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: 97
31
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





He's right about milk not being necessary after infancy. Its purpose is to provide the child with nutrients until it is able to feed itself. It also passes on the mother's antibodies to the child. If you look at other mammals they stop consuming milk after infancy. The only reason humans continue to consume milk into adulthood is because it is a readily accessible source of vitamins and minerals. It is much easier to raise a herd of cattle than it is to do the hunting and foraging necessary to receive the same nutrients. Humans aren't even unique in their lactose intolerance. For example dogs, ferrets, and really most adult mammals lose the ability to process lactose. Does this mean they all aren't native to Earth as well?
So your probably looking at this from the point of view that humans are just so darn smart, they fooled mother nature and found out a better, quicker and cheaper way to obtain sufficant milk?

You missed the point again. If you want to believe milk is only needed for kids thats fine, I'll agree. Why are they not getting it from their mother like the other 5 million species do?




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Wat...

Human females lactate just like any other mammal. Most babies are fed breast milk from their mother. Seriously, read the book I suggested. "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins, and get the updated version if you can. I promise it will be informative.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Last time I checked breast feeding was still common among humans. The reason humans have moved away from breastfeeding is not due to biological necessity (although infant formula was originally invented for those who couldn't breastfeed) but due to a change in social mores. If you want get your milk from suckling at a young mother's breast be my guest, but you're not going to be getting as much as you could get from a cow, but you'll still be receiving the same nutrients and still have to deal with the lactose problem.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Wat...

Human females lactate just like any other mammal. Most babies are fed breast milk from their mother. Seriously, read the book I suggested. "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins, and get the updated version if you can. I promise it will be informative.
I will have to read the book when I can find it. I know most women lactate, why do we use so much cows milk?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Last time I checked breast feeding was still common among humans. The reason humans have moved away from breastfeeding is not due to biological necessity (although infant formula was originally invented for those who couldn't breastfeed) but due to a change in social mores. If you want get your milk from suckling at a young mother's breast be my guest, but you're not going to be getting as much as you could get from a cow, but you'll still be receiving the same nutrients and still have to deal with the lactose problem.
Ahh ha. You nailed two important facts without realizing it. Social mores? Why? Because social values are more important than raising our young right? It's very complex but its our social agendas working around all of the adaptation we have to do just to survive on this planet.
Best of all, your not going to get as much as you could get from a cow. So in other words your telling me that a mother isn't going to be able to produce what a baby might need. It's real simple at this point. She can't produce what she isn't getting either. Now if she had her intended source of milk she could produce all thats needed. But she can't because it's not here. Cows milk is just helping us get by because something is lacking. Didn't you ever think its a little odd that we are drinking another animals milk? How many other species can you name that actually do this?
edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Wat...

Human females lactate just like any other mammal. Most babies are fed breast milk from their mother. Seriously, read the book I suggested. "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins, and get the updated version if you can. I promise it will be informative.
I will have to read the book when I can find it. I know most women lactate, why do we use so much cows milk?


Because culture. It's a recent thing passed down from the Europeans. Humans, due to our passing down of traditions (repetition of knowledge through generations as a means of survival) have passed down the tradition of drinking cow's milk, and now it seems perfectly natural even though it makes no logical sense.

We can be stupid when it comes to figuring out what's healthy for us. Just look at our current diets: cutting fats and increasing sugars. It's downright dumb, but people fall for it. If you want to watch an informative movie about healthy diets, check out "Fat Head" on hulu. A guy proves that a high fat diet and low sugar will make you healthy naturally. It explains why you don't see obesity epidemics in prosperous tribal villages or places like Japan before their industrial revolution.

Really though, none of this has anything to do with evolution or why there is diverse life on the planet. Since there is a visible mechanism which spreads genes and alters them over time, I feel like a creator is simply not needed. Perhaps you can believe that a creator started it all with a little push, combining a couple chemicals to create the first RNA/DNA strand, but beyond that, everything is related and has traits that based on fossil evidence are passed down through a long history of genetic change.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A woman does not need to consume milk to produce milk. As I said before most animals, including cows stop consuming milk after infancy. The milk is produced through nutrients gained from the individuals diet as a whole. The reason cows produce more milk is not because they are better suited to the planet, it is simply because they have larger mammary glands as the offspring they produce is larger than a human offspring and thus requires more milk. Humans are well suited to their environment. We survived for 200,000 years before the emergence of civilization and agriculture just fine, let alone modern food processing methods. So, if you want to prove humans are not from Earth you may want to stop looking at things that are dictated by modern technology and social norms.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Because culture. It's a recent thing passed down from the Europeans. Humans, due to our passing down of traditions (repetition of knowledge through generations as a means of survival) have passed down the tradition of drinking cow's milk, and now it seems perfectly natural even though it makes no logical sense.
Again it makes perfect sense if we are missing something thats needed.




