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: 305
31
<< 302  303  304    306  307  308 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?
And thats another reason why its not a fair comparison. Evolution is suppose to be things changing on a molecular level, not the ability of redundant adaptation.


But we are still adapting on a biological level. Female homo spapiens has been getting shorter on average for a long time now. Our sense of smell is slowly deteriorating with every generation too because we don't need it for survival anymore. In short, humans are still evolving, just like the rest of the life forms on this planet




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm
 





Use your imagination. Surely we are smart enough to think of things that are supposed to be for us. So like give me an example of what foods are supposed to be doing for us, that they aren't now. What and how we should be living that we aren't already doing, and why we would leave our "home planet" to come to Earth. If we have been rejected by nature why aren't we dead?
To be more specific, we wouldn't have, or need processed foods, and we wouldn't have as large of a menu as we do now. This is what I meant by us having a scavengers menu. It's way to big. It's from a combination of calused redundant adaptation and also not having our correct food that caused it.


We're omnivores--we still have our canine teeth for a reason, Toothy. We don't need processed food--it is a way to feed a large amount of people. Processed foods weren't invented because we were lacking something in the diet--food became a sellable commodity and once business figured out it could be packaged and sold in mass quantities, marketed as convenience products, it was all over. Until about 25 years ago, many of us still cooked all of our meals from scratch. Not to mention the microwave wasn't a common household item yet. The two-earner household put an end to that, and it was easier (not cheaper or healthier) to buy prepackaged stuff.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





You mean like say.....a beaver?
Good call, that would be the closest, but we are still using redundant adaptation to achieve it, and beavers don't use blue prints and hammers and nails to re assemble the wood.


What the hell is redundant adaptation? You made that up.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





As an example, we had to make shoes to adapt and allow ourselves to be able to walk on the harsh terrain. This alone is an extreme form of adaptation and proves that our natural feet don't fit in on this planet. There might be select areas where shoes aren't needed but then your saying we werent ever suppose to grow and adapt to move out of those areas.


Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?

Why is it that every time I open this thread I have to think about this guy:



Come on now, you have to admit, the hair is awesome.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?
And thats another reason why its not a fair comparison. Evolution is suppose to be things changing on a molecular level, not the ability of redundant adaptation.


But we are still adapting on a biological level. Female homo spapiens has been getting shorter on average for a long time now.


We are? I thought we were getting (slightly) taller. You guys have been shrinking for the last 30 years or so, though. What's happening is the sexual dimorphism is lessening and has been for several thousand years. You guys are now on average only about 3% larger (5-6 inches in height, 15% in weight), whereas it used to be around 50% difference.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You invented the term "redundant adaptation." Stop using it if it has no facts to back it up.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You invented the term "redundant adaptation." Stop using it if it has no facts to back it up.


Its worse than even that, he claims "we're using redundant adaptation". regardles of the made up term, surley if we're still using anything, by definition its not redundant.

For the term to mean anything, I guess you could refer to an apendix as an adaptation no longer required, i.e. redundant...however this would mean that tooth would have to accept evolution as a fact, otherwise it would still be required thereby having a function.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?
And thats another reason why its not a fair comparison. Evolution is suppose to be things changing on a molecular level, not the ability of redundant adaptation.


But we are still adapting on a biological level. Female homo spapiens has been getting shorter on average for a long time now.


We are? I thought we were getting (slightly) taller. You guys have been shrinking for the last 30 years or so, though. What's happening is the sexual dimorphism is lessening and has been for several thousand years. You guys are now on average only about 3% larger (5-6 inches in height, 15% in weight), whereas it used to be around 50% difference.


I'm sorry, but women are getting shorter and heavier





After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendents of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.


Also, this change is based on changes in genetics, and not changes in social behaviour: LINK



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I'm sorry, but women are getting shorter and heavier


So are you guys.
You're down about half an inch in the last 20 years.

So, we're all shrinking and getting heavier! What I find interesting is that you're still 5-6 inches taller--that ratio hasn't changed regardless of culture.





After adjusting for factors such as education and smoking, their models predict that the descendents of these women will be slightly shorter and heavier, will have lower blood pressure and cholesterol, will have their first child at a younger age, and will reach menopause later in life.


