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: 244
31
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I just have to throw this out there, I'm feeling motivated again. Target food does not exist. In nature, food is not provided based on the demand, like modern day capitalism. All organisms need sustenance or they will die. It's that simple. There are 3 kinds of animals in regards to their diet. Herbivores, Carnivores and Omnivores. Herbivores eat mostly plants, carnivores eat mostly meat, and Omnivores eat both. Humans are omnivores, therefor the food we need to survive is everywhere. There isn't a target food. We eat whatever we can get a hold of. Today its different because we invented money and have medicine based on doctors who have studied the human body and what the healthiest foods are to eat. You can't ignore humans that survived hundreds of thousands of years without all this technology and deep knowledge of how things work.
Very good points but I disagree on your take about target food. Almost all species have target food. You can lump them into catagorys like you have but even then, they still have target foods. Humans are scavengers, plain and simple. This is what CAN happen when your target food is no longer available. It once again disproves the possibility of evolution and shows with no doubt that everything is suppose to be in a balanced eco system.




No creature has a target food. They eat what they can find, or they die out. Some are better at obtaining certain foods than others. Humans are no different from any other creature on the planet as far as diet goes. We eat what we need to survive,
I see, so when I say that the anteater is an ant eating machine, you just don't see that huh? Your saying he eats ants because he wants to. Never mide that he has perfect claws for digging up there homes, never mind that he has the perfect snout for sniffing them out, never mind that he has the perfect tounge for pulling them out of deep holes, never mind that he has perfect hearing to hear where the ants are.

NAW I'm going to have to dissagree with you, I think he's an ant eating maching and ants are one of his target foods.




it's just that we are intelligent enough to make decisions and organize a system of agriculture to bring food to us, instead of having to hunt and gather like the old days. We can eat a large variety of foods, but so can most creatures. Target food does not exist. Competition does. Plenty of animals have nearly identical diets. There isn't a single thing we eat, that another creature on earth cannot. Yes, some are much healthier than others, and yes companies make processed foods for convenience, but we have the choice of how to eat. The target food concept is nonsense. It means nothing, since we can survive perfectly fine off the earth and have for millions of years.
All considered, yes our intelligence has allowed us to become very good scavengers. And you missed a valuable point, of course we can eat what ever, why do you think we are still alive with no target food? The point is it will be a struggle and will not bare the nutrition intended for that species. NOW your getting it.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So the ant eater has a more specialized target food, pertaining to ants mostly. We have a wider range of "target" foods. We only need to live long enough to reproduce, and we seem to be doing that quite easily. If evolution is really as bad as it seems, why aren't we seeing those effects? Why aren't we struggling to keep our species alive, when in fact we may have to start doing the opposite. Right now our population is growing faster than it ever has before.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 





So the ant eater has a more specialized target food, pertaining to ants mostly. We have a wider range of "target" foods. We only need to live long enough to reproduce, and we seem to be doing that quite easily. If evolution is really as bad as it seems, why aren't we seeing those effects? Why aren't we struggling to keep our species alive, when in fact we may have to start doing the opposite. Right now our population is growing faster than it ever has before.
Well this is where you might have over looked some things. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that food is suppose to be handed to us on a silver platter.

Compare what the anteater does to get food, he locates ant hills via, smell and sound, claws the homes up, and eats.
What do we do. Well first we breed our cattle for future slaughter, feed the cattle, inject them with hormones sometimes to fatten them up. Slaughter, process, ship, divide the meat up, package, refrigerate, ship, purchase, ship, cook, eat.
We actually have more steps than that, but it gives you an idea. There is simply no excuse for the redundant steps aside from it not being our target food. We are making the food to our liking and need based on all the processing. Now some argue its all done for profit. So does that mean that not one single person on this planet needs to eat meat?

I would argue on that, but anyhow you get the point. I think we do need some meat. Of course I think that nutrition that was intended for us is not here, so there is the problem. We are basically substituiting, scavengers.

As far as our population growing faster than it ever has, ya its quite shocking to realize that we might have grown faster had we of been on our correct planet. If humans were left on our home planet, its probably a very large crowd. However I think that some of the damage that was done to us through our DNA like lowering our life expectancy to 80 years could have kicked up our drive to want to multiply quicker, you know like teen agers having sex and so on.
edit on 19-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth


What exactly do I have wrong, be specific?

 
Everything. Is that specific enough?


edit on 19-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Its all only because you fialed to realize that with what I have presented, evolution CAN'T exist.

Colin I don't get on here and just lie, I have no idea what your referring to.
edit on 19-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
I never failed to realise anything other than a liar when I see onr.