We can be stupid when it comes to figuring out what's healthy for us. Just look at our current diets: cutting fats and increasing sugars. It's downright dumb, but people fall for it. If you want to watch an informative movie about healthy diets, check out "Fat Head" on hulu. A guy proves that a high fat diet and low sugar will make you healthy naturally. It explains why you don't see obesity epidemics in prosperous tribal villages or places like Japan before their industrial revolution.


Good statment, we can be stupid figuring out whats healthy for us. Thats because it's not our food.




Really though, none of this has anything to do with evolution or why there is diverse life on the planet. Since there is a visible mechanism which spreads genes and alters them over time, I feel like a creator is simply not needed. Perhaps you can believe that a creator started it all with a little push, combining a couple chemicals to create the first RNA/DNA strand, but beyond that, everything is related and has traits that based on fossil evidence are passed down through a long history of genetic change.
Well I don't think we evolved on this planet. It might be on one where we were there trillions of years.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
dude you cant have these two things in the same paragraph, sorry




Evolution is not a conscious process for the most part




individuals of a species will seek out a mate who are better adapted to surviving the new environment


you are giving nature intelligence right here...it knows that something is not suitable for it? what is the female looking for a more stable male like women in our society? that would mean a monkey wants to go bang gorillas cause a monkey is small and a gorilla is big and strong and protective. according to you.. wheres the monkey gorilla sex? this is preposterous.




The hope is that these traits will then pass on to the offspring giving them a better chance at reaching maturity


oh yea? the apes were couting on this? they are ANIMALSSSS!!. they do not go into a doctors office and be offered a better choice of mates for genetic reasons cause they are hoping their babies are gonna get tougher so they survive... dogs will hump any smaller dog they wanna dominate. is the reverse evolution?
edit on 5-12-2011 by RebelRouser because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Dude, it's automatic. That's why chicks (for the most part) dig taller guys with muscles. They are strong and feel protective. Guys, similarly, tend to dig submissive, shorter women. Thus, there are large numbers of these traits in the human population. Animals have sexual preferences too, many ingrained in instinct. Instinct is created when enough generations of taking the same actions happen, usually because those actions were beneficial to survival.

It's not conscious, but subconscious, and dictated by your genes.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





A woman does not need to consume milk to produce milk. As I said before most animals, including cows stop consuming milk after infancy. The milk is produced through nutrients gained from the individuals diet as a whole. The reason cows produce more milk is not because they are better suited to the planet, it is simply because they have larger mammary glands as the offspring they produce is larger than a human offspring and thus requires more milk. Humans are well suited to their environment. We survived for 200,000 years before the emergence of civilization and agriculture just fine, let alone modern food processing methods. So, if you want to prove humans are not from Earth you may want to stop looking at things that are dictated by modern technology and social norms.
Well first off, where do you think the mother is, or how is she going to generate milk without some type of intake herself? Surly you don't think it just magically appears from her body. She has to have the correct nutrients to begin with. Its another reason showing that its just not there. Yes cows are just bigger, easy to understand. We aren't sure we were here on earth 200,000 years ago is the problem. I'm figureing we arived here about 10.000 years ago. Just because our DNA says we are older than that doesn't mean it was lived out here on earth.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Again it makes perfect sense if we are missing something thats needed.


I'm really not seeing what's missing here. Drinking milk is not needed at all. It is a preference by our society. Ask the lactose intolerance world if they need milk or not.


Good statment, we can be stupid figuring out whats healthy for us. Thats because it's not our food.


Then why does some food (which we evolved eating) make us healthy, huh? We only get sick when we eat stuff we didn't evolve eating, such as wheat products and large amounts of sugar.


Well I don't think we evolved on this planet. It might be on one where we were there trillions of years.


Why are you obsessed with trillions of years? You really need to see an illustration of how much a million or a billion years is. It's way more than you seem to think it is.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well first off, where do you think the mother is, or how is she going to generate milk without some type of intake herself? Surly you don't think it just magically appears from her body. She has to have the correct nutrients to begin with. Its another reason showing that its just not there. Yes cows are just bigger, easy to understand. We aren't sure we were here on earth 200,000 years ago is the problem. I'm figureing we arived here about 10.000 years ago. Just because our DNA says we are older than that doesn't mean it was lived out here on earth.


Seriously??? You seriously...

I think you might be one of the most misinformed people I've ever typed to.

Hormones cause the body to produce the milk naturally. Humans do not need to drink milk to make milk. That's just stupid.

Read up:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by RebelRouser
 


Thus the reason I said for the most part. While natural selection does play a major role in evolution sexual selection is also an important part. However, no matter what trait a mate prefers, if it is not suited to the environment then the offspring will not be viable candidates for reproduction and the trait will die off.

As for your ridiculous question about monkeys breeding with gorillas, like breeds with like. This is seen in even very closely related species. For example, in 1958 Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky were able to produce a new species of fruit fly. Within just a few generations the new species stopped trying to mate with members of the old species. This is a process known as assortative mating.

