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: 211
31
<< 208  209  210    212  213  214 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Not everyone has evolved properly to drink milk yet as adults. Over half of our populations on this planet cannot digest it properly at all times. This has nothing to do with flaws in Genetics or one person being better than another. It has to do with the individuals ancestors drinking milk and any sicknesses or problems were worked out by them. Sometimes the body associates milk with food poisoning if milk with food poisoning was injested. So technically the ability to drink milk is related to an individuals personal evolution of food consumption. It's been recently called Nutrigenomics. I'm following the off topic topic.




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 
First thing, I said man does not have enough knowledge, not me although I am a man. I hate people who twist words around to fit their perspective, reread my post. Second of all I know animals are intelligent and I am not questioning the intelligence of monkeys. I just stated that , although there are similarities in our DNA, we don't have to have evolved from them. I said I think we split off from a common ancestor that wasn't an ape, monkey, or human. Again read my post instead of twisting it's words to fit you're thoughts. There is no evidence of us coming from apes, our DNA has close ties to a certain fish and other animals in this world too. I am not brainwashed by either side on the evolution thing, I have formed my opinion on my own with much research of both the flaws of the logic of both theories and the good information both contain.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





I'd tend to agree, milk is primarily there for nutrition and as a kickstart to the immune system of the young of the animal that's creating the milk. Our use of other species' milk is a matter of convenience -- cattle and related species were easily domesticated and milk is abundant. Unfortunately, it allowed us to displace other things in our diet that we should be eating. The problem is that, in general, people haven't gone back to eating the foods that were displaced while drinking less milk, so they run into nutritional problems.

But this has about as much to do with evolution as my ability to fill out my tax forms this year.
It has a lot to do with evolution. It proves we either aren't evolving or are sure sucking at it.




And for the second time you're showing that you haven't even read enough about what's going on to understand what's causing people to get sick from drinking raw milk in this case.
And you missed the point the third time. It's not a question of whats making us sick, its why is it a potentional problem to begin with. Your awarness or the lack of in this situation is clear to me that your more worried about once again adapting to the problem or doing something to prevent it to begin with. What I'm saying is why are we bending over backwords to make milk work for us.

Your missing the point based on another point.
It's not about why it's happening, its about why it was even an option.




I'm still waiting for you to present something to trip over. But I'm sure you'll use this opportunity to try and reignite your recent series of threads that were dumped in skunk works and ground to a screeching halt within two pages of your crowing about how you "proved" stuff on other "channels". Bravo.
My threads were not dumped as you say in skunk works, I actually placed them there.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





Not everyone has evolved properly to drink milk yet as adults. Over half of our populations on this planet cannot digest it properly at all times. This has nothing to do with flaws in Genetics or one person being better than another. It has to do with the individuals ancestors drinking milk and any sicknesses or problems were worked out by them. Sometimes the body associates milk with food poisoning if milk with food poisoning was injested. So technically the ability to drink milk is related to an individuals personal evolution of food consumption. It's been recently called Nutrigenomics. I'm following the off topic topic.
Your chosen order of evolutionism CANT work.

Do we evolve first then worry about if we actually have something to eat, or do we evolve into something that we know will have have food.

If we just evolve then sort it out later, then we are sucking at sorting it out, so we are failing again.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

