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.

 

Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


My bad, appears their have been Five Extinctions...




hey are known ominously as the Big Five—the five greatest mass extinctions over the past 500 million years, each of which is thought to have annihilated anywhere from 50 to 95 percent of all species on the planet.


*So these happens over the last 500 million years...


Also, regarding the sixth extinction....... (your link)

It's basically saying that we might be on the verge of extinction, in 300 - 2,000 years!!!
Your link, the article, it's not an experiment, it's just an analysys.


Don't you agree that between asteriods, nukes, pollution, over-population, mass-extinction would occur?

BTW, mass-extinction is defined as "75%" of the species dead..... (some) humans will survive, along with around 25% of the species.

After a mass-extinction event, the remaining 25% of the species that survive. as defined in your link, end up evolving specifically because of the mass-extinction event. Many species will find that their predators are gone, and they evolve over a long period, again, as defined by your sources and link!


You say "5 million" species, your source says (25%) so 1.25 million species survive; And they face a bright future where they don't have to worry about predators, and another mass extinction event wont happen for, according to you / your link, another 500mill / 5 = 100 million years...




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





That's a start...now all you need to do is understand the process for what it is, not what you think it should be- to fit your imaginations.
Start with the basics, you will find that through Google.
Once you can understand the basics then we can get into more detail concerning Speciation and other evolutionary processes
You do realize that with 98% of our populas going extinct, its possible that evolution is responsible for creating billions of species. But your still going to take the side that evolution is just a process and not a creator.

Doesn't it seem odd that this process seems to have intention or motivation?


Mass-Extinction, according to your own source / link, is defined as 75% of specicies dead!



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But none of these give us an indication that they are food made for us specifically. We don't rely on any of them, and none of them yeild high nutrients for us.

We CAN rely on any of them. Bananas included. Humans could live off nothing but meat and still be in top physical shape. What you don't understand is that the food does not adapt to the species. The species adapts to the food or it goes extinct. It's always been that way, humans included. Our ability to survive on a large variety of foods is one of the reasons we're still here. The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment. Food isn't designed specifically for any species, although humans are smart enough to manipulate them on a mass scale.



Tell me that food wasn't specifically designed for humans.
edit on 6-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


On a non-Tooth related note;

The pet food companies put something in their food.

If I give my cat two bowls of food, one the tuna, the other




He selects friskies



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




And that would be the key word right there. We are surviving. We aren't thriving,


www.subdude-site.com...
www.j-bradford-delong.net...

So, what does thriving look like? In common parlance a species is considered to be "thriving" when their population is growing. "Surviving" would mean the population is relatively stable. "Declining" would mean that the population is decreasing. So what do you mean when you say "surviving," and what would it look like if our species were "thriving?"
I'd just like to make sure we're all on the same page here.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Don't you agree that between asteriods, nukes, pollution, over-population, mass-extinction would occur?
On the asteroids it depens on if it caused transpermia. Nukes, anything is possible but it's not natural, over population is just another observation that we outlived this tiny little planet that wasn't meant for us to being with. Pollution, is the byproduct of us adapting, which once again all stems from this simply not being our planet.




BTW, mass-extinction is defined as "75%" of the species dead..... (some) humans will survive, along with around 25% of the species
Thats good to know, so read up all you incredulous souls that still believe we evolved.




After a mass-extinction event, the remaining 25% of the species that survive. as defined in your link, end up evolving specifically because of the mass-extinction event. Many species will find that their predators are gone, and they evolve over a long period, again, as defined by your sources and link!
Well they don't evolve, they actually adapt, but evolution has taken the term under its definition without any proof of doing so.




You say "5 million" species, your source says (25%) so 1.25 million species survive; And they face a bright future where they don't have to worry about predators, and another mass extinction event wont happen for, according to you / your link, another 500mill / 5 = 100 million years...
And it could happen this way but I would seriously doubt it, and I'll explalin why.

It appears to be the logical theory of analysis, however your not taking an important thing into consideration. The problem is that to many species actually depend on multiple things to live healthy and eat healthy. Probably the best way I can explain this is to make an example.

