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: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

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



"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."


Nope, for evolution to occur, adaptation is a MUST. You forget the basic Primal Programming that exists within all species that we call "instinct" and instinct dictates that a creature be driven to survive at all costs, hence adaptation is a part of its process. If the animal refuses to change its behaviors to adapt, it dies off.
edit on 7-8-2012 by AsherahoftheSea because: Sorry took a min to find out why that one turned out so funny




posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 





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 a an ability and its not occuring at the molecular level like evolution.

Now granted if you look up the definition of evolution, on wiki, you will see a section written by an evolutionist claiming that adaptation is actually part of evolution. However if you look up the actually definition of adaptation, you will see that its an ability. So evolution just conveniently claiimed that adaptation happens to be part of evolution, wihtout actually giving any proof as to how or why.


ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.

www.google.com...=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=conveniently%20defin&cp=3&gs_id=2a&xhr=t&q=adaptation+definition&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=ada+defi nition&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f24798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541

Claiming that adaptation is part of evolution is like saying that our actions are part 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.
Probably the best proof is the fact that not all species have the ability to adapt, at least not to the degree that humans do anyhow. So in other words what your basically saying here is that only the smart get to live and thats just perfectly normal and how things were planned out.




You do not understand.

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

Do you understand this?
Of course I do, but I have been told by others on here that eovlution only keeps the positive changes as well.




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.
And what exactly is that? If it is indeed responsible for evolving over a billion unique species, I would surely call it a creator. It's obvious to me that evolution was just a series of theorys made to take place of any religion. In the process do it in such a way to omitt the idea that there even could be a creator. But at over a billion species its pretty hard to say its not a creator. Now just so that we are on the same page, a creator doesn't have to be a person, it can be a process, or a thing, just like evolution. And at over a billion species, it surely qualifies for such a title. Aside from the creation aspect, I haven't heard about any thing else that evolution does, so again its pretty fitting.




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.
I wouldn't say they are corrupt, but I'll bet when they find changes they automatically call them evolution.




NOBODY HAS TARGET FOOD, BECAUSE YOU MADE UP THE TERM "TARGET FOOD," THUS "TARGET FOOD" DOES NOT EXIST.
I woudln't say nobody, but it is pretty few and far between. Your only having a problem seeing it because it's not in abundance.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





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!
But you can't compare how much time they spend to what we should spend. Now look at it this way. Lets say mr anteater lost his supply of ants, and termites, since they are almost one in the same to the anteater. As a result he has to adapt by venturing off his menu. Now first of all we are assuming he will know how to do this, he might not, lets assume. So lets say the next food in line for him as a replacement of insects is bumble bees. I know this sounds rediculous but its just an example. So he is going to target bumble bees as his next source of insects. Now he has to climb a tree that he never used to have to do, which also takes longer then digging out ant farms, and he also has to now deal with getting stung like crazy, as the bees attack him. In addition the bees as it turns out, are not an exact replacment in terms of nutrition so now his health is suffering a little too. In addition for some reason the bees aren't as filling so he needs to eat more of them, which requires even more work. Now you should be realizing the importance of target food.




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?
Depends on what all your considering. Are you asking how much time was spent to get the cow to that point, or just what I spent? I have to pay for the time I don't have invested in getting the cow to the table, but I would think it would be hundreds of hours otherwise.




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.
Exactly, and whats better for the quality of life, spending 2 hours for preparation or not having to?




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?
There is nothing easy about redundancy.




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,
The question is, is that just a precaution?




and yet ant eaters in captivity live longer than in the wild. Wierd.
Well this is complicated but if the vitamins are replacing something they aren't getting from what I hope is a natural diet, that would be why.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





I woudln't say nobody, but it is pretty few and far between. Your only having a problem seeing it because it's not in abundance.


Tooth, repeat after me:

TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!

Just like pixie dust doesn't exist



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





11 pages about a made up word that has ZERO scientific significance...wow
What do you mean zero, don't you believe that every species is going to have proper food to eat?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I find your lack of acknowledgement for my arguments disturbing...



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 





Nope, for evolution to occur, adaptation is a MUST. You forget the basic Primal Programming that exists within all species that we call "instinct" and instinct dictates that a creature be driven to survive at all costs, hence adaptation is a part of its process. If the animal refuses to change its behaviors to adapt, it dies off.
But adaptation is an ability, and not all species have this ability, so your basically saying since everything is collapsing right now, its survival of the fittest and only the smartest will survive, and its supposed to be that way.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 





But adaptation is an ability, and not all species have this ability, so your basically saying since everything is collapsing right now, its survival of the fittest and only the smartest will survive, and its supposed to be that way.


I fail to see how species are showing some inherent lack of ability to adapt. What I see is humanity killing off everything -- everything. Humanity is the reason everything is out of balance, not something lacking in diet, or lack of ability to adapt -- it's self-important "we were created in God's image" egotistical humanity killing themselves and everything.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Tooth, repeat after me:

TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!

Just like pixie dust doesn't exist
First of all pixi dust does exist, its that dust from eating pixi sticks.