Also, this change is based on changes in genetics, and not changes in social behaviour: LINK



I'm not one for models and take them with a very big grain of salt (they're not data) but until recently, most women didn't live long enough to go through menopause...the average age is 51. Now that we're living longer, it stands to reason that our reproductive years will get longer.

I suspect that changes in diet and environmental factors have a lot to do with it. We know that changes on the Y chromosome due to environmental damage can last for generations, and the X chromosome is very susceptible to oxidative damage.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Dont let him lie to you Varemia . You know how dishonest he is.

His documents say that this alien guy gave us dominion over the animals. That means the animals are where they were put. They are in the 'Allowed areas' where they are 'supposed to be'. This is because unlike us they are not from this planet and need to be located where their 'target food' that the aliens placed is.
He didn't put us where we are suppose to be, what makes you think he would put the animals where they are suppose to be.




On the otherhand mankind who is native of this planet can go everywhere because all food is his 'target food'. This is obvious because the aliens needed us to mine gold and guess what. Gold can be found and mined all over the world and in many environments
Which still doesn't explain why we live indoors and isolate ourselves from the outside. I mean come on, if we were meant to fit in here, why aren't we living like it.




Dont take any notice of Tooths distraction from the truth. I have, from study of the historical documents and thinking outside the box discovered the real reason for shoes. Because we all look the same to aliens (made in his image):-

The higher your status the lighter your shoes. Miners have big, heavy boots with steel toe caps because they are just manual labour. The bosses have light shoes showing they have admin roles. Jesus was special and had sandals because he was also an alien.

BTW women have high heels because the Alien gods dont like short people and this is why the religions of the world treat women as second class citizens.

It all makes sense to me
It looks like you have given it much thought, I guess your entitled to your own beliefs



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But we are still adapting on a biological level. Female homo spapiens has been getting shorter on average for a long time now.
See now here you go again, making assumptions that evolution is causing things to happen. How do you not know it was the DDT that was used on veggies, or the red dye #5 that was used in hot dogs.

The fact is you don't, all you know is that on an average, things have changes, and as far as your concearned that is a sign of evolution. This all goes back to what I was saying earlier about what evolution is based on, and as you can see, its based on nothing factual.

It's based on people are getting shorter so we must be evolving.





Our sense of smell is slowly deteriorating with every generation too because we don't need it for survival anymore. In short, humans are still evolving, just like the rest of the life forms on this planet
And again this couldn't possibly be from the over use of perfumes and air fresheners, or possibly deodorants.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





We're omnivores--we still have our canine teeth for a reason, Toothy. We don't need processed food--it is a way to feed a large amount of people. Processed foods weren't invented because we were lacking something in the diet--food became a sellable commodity and once business figured out it could be packaged and sold in mass quantities, marketed as convenience products, it was all over. Until about 25 years ago, many of us still cooked all of our meals from scratch. Not to mention the microwave wasn't a common household item yet. The two-earner household put an end to that, and it was easier (not cheaper or healthier) to buy prepackaged stuff.
So we have canine teeth, have not ever really looked at them. They aren't canine teeth like that of a tiger, pretty lame actually, and its a lame observation for you missing that.
Our canines don't do diddley if you ask me, and when was the last time YOU used those specific teeth to tear meat?
I think the idea is over rated and people are seeing to much into things to call them meat devouring teeth.

Processed food did not come about for greed. When louie Pastour sat down and figured out how to pasteurize milk, he did have dollar signs in front of him. He had an idea that would allow us to drink milk without getting sick.


If I'm wrong then why is it that we cook meat? Cook most foods? The fact is people didn't want to get sick, and it was just easier to kill the food and any infections by cooking the food. The fact that we cook most of our food is a dead on sign that we are not eating our target food. It's redundant adaptation AGAIN.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





What the hell is redundant adaptation? You made that up.
It is what it is. In a nutshell it means overkill to adapt. It's all we do.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?
That's right, we are using our inventiveness to save us from harm.

Shoes are needed, otherwise they wouldn't have been invented, bottom line.

Evolution is trying to say that we were awarded the biological gift of adaptation, which is a crock.
This ability has nothing to do with evolution, and its a little strange that we are the ONLY thing on this rock to have been awarded this ability. I say this with the understanding that some other species show signs of being creative but never on the scale that we do.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You invented the term "redundant adaptation." Stop using it if it has no facts to back it up.
What you talking about, I have given you lots of facts.