We will go back to the sealed fish tank or sealed shrimp tank. It's a sealed tank they sell as a maintenance free device, where all you do is provide sunlight and the shrimp will live. It's because the tank has a chunk of alge in it and the shrimp eats the alge. Now in the wild conditions this shrimp would live to be 20 but in this crude example of a balanced tank he only lives 2 years. The plethora of other life that both the alge and the shrimp would normally come into contact with are missing from this sealed tank, therefore he lives a much shorter life. Now they still sell this as a balanced system, but like it was pointed out to me, its more of a torture tank as it lessens his life severly.

The same would be present with most species at your 1.2 million mark. Species would still be alive, but hardly.and they wouldn't live as long, including humans as I'm sure some of this life would cut into our needs.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Mass-Extinction, according to your own source / link, is defined as 75% of specicies dead!
But according to wiki all of the extinctions combined add up to 98% of all known species becoming extinct.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





We CAN rely on any of them. Bananas included. Humans could live off nothing but meat and still be in top physical shape. What you don't understand is that the food does not adapt to the species. The species adapts to the food or it goes extinct.
Well of course they would go extinct, they would actually die if they had nothing to eat. I think your however missing the point here. It's not about the option of adapting, what I'm saying is that species are not supposed to have to adapt. And what about those that can't or don't know how to adapt? The just die.

Adaptation is an unnatural sign of desperation where a species has to work around a problem. These types of problems aren't normal on a balanced planet.




It's always been that way, humans included. Our ability to survive on a large variety of foods is one of the reasons we're still here. The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment. Food isn't designed specifically for any species, although humans are smart enough to manipulate them on a mass scale.
Well as long as we have been around anyhow. Our ability to adapt is exempt from this understanding, I guess is the best way to explain this. I say that becuase not all species are able to do so, therefore it's not a fair assesment. Thats like saying we are smarter so we get to live while everything else is dumb, so they get to die, and this is fair and normal.




On a non-Tooth related note;

The pet food companies put something in their food.

If I give my cat two bowls of food, one the tuna, the other




He selects friskies
Domesticated cats have no target food, we make food for them, just like dogs.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





So, what does thriving look like? In common parlance a species is considered to be "thriving" when their population is growing. "Surviving" would mean the population is relatively stable. "Declining" would mean that the population is decreasing. So what do you mean when you say "surviving," and what would it look like if our species were "thriving?"
I'd just like to make sure we're all on the same page here.
Well it would be even steeper.

You see that your asking me to predict what life would be like for us, based on some type of educated guess, which is all good, after all it wasn't that I was able to realize that we have all the food we need in comparison to the fact that we are actually missing some food from our menu.

You can piece together the puzzle at least some parts simply be realizing whats missing, and thats where I'm at with this.

Lets narrow your question down, because its a loaded question. The first thing I think about is the quality of life but anything related to any of this is about the quality of our life. I'm going to just pick a subject and focus on that to keep this easy. Food is a good one since we started with that. First of all try to imaging all of the different types of food we eat, and then with each of them, try to imagine the trouble we go through to bring that food to fruition. The cow is a good example. Now we usually start by breeding him because natural stock would run us out of cow. Of course this requires us feeding him, and making sure his health is up to par at all times, he gets vaccinations and hormone shots to beef him up and ready him for market. Now on slaughter day, he is killed and chopped up and everything is seperated, almost no parts go to waste as we have found a use for just about everything.

Now we have to package, and refrigerate, ship, then cook him, to get him to the point that he is etable. I think I'm counting 9 redundant steps just so that we can eat cow. Clearly cow was not meant to be eaten by humans. Now don't confuse this with the fact that we might have to since something else we need is missing from our menu. The fact is, we spend a lot of time and effort and money to get that cow to our table. This is where your quality of life is going down the tubes, your expending so much time and energy to have this, that you could have been using this time for something else. Now its a little more complicated than this, and you don't actually deal with the cow, you work a job and buy the meat, but its the same principle.

