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.
Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural. In essence they are saying that humans are NOT natural. Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages. They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.
In other words:
1) I don't know what the practical difference is between a human processing food and a bee, but as per your definition, I'll go with it
Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.
2) A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things
A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.
3) A target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. But it might also have an easy substitute. If a substitution is made it will probably not be of as great a benefit to a species as the original food. But it might also be of equal or greater benefit. I pointed out an example of a wolf (a real wolf, not even a dog) fed pigs its whole life that had lived longer than wild wolves on their target food do, so clearly this is possible.
As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.
4) This doesn't have anything to do with the food itself, but rather seems to be a vague explanation of why a species might not be eating its target food.
No because you can be dependant on what food you have available but that doesn't mean it was your intended food. Natural yes, unprocessed yes, but its not food that was intended for them, basically we are all just getting by with the food we have. As a result we have to work harder to get what our bodies require from the variations of food content.
So, strictly according to your definition of target food there is absolutely no reason to believe that the tribes of primitive humans living in the amazon basin today are not eating their target foods. Their foods are natural and unprocessed, and they rely on them. Those are the only two certainties in the definition.
It's a good question like with maggots, I'm sure were suppose to eat dead rotting corpses. But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions. Its a tuff call, fish eat smaller fish, tigers eat everything. Whats odd in both cases is that I can't identify any one thing they are suppose to eat. So while its possible that extinction was at work, its to hard to disect. From a creationists perspective it makes little sense that such effort would go into each life and its creation to just be torn apart by another created life. At least thats that version.
Why can a specie's target food not be dead things?
As long as your not talking about humans, ya. And I agree with you on the scavangers as well but there is a twist here your not realizing. If things on this planet were on a correct balance, death would not be so abundant, not that it would never happen, but it would be way less. Earth is very screwed up and we are currently in our 6th largest extinction.
Are dead things unnatural? Nothing in the definition of target food makes mention of it. What could the target food for maggots possibly be if not rotting meat? It is the only thing they eat, its natural, they rely on it, and it has no easy substitute. How can an ecosystem function without recycling dead matter? Can you name an ecosystem on earth that functions without scavengers?
No, a would be creator would HAVE to be empathetic. Making us without setting us up with proper food is a lost cause.
Ok. So if there's an intelligence that makes species, including us, and makes sure they can eat food, but doesn't make a target food for them, where does the concept of target food fit into all this? If you freely accept that species can be made without target foods and survive just fine, why did you come up with the concept of target food in the first place? Is it just because ant eaters very specialized towards eating ants? (even though ant eaters also eat other things, and many other things eat ants?
Well that was really the whole point right there, I don't think he is special by any means, in fact I think he is as normal as it gets, but most everything else is where the problem is. We are the oddballs. It only makes sense that he would be so fine tuned for hunting ants, its his job.
There are a few foods that require those two types of teeth for sure, meat and nuts. The very things primitive humans ate before they developed the ability process food, and frequently still do eat today. Most mammals that eat meat have sharp teeth like canines, most mammals that eat nuts and seeds have molars, and mammals that eat both generally have both. I really don't see anything wrong. Everything here works.
The only reason there seems to be a problem here is you took an extreme example, the ant eater, and decided that all other animals must be just as specialized as it is. They don't and they aren't.
I like the fact that you have a brain, its a nice change compared to some of the people on this thread.
You are wrong. While many species of parasites are not picky, many are. Example: en.wikipedia.org...
They feed exclusively on blood. Humans are the only known hosts of this parasite
So, they do prefer humans and they are picky. A natural relationship between man and animal.
Yes it is, but the questions it opens up, makes it impossible to know if they are indigenous or if we brought them here. Which was the whole reason for determining this to beging with, to see if there was some proof we belong here.
So, they do prefer humans and they are picky. A natural relationship between man and animal.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
You have clearly not been paying attention. Fitting my belief had nothing to do with the articles. You see the mere fact that there was an event making a change in our DNA, which is not in question here, was the only thing I was standing on.
They don't even know what's causing the defect
It might be the result of external factors...as the article clearly states, they haven't figured it out yet.