Target food is as real as all of the life on this planet. They all had to have something to eat. Do you really think they just eat whatever? Your basing your judgement on our eating standards which I'm sorry to day are not a fair example as we don't have our food here.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If that were true we wouldn't be plagued with super supplement stores and diets, and dieticians, and the plethora of food related sickness that we do have. Instead its the opposite and we keep adding food to our menu as though we are in search of a better food.

Supplements have nothing to do with my point. Some people prefer to supplement vitamins rather than get them naturally. It certainly isn't required for survival or an ideal diet. Human's are intelligent and analyze everything. Don't fault evolution for capitalism. The fact that people have studied our diets and what the healthiest foods are, shows we are most certainly from Earth since we can get all essential vitamins and nutrients through nature.



And that would be the key word right there. We are surviving. We aren't thriving, and we obviously aren't as healthy from the choices that are available. If I'm wrong that you need to contact all the suppliment stores and let them know they have no reason to be in business and also contact all the deiticians and doctors to let them know that our diet is perfectly fine.

7 billion people speak otherwise. Yes, humans are thriving. We are reproducing faster than we are dying. That is the definition of a successful species. Supplements & dieticians = straw mans, nothing to do with target food, and more to do with customer demand and the quest for knowledge.



I'm an equal opportunity believer. If your going to preach about how well the ant eater evolved into eating ants, then you should have no problem explaining what we evolved into eating. Surely out of all of the food we eat, we had to evolved into something.

Nobody's preaching here. What do you mean explain what we are evolving into eating. I can't predict the future, but you can analyze the past. Look at early hominid diets. Look at most primate diets. There's lots of comparing and analyzing to do, if you are genuinely interested in this and not just trolling. The evolutionary process takes millions of years. If we can survive off a certain food(s), we will never change our diet. If a big event happens and we get pushed into a harsh environment without food readily available we will either change our diet and survive eating something else, or die out.

Nutrients are nutrients, they aren't limited to types of food. They are in tons of foods, which is why we can easily live off of tons of different foods. Chimps and Gorillas do as well, athough Gorillas eat more veggies and less fruits than Chimps, but they both still get all their nutrients. They eat insects, fruits, seeds, flowers, nuts, and leaves. Their diet can change on a monthly basis depending on circumstances but they are still fine. The bottom line is that many foods contain similar nutrients and many of them are ideal for a physically fit individual and can be obtained naturally. So how are they not target foods as defined by you? Are chimps and gorillas not from here as well, since they eat a large variety of foods as well?



Obviously food that has to be treated and processed for eating was NOT intended for humans to eat it.

It's actually the exact opposite. The food is "treated and processed" precisely for humans to eat it. Humans like convenience, hence we buy processed foods. Either way we are still getting the essential nutrients to thrive. According to your definition of target food, the food has to be intended for a species, and that can of tuna shows exactly that. So why is that not considered a target food? Why is meat not considered a target food? You haven't yet answered that question.


Food that has to be cooked, to protect us from getting sick, was obviously not intended for us to eat.

Tuna and many other types of fish can be eaten raw, as can many things in nature and still provide a perfectly healthy diet. We cook because we are smart. Homo erectus cooked 1 million years ago and we've been doing it ever since. Cooking food was around before homo sapiens were.
edit on 7-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Supplements have nothing to do with my point. Some people prefer to supplement vitamins rather than get them naturally. It certainly isn't required for survival or an ideal diet.
Supplements were invented because its very hard to hit all of your needs with any carful diet.




Human's are intelligent and analyze everything. Don't fault evolution for capitalism. The fact that people have studied our diets and what the healthiest foods are, shows we are most certainly from here since we can get all essential vitamins and nutrients through nature.
You totally dropped the ball here, you see if it were actually our food in the first place, we wouldn't have to study it.




7 billion people speak otherwise. Yes, humans are thriving. We are reproducing faster than we are dying. That is the definition of a successful species. Supplements & dieticians = straw mans, nothing to do with target food, and more to do with customer demand and the quest for knowledge.
That depends on if or not you think we are hitting marks that consider us to be thriving. We might be growing in population but we might grow much faster if more things were right.




Nobody's preaching here. What do you mean explain what we are evolving into eating. I can't predict the future, but you can analyze the past.
You looked into the past with anteaters and made an assertation that they evolved into eating ants and termites, so do the same for us, what did we evolve into eating?




Look at early hominid diets. Look at most primate diets. There's lots of comparing and analyzing to do, if you are genuinely interested in this and not just trolling. The evolutionary process takes millions of years.
And see the strawman arguement in that is that if that was such a good diet, why did we leave it?




If we can survive off a certain food(s), we will never change our diet.
Target food works the same way except it requires no suppliments to hit good allowences and you don't have to worryy about the food not being nutritious. With everything we eat right now, its a maze of possibilities. Granted none of this is from our target food missing, its from all of the food we were given in the bible, excluding our target food.