As for the last part, while the animals may not be planning for the future, they do know which individuals are better suited to their environment. These are the ones that are bringing in more food and are generally just better at surviving. That makes them an ideal mate.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Good statment, we can be stupid figuring out whats healthy for us. Thats because it's not our food.


So does the fact that dogs eat chocolate despite being toxic to them mean that they are not from this planet as well?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I'm really not seeing what's missing here. Drinking milk is not needed at all. It is a preference by our society. Ask the lactose intolerance world if they need milk or not.
Oh I see, all the other 5 million species here on earth rely on milk from there mothers but we don't have to because we are special right?




Then why does some food (which we evolved eating) make us healthy, huh? We only get sick when we eat stuff we didn't evolve eating, such as wheat products and large amounts of sugar.
Well its not just that, but mostly because we eat processed food, its the processed food that is killing us. Yes most basic natural foods are ok for us, given the abuse we endure after processed food it would look like it was meant for us.




Why are you obsessed with trillions of years? You really need to see an illustration of how much a million or a billion years is. It's way more than you seem to think it is.
Well it is a rectumly derived figure. The allowences needed to get us from primates to what we are now, would require that much time IMO. I'm basing the idea on how we haven't evolved at all that we know of since biblical times, which is about 10,000 years.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Okay I guess we need to get into digestion 101 here. When a person consumes food it broken down into it various chemicals, minerals, and nutrients in the stomach. These then pass into the intestines at which point it is absorbed through the walls of the intestines and dispersed into the blood stream. The blood stream then carries these nutrients throughout the body depositing them at various points along the way to help ensure the body continues working at maximum efficiency. One such place is the mammary glands. Here it takes the nutrients and forms them together into the product known as milk. All of the different products that go into making milk are commonly found in almost every food. For example lactose is composed of glucose, which is found in almost everything, and galactose, which can be obtained from just about any plant.

As for your belief that humans are only 10,000 years old you are once again displaying an ignorance of anthropology. As I've said previously we have example of proto-writing that extend back 50,000 years. We have examples of art that extend back 100,000 years. Then there's the fact that we have fossils of Homo sapiens going back at least 160,000 years. So, your belief that humans have only been on Earth for 10,000 years is a complete delusion.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I don't understand how you are still not getting this. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. In fact most mammals, much like humans, stop producing lactase, the chemical that breaks down lactose, once they reach adulthood. Ergo, these other animals are receiving the nutrients necessary to produce milk from somewhere else. That somewhere else is the rest of their diet. Just like humans.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





So does the fact that dogs eat chocolate despite being toxic to them mean that they are not from this planet as well?
If dogs have an unhealthy attraction to chocolate, it means it needs more looking into. If your just being sarcastic, then it depends. Do they have anything better to eat? We manufacture dog food for dogs so what do you think that might mean? Dogs could eat animals, could eat garbage and other things. Is there anything that seems to be a natural food for them? It requires some looking into. It was easy for me to do humans, I'm human you know.

I don't know about most people but when I look at things like this and assumptions have to be made at some point, I like to use a rule of 2 or more. Breaking down each step and not accepting it unless 2 or more things allow it. Sometimes with the whole god was a space alien, I have many counted. I have seven rules that say we have disabled powers and thats no joke.
edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





Okay I guess we need to get into digestion 101 here. When a person consumes food it broken down into it various chemicals, minerals, and nutrients in the stomach. These then pass into the intestines at which point it is absorbed through the walls of the intestines and dispersed into the blood stream. The blood stream then carries these nutrients throughout the body depositing them at various points along the way to help ensure the body continues working at maximum efficiency. One such place is the mammary glands. Here it takes the nutrients and forms them together into the product known as milk. All of the different products that go into making milk are commonly found in almost every food. For example lactose is composed of glucose, which is found in almost everything, and galactose, which can be obtained from just about any plant.


Ok more specifically calcium. Where do you expect her to get the calcium from to feed her baby? Because apparently its such a problem that she even needs to take prenatel vitamins to prevent her teeth from falling out of her mouth.
Shes not going to make calcium out of water.




As for your belief that humans are only 10,000 years old you are once again displaying an ignorance of anthropology. As I've said previously we have example of proto-writing that extend back 50,000 years. We have examples of art that extend back 100,000 years. Then there's the fact that we have fossils of Homo sapiens going back at least 160,000 years. So, your belief that humans have only been on Earth for 10,000 years is a complete delusion.
I never said humans are only 10,000 years old, you might want to read that again. Your examples of humans being here prior to that I believe could have been different civilizations which were also from another planet. Notice how we have this gap of lineage between all of them and us, with nothing to prove our connection. Dont get me wrong they were here, and they were advanced. We intermixed with other species as mentioned in the bible. So when you talk about life before that period thats what I'm thinking of. The commonality of life would tell me that it might be possible for humanoid species alike to produce offspring. Primates are obviously not part of that picture.




top topics



 
31
<< 94  95  96    98  99  100 >>

log in

join