We as humans all have the ability to drink milk products when young with exception of a very few individuals with special diseases. As we get older we do not make the enzymes and Amino acids anymore to properly digest it. We can get these things from certain bacteria but some people have immune systems that do not like these guys, killing them off when they enter the body. Others are allergic to the protein in milk and still others cannot make enough of the enzyme to break lactic acid apart and excrete it properly from the bloodstream. To evolve to be eating something it takes at least 3-4 generations to get proper adaptation and training of our bodies. Studying Metabolism is a very difficult thing because it has many variables. It's even harder to explain it when you do understand it. People injest antidotes for things they eat and it;s hard to know the bodies stores. Milk is an antidote for many things but I have yet to find the antidote for milk. Sometimes certain sugars help, vitamin supplements sometimes help. Even though I have a true allergy to milk I can still have about 6 oz once a week. I crave it at times and drink it when I crave it.
edit on 4-2-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I'm starting to think you have a memory problem because I can't believe that anyone is that willfully ignorant.This was all mentioned the first time the milk conversation was brought up, but here we go again (not that it will do any good). Humans are actually better at processing milk than most, if not all, animals. This comes from the amount of milk we have consumed since domesticating bovine. Every other milk-producing animal only consumes milk during infancy. Therefore, by the time they are an adult they will have developed lactose intolerance. Humans on the other hand have been consuming lactose throughout our entire lives for many generations. As a result the majority of our population can consume milk with no ill effects. No other animal on the planet can make that claim.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



My threads were not dumped as you say in skunk works, I actually placed them there.
Sorry But I cant resist this one.

You placed your topics in Skunkworks? So you actually know that all of the rubbish you write are 'highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts.'

I for one cannot believe this was your choice as to make that choice you would have to know what evidence and facts are and you clearly do not.

This would also mean you are very aware that you are posting in this thread utter rubbish that you know has nothing to back it up in an attempt to piggy back your moronic nonesense on the back of a subject that will not be moved into skunkworks because it has facts and evidence in abundance.

Your pretty much admitting you are a troll.

Anyhow it must be about time you explain your theory on how:-
1. 747's are made in scrap yards by tornado's.
2. How our hands show we dont fit although other primates with hands do (they could have been brought here earlier but were made secondhand)
3. No children would make it past puberty without medical intervention (we ignore all the ones that do and have)
4. Didnt quite get the blue laminate DNA but it could be worth a go just for a change.
5. The enigmatic Alan the ant eater who says. 'I eat ants there fore I am'
6. Expand on chickens may have or may not have been brought here as mans clucky helper. Maybe 'The Wizard of OZ' was really an historical document.
7. How we use only 10% of our brains and have hidden powers. Once we find them maybe we can get rid of these useless hands that have no real use on this planet.
8. I know you have not long wrote this but it does make me laugh. When an animal wakes up and finds he has evolved what is he meant to eat as proof evolution cannot be.
9. Your genius and concise explanation for diversity. An Alien or Aliens frankensteined us from spare parts of other animals which explains our simularities.
10. An explanation of what you mean by 'your profiling me' because to be honest there is no need to profile you. I know what you are just by reading your posts.
edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


And you missed the point the third time. It's not a question of whats making us sick,

So you're ignoring the facts of what's actually causing the illness while trying to use the occurrence of the illness to prove your point. Your "logic" goes straight from "raw milk is making people sick" to "aliens created us" with zero regard to why or how. It's the opposite of sound thinknig.


its why is it a potentional problem to begin with.

Because bacteria grow in food when it's not handled properly. Again, nothing to do with evolution.


Your awarness or the lack of in this situation is clear to me that your more worried about once again adapting to the problem or doing something to prevent it to begin with. What I'm saying is why are we bending over backwords to make milk work for us.

Economics. Milk is cheap, milk is abundant. What you call "bending over backwards" is, ultimately, a drop in the bucket for the dairy industry. I know you feel the need to apply the alien answer to everything in your life, but there are other causes for things as well.


My threads were not dumped as you say in skunk works, I actually placed them there.

So you purposely placed your most recent threads in the forum for threads "that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts" and "extreme theories without corroboration"? If you did, bravo for finally being honest about the lack of evidence, much less "proof" as you go on and on about, for any of your assertions so far.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


4. Didnt quite get the blue laminate DNA but it could be worth a go just for a change.

It's pretty epic. Here's the excerpt from his first post from his first thread where he mentions it:


All living things with DNA have one common fact about them, Blue laminate. When scientists alter DNA, they can do almost anything, even take you apart and put you back together but the laminate will be orange showing proof of changes. This does not affect the DNA itself but is a form of trace evidence of tampering or alterations. All humans new and old, including biblical bones, test positive for tampering. We all have 6 segments that appear to be removed, inverted and reinserted.

