logoi en.wikipedia.org...

nAma 410. à[m> praNamah

a) He who makes others bow before Him.
b) He who deserves to be worshiped.
praNamAya namah.
praNAmayati iti praNamah.
By His superior character, He makes others bow before Him.
SrI v. v. rAmAnujan refers us to divya prabandham - "ilai tuNaimaRRen ne~njE!
ila~nkaiyai IDazhitta kURamban allAl kuRai (nAnmugantiruvantAdi 8)" - Except
for Lord rAma, there is no one else fit for us to worship.
An alternate version for this nAma is praNavah - He who is praised immensely.
SrI Sankara quotes sanatkumAra - praNamantIha vai vedAs-tasmAtpraNava
ucyate - He for whom prostrations are made in the veda, is praNavah.
praNavah refers to the praNava mantra, and this is considered the verbal
representation of bhagavAn - mantra svarUpi.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

While there were problems with everything you said in that last post, I'm going to focus on this. You seem to have a hard time grasping that all the problems you have with evolution are due to recent developments. We not only survived for 200,000 years, but we thrived.

Ya we thrived so much that we eat an unhealthy diet, that we made, and ended up with diabetees, cancer, and pages upon pages of other types of illness.

We essentially became the dominant species on the planet.

We never became, we always were. Keep telling yourself this as your sitting in a man made building to protect you from the harsh climate not made for you, and wired electricty to provide man made light and heat to keep you warm. Adaptation adaptation.

Now if you were to take away our modern conveniences and threw us back out into the wild most would probably die.

I see and agree with your point but I think because of a different reason. You see most of us just don't know how to automatically survive in the wild (which is another heads up and proof we aren't from here) so ya we would die.
At least with indigenous species survival on earth is simply instinct.

Those who survived however would be those that were better suited to living in the wild.

WRONG, its those that were taught how to survive in the wild. We only know what we are taught.

Their offspring would then have the traits that increased their chances at survival in the wild.

You mean there parents might teach them as well.

This would continue until we were once again a species that thrived in that environment. This is evolution. The opposite happened to bring us to where we are today. Once civilization emerged the strongest and fastest was no longer what was needed. Instead it was the smartest and those most able to work as a group. Despite what you want to believe, humans fit in perfectly with their environment and may be the premier example of evolution within a species.

Humans only fit in because we make it that way. Keep telling yourself this as your sitting in your man made building made to protect you from the harsh enviroment not meant for you, with your man made electricty to keep you warm from the not so accomidating cold.

reply to post by itsthetooth


That's because most doctors aren't trained in dealing with dental matters. As I said this is simply an old wive's tale with no basis with reality. Go ask a dentist, an oral surgeon, an orthodontist, or any other doctor whose specialty is the mouth and they will tell you getting pregnant does not deplete the teeth of calcium. Even first year residents in those fields could tell you you're wrong. There is no mechanism through which the baby would be leeching the calcium from teeth.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

That's because most doctors aren't trained in dealing with dental matters.

I see so you don't feel that an MD might be able to realize when teeth start falling out much less know how to do a CBC to check and see if just maybe, the persons calcium is low?

I'm not an MD and its the first thing I would look at.

As I said this is simply an old wive's tale with no basis with reality. Go ask a dentist, an oral surgeon, an orthodontist, or any other doctor whose specialty is the mouth and they will tell you getting pregnant does not deplete the teeth of calcium.

Well then you need to contact all of these prenatle vitamin makers and let them know they are on the wrong track.

Even first year residents in those fields could tell you you're wrong. There is no mechanism through which the baby would be leeching the calcium from teeth.

I see, so now your going to try to convince me that the calcium demand from a fetus, on a mothers body is just simply not there and couldn't possibly starve her of her needed calcium.

Here are some sites that are NOT agreeing with you.

forums.studentdoctor.net...
answers.yahoo.com...
indianapublicmedia.org...
www.pregnancyforum.co.uk...

reply to post by itsthetooth


Are you seriously not understanding that humans have only been civilized for a small portion of their existence? For almost 200,000 years we lived without modern conveniences such as houses or processed food. Processed food isn't even a century old, so I have no idea why you keep bringing that up as an example of why humans aren't native to Earth. Even by your estimate we survived 10,000 years on natural food. As for us not knowing how to survive in the wild, throw a dog, cattle, or even an animal like a lion that has been raised in captivity for its entire life out into the wild and see how long it will survive. The reason why most of us wouldn't survive isn't because we're not from Earth, it's because most of us have never been taught how to survive in the wild. Not to mention that many of the traits that increased our chances at survival in the wild have been bred out in favor of ones that allow us to thrive in our current social environment.

Its a;;
Noun

sȁn m (Cyrillic spelling са̏н)
1.dream
en.wiktionary.org...
san
@sum
sigma -zen

Plain Truths plaintruthsfromprasad.blogspot.com...
Simple and Plain Truths --- "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple" - Oscar Wilde
za.........................................4 the
"Creation in triple division"


..........................................................................you have! 2 have?
a.................. point .........>>>




so..well them..ga....!.

