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: 98
31
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Read this:

www.yogatherapyweb.com...

Calcium is not actually necessary from dairy products. We get better sources from green plants, seeds, and almonds.




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Read this:

www.yogatherapyweb.com...

Calcium is not actually necessary from dairy products. We get better sources from green plants, seeds, and almonds.


Nice link. Reading this, it makes you wonder why we wern't onto this from the getgo. It's a complex problem. I don't totally agree with the findings however. What I mean is if it were that simple how come our instinct didn't direct us in the right path. Our diet is very complex and seeing how taking in meat combats dairy could be a big piece of this puzzle. The problem is that it gets more complicated than just this. Why did we feel the need to eat meat to begin with. Let me offer some reasons that I would say are BS right off the bat.
It's easier.
It's cheaper.
It's quicker.
It's healthier.

The reason why we are eating meat is because there is something that is lacking in our diet otherwise.
I guess there is no way to argue with marketing tactics, on the flip side.
Almonds and orange juice will not render as much calcium as milk does, and even if it did, your saying we were all intended to live soley in those regions where they grow. We can't all live in florida. You can see this problem is very complex but by breaking it down step by step I have always come up with the same conclusion. We aren't from here. I had this exact same conversation with a close friend of mine about almonds and orange juice about a year ago.
edit on 5-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


i just eat meat because its tasty. i dont think i should feel any guilt about eating it because it keeps me alive.



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I'm finding a site here that claims that our calcium needs actually goes up with age, not down.

www.fatfreekitchen.com...

I'm seeing on this site that the top producers of calcium are cheese on pizza, sardines, buffalo milk, and yogurt. Fruits and veggies are not adding up in your argument. They don't even offer 1/2 what dairy does.

It explains why we still continue to use it.
Of course we could eat twice the tested amount of veggies. Sardines are probably the highest yeilding and still natural. Were we destined to sit by the shore and trap sardines? You have to keep in mind that some people tell me hey life is hard deal with it. Thats not the point here. I'm not saying feeding us should be easy, but the trouble you have to go through to get sardines makes me wonder if it was an intended food. Again it would a lot more accesable and a tad easier if it was.
edit on 6-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by vjr1113
 





i just eat meat because its tasty. i dont think i should feel any guilt about eating it because it keeps me alive.
Well I have always understood that protien is needed to survive. There are arguments that there are alternatives. Choosing so of course puts you on a very scary course for sickness, and you need to make sure your still getting what you need.

Since I believe we aren't from this planet, the question comes up if we are even suppose to eat meat. Looking at our teeth, I would almost say no. However we do have a gall bladder and it is a necessity for processing foods with oil. Nuts would have oil and fish would have oil and avocado. Of course all meats do too. When you say you don't feel guilty I think about people that say meat is murder. I can see however that we do need it. Is it possible that once again our need for protien is easier met though meat because something is needed is missing? I think so
edit on 6-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Read this:

www.yogatherapyweb.com...

Calcium is not actually necessary from dairy products. We get better sources from green plants, seeds, and almonds.
I was trying to respond to this earlier but think I replied to a different one. I found a site saying fruits and veggeis are not better sources.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

Unless I am mistaken cows eat grass. Never seen an adult cow drink milk so that it can produce milk, Full fat milk at that. It is not magic it is biology.

We have only been here for 10,000 years? Have you ever done a search for oldest human remains?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did you read the part about needing to have a good source of magnesium in order to absorb the calcium. Drinking milk is pointless if you don't have enough magnesium. You're just arguing a pointless battle now. For 99% of our evolution, we did not drink milk in our adulthood.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well I just don't think we were suppose to eat grass, sorry. We are bipeds.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Well I just don't think we were suppose to eat grass, sorry. We are bipeds.


No dip, eh? We are meant to eat meat and scavenge for vegetation and the occasional fruits (such as berries). When we do those things, we are healthy. It is only modern society which has developed past our natural eating habits and activity which is making us sick. Normally, we are supposed to be a lot more active and eat very different things which we would find in the wild.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Read this:

www.yogatherapyweb.com...

Calcium is not actually necessary from dairy products. We get better sources from green plants, seeds, and almonds.


Nice link. Reading this, it makes you wonder why we wern't onto this from the getgo. It's a complex problem. I don't totally agree with the findings however. What I mean is if it were that simple how come our instinct didn't direct us in the right path. Our diet is very complex and seeing how taking in meat combats dairy could be a big piece of this puzzle. The problem is that it gets more complicated than just this. Why did we feel the need to eat meat to begin with. Let me offer some reasons that I would say are BS right off the bat.
It's easier.
It's cheaper.
It's quicker.
It's healthier.

The reason why we are eating meat is because there is something that is lacking in our diet otherwise.


They're called essential fatty acids, along with protein, and they are the reason our brains increased so much in size.

The Agricultural Revolution gave us plant species that are different from the wild grains we'd been eating for 100,000 years. Our metabolisms STILL haven't caught up to that. We drastically increased our consumption of carbohydrates that our bodies weren't, and still aren't, used to.