I kept replying to his posts asking for some kind of reference to the blue laminate that I could read about. He could never produce anything that actually mentioned "blue laminate", but swore up and down that he had just Googled it recently and found many references to it that supported the above statement. After weeks of me questioning him on the "blue laminate" and his replies consisting of links to Youtube videos or Wiki pages that never mention "blue laminate", we finally got to the center of the hedge maze...

He had seen a computer animation in a video about gene splicing. The "blue laminate" he was talking about was the color used by the artist for the backbone of the DNA strand in the video. When the animation got to the part where the alterations took place, the artist changed the color of the backbone to orange to highlight the portions that had been changed. Itsthetooth took this to mean that, literally, the backbone of the DNA molecule changed color when DNA was altered in some way. Months later, in this thread if I recall correctly, he admitted that he was wrong about the blue laminate. It really speaks the to the validity of the claims itsthetooth makes repeatedly based on his literal interpretation of pretty pictures.

The thread itself is pretty epic, you should read it if you have the time. It's a "paltry" 40 pages.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 
Got to page nine and my stomache hurt from laughing. I can only hope 21 flags was for the comedy content. Below are some notes. (Didnt bother to note the same old nonsense arguments)

Wow I cant believe my eyes. On page 7

‘I'm a science major, if its not obvious, I'm also the identifier of an arcane virus. I'm trying to find someone help me get a wikipedia put up about it because it should be listed.’

Is that science major as in science major or as in Idi Amin was a general and king of Scotland? And wow again he discovered an arcane virus. We have a science celeb

Page 8

Just as much as I disagree with being place in the skunk forums. I can see my direction has much more truth and understanding than most religious beliefs.’
So He did not choose to place that topic in skunk works. Something stinks and it aint a skunk. So again dishonesty reigns. How can I accept the original statement that HE placed all of his topics in skunkworks.

A question as he is a science major has tooth actually founded a new science? We have scientific, and the attempt to look credible Scientology. Is tooths new catergory scientcomical?



edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2012 by colin42 because: format



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 

What? I totally believe that someone who doesn't know the difference between a base pair, a gene, and a protein is a "science major" and the discoverer of an "arcane virus".



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Are you serious? 150 flags and numerous stars? There's only one real reply that could be made to this. Although it's a pretty applicable reply to anything tooth says.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Varemia
 
First thing, I said man does not have enough knowledge, not me although I am a man. I hate people who twist words around to fit their perspective, reread my post. Second of all I know animals are intelligent and I am not questioning the intelligence of monkeys. I just stated that , although there are similarities in our DNA, we don't have to have evolved from them. I said I think we split off from a common ancestor that wasn't an ape, monkey, or human. Again read my post instead of twisting it's words to fit you're thoughts. There is no evidence of us coming from apes, our DNA has close ties to a certain fish and other animals in this world too. I am not brainwashed by either side on the evolution thing, I have formed my opinion on my own with much research of both the flaws of the logic of both theories and the good information both contain.



Your saying that there is no evidence that we come from an ancient ape is just showing your ignorance. We have the same dental structure, bone structure, and several personality traits that are exactly the same. We have fossils that show our ancestors tiny changes over time, as we started to walk upright due to some mutation, as our brain became slowly larger over time.

Your claim that there is no evidence is based on pure opinion. There is tons of evidence. You are just pretending it doesn't exist.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 
To be fair I made the mistake writing 21 flags instead of 150. I also have an apology to make as I have not only questioned a science major, I have questioned one that has discovered an arcane virus.

Surely we can help tooth make a wiki page on such a ground breaking discovery. Of course he will get the deserved nobel prize but at least we can play our part in in it. Cant wait to see how he discovered it and what it is.

Will there be a Pye chart?