"....... It means really that there is no creation and no dissolution. ..."
sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.com...
and its theanswer.. its.. NET ...no
(russian? not not-e
e-vol-ut-i-on
en.wiktionary.org...
ne

reply to post by Pastafarian

reply to post by itsthetooth


To quote Dr. Stefanie Russell, who is the only researcher that has found any correlation between pregnancy and tooth loss, the belief that pregnancy causes tooth loss due to calcium depletion is "wholly unsupported."

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Are you seriously not understanding that humans have only been civilized for a small portion of their existence? For almost 200,000 years we lived without modern conveniences such as houses or processed food. Processed food isn't even a century old, so I have no idea why you keep bringing that up as an example of why humans aren't native to Earth.

Oh no I'm agreeing with you on this part of modern conveniences, I just don't think it was lived here.

Even by your estimate we survived 10,000 years on natural food. As for us not knowing how to survive in the wild, throw a dog, cattle, or even an animal like a lion that has been raised in captivity for its entire life out into the wild and see how long it will survive.

Your 100% correct here except your forgeting that we had help. You see when god stranded us here, as castaways IMO, he knew what he was doing to us was unhealthy, he also knew we would never make it without some serious guidance. So, he gave us the commandments, and teach a man how to fish, and teach us how to hunt, and let man have ruling over everything on this planet. He even had to tell us not to kill each other. Again, its all because we got moved to a planet we don't belong on.

The reason why most of us wouldn't survive isn't because we're not from Earth, it's because most of us have never been taught how to survive in the wild. Not to mention that many of the traits that increased our chances at survival in the wild have been bred out in favor of ones that allow us to thrive in our current social environment.

Well that was my line, and you are correct but your still missing the point. We shouldn't need to be taught in our natural enviroment. You see, things would come naturally to us, not have to be taught. Now I might be wrong on this last part because I'm not exaclty pulling it out of my @$$. Looking at 5 million other species on this planet you start to see a patern. This pattern of fitting in and things just naturally working for most, leads me to believe we are short changed here. Leave a baby out in the woods and he wont last long, thats a given hes a baby. Leave an uneducated person out in the woods and they die too. See the problem.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You didn't actually read your links did you? In the first one the resident oral surgeon was making fun of the two doctors stating that pregnancy causes tooth loss due to calcium depletion. She even makes a post later on discussing why pregnant women can have tooth issues later on. As for Dr. Russell's research, she performed a correlational study so causation cannot be determined, although she does present a number of possibilities. She does say however that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that a pregnancy can leech calcium from the teeth. The other two posts are from people who are not doctors.

I will point out that pregnancy can cause teeth problems, but not because of calcium deficiency. First, pregnancy produces hormones that cause a swelling of the gums that can lead to gingivitis. The other possible cause is morning sickness. The acid can wear down the enamel of the teeth. However, as long as one keeps up a healthy oral hygiene routine these can be avoided. The reason for prenatal vitamins are strictly for the baby's health and not the mother's. Most people do not eat a healthy diet even when pregnant and the prenatals are designed to provide the nutrients that the woman is not providing to the baby.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

You didn't actually read your links did you? In the first one the resident oral surgeon was making fun of the two doctors stating that pregnancy causes tooth loss due to calcium depletion. She even makes a post later on discussing why pregnant women can have tooth issues later on. As for Dr. Russell's research, she performed a correlational study so causation cannot be determined, although she does present a number of possibilities. She does say however that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that a pregnancy can leech calcium from the teeth. The other two posts are from people who are not doctors.

Well I knew some were just other people commenting on how there family member lost teeth from pregnancy. There is a direct tie to it for sure. Again if there isn't then you need to contact all of the makers of the prenatle vitamins and let them know they are on the wrong track.

I will point out that pregnancy can cause teeth problems, but not because of calcium deficiency. First, pregnancy produces hormones that cause a swelling of the gums that can lead to gingivitis. The other possible cause is morning sickness. The acid can wear down the enamel of the teeth. However, as long as one keeps up a healthy oral hygiene routine these can be avoided. The reason for prenatal vitamins are strictly for the baby's health and not the mother's. Most people do not eat a healthy diet even when pregnant and the prenatals are designed to provide the nutrients that the woman is not providing to the baby.

Well exactly except I got that the demand in calcium on the mother is what was causing the hormone inbalance. Basically it looks like it was the safeist way to make sure the baby gets his calcium even if it places unfair demands on the mother. So in other words, by keeping her calcium high, her hormones don't cause tooth loss.

Also I went back and read the first link. The person that posted is the student, thinking the boss was joking stating that teeth can fall out becaue of pregnancy, she got an ear full about it, you better read it again.