If a big event happens and we get pushed into a harsh environment without food readily available we will either change our diet and survive eating something else, or die out.
This is just common sense, but what I'm saying is there is no proof that this is natural aside from the fact that we are guilty of it. Keeping in mind most of the things we do on this planet are considered unnatural.




Nutrients are nutrients, they aren't limited to types of food.
True, but your not going to be healthy on an abundance of apples and pears.



They are in tons of foods, which is why we can easily live off of tons of different foods. Chimps and Gorillas do as well, athough Gorillas eat more veggies and less fruits than Chimps, but they both still get all their nutrients. They eat insects, fruits, seeds, flowers, nuts, and leaves. Their diet can change on a monthly basis but they are still fine. The bottom line is that many foods contain similar nutrients and many of them are ideal for a physically fit individual and can be obtained naturally. So how are they not target foods as defined by you?
Its very technical, you see not all basic food types are all the same, there are some difference, and that difference is where your quality of life or redundant adaptation lies.




It's actually the exact opposite. The food is "treated and processed" precisely for humans to eat it.
Ok let me rephrase that, its not naturaly intended food when its processed. Processing is not natural, its a man made step....


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".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=620hUILmDdOHqwG40YCQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f2 4798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541




Humans like convenience, hence we buy processed foods.
Of course we do, its something greatly lacking from us always having to adapt to make things work. It real simple you see, more steps more work, the less quality of life.




Either way we are still getting the essential nutrients to thrive.
In comparison to target food, you would obviously be wrong. You just admitted yourself that we yearn for convenience.




According to your definition of tar



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





According to your definition of target food, the food has to be intended for a species, and that can of tuna shows exactly that. So why is that not considered a target food? Why is meat not considered a target food? You haven't yet answered that question.
The nine or more unnatural steps that it takes to get meat to your plate, including cooking prove that its not a natural food. Target foods are natural, and don't require process. Cooking alone is a process. So unless we are supposed to eat meat raw, NO.




Tuna and many other types of fish can be eaten raw, as can many things in nature and still provide a perfectly healthy diet. We cook because it tastes better in most cases.

But we don't because the parasites that are associated are kind of a clue that the risk is pretty heavy just to eat something.

There is nothing ideal about health damaging food.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Supplements were invented because its very hard to hit all of your needs with any carful diet.

Proof? Supplements weren't invented, they were discovered. And you are quite wrong. I fill all of my nutritional needs with my daily diet. Why don't you?




The fact that people have studied our diets and what the healthiest foods are, shows we are most certainly from here since we can get all essential vitamins and nutrients through nature.
You totally dropped the ball here, you see if it were actually our food in the first place, we wouldn't have to study it.

That's BS and you know it. We study things because we're intelligent, it improves our knowledge, and benefits us as a result. It's one of the reasons for 7 billion people in the world.



That depends on if or not you think we are hitting marks that consider us to be thriving. We might be growing in population but we might grow much faster if more things were right.

Right now, we are growing way too fast if anything. If things were right it would slowly be increasing, not exponentially increasing. Name a single other species on earth that grows as fast as humans. You are making an assumption that things aren't right, based on target food which is the same for humans as it is for most apes based on nutrition.



Look at early hominid diets. Look at most primate diets. There's lots of comparing and analyzing to do, if you are genuinely interested in this and not just trolling. The evolutionary process takes millions of years.
And see the strawman arguement in that is that if that was such a good diet, why did we leave it?
You are assuming that we ever changed our diet, although when we were living in the wild, our diet probably changed on a weekly / monthly basis. If you want to learn about this, you are welcome to do the research.



Target food works the same way except it requires no suppliments to hit good allowences and you don't have to worryy about the food not being nutritious. With everything we eat right now, its a maze of possibilities. Granted none of this is from our target food missing, its from all of the food we were given in the bible, excluding our target food.
Are you seriously still denying that somebody can get all essential nutrients from a healthy natural diet? Pay attention. That debunks target food right there based on your definition.



True, but your not going to be healthy on an abundance of apples and pears.
And neither will an ape. Creatures that only eat 1 type of food are rare. Most animals eat a big variety of food.



Ok let me rephrase that, its not naturaly intended food when its processed. Processing is not natural, its a man made step....

How does processing the food change anything about the nutritional content? I prefer natural food myself, and yes I get all nutrients naturally without taking supplements or vitamins or anything else.

Too bad you can't quote a definition for target food, because you totally made it up. There is no 1 food that almost any animal exclusively eats that contains perfect nutrients for the species. You are dead wrong on this and I already gave examples of chimp and gorilla diet, but you completely ignored the point that they are almost the same as humans in the nutrition they eat.



In comparison to target food, you would obviously be wrong. You just admitted yourself that we yearn for convenience.

You haven't given a single example of a target food for a species. Please name a single primate that gains all of its nutrition from a single food source. Next are you going to say that all primates were brought here as well?



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The nine or more unnatural steps that it takes to get meat to your plate, including cooking prove that its not a natural food. Target foods are natural, and don't require process. Cooking alone is a process. So unless we are supposed to eat meