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: 199
31
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


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. However, either way it demonstrates evolution. Either our environment changes and enough of us have a strong enough immune system to keep humanity going or we just become another species that couldn't keep up with their changing environment.




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I got to say bravo. If you can't convince this guy, no one can.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.
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.

Adaptation is NOT a form of evolution. Had we of evolved to begin with, we wouldn't need to adapt. The only reason its mentioned in Wiki is under the title of an evolutionist.

You also making an assumption that our race was actually living here on earth 100,000 years ago while the bible is claiming our placment here just 10,000 years ago. Either is hard to prove because there were also humans here on earth before our arival. There isn't even any way to prove that our species or there species were first, or even a different species to begin with.

All we know is the bible does place people here before Adam and Eve, or at least when Cane kills his brother. There is much question about figuring all of this out, and it looks like its to much of a mess. Not to mention that the people that were already here, might have also not been from earth but brought here at an earlier time.

Let me ask you a question since you seem to be one with some brains. Assuming evoltuion is real. You should agree that some things here on this planet have target food. Like the ant, and the anteater. No question he was made to eat ants. Not that everything can be identified with a target food. Humans are obviously scavangers. We eat everything and anything. It's a clue again that we probably aren't from here. Can you produce just one example of a target food for humans thats natural. I don't consider cows milk natural, An apple could be, Any you can think of. Keeping in mind that it has to be a food of great importance. Apples don't rank high in any value for us.
edit on 24-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


wait what??? adaptation and evolution are two separate things? You can't have one without the other, your starting to confuse me



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I can answer this in one of two ways. First, the answer closer to what you're looking for. The way the human body has evolved makes it ideal for hunting a number of game animals. While humans may not be the fastest or strongest they have some of the greatest stamina. This allows humans to overcome their other physical deficits by chasing animals down until they are so exhausted that they can't continue while the human has only broken a light sweat.

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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


Old junk science?
Hardly.
Would it effect your beliefs in the theory of evolution to find that birds might have been here just as long as dinosaurs if not before?
That is what alot of the new evidence shows, though for some reason it seems to be hushed.
pda.physorg.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadrivium
 


To my understanding, many of the dinosaurs technically were birds, and birds are very similar to reptiles, just as mammals are a derivative of reptiles.

I'm not sure why it's such a big deal. The Theory of Evolution is not a belief system with absolute laws and conditions. It is just the best scientific understanding to-date of how life got from not being here, to being here. Creationism is just Christianity's myth on how humans got here, supported by no science, only words that read like a fiction novel that has been worked over and refined over a couple thousand years.

Just take a look at the Book of Mormon. If you compare the current book to the original from the 1800s, you'll notice that the original read like a novel, while the new one reads like a Bible.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





wait what??? adaptation and evolution are two separate things? You can't have one without the other, your starting to confuse me
No your confused, and its very easy to confuse the two.
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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





wait what??? adaptation and evolution are two separate things? You can't have one without the other, your starting to confuse me
No your confused, and its very easy to confuse the two.
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.


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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.



Well you got off track here. Target food was a word I used to try to describe a mainstream food product we use. We simply can't survive on apples and say beef. The fact that you claim all food is a target food tells me you either didn't grasp what I was asking, or you honestly think we can eat what ever we want and be healthy. Probably the first. The reason why its hard to grasp my question is because we are scavengers, and eat just about everything. Of course we even eat things we shouldn't. You would agree there has even been confusion with our diets where some people claim we are vegetarian, others claim we are carnivores, and others claim we are omnivores. This will forever remain a mystery as our intended food is not on this planet. You see were making an assumption that this food is our food to begin with, and its not. It's pretty hard to put the pieces of a puzzle together when you don't have all the pieces to begin with.

Anyhow, here is a good example of target food. Scientists have indicated that humans can live alone on bread and milk. We know bread is not a natural food so it doesn't meet the criteria for my question. Drinking milk from another animal is also out of the question so milk doesn't apply either.

See if you can come up with any target foods that work. The anteater has ants as a target food, and you can probably say that with just one or two other things, he has a balanced diet, there is no question its a target food for the anteater. It's natural too. If you are unable to produce some good target foods, it proves my point once again that we aren't from here.

The whole idea of evolution can be squashed understanding what I'm getting at here. You see if a species were able to evolve, there would be no way they would have a target food, as they are a new species with no food. This is why I stated earlier that these planets MUST be made with a balanced eco system, and life, its the only way its possible.
edit on 25-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





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.

If this were true then why are we the only ones evolving with that ability?




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.


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.




I don't even know what you're talking about when you say redundant adaptation.


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.

The fact that we failed in our attempt in making shoes, ending up with fungus, means we failed, the fact that evolution didn't help us our means evolution failed too. We only won when we made socks. Thats redundant.

This is again why I call BS on evolution.
edit on 25-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If this were true then why are we the only ones evolving with that ability?


Perhaps other organisms didn't need the adaptation we have? It's not difficult to understand. We experienced different pressures that we survived by having intelligence over brawn, and by having a strong social structure. We survived.



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.


Ah, so now you're trying to say that all intelligent life or anything that breaks your version of reality is now aliens? Ok, but I'm going to outright say that you're crazy for believing that.



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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





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.


Well Wiki agrees that adaptation is a form of evolution but only from the definition of an evolutionist.
The actual definition of evolution is something that changes on a molecular level. I hardly think that growing a large brain and picking up the ability to adapt is on a molecular level, it seems a tad to extreme.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

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.


Because we don't need them. It's cultural to wear shoes, not required for survival.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Because we don't need them. It's cultural to wear shoes, not required for survival.
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?
edit on 25-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 

In your mind it is just a myth with no scientific backing. I say this is not the case.
The main part of the "theory" that fails to explain the "theory" is laid out in the first book of the Bible.
Science can be used to back it up.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Well I guess having my toes fall off from frostbite and getting gang green in my feet from infection has nothing to do with survival.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Humans can survive on lean meat, fruits, vegetables, fish, and nuts. All of these can be found in nature and personally would be extremely healthy on such a diet. In fact some have argued that if one were to be on such a diet they would be free from diseases of affluence.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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.

I have never said that we do not need medical help in all our lives. not only is that the gramma of a three year old, I wrote in reply to your idiotic notion that we are the only ones to get sick and that without medical intervention we would become extinct because we are not from here.

If you want to tell more lies in the future, and I have no doubt you will do not use my name and dishonestly represent what I said. Better still dont mention me at all.

Was that clear enough for you to understand troll? I will be watching.



new topics




 
31
<< 196  197  198    200  201  202 >>

log in

join