You on the other hand simply pretend they have because in your mind it "fits" your belief. That's incredibly ignorant
It still sticks. It doesn't matter if they have figured it out to be exact or not, they are clear that it is making changes in our DNA. Scientists would have been precieving this as evolution. Sorry but your still wrong. And a little bat crazy too.
Your ignorance and desperate need to justify your delusions need this to be the case. Until you provide a logic based argument, with supporting evidence links and quotes it is just your opinion. Meaningless trash at best.
Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural.
Who are THEY? What do THEY base this nonsense on?
In essence they are saying that humans are NOT natural.
Well for the first time in 400 pages you have brought in a new factor. 'THEY'?
Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages.
Or maybe these 'THEY' beings don’t agree with your uneducated, crazy homespun religion based on ignorance of its founder. YOU!!
They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.
And as usual that is your opinion. Nothing more. No supporting argument. No evidence. No links or quotes from those links. So as usual just more of your La La land imaginings. Now show proof of any of your nonsense above.
Bees are not humans, so if bees process honey, its still considered natural. If our hand was required in that development, then it would no longer be natural.
Well done. You have used a real term, staple food that I taught you. That still does not answer the question
Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.
How do you know which is which?
2) A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things
Explain the example you were given of the wolf fed on pigs. Explain why our modern crops have a great nutritional value than their wild counterparts.
A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.
So how do you know humans 'target food' did not go extinct?
As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.
You are again missing one little thing. Proof and all you have is your bias opinion which due to your dishonest nature is absolutely worthless.
No because you can be dependant on what food you have available but that doesn't mean it was your intended food. Natural yes, unprocessed yes, but its not food that was intended for them, basically we are all just getting by with the food we have.
Ah your laziness comes to the fore and even in this you are profoundly wrong. We feed billions by farming so the effort put in is way less than the food out.
As a result we have to work harder to get what our bodies require from the variations of food content.
Agriculture was the key development in the rise of sedentary human civilization, whereby farming of domesticated species created food surpluses that nurtured the development of civilization
What utter garbage. How do you think man is supposed to eating 'rotting corpses'? You spend all your time saying we cannot know what our target food is and then you make that unfounded easily refuted claim.
It's a good question like with maggots, I'm sure were suppose to eat dead rotting corpses. But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions.
Your on the fence? If there is any more need for proof of how deep your denial goes. How poor your understanding is of the world around you. How blind to life you are. The above statement shows it clearly. The lion has evolved to hunt. Only an uneducated, ignorant, feeble minded clown could claim otherwise. (looks at your statement above) Nuff said.
But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions.
There is nothing odd about it. You cannot identify what they are supposed to eat for two reasons. You have never done any meaningful research and more importantly your stupidly based 'target food' is a nonsense.
Its a tuff call, fish eat smaller fish, tigers eat everything. Whats odd in both cases is that I can't identify any one thing they are suppose to eat.
Nope. You like the fact that Mindkar is not aware of your dishonest approach to this thread which enables you to once again start your cycle of madness.
I like the fact that you have a brain, its a nice change compared to some of the people on this thread.
Oh so we 'brainless' posters that have put up with your insanity have already used this as an example. Shown how it destroys your nonsense. The best YOU could come up with was the parasites came with us. Where is your evidence?
Its a very good observation, and it has allready come up. The best that can be figured is that they were among us durring our arrival.
What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?
Also keep in mind that if we were brought here, there could have been as many as thousands of people at a time that got moved.
Evidence? Where is it?
It is possible that humans don't trim or cut their hair on our home planet, so these little buggers would be rampant everywhere.
Your reading inability has let you down again. He is trying to rub some of his smarts off on YOU but alas is finding out what we already know. You do not have any capacity for it.
Excellent observation either way. Maybe you could rub some of your smarts off on the others here as they are getting a tad rusty and don't play fair.
Another example that you have no idea of the subject you are talking about. Classic
The reason why its easy to believe that thousands of us got moved here is what you can find in the mitochondrial eve wiki. Its clear that our species never dipped below tens of thousands. However its gets complicated because you don't know if they are considering before our common ancestor 200,000 years ago, while I'm assuming that was actually a different species that could have been here on earth before us.
