It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 101
31
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
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.
I think I see where this went off.

Your just thinking about calcium not being able to directly cause teeth falling out of the mother.
I'm looking at mother, baby, demands, hormone inbalances from such and so on. Either way, you know there is some truth behind this because they wouldn't push prenatels so much on pregnant women. And I have to tell you that I have NEVER heard a doctor telling a mother to take them for the babys health.




posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.


If you continue reading she goes on to state that the doctors were wrong. However, since she was just a resident she wasn't going to call them on being wrong. Her specialty was oral surgery while the two doctors has specialties in pediatrics and orthopedics (if I remember correctly.) She would have a better idea of pregnancy's demand on teeth than the two doctors.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 







If you continue reading she goes on to state that the doctors were wrong. However, since she was just a resident she wasn't going to call them on being wrong. Her specialty was oral surgery while the two doctors has specialties in pediatrics and orthopedics (if I remember correctly.) She would have a better idea of pregnancy's demand on teeth than the two doctors.
Well your comparing two types of medical professions. Basically do you think teeth falling out is a dental issue or a medical issue? I think it depends on the individual situation. In this case its a medical problem. Her calcium is getting sucked down because she is pregnant causing a hormone inbalance causing weakning of the gums, resulting in tooth loss. Shes right from the dental perspective, wrong from the medical. Either way you slice it, teeth are falling out, which is why prenatel vitamins are pushed on preggo women. It's simple to understand, action, reaction. You do understand of course that just because a woman is preggo doesn't mean her teeth have to fall out. It depends on where her body holds her levels and what she eats. For me, my body holds a borderline deficiant level so it would be a problem for me and prenatels would be a must. A CBC would reveal all of this. The problem is that one may never know what the typical demands are for calcium on a fetus. So even if your body normally holds high levels of calcium, you might dip down into unsafe levels depending on your lacking diet, and then tooth loss. The only thing that prenatels do is offer the calcium if your body wants it.
edit on 6-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Good post. We're the only mammals who drink milk after the age of weaning.
More than just that, according to a chart I looked at online (I posted the link earlier) our calcium actually needs to go up with age. There is a 30 year period between 19 and 49 where it stays the same, but up after that.


That's mostly in women, because when we hit menopause we don't have the protecting effects of estrogen and progesterone. But let's not forget, until about 75 years ago women didn't live long enough to go through menopause. Not only that, but medications increase with age, and they cause bone loss.

All this supplementation might not even be very useful. Adding calcium isn't going to keep you from breaking a bone.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by itsthetooth


Because we aren't able to make our own milk.


What?


Do we have a Charlie Brown emoticon? **slaps forehead** Good grief!

We are MAMMALS. We produce milk. Formula was invented in the 1930's and you still can't get it in some parts of the world. Before that, women either nursed or used evaporated milk, cow's milk, or goat's milk mixtures.

Women in most parts of the world nurse their kids.
edit on 12/7/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/7/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth


I think the mere fact we have to breed our meat is a heads up that we are forcing mother nature to fill our needs. It's another form of adaptation, and not evolution.


The Agricultural Revolution was a man-made construct, a social experiment on a huge scale. Do you have any idea how many thousands of years of trial and error must have gone into that before someone found something that worked? The process of selecting crops and animals and breeding them for their desirous traits evolved over a long time.

The reason we breed our meat is because we settled down in cities and became more sedentary. It's the same reason we farm crops as well.

Our metabolisms haven't evolved enough yet from that. There hasn't been enough time--It's only been, at the outside, around 8,000 years. For untold tens of thousands of years we were hunter-gatherers, and many people in the world still live that way.

It was a huge shock to our systems. We now consume far more calories than we need. The rise of crowd diseases can be traced to this time, too.


It's important to realize that if evolution were real, your dead ended with one big problem for sure. How is it that each planet is suppose to be a balanced eco system with things just randomly changing. Unless they all change together. This picture started out impossible and now your just throwing numbers into the wind. If a species was able to evolve into another species, whats it suppose to eat? How do you know there will be food here for it?