Here are so more facts about redundant adaptation.

Nothing else on this planet goes through what we go through simply to eat a meal, its the icon of redundant adaptation.

We breed animals to keep stock up just for eating.
Slaughter the animals, or harvest the food.
Process the food usually into packages, sometimes more redundancy through adding chemicals.
We refrigerate the food.
Ship the food.
Purchase the food. Don't forget we work a job to do this part.
Wash or process the food again.
Cook the food.
Clean eating utensils.

Stop telling me to stop using this as its obvious your dropping the ball here. You have to be blind to not find redundant adaptation in everything we do.

It's so bad that redundant adaptation actually takes up most of our time, in other words this is what we spend most of our time doing. This is another clue that we aren't living in our home setting.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So we have canine teeth, have not ever really looked at them. They aren't canine teeth like that of a tiger, pretty lame actually, and its a lame observation for you missing that.


Learn some biology. They are called canines for a reason.


Our canines don't do diddley if you ask me, and when was the last time YOU used those specific teeth to tear meat?


Sigh.


Canine

Both the maxillary and mandibular canines are called the "cornerstone" of the mouth because they are all located three teeth away from the midline, and separate the premolars from the incisors. The location of the canines reflect their dual function as they complement both the premolars and incisors during chewing. Nonetheless, the most common action of the canines is tearing of food. There is a single cusp on canines, and they resemble the prehensile teeth found in carnivorous animals. Though similar, there are some minor differences between the deciduous and permanent canines.


en.wikipedia.org...


Processed food did not come about for greed.


How old are you, anyway? Ever heard of agribusiness? What do we have Swanson, Tyson, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Frito Lay...Dole, Green Giant and so on ad infinitum? Surely they're not distributing food out of the goodness of their hearts. Coca Cola used to have coc aine in it and was marketed as such.


When louie Pastour sat down and figured out how to pasteurize milk, he did have dollar signs in front of him. He had an idea that would allow us to drink milk without getting sick.:


That was 200 years ago and very few scientists were looking for money. Things have changed just a tad. And along the same lines, the Chinese invented heating wine for preservation a thousand years ago.


If I'm wrong then why is it that we cook meat? Cook most foods? The fact is people didn't want to get sick, and it was just easier to kill the food and any infections by cooking the food. The fact that we cook most of our food is a dead on sign that we are not eating our target food. It's redundant adaptation AGAIN.


It's also easier to chew when it's cooked. But if you want to eat raw meat, by all means do so. People do--sometimes they get sick and sometimes they don't.
edit on 3/19/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





What the hell is redundant adaptation? You made that up.
It is what it is. In a nutshell it means overkill to adapt. It's all we do.


That made no sense whatsoever, but how do you think it disproves evolution?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Its worse than even that, he claims "we're using redundant adaptation". regardles of the made up term, surley if we're still using anything, by definition its not redundant.
A good example would be back to the shoes. Rather than fixing the perspiration problem by making better shoes, we would rather make something to correct the perspiration problem.




For the term to mean anything, I guess you could refer to an apendix as an adaptation no longer required, i.e. redundant...however this would mean that tooth would have to accept evolution as a fact, otherwise it would still be required thereby having a function.
I'm applying this through the synonym excessive.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Mhhhh, yeah...you do realize that "shoes" isn't a biological adaptation compared to the one talked about in the evolution section on Wiki, right?
That's right, we are using our inventiveness to save us from harm.

Shoes are needed, otherwise they wouldn't have been invented, bottom line.

Evolution is trying to say that we were awarded the biological gift of adaptation, which is a crock.
This ability has nothing to do with evolution, and its a little strange that we are the ONLY thing on this rock to have been awarded this ability. I say this with the understanding that some other species show signs of being creative but never on the scale that we do.



1) You mixed me up with someone else again. I didn't post that.

2) Shoes are an invention, if you will, because someone figured out that covering your feet keeps them warm and keeps you from stepping on sharp objects that go through your feet. Tapeworms, anthrax, and tetanus--those are just 3 diseases that are prevented by wearing shoes.
edit on 3/19/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





That made no sense whatsoever, but how do you think it disproves evolution?
Here is what it comes down to with evolution.

If we evolved, we should go back, because we were way better off. We are sucking at evolving.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 302  303  304    306  307  308 >>

log in

join