If that were true then the same can be said about humans but your only problem here is the fossil record supported by DNA, observation and repeatable, verifiable evidence. In short. Evolution.
Yes it is, but the questions it opens up, makes it impossible to know if they are indigenous or if we brought them here. Which was the whole reason for determining this to beging with, to see if there was some proof we belong here.
You claimed way back that if you were shown one relationship between humans and any other creature on this planet then you would drop your claim that we are not from here. So here is another example.
Anyhow, to believe that this is the only species we have a relationship with, which I'm going to agree with at ths point, you would have to also agree that our whole purpose in life is to satisfy these litttle critters, and as you can see there seems to be more missing to our picture. I didn't need complicated brains and arms and eyesight to please these little guys.
But they could be from other things, like ADHD.
Again how exactly???? Gene defects happen..they happen in animals and plants too for crying out loud. So yes, it's part of evolution.
There seems to be more evidence that we de-evolved if anything. Notice how we share not a single communication or language trait with our ancestors the apes. Notice how we share nothing. It's because we didn't evovle. The other thing is that we are struggeling on this planet. Almost every thing we do, is only accomplished through redundant adaptation. If we evolved, we sure sucked at it. Evolutionists claim adaptation as being a part of evolution, but the fact is that if something has the ability to adapt very well, then there is no need for evolution.
Everything on this planet, without our interferance, balances so well on its own, natural checks and balances.. Its hard to honestly see us as a species this earth cultivated on its own. We dont have the finesse and connection to things around us like we would need to, at least in my opinion. I think everything on this planet has evolved to be here. I think we were a failed experiment. And that you need to let a species evolve and grow a bit, and thats what our creators have done, tried to give us an opportunity to prove them wrong, to show we are a higher or more enlightened species.
Are you playing the peek a boo game again colin, pretending to not see the definitions I post?
Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural.
Your ignorance and desperate need to justify your delusions need this to be the case. Until you provide a logic based argument, with supporting evidence links and quotes it is just your opinion. Meaningless trash at best
nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".
Scientists and people that write definitions.
Who are THEY? What do THEY base this nonsense on?
Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages.
Well for the first time in 400 pages you have brought in a new factor. 'THEY'?
Actually they do, which is why they were brought up, did you get lost colin?
They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.
Or maybe these 'THEY' beings don’t agree with your uneducated, crazy homespun religion based on ignorance of its founder. YOU!!
What, are you going to argue with me now that bees are humans?
Bees are not humans, so if bees process honey, its still considered natural. If our hand was required in that development, then it would no longer be natural.
And as usual that is your opinion. Nothing more. No supporting argument. No evidence. No links or quotes from those links. So as usual just more of your La La land imaginings. Now show proof of any of your nonsense above
Oh colin I leaned of staple food long before you were around.
Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.
Well done. You have used a real term, staple food that I taught you. That still does not answer the question
Excellent question, because the target food will be utilized more than other foods and the also has a higher benefit to the species.
How do you know which is which?
There is no way a non target food can be better than an existing food unless they are both none target foods.
A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.
Explain the example you were given of the wolf fed on pigs. Explain why our modern crops have a great nutritional value than their wild counterparts.
A very good question. If we were here in the early ages, there is always that chance that something went extinct. Of course I'm relying on history that we would know that way, but there is always the off chance that failed, but there is always the off chance we aren't from here either.
As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.
So how do you know humans 'target food' did not go extinct?
I don't know colin I'm going to argue with you and belive that everything is suppose to have something to eat.
You are again missing one little thing. Proof and all you have is your bias opinion which due to your dishonest nature is absolutely worthless.
but agriculture was just an alternative to us not having food ready to begin with. You see if this were our planet, we would have food made for us and read to eat, in abundance. Almost like being served. Probably with little effort to get too.
Ah your laziness comes to the fore and even in this you are profoundly wrong. We feed billions by farming so the effort put in is way less than the food out.