There's no such thing as balance in nature. That's a myth.

But to answer your question. A species evolves into another species because it was able to through a series of adaptations. The species evolved to exploit local resources. If there wasn't food for it, it would have died out.

Another red herring, though.


] I'm assuming your talking about cows milk here because moms breast isn't fortified. You will never convince me that humans are suppose to drink cows milk.


Breast milk has every nutrient and other protective compounds a baby needs, except maybe iron. And no, we aren't supposed to drink cow's milk but it's a good thing we have it. Not every baby can nurse and they still die.


What has happened here is what I said earlier, we got dumped here, we were given some things to help us get by. Thats it. We drink cows milk because something we need is not available in a more natural way.

Demonstrably false and several people have shown you that already and I won't address this point again.




Pasteurizing is a question of nutrition vs. safety. Which would you rather have?
Neither, its just adaptation.

You know, normally I don't insult people, but this is just dumb.




Look, we make vitamin D naturally via sunlight. Without vitamin D, the whole discussion of calcium is moot.
True but not calcium.

Where's Charlie Brown? **slaps forehead**


Fast food places only exist due to the intensive time and labor we go through just to prepare a meal.


It's not that labor intensive if you know what you're doing.


There isn't anything else on this planet that goest through what we go through just to eat a meal. A hamburger is made up of several differnt things, but just follow the meat. He's bred, stuffed full of hormones, and salughtered, processed, packaged, shipped, unpackaged, cooked and finally eaten. Make sure you wash your hands throughout this process as well.

If your still blind to whats going on at this point I don't know what to tell you. We are redundantly going out of our way to make this happen. From a lions view, he just hunts, kills and eats. He never uses soap to wash his hands either. He fits in here. On our home planet, we might never have to wash our hands because we are not a virus out of our element. Certainly we would never use soap.


Every animal on the planet gets sick. That's a fact. Even bacteria get sick. Only viruses are almost literally immortal.
edit on 12/7/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
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.


Well, I had a lot of dental problems when I was pregnant. But not tooth loss--gingivitis. I didn't even know yet I was pregnant with my 2nd and my gums inflamed so badly I thought I had an abscess. So I went to the dentist, they did an X ray and gave me an antibiotic. A week later I called them hysterical and when I told the receptionist that I was pregnant and got an X ray, etc, the first thing she said was, "That's why you got gingivitis."

But that's hormonal, not calcium-related.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
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.


That's another thing, if we were "dumped" here, we'd most likely have died off pretty quick simply because we wouldn't have been able to eat anything.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny
That's another thing, if we were "dumped" here, we'd most likely have died off pretty quick simply because we wouldn't have been able to eat anything.


Not to mention disease. Heck, just reintroduction with humans only recently diverged from causes massive loss of life to disease. Just look at the Native Americans. From millions to lightly populated tribes spread across the continent. They got wiped out by things like smallpox. Imagine an alien coming here. They'd have to wear a contamination suit at all times just to prevent death from our planet's microbes.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by HappyBunny
That's another thing, if we were "dumped" here, we'd most likely have died off pretty quick simply because we wouldn't have been able to eat anything.


Not to mention disease. Heck, just reintroduction with humans only recently diverged from causes massive loss of life to disease. Just look at the Native Americans. From millions to lightly populated tribes spread across the continent. They got wiped out by things like smallpox.


So true. Of all the diseases I hope stay eradicated, it's that one. No other microbe has caused so much sickness, disfigurement, and death.

Back in the 70's, there was a population on an island in the South Pacific that had never seen westerners before. They all contracted measles.


Imagine an alien coming here. They'd have to wear a contamination suit at all times just to prevent death from our planet's microbes.


HG Wells was right.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The interesting thing is that through selection, the Native Americans that are still alive today have some of the strongest immune systems for fighting disease. It has actually kind of perplexed some scientists.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


The interesting thing is that through selection, the Native Americans that are still alive today have some of the strongest immune systems for fighting disease. It has actually kind of perplexed some scientists.


I'm not real up on the Native American aspect, unfortunately. Do you have a link or a recommendation on that?