The meat from domesticated livestock that we eat now is an awful lot different than the wild game our ancestors ate. It is higher in fat because the animals aren't as active as their wild counterparts. Also, grain-fed livestock produces the worst meat of all. Meat from grassfed livestock is similar in composition and nutritional value to wild game.

Meat--specifically red meat--is very high not only in EFA's and protein, but in the B vitamins as well.

Look, we have canine teeth for a reason. We are carnivores. Or omnivores.


I guess there is no way to argue with marketing tactics, on the flip side.
Almonds and orange juice will not render as much calcium as milk does, and even if it did, your saying we were all intended to live soley in those regions where they grow.


Milk nowadays is calcium-fortified. Raw milk, which is what our ancestors would have consumed, actually has more calcium in it than the processed stuff we drink now. Also, the lower the fat content of the milk, the higher the calcium content. So skim milk has more calcium than whole milk.

Pasteurizing is a question of nutrition vs. safety. Which would you rather have?

Also, there's no evidence that lactose intolerance has any detrimental effect on the nutritional status of the people it affects most. In dairy-consuming regions, it's the main source of calcium and B12, but there are other sources as well, so most of them aren't nutritionally compromised unless they have congenital lactose intolerance. Before the 20th century infants born with it didn't usually survive beyond infancy because breast milk has a very high lactose content, but if you give them soy products they do just fine.

Look, we make vitamin D naturally via sunlight. Without vitamin D, the whole discussion of calcium is moot.

What it comes down to is this: We don't eat a good enough variety of foods. It's that simple. You can't live on processed foods and expect to meet all of your nutritional requirements. Ain't gonna happen. Certain foods, like carbonated soft drinks and very high protein diets (like Atkins and South Beach) deplete calcium from the diet--it throws off the Ca/P ratio. Other things, like high sodium diets and caffeine, block calcium absorption. Our ancestors didn't have McDonald's and Burger King. They ate what they needed to eat and no more, unlike us.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Well I just don't think we were suppose to eat grass, sorry. We are bipeds.

Are you having a laugh? You must be as that cannot be a serious answer.

Nowhere did I say we need to eat grass. I pointed out after you said other animals need to drink milk to produce milk that a cow eats grass, a few herbs and maybe an unlucky worm or two and produces full fat milk.

Lions eat meat and produce milk but I would not fancy milking one.

FYI Kangaroos are herbivores and bipeds so being bipedal does not mean 'you do not eat grass'.

It does raise a question you may want to address. Why do so many mammals produce milk to feed their young including us when you insist we dont even come from this planet?



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Did you read the part about needing to have a good source of magnesium in order to absorb the calcium. Drinking milk is pointless if you don't have enough magnesium. You're just arguing a pointless battle now. For 99% of our evolution, we did not drink milk in our adulthood.


Good post. We're the only mammals who drink milk after the age of weaning.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.


The only women who do not produce enough milk for their children are those who are near death from starvation. Our bodies will deplete our reserves first and shortchange us in order to feed the children.

She doesn't need to consume milk herself. Lactation is driven by hormones, not milk intake.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





Read this:

www.yogatherapyweb.com...

Calcium is not actually necessary from dairy products. We get better sources from green plants, seeds, and almonds.

Nice link. Reading this, it makes you wonder why we wern't onto this from the getgo. It's a complex problem. I don't totally agree with the findings however. What I mean is if it were that simple how come our instinct didn't direct us in the right path. Our diet is very complex and seeing how taking in meat combats dairy could be a big piece of this puzzle. The problem is that it gets more complicated than just this. Why did we feel the need to eat meat to begin with. Let me offer some reasons that I would say are BS right off the bat.
It's easier.
It's cheaper.
It's quicker.
It's healthier.
It's easier if you have the tools and skills to hunt. We have or at least we did have.
It's cheaper does not mean a lot to a hunter gatherer but if you mean you use less energy than the food you hunt costs then it is 'cheaper' when it's around.
It's quicker. A hunter gatherer takes advantage of the source of food that is available.
It's healthier. Only if it is part of a varied diet.



The reason why we are eating meat is because there is something that is lacking in our diet otherwise. I guess there is no way to argue with marketing tactics, on the flip side.
Nope. The reason we eat meat is because for us it is part of our diet. We began eating bone marrow we scavenged from other animals kills. Because (our alien hands came in usefull here) we used tools, all be it a rock to break the large bones other animals could not.

That gave us a source of high protien food we had to do little work to get (cheap) which in turn fed our brains developement and we moved from scavengers to hunters.



Almonds and orange juice will not render as much calcium as milk does, and even if it did, your saying we were all intended to live soley in those regions where they grow. We can't all live in florida.
He gave you examples not an exclusive list



You can see this problem is very complex but by breaking it down step by step I have always come up with the same conclusion. We aren't from here
Problem is you always come up with a really illogical conclusion whilst rejecting the obvious one.