There is no way the population of any country can be fed on what can be hunted and gathered alone. Agriculture
I nevfe said man, he was talking about maggots.
What utter garbage. How do you think man is supposed to eating 'rotting corpses'? You spend all your time saying we cannot know what our target food is and then you make that unfounded easily refuted claim.
Signs of desperation and struggeling IMO are not signs of evolving, then again evolution makes no sense. There should be no reason why a species should have to resort to such tactics unless they are on the brink of being extinct from not having food.
Your on the fence? If there is any more need for proof of how deep your denial goes. How poor your understanding is of the world around you. How blind to life you are. The above statement shows it clearly. The lion has evolved to hunt. Only an uneducated, ignorant, feeble minded clown could claim otherwise. (looks at your statement above) Nuff said.
Target food? Whats that, what does it mean? Finally admitt to it huh?
There is nothing odd about it. You cannot identify what they are supposed to eat for two reasons. You have never done any meaningful research and more importantly your stupidly based 'target food' is a nonsense.
No I'm going to disagree with you again colin, I think drinking another species milk is just sick and wrong, but call me silly.
I was waiting for your nonsense around milk to be raised and here it is. You have been smashed worse than the battle between the Titanic and the iceberg and the hole in your opinions bigger. Everything you have written is purely your opinion with no basis in reality at all.
You offer no supporting evidence. No links and quotes from those links. No need for further comment.
Still at least Mastermindkar has a great example from your replies to him that trying to enter into a real debate with you is a complete waste of time. You have dismissed ALL of his very well presented points with your usual ignorant dismissals, hardly even considering the points he made. Spewing out your preformed nonsense based garbage.
The reason why everyone should insist on from you. A logic based argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. So where is it?
No I honestly like how he was in fact able to come up with a species that we have a relationship with.
Nope. You like the fact that Mindkar is not aware of your dishonest approach to this thread which enables you to once again start your cycle of madness.
Well thats what they do silly, they are parasites.
Oh so we 'brainless' posters that have put up with your insanity have already used this as an example. Shown how it destroys your nonsense. The best YOU could come up with was the parasites came with us. Where is your evidence?
Would you sleep with your sister? Don't answer that.
What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?
What is wrong with you man, all I said is that its possible, do you have something that says its not possible?
Evidence? Where is it?
You mean I'm full?
Your reading inability has let you down again. He is trying to rub some of his smarts off on YOU but alas is finding out what we already know. You do not have any capacity for it.
They live on us, there is nothing hard to believe about that.
If that were true then the same can be said about humans but your only problem here is the fossil record supported by DNA, observation and repeatable, verifiable evidence. In short. Evolution.
Sorry man, I don't know what to tell you, they could have hitched a ride with us, thats what they do.
You claimed way back that if you were shown one relationship between humans and any other creature on this planet then you would drop your claim that we are not from here. So here is another example.
As for the rest of your ridiculous postulation. You are full of more rubbish than a municipal infill site
this is what I'm trying to say.
An organisms' ability to adapt doesn't translate into nucleotide changes.
And it has been said time and time again humans, as does every other animal, have millions of parasites having sex inside them right now. And those parasites are specific to their host at some stage in their life cycle.
What does it even mean when you say "ADHD can cause changes, so its not evolution." ADHD is a behavioral trait that corresponds to how individuals vary in nucleotides at a given locus. Evolution describes the statistical reproductive fitnesses of nucleotide sequences. If there is variation in a trait, there is evolution. Are people diagnosed with different degrees of ADHD? If yes, then it is evolution. The answer will be yes to every trait ever in the history of life.
Tut Tut. You failed to define that term and ran from a debate on its use. That makes your whole post null and void.
redundant adaptation
You failed to provide the source. Not acceptable. Try again
Are you playing the peek a boo game again colin, pretending to not see the definitions I post?
So my reply stands. You have no argument or supporting evidence. No need to respond.
Scientists and people that write definitions.
Your opinion. Not supported with any evidence and not based on reality. No further comment needed
Actually they do, which is why they were brought up, did you get lost colin?
