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.
Asking that question is just like saying that doctors don't really understand what they are doing, or at least why they are doing it. I honestly don't think we could be so blind and dumb, and saying that evolution could save us is like saying that.
And thus evolution comes into play. As you have pointed out time and again there have been millions of species that have existed. And that's ultimately millions of species who were unable to adapt to their changing environment. Humans survived 100,000 years without medicine, but that was with the immune system we adopted form our ancestors. Could humanity survive if our environment changed and we no longer had access to medicine? It's an interesting question that can't be answered until it actually happens.
No your confused, and its very easy to confuse the two.
wait what??? adaptation and evolution are two separate things? You can't have one without the other, your starting to confuse me
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
No your confused, and its very easy to confuse the two.
wait what??? adaptation and evolution are two separate things? You can't have one without the other, your starting to confuse me
The definition of evolution is things that change on a molecular level.
Adaptation is a trait or an ability. Way different. Some evolutionists claim we evolved into that trait but that isn't the case. Adaptation is an inherit ability that we have always had. Oddly enough, we are the only ones on this planet that use it to the degree that we do. You might some some rare odd cases of other species showing signs of adaptation but it's nothing compared to what we are doing. More importantly is why. The reason we have redundant adaptation is because we aren't from earth and have no other choice but to adapt.
The bottom line is had we of evolved like evolution claims we did, we would not have the need to adapt. It's so redundant that it appears we are de-evolving. So if we evolved we sure sucked at doing it.
The real answer is that any food we eat is a "target" food. The reason why the ant seems like a "target" food for the anteater is because the anteater's tongue makes the acquisition of ants easier. Well, the human's prefrontal cortex allows for much the same with anything we eat. It allows us to plan ahead and work together to acquire food that would normally be out of our grasp. In much the same way other primates use tools to acquire food, and in much the same way that the anteater uses their tongues as a tool, humans have developed a number of strategies and tools that allow us to acquire food. Our brain is not all that different from the anteater's tongue in terms of purpose. They have just manifested themselves in different ways.
If this were true then why are we the only ones evolving with that ability?
Adaptation IS change on a molecular level. Recent research has been suggesting that your genetic code will change expression based on the adaptations made through your life. Genes turn on and off. Every generation is born with changes in their base code, which is a mutation.
Humans are not unique or better at this. We are surrounded by other animals that also use the adaptation of intelligence to survive. Crows, ravens, dolphins, dogs, etc. Dogs have adapted from their wolf ancestors to be generally friendly to humans and obedient. That's not a small change.
I don't even know what you're talking about when you say redundant adaptation.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
If this were true then why are we the only ones evolving with that ability?
Keep in mind that we weren't the only thing moved to earth. Not that your whole list looks like it, I'm just saying.
Here's an example, we made shoes to deal with the harsh terrain, rather than evolving into it. Had we of evolved, we wouldn't have needed to make shoes. So mother nature kicked back at us by giving us fungus, so we adapted again by making socks. It's redundant adaptation, and its' one of about a thousand I can think of.
If you believe that we evolved into our ability of adapting, then you must also agree that evolution is a highly intelligent bug that can predict the future. There is no way our evolution cycle could have made a decision to not adjust our feet to cope with the terrain, and decide to gift us with the ability to adapt, knowing it would take care of that need. There is no way the evolution bug could have been smart enough to say ... I wont adjust your feet to deal with the terrain, I'll just make you smarter to adapt and you will then make shoes to deal with it.
This is again why I call BS on evolution.
We didn't always use shoes. Shoes actually tend to cause damage. Our feet naturally develop callouses when used vigorously, and there is a large subset of people today who prefer barefoot running. It's not redundant adaptation, it's culturally caused inventiveness.
Evolution IS adaptation. It doesn't predict the future, it reacts to the present. As I already said, we are adapted to terrain. We are adapted to swim in water and catch fish. You're a moron if you think otherwise, in my opinion.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
We didn't always use shoes. Shoes actually tend to cause damage. Our feet naturally develop callouses when used vigorously, and there is a large subset of people today who prefer barefoot running. It's not redundant adaptation, it's culturally caused inventiveness.
Ok lets run with this for a minute. So you feel our feet would natural adapt to the terrain. Then why, I ask why did we go through the trouble of making shoes. Your trying to say the same thing that colin is saying about us not needing medical help at all in our lives. Why do we have so many things, that we simply don't need, can you please explain.
So I'm living in Eastern Washington right now, and the ground is a rock hard 20 degrees F. You mean to tell me that nothing would happen to me if I walked outside barefoot with the snow and ice?
Because we don't need them. It's cultural to wear shoes, not required for survival.
I am not getting into any time wasted posting with you but that does not mean I will not call you out on another barefaced lie.
Ok lets run with this for a minute. So you feel our feet would natural adapt to the terrain. Then why, I ask why did we go through the trouble of making shoes. Your trying to say the same thing that colin is saying about us not needing medical help at all in our lives. Why do we have so many things, that we simply don't need, can you please explain.