On our home plantet you would not have to go through such crazy steps just to eat a meal, and just to show you how wrong it is, thats just what you do for a slice of cow, you don't usually just east a slice of cow, you usually have many other things along with it. So multiply your efforts and look at how your quality of life has gone out the window.

Now this is just a tad bit on food.
Your quality of life is ruined when you try to hold a place to live with heat and AC, all because we can't deal directly with the enviroment. The reason why we don't live out in the woods unprotected and unclothed is because its not OUR woods.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


I wont respond to you heavily cherry picking what I wrote AND, more specifically (and more annoying) you did nothing to answer any of the questions I had and the critiques I had that normal people would address.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Mass-Extinction, according to your own source / link, is defined as 75% of specicies dead!
But according to wiki all of the extinctions combined add up to 98% of all known species becoming extinct.


ALL of the extinctions combined add up to 98%.

EACH of the five extinctions (according to LiveScience), which happened in the last 500 million years, took away 75% Each

Extinction 1 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 2 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 3 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 4 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 5 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 6 - HAS YET TO HAPPEN, HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND IS PREDICTED TO HAPPEN 300-2000 years from now

The human specicies wont disappear; Not counting space colonies and such that we will happen in the future, some humans would survive. (worst case scenario- I'm sure the government(s) have spent our taxpayer dollars to make sure that in case of a mass-extinction event, they and the elites have caves and such to live in lol.)

Tooth, can you provide EVIDENCE for intervention. 5 hundred pages, and you have not provided one bit of evidence.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


All utter non sense.

Every SINGLE creature on this planet has to adapt.

How can you say adapting is bad and is not supposed to be when every single living thing from single celled organism to humans have to adapt?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I think your however missing the point here. It's not about the option of adapting, what I'm saying is that species are not supposed to have to adapt. And what about those that can't or don't know how to adapt? The just die.



No, your missing the point.

Adapting is not an option. If you want to live, you have to adapt.
Those that don't die.

The genes that enables the animal to adapt to passed on; This is part of the process of Evolution.






Adaptation is an unnatural sign of desperation where a species has to work around a problem. These types of problems aren't normal on a balanced planet.



This is utter horsesh!t.

Provide evidence, or else your a lier.



Well as long as we have been around anyhow. Our ability to adapt is exempt from this understanding, I guess is the best way to explain this. I say that becuase not all species are able to do so, therefore it's not a fair assesment. Thats like saying we are smarter so we get to live while everything else is dumb, so they get to die, and this is fair and normal.


You do not understand.

Evoltuion is a PROCESS. It does NOT FAIL, and does NOT SUCCEDE.

Do you understand this?

Evolution is NOT what you, or I, want it to be. It IS what it IS, and scientists that have spent their entire lives working and providing not only proof of evolution but actually practical applications of evolution, those people get to define what evolution is.

Many of the math / science people go into banking type industries because it's way more lucrative.

Scientists that work on biology and evolution and, hell, even scientists at CERN, they get paid very little compared to what their skills would bring at a bank. Yet they sacrafice all that yet I bet you think they are all corrupt without even meeting any.




Domesticated cats have no target food, we make food for them, just like dogs.

NOBODY HAS TARGET FOOD, BECAUSE YOU MADE UP THE TERM "TARGET FOOD," THUS "TARGET FOOD" DOES NOT EXIST.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You're right Itsthetooth. Things would be so much easier if we stuck with out target food, like the anteater. Then each and every one of us would spend the vast majority of our waking time gathering and eating food. Wiki says the average giant anteater visits around 200 ant/termite nests per day, with approximately 1 minute ate each nest. Hmm, over 3 hours of pure eating, plus all that time walking from nest to nest, listening and smelling for ants, etc etc, over and over. That's a rough day!