Go back and read my reply and stop playing the fool. No need to reply further.
What, are you going to argue with me now that bees are humans?
Oh Pinocchio you still have not learnt to answer the questions that challenge you. Try again:
Oh colin I leaned of staple food long before you were around.
That is your opinion and has been challenged many times and you have never backed it up with supporting evidence. I expect you to fail to do so again. Your opinion has no value. Dismissed.
Excellent question, because the target food will be utilized more than other foods and the also has a higher benefit to the species.
Then explain why in the example you were given a wolf lived far longer and healthier than its wild counterparts when fed on pigs and don’t just offer your ignorant opinion.
There is no way a non target food can be better than an existing food unless they are both none target foods.
I could care less if you think it was a good question. What I require from you is an answer and the evidence to back up your claim. All I got is your ignorance based opinion. Dismissed.
A very good question. If we were here in the early ages, there is always that chance that something went extinct. Of course I'm relying on history that we would know that way, but there is always the off chance that failed, but there is always the off chance we aren't from here either.
Will you ever be found guilty of giving a real answer? Your opinion is again dismissed.
I think if there was target food that went extinct we would have tried our damn hardest to preserve it, and keep it in order, long before we had smarts to start making food for our selves.
Dismissed
I don't know colin I'm going to argue with you and belive that everything is suppose to have something to eat.
You ignored the quote and did not read the link. Typically you reply with ignorance based on nothing more than your opinion. Dismissed.
but agriculture was just an alternative to us not having food ready to begin with.
Like I said a lazy fantasist. Your opinion has no value. Dismissed.
You see if this were our planet, we would have food made for us and read to eat, in abundance. Almost like being served. Probably with little effort to get too.
So you did not. My mistake. Now explain why the lion was never meant to hunt.
I nevfe said man, he was talking about maggots.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
this is what I'm trying to say.
An organisms' ability to adapt doesn't translate into nucleotide changes.
And it has been said time and time again humans, as does every other animal, have millions of parasites having sex inside them right now. And those parasites are specific to their host at some stage in their life cycle.
What does it even mean when you say "ADHD can cause changes, so its not evolution." ADHD is a behavioral trait that corresponds to how individuals vary in nucleotides at a given locus. Evolution describes the statistical reproductive fitnesses of nucleotide sequences. If there is variation in a trait, there is evolution. Are people diagnosed with different degrees of ADHD? If yes, then it is evolution. The answer will be yes to every trait ever in the history of life.
Scientists have discovered that people that have ADHD show a corrosponding indication in their dna, in other words people that have ADHD will show it in their DNA. Now they just found this out. Which means that prior to this, when scientists were looking at DNA for changes to verify evolution they were probably seeing ADHD and calling it evolution.
You state IMO. You have been told your opinion has no value. Now show the evidence that lions were not meant to be hunters.
Signs of desperation and struggeling IMO are not signs of evolving, then again evolution makes no sense. There should be no reason why a species should have to resort to such tactics unless they are on the brink of being extinct from not having food.
The answer of the forum clown. How do you get that from? below
Target food? Whats that, what does it mean? Finally admitt to it huh?
Dismissed
No I'm going to disagree with you again colin, I think drinking another species milk is just sick and wrong, but call me silly.
Which means you agree that we are natives of this planet as you stated you would.
No I honestly like how he was in fact able to come up with a species that we have a relationship with.
No you just played ignorant and denied everything you were shown backed with evidence and links and quotes from those links. Dismissed
Unlike you, and trying to cheat to find one.
You have a lot in common
Well thats what they do silly, they are parasites.
I don’t come from Spokane it appears it may be common there. But what has that to do with you answering the point? YOU:
Would you sleep with your sister? Don't answer that.
Me: What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?
Also keep in mind that if we were brought here, there could have been as many as thousands of people at a time that got moved.
Your claim, you provide the evidence not your opinion. Dismissed
What is wrong with you man, all I said is that its possible, do you have something that says its not possible?
I could tell you what you are full of but how does that answer the fact he is trying to rub his smarts off onto you not us?
You mean I'm full?
Me: What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?