They had no cows, horses, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, etc., and didn't live in crowds. But smallpox has only one known reservoir: humans. They had zero defense against it.

Their cancer rates are really low compared to the rest of us. They are prone to other diseases like hypertension, diabetes, and alcohol-related disease, though. (One of the most interesting areas of research to me is the role of microbes and/or parasites in diseases like CHD, hypertension, obesity, and diabetes.)

Some Europeans are delta 32 carriers, but the rates among Native Americans is zero.

Edited to add: Surely the disease transfer between the Europeans and Native Americans went both ways.
edit on 12/7/2011 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


True but its the drop in calcium thats causing the hormonal inbalance.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


True story but it doesn't explain why we are turning to cows for milk. There is only one reason, because we need it.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Which is fine but still doesn't nesessitate us getting it from a cow.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





The Agricultural Revolution was a man-made construct, a social experiment on a huge scale. Do you have any idea how many thousands of years of trial and error must have gone into that before someone found something that worked? The process of selecting crops and animals and breeding them for their desirous traits evolved over a long time.
It would appear that you are headed in saying we werent suppose to grow in population to where we had to move to cities.




The reason we breed our meat is because we settled down in cities and became more sedentary. It's the same reason we farm crops as well.
So we gave up a fitting lifestyle and diet to move to a remote and manufactured one?




There's no such thing as balance in nature. That's a myth.
I challange this becuase in most things on this planet you can see them in a type of balance.




But to answer your question. A species evolves into another species because it was able to through a series of adaptations. The species evolved to exploit local resources. If there wasn't food for it, it would have died out.
Exactly or they would have started making there own food like we do. How many other species on this planet do you see that make there own food other than us.




Breast milk has every nutrient and other protective compounds a baby needs, except maybe iron. And no, we aren't supposed to drink cow's milk but it's a good thing we have it. Not every baby can nurse and they still die.
And did you ever wonder why that is? It's because the mother is deficiant in her calcium and so she can't pass it on.




You know, normally I don't insult people, but this is just dumb.
Circumventing the problem IS a form of adaptation.




It's not that labor intensive if you know what you're doing.
by comparison to all other species on this planet, your wrong.




Every animal on the planet gets sick. That's a fact. Even bacteria get sick. Only viruses are almost literally immortal.
Name one other species out of the 5 million that has to have medical intervention before puberty to avoid death? name one other species that has as many differnt types of sickness to face like we do. I'll give you a hint, we have hospitals, we have meds, we have doctors, how much do they have? 25% of my phone book is medical related genre.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A drop in calcium is not causing the hormonal imbalance. The pregnancy itself is. The pituitary gland alone has numerous hormones that are only released during pregnancy. Do you think hormonal imbalances during puberty are also caused by a calcium deficiency?
edit on 12/7/2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Name one other species out of the 5 million that has to have medical intervention before puberty to avoid death?

I just want to be clear about what you're asserting here -- are you really claiming that 100% of humans require "medical intervention" (and please clearly define that term for all of us) to survive until puberty?


I'll give you a hint, we have hospitals, we have meds, we have doctors, how much do they have? 25% of my phone book is medical related genre.

Another rectally-derived number, just like your claim that it would take "trillions and trillions of years" for us to evolve.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


True story but it doesn't explain why we are turning to cows for milk. There is only one reason, because we need it.


Or, because it tastes good. Certain poisons also taste good, but the people that eat them die. The result is that most people developed genes that make many poisonous foods taste bitter and gross.

We harvest cow milk because we can, not because we must. You're mistaking learned knowledge with instinct.

You know, I doubt we're going to get anywhere, so if you'd like, you can just admit that you don't understand evolution and we can go our merry ways. Until you read the books I suggested, you're still blathering on about things which are completely inaccurate.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

Perhaps we wear shoes made of cow skin because on earth we need thicker feet. On our home planet things were so good there we had pole to pole carpeting and we used fluffy animals as toilet paper.

Oh no! I think he is getting to me because I too believe he is not from here.




top topics



 
31
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join