Or we could could keep our massively complicated redundancies that somehow conspire to make us the fastest and most efficient food preparers on the planet. How long did you spend preparing and eating that cow today? Only about 15% of the people in this country work in the food industry, and the average person spends about 2 hours preparing and eating their own food per day. Then we can spend all that time we aren't using on food to do other things, like relax, and make up words on the internet. Maybe there are some advantages amidst all that farming, raising, packaging, freezing, shipping, and cooking? Maybe that's why we its so much easier for us to get our nutrition from unnatural, redundantly prepared and processed food than it is for an anteater to get his from his target food?

Oh, and tell all those super supplement stores they don't have to go out of business just yet, it seems that the San Francisco Zoo supplements its anteater food with vitamins and minerals,


At the Zoo, the anteaters are fed a diet of commercially-prepared insectivore kibble, occasional bananas or avocado, hard-boiled eggs, vitamins and a mineral mix.
www.sfzoo.org...

and yet ant eaters in captivity live longer than in the wild. Wierd.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
11 pages about a made up word that has ZERO scientific significance...wow



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





I wont respond to you heavily cherry picking what I wrote AND, more specifically (and more annoying) you did nothing to answer any of the questions I had and the critiques I had that normal people would address.
Confusion42, I'm so sorry about that. I didn't notice any question marks so I just thought you were venting. Sometimes I haven't had my coffee for the day, and I'm sure sometimes I'm answering but in a complex was as you have to understand intervention to get my answers.

I'll take another wack at it here, and just hope this is the post your referring to......




We CAN rely on any of them. Bananas included.
I'm assuming your talking about fruit in general at first. We can't rely on any of them as none of them are a main required portion of our diet. We would not die if fruit disappeared off the face of the earth but these things can be really tuff to figure out. Another way to realize this is that fruit is not a high portion of out daily diet, or at least it doesn't have to be.




Humans could live off nothing but meat and still be in top physical shape.
I like this, as I myself am a big meat eater. I can have cupboard full of other food but if there is no meat to eat with it, as far as I'm concearned I'm out of food. It's interesting you say this because if you did in fact eat an all meat diet, your kidneys would shut down, and you would be in pretty bad shape. Asain people eat little to no meat and have a 1% heart disease rate while americans demand lots of meat in thier diet and suffer from 60% heart related disease. This however is NOT proof relating to our subject because on our home planet there could be the perfect meat that yeilds no heart disease. I like to go by looking at our teeth. I don't think there is evidence that we have teeth to support meat eating. Our canines look more like to tear medium range fruit of sorts. However, here is where things get really interesting. We have a gall bladder, and the gall bladder is a certain size. It's function is simple, and I only know so much about this because I had to have mine removed. It stores a bile that is nothing more than liquid salt. Anytime you eat a meal that is oily, it sends a generous amount just after your stomach to break up the oil which would allow your intestines to process the meal. Anytime you put salt on an oily meal it will break up the oil like Dawn dish soap.

Keep in mind we are doing a lot of guessing here because we don't know for sure what type of food we have on our home planet but based on what we have here on earth, it would appear that the gall bladder is more of help with meat. Granted some vegitables have oil but its not nearly in the amounts that meat has nor does it justify the size of the gall bladder. Now the highest oil yeilding fruit and veggi that I know of is the avocado, but even then, you still have way more gall bladder.

Your wrong for sure, humans CANT live off meat.




What you don't understand is that the food does not adapt to the species. The species adapts to the food or it goes extinct.
So what if a species if the food, does it no longer evolve? I noticed a mistake you made here, you claimed that food does not adapt, of course if it were a species it might be able to. I think its very important that you understand that there is a very big difference between adapting and evolving. Evolution takes place on a molecular level, adaptation is something would occur from something failing to evolve. I guess that depends on if you believe that all evolutionary changes are positive or not. The bottom line is if something evolved the way it was suppose to, it wouldn't have to adapt. Adaptation is a work around to evoution failing.

So to answer your question, you have to first answer if your example is a species, and why it would be exempt from evolving.




It's always been that way, humans included. Our ability to survive on a large variety of foods is one of the reasons we're still here.
Well yes, you are correct here, its a no brainer that the only reason we are still alive is our ability to adapt. You have to realize however that your quality of life goes down the tubes when you have to realy on adaptation to survive. You might want to check out a recent post I made about that exact subject. The quality of life is always how we will pay.