You sir are a liar and a purposeful liar that makes you the lowest of the low. Well done.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


We do all the processing to limit the amount of diseases and such. That's the only reason. Now there is an effect here we should probably take notice. We've gradually done more and more processing to limit the spread of disease, but in effect has lowered out immune systems. Before we had stronger immune systems, but nevertheless people still died from diseases. Now we have modern medicine and we can prevent many of these diseases either through processing or after the fact. I still don't see how this proves anything. The fact is, if we can reach 15-20 years old, we're reproducing. As long as we're reproducing we're moving along. So I don't see any problem with what we're eating. We live well past after we've reproduced, and to nature there is really no reason for us to live longer. A species eats to survive, so it can reproduce, thats pretty much it. We tend to complicate things as humans, and it then appears that things can't be this simple when in fact they are.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Very good points but I disagree on your take about target food. Almost all species have target food.
Definiton of target food still not been provided despite numerous requests. Moron suppliers cannot fulfill requirements ignore the idiot


You can lump them into catagorys like you have but even then, they still have target foods. Humans are scavengers, plain and simple. This is what CAN happen when your target food is no longer available.
So are all scavengers animals without 'target food' and so not from here?


It once again disproves the possibility of evolution and shows with no doubt that everything is suppose to be in a balanced eco system.
Mathematically there is no such thing as balance. This is why evolution works. Show me different


I see, so when I say that the anteater is an ant eating machine, you just don't see that huh? Your saying he eats ants because he wants to. Never mide that he has perfect claws for digging up there homes, never mind that he has the perfect snout for sniffing them out, never mind that he has the perfect tounge for pulling them out of deep holes, never mind that he has perfect hearing to hear where the ants are.
Again telling people what you think they wrote and not reading what they wrote. The anteater evolved into his niche here on earth unless you concede he evolved elswhere from the ants original planet


NAW I'm going to have to dissagree with you, I think he's an ant eating maching and ants are one of his target foods.
Despite not giving a defintion of 'target food' and no evidence at all. Confirmed a steaming Larry numptey


All considered, yes our intelligence has allowed us to become very good scavengers. And you missed a valuable point, of course we can eat what ever, why do you think we are still alive with no target food? The point is it will be a struggle and will not bare the nutrition intended for that species. NOW your getting it.
Again no definitoin of target food but confirmation of a steaming numpty.
edit on 19-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





I don't take medicine at all, and the majority of my friends don't take anything either. Why do you insist on making things up to suit your perspective?
Hey when I ask people around me, almost everyone is on medication. Maybe your young I dunno, but from where I'm sitting, its obvious.


Trying to ignore, but too good to miss.





posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


Well thats not a good argument. Of course everyones on medication just look at the marketing. People are oblivious they see things on tv, and they yearn for it. That doesn't mean we all actually need the medication.

ETA
I wasn't trying to direct that at you idmonster rather at tooth. sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
edit on 19-2-2012 by andersensrm because: ETA



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by idmonster
 


Well thats not a good argument. Of course everyones on medication just look at the marketing. People are oblivious they see things on tv, and they yearn for it. That doesn't mean we all actually need the medication.

ETA
I wasn't trying to direct that at you idmonster rather at tooth. sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
edit on 19-2-2012 by andersensrm because: ETA


LOL, not at all. My link was in reply to the candymans statement that when he looks at all the people around him, they all seem to be on medication. To me that spoke volumes, it also helps me to understand how every time he speaks to people at work, (or "on the ward" as I now understand it) they agree with him.
edit on 19-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by iterationzero
 
Its a shame I can only give one star for your post.

I also hope Quad returns but I doubt it while this maddness continues.


edit on 19-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


I agree
star for iterationzero. Quad can at least understand the concept of a debate unlike tooth who is dishonest and an outright liar.

In the mean time a new upload from AronRa




edit on 19-2-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)


Nice lecture,

Thanks for posting. (reposted so that people dont miss it due to idiots swamping the thread)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And you would be right this time, at least anytime you refer to human involvment, there is no such thing as natural.
But this is from your point of view. Now give the f=definition of natural for about the 20th time of asking. Past this you are just a pathetic liar


I beg to differ, and just because you might have found some common things between us (some of which I question) the fact is we still live a processed life and they don't in the same way.
I hate beggars. Dont begger youself as it appears aliens have done this previously with probes. I have given you globally accepted information you have chosen to reject. Now all you have to do is prove it.


Well sure I can. Humans suffere from what you can see as redundant adaptation. You can see almost everywhere that we are stumbling over our efforts to adapt and process. Lets pretend the ant does use processing as well, is it redundant, NO. its not. We still don't fit in here, and we never will.
Ah the totally non connected to the question stratergy.