I had this exact same conversation with a close friend of mine about almonds and orange juice about a year ago.[
I think I can guess how that went



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





No dip, eh? We are meant to eat meat and scavenge for vegetation and the occasional fruits (such as berries). When we do those things, we are healthy. It is only modern society which has developed past our natural eating habits and activity which is making us sick. Normally, we are supposed to be a lot more active and eat very different things which we would find in the wild.
But we never realize why this has happened at all. Some say for money, for protien, for convenience. One thing is for sure, what ever the reason(s) are, we go to great lenghts to include these things in our diet. There are even parasits in meat, yet we once again, adapt by working around that too. Had we of evolved, our body would have grown new organs to process this meat rather then us relying on our brains to adapt ways to process it. Anytime we have to adapt or process, its time to open your eyes to everything thats going on around the situation.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

"It", appears out of nowhere... into outer space .....[][
edit on 6-12-2011 by nii900 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





They're called essential fatty acids, along with protein, and they are the reason our brains increased so much in size.

The Agricultural Revolution gave us plant species that are different from the wild grains we'd been eating for 100,000 years. Our metabolisms STILL haven't caught up to that. We drastically increased our consumption of carbohydrates that our bodies weren't, and still aren't, used to.

The meat from domesticated livestock that we eat now is an awful lot different than the wild game our ancestors ate. It is higher in fat because the animals aren't as active as their wild counterparts. Also, grain-fed livestock produces the worst meat of all. Meat from grassfed livestock is similar in composition and nutritional value to wild game.

Meat--specifically red meat--is very high not only in EFA's and protein, but in the B vitamins as well.

Look, we have canine teeth for a reason. We are carnivores. Or omnivores.
I think the mere fact we have to breed our meat is a heads up that we are forcing mother nature to fill our needs. It's another form of adaptation, and not evolution.

It's important to realize that if evolution were real, your dead ended with one big problem for sure. How is it that each planet is suppose to be a balanced eco system with things just randomly changing. Unless they all change together. This picture started out impossible and now your just throwing numbers into the wind. If a species was able to evolve into another species, whats it suppose to eat? How do you know there will be food here for it?




Milk nowadays is calcium-fortified. Raw milk, which is what our ancestors would have consumed, actually has more calcium in it than the processed stuff we drink now. Also, the lower the fat content of the milk, the higher the calcium content. So skim milk has more calcium than whole milk.
I'm assuming your talking about cows milk here because moms breast isn't fortified. You will never convince me that humans are suppose to drink cows milk.

What has happened here is what I said earlier, we got dumped here, we were given some things to help us get by. Thats it. We drink cows milk because something we need is not available in a more natural way.




Pasteurizing is a question of nutrition vs. safety. Which would you rather have?
Neither, its just adaptation.




Also, there's no evidence that lactose intolerance has any detrimental effect on the nutritional status of the people it affects most. In dairy-consuming regions, it's the main source of calcium and B12, but there are other sources as well, so most of them aren't nutritionally compromised unless they have congenital lactose intolerance. Before the 20th century infants born with it didn't usually survive beyond infancy because breast milk has a very high lactose content, but if you give them soy products they do just fine.
I know that, its just another valid point that we aren't suppose to be drinking it.




Look, we make vitamin D naturally via sunlight. Without vitamin D, the whole discussion of calcium is moot.
True but not calcium.




What it comes down to is this: We don't eat a good enough variety of foods. It's that simple. You can't live on processed foods and expect to meet all of your nutritional requirements. Ain't gonna happen. Certain foods, like carbonated soft drinks and very high protein diets (like Atkins and South Beach) deplete calcium from the diet--it throws off the Ca/P ratio. Other things, like high sodium diets and caffeine, block calcium absorption. Our ancestors didn't have McDonald's and Burger King. They ate what they needed to eat and no more, unlike us.
Fast food places only exist due to the intensive time and labor we go through just to prepare a meal. There isn't anything else on this planet that goest through what we go through just to eat a meal. A hamburger is made up of several differnt things, but just follow the meat. He's bred, stuffed full of hormones, and salughtered, processed, packaged, shipped, unpackaged, cooked and finally eaten. Make sure you wash your hands throughout this process as well.

If your still blind to whats going on at this point I don't know what to tell you. We are redundantly going out of our way to make this happen. From a lions view, he just hunts, kills and eats. He never uses soap to wash his hands either. He fits in here. On our home planet, we might never have to wash our hands because we are not a virus out of our element. Certainly we would never use soap.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you having a laugh? You must be as that cannot be a serious answer.

Nowhere did I say we need to eat grass. I pointed out after you said other animals need to drink milk to produce milk that a cow eats grass, a few herbs and maybe an unlucky worm or two and produces full fat milk.
Someone had made a comment that grass is a good source of calcium as though we can skip the cow and get it from there. I'm sold on us not meant to drink cows milk.




Lions eat meat and produce milk but I would not fancy milking one.
Her kittens do it all the time.




FYI Kangaroos are herbivores and bipeds so being bipedal does not mean 'you do not eat grass'.
It was just an unsupported observation which in part came from the bible.




It does raise a question you may want to address. Why do so many mammals produce milk to feed their young including us when you insist we dont even come from this planet?
Because we aren't able to make our own milk.




top topics



 
31
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join