The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment.
I dissagree with this based on the fact that humans haven't evolved along with any of the foods we eat, in fact its actually gone the other direction to the point that we have had to alter our food and make processed food for the lack of evolution.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment.
I'm an equal opportunity believer, so if you claim that evolution applied to he ant eater in making him evolve into his food, you need to also explain why this hasent happened to us.




Food isn't designed specifically for any species, although humans are smart enough to manipulate them on a mass scale.
Well this is where we differ in our understanding. It's not hard to realize that NOTHING can live without balance or supply of needs. The things that throwing you off is your weighing a lot of importance on the ability to adapt. What I'm saying is throw that out the window for the moment so that you can better see all of the life on this planet as a whole, seeing how not everything has the ability to adapt. Now its a fair analysis. If species didn't have the option to adapt, what they are left with is the cold hard facts. There is no way that a fine tuned process like eovlution that is responsible for possibly billions of species would do what it does, when there is no food at the end of the tunnel. There is no denying it, there is intention and motivation behind the results. You call it a process, I call it creation. The end result is billions of species are created.

So you see, you have to be wrong because there is no way that a spcies can survive without food. Now you can assume that a species is just going to eat what ever, you can even narrow it down to food groups but the bottom line is there is some sort of intention behind all of this, and there must be some sort of static food specified and specific for each species.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





ALL of the extinctions combined add up to 98%.

EACH of the five extinctions (according to LiveScience), which happened in the last 500 million years, took away 75% Each

Extinction 1 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 2 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 3 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 4 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 5 - 75% Of Species Die (a loss)
25% Of Species Survive
The Surviving Species Evolve (a gain)

Extinction 6 - HAS YET TO HAPPEN, HAS NOT HAPPENED, AND IS PREDICTED TO HAPPEN 300-2000 years from now



Most extinctions have occurred naturally, prior to Homo sapiens walking on Earth: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





Tooth, can you provide EVIDENCE for intervention. 5 hundred pages, and you have not provided one bit of evidence.
Evidence? I can do better than that, the bible is filled with proof we aren't from here.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




If that were true, we woudln't have super mega suppliment stores, as we would have adapted to the food we have and it would be fitting. If we would have adapted to the food we eat we wouldn't struggle with diets, and diebetes, and IBS, and chrones disease, and need dieticians. There is a plethora of proof that our food wasn't meant for us. I don't know that target food was intelligently designed but I know its mandatory for balance. And yes only the strong survive, but when you see desperation acts like that its only because things are out of balance and that is not natural. If we are suppose to evolve like you say or adapt to the food we have then why did we go from drinking raw cows milk to now having to pasturize, homogenize and fortify it? It's backwards, and almost everything in our food agenda is like that.


Actually, it's probably BECAUSE of the unnatural things we do to our food and have done to our food in RECENT history that has caused this, from pasteurization and homogenization ridding milk of not only the bad bacteria, but the good ones we NEED, GMOs -- having genetically modified our food source(s), application of hormones in livestock like steroids and the like, preservatives, all manner of chemicals added to enhance flavor -- you name it. We are getting SICKER because we are CHANGING our food, not because the food is not our "target" food. We have not yet adapted to this new wave of foods that we are consuming, consisting of chemicals and whatnot that we are not used to. And yes, plants ARE a better source of calcium than milk. Broccoli for one is VERY high in calcium....
edit on 7-8-2012 by AsherahoftheSea because: Added quote for reference

edit on 7-8-2012 by AsherahoftheSea because: Sorry still learning the ropes here...



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





All utter non sense.

Every SINGLE creature on this planet has to adapt.

How can you say adapting is bad and is not supposed to be when every single living thing from single celled organism to humans have to adapt?
First off I totally understand your confusion. Here is what will clear this up for you. Evolution is a NATURAL process, adaptation is not. Evolution occurs at the molecular level, adaptation does not.




top topics



 
6
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join