If we are not natural then neither is the ant unless of course you can provide evidence or make a reasoned argument against it but you plainly cannot.
Answer the question


Well lets call a spade a spade ok. Looking at the ant eater he can say unequivocally that ants are one of his target foods. What do humans have Colin??? Answer please ????
Well for a start as hard as this is for you to take. Anteaters cannot speak. If he could he would ask what is a 'target food' to which you appear to have no answer despite. What 21 times asking?

To answer what humans have in their diet. Anything that can be digested without being poisoned you pathetic fool. This shows evolution because as long as an animal can survive to breed he wins. Good for you, or bad for you humans breed. Get over it. Really how ignorant are you?


edit on 19-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





It's not Tooth's beliefs that piss me off. It's his misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. He continues to boast about his knowledge about it, and almost every time, he has evolution completely wrong! You can't prove something wrong if you don't even know what you're disproving.
What exactly do I have wrong, be specific?


Evolution is not something that is in animals, for one. Go ahead, I'm pretty sure you think it's a pre-determining force inside animals that makes them change.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Anteater don't only eat ants. They eat many other different types of insects, and worms. So now they don't really have a target food do they?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


and fruit.

twice



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
So what is it now?

Tooth still needs to answer:-

1. What is the definition of 'target food'
2. What is the definition of natural relationship between species
3. What part does autosomal dominance play in the contiued existance of the bushman
5. What unique actions are shared by humans and ants
6. The relationship with wolves dating back to prehistoric times with photos from poster to back up claims even in this modern day
7. House sparrows
8. Cows mucus (milk) still no referance to humans being dependant.
9. How humans lived long enough to breed past puberty before vaccines
10. Why man invented the wheel when he could just have carried on carrying everything on his back.
Oh wait there is more
11 Why did man choose to give up his cave for a comfortable home
12. Why did stupid man decide to give up starvation during the winter for farming. (how alien)
13. Why ignoring a surplus (milk) would prove man intelligent and native to earth and seeing a surplus and putting milk in tea and having cheese on toast makes him an alien.
14. Wearing shoes indicates we must have come from planet axminster. A place that had pole to pole fitted carpets.
15. A world where people called Larry would get laid in Spokane. Now that is an alien concept.

edit
16> How could I have forgotten. A land of milk and honey promised by god for his chosen people. Albeit milk and honey is not a target food.
edit on 19-2-2012 by colin42 because: Milk and honey



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


AronRa is one of the most articulate knowledgeable creationist debunkers out there, raising awareness of science and the growing socio-political opposition to it.
Check out his page! www.youtube.com... every video will scare the hell out of the creationist
Seriously I've learned a ton of stuff from AronRa.

edit on 19-2-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





But this is from your point of view. Now give the f=definition of natural for about the 20th time of asking. Past this you are just a pathetic liar



: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption b : illegitimate
4: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question
5: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn
6: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7: having a specified character by nature
8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation c : having a normal or usual character
9: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature
10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial c : relating to or being natural food
11a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world
13a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14a : having neither flats nor sharps b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15: of an off-white or beige color
— nat·u·ral·ness \-nəs\ noun



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I hate beggars. Dont begger youself as it appears aliens have done this previously with probes. I have given you globally accepted information you have chosen to reject. Now all you have to do is prove it.
I haven't rejected anything. If your referring to some of your answers not applying to this concept that is different.

I just don't think you have quite gotten it yet. We are of an intelligent design, we did not emerge from apes. There is no proof that says we did and there is no reason to believe we did either.




Answer the question
I just did, or is this your way of saying you don't accept the answer?




Well for a start as hard as this is for you to take. Anteaters cannot speak. If he could he would ask what is a 'target food' to which you appear to have no answer despite. What 21 times asking?
Actually the ant eater has a fitted diet, so he would't be asking to begin with.




To answer what humans have in their diet. Anything that can be digested without being poisoned you pathetic fool. This shows evolution because as long as an animal can survive to breed he wins. Good for you, or bad for you humans breed. Get over it. Really how ignorant are you?
Now Colin do you believe that all changes made are in a postive nature or are they random and some can be negative?
If you believe its random and only the best survive, explain to me why we are evolving at all?



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Evolution is not something that is in animals, for one. Go ahead, I'm pretty sure you think it's a pre-determining force inside animals that makes them change.
So evolution doens't happen to animals. Great so apes never did evolve into humans, now we are getting somewhere.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 241  242  243    245  246  247 >>

log in

join