Finally this thread is about to shed some light on why I have these stupid hands and cannot resist a pint of milk, sorry technical description. Cows mucus.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





So you're ignoring the facts of what's actually causing the illness while trying to use the occurrence of the illness to prove your point. Your "logic" goes straight from "raw milk is making people sick" to "aliens created us" with zero regard to why or how. It's the opposite of sound thinknig.
No I'm going from milk is making us sick to oh wow what have I been saying all this time about how we aren't suppose to be drinking it to begin with.

Point being, it won't be the last we have heard about milk causing problems, if your missing the point again.




Because bacteria grow in food when it's not handled properly. Again, nothing to do with evolution.
Thats only an issue we have to deal with from being out of our element. Again, your stumbling over things. I can't back up and re-explain everything, but basically its not our food, not our circumstances, not our planet.




Economics. Milk is cheap, milk is abundant. What you call "bending over backwards" is, ultimately, a drop in the bucket for the dairy industry. I know you feel the need to apply the alien answer to everything in your life, but there are other causes for things as well.
You might have some truth in this, at least that it's cheaper. The question is cheaper than what? Since the next highest valued calcium item on the charts was out of the ocean, ya, your probably right. It's cheaper and easier to fortify, homogenize, pasterize, process, package, ship, and refrigerate. But, its still not easy. Easy would be just drinking it straight from the cows teat, but even then thats not easy because it would require that everyone own there own cow.




So you purposely placed your most recent threads in the forum for threads "that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts" and "extreme theories without corroboration"? If you did, bravo for finally being honest about the lack of evidence, much less "proof" as you go on and on about, for any of your assertions so far.
Actually your wrong, that is one thing I do have.
From our diet being all screwed up, to our inverted smiles, to us not fitting in with the other life on this planet. The bible, Von daniken, Sitchen, Pye all concur. So since evolutionism has no corroboration prior to Darwin, what you got?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Thats only an issue we have to deal with from being out of our element. Again, your stumbling over things. I can't back up and re-explain everything, but basically its not our food, not our circumstances, not our planet.


So, what about dogs and cats? There are a number of different items that can cause food poisoning in them and they have food allergies that are much more widespread than milk allergy in humans. Or what about cattle? There are a number of grains that will cause food poisoning in them. You keep making these claims that such-and-such only occurs in humans, and yet every time you have been wrong. Maybe you should stop doing that.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Sorry But I cant resist this one.

You placed your topics in Skunkworks? So you actually know that all of the rubbish you write are 'highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts.'
Sure, just becaue its speculative, doesn't mean its incorrect. People thought just 120 years ago that tomatoes were poison. A very long time ago, people thought the earth was flat. You too will wise up one day. Do you honestly think you know everything, Do you have to go with the norm each time, but what your saying? What if the norm is wrong? It could happen.




I for one cannot believe this was your choice as to make that choice you would have to know what evidence and facts are and you clearly do not.
Nope it was my choice. Just goes to show you how your lack of intuition is once again failing you.




This would also mean you are very aware that you are posting in this thread utter rubbish that you know has nothing to back it up in an attempt to piggy back your moronic nonesense on the back of a subject that will not be moved into skunkworks because it has facts and evidence in abundance.
Just because something is more accepted, does not mean it is more correct. Look at all the religion we have over evolutionism, are they correct too? You have a lot to learn but more importantly quit making assumptions.




Anyhow it must be about time you explain your theory on how:-
1. 747's are made in scrap yards by tornado's.
Actually that was your cue. Evolutionism would require such an event, so how is it possible?




2. How our hands show we dont fit although other primates with hands do (they could have been brought here earlier but were made secondhand)
Aside from making tools with our hands, you have failed at presenting what it is exactly our hands were made to do. There is a task, and you just aren't able to conjur one up. The funny part is we do so much with our hands, we almost do everything with our hands, but even still you aren't able to provide one solid purpose, in the natural realm.




3. No children would make it past puberty without medical intervention (we ignore all the ones that do and have)
I never said no children, now your putting words in my mouth.




4. Didnt quite get the blue laminate DNA but it could be worth a go just for a change.
Yes after a video online and a seminar in person teaching about the blue laminate, I'm unable after the fact to locate any proof.




5. The enigmatic Alan the ant eater who says. 'I eat ants there fore I am'
Are you saying anteaters aren't suppose to eat ants, much less how well equiped they are to do it? Whats your proof?




6. Expand on chickens may have or may not have been brought here as mans clucky helper. Maybe 'The Wizard of OZ' was really an historical document.
Of course when DNA testing on them reveals they predated dinosaurs, your going to be a little clueless.




7. How we use only 10% of our brains and have hidden powers. Once we find them maybe we can get rid of these useless hands that have no real use on this planet.
Thats right, well the 10% figure has no bearing, but the idea is proven by the fact that we have Savants.




8. I know you have not long wrote this but it does make me laugh. When an animal wakes up and finds he has evolved what is he meant to eat as proof evolution cannot be.
Yep, another question that you never answered. Still waiting on that one. When a species wakes up to find they are another species, what are they suppose to eat. Must have stumped you because you never provided a solution.




9. Your genius and concise explanation for diversity. An Alien or Aliens frankensteined us from spare parts of other animals which explains our simularities.
WTF, I never said that. Not animals, from other alien life.




10. An explanation of what you mean by 'your profiling me' because to be honest there is no need to profile you. I know what you are just by reading your posts.
Well then you must be trying to say I'm a troll, a troll with a lot of unanswerable questions anyhow.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





I'm starting to think you have a memory problem because I can't believe that anyone is that willfully ignorant.This was all mentioned the first time the milk conversation was brought up, but here we go again (not that it will do any good). Humans are actually better at processing milk than most, if not all, animals. This comes from the amount of milk we have consumed since domesticating bovine. Every other milk-producing animal only consumes milk during infancy. Therefore, by the time they are an adult they will have developed lactose intolerance. Humans on the other hand have been consuming lactose throughout our entire lives for many generations. As a result the majority of our population can consume milk with no ill effects. No other animal on the planet can make that claim.
X your a smart guy, I have to at least hand that to you. Did you overlook the fact that science is telling us that our need for calcium actually goes up with age, while missing the point that we don't have an acceptable source for it. I'm saying that a cow is not a natural source of calcium for humans.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





We as humans all have the ability to drink milk products when young with exception of a very few individuals with special diseases. As we get older we do not make the enzymes and Amino acids anymore to properly digest it. We can get these things from certain bacteria but some people have immune systems that do not like these guys, killing them off when they enter the body. Others are allergic to the protein in milk and still others cannot make enough of the enzyme to break lactic acid apart and excrete it properly from the bloodstream. To evolve to be eating something it takes at least 3-4 generations to get proper adaptation and training of our bodies. Studying Metabolism is a very difficult thing because it has many variables. It's even harder to explain it when you do understand it. People injest antidotes for things they eat and it;s hard to know the bodies stores. Milk is an antidote for many things but I have yet to find the antidote for milk. Sometimes certain sugars help, vitamin supplements sometimes help. Even though I have a true allergy to milk I can still have about 6 oz once a week. I crave it at times and drink it when I crave it.
Ricky I'm sorry, you will never be able to convince me that humans are suppose to drink cows milk. I call it cow mucous. It's not natural and its not ours. We are in fact stealing milk from another animal, that isn't meant for us to begin with. This point is also compounded by how much processing we have to do to end up with this milk. Fortify, Homogenize, Pasturize, process, package, ship and refridgerte. Sorry man, it's not meant for us.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





What? I totally believe that someone who doesn't know the difference between a base pair, a gene, and a protein is a "science major" and the discoverer of an "arcane virus".
Just because I chose not dive deeply into those catagorys doesn't prove anything.




top topics



 
31
<< 208  209  210    212  213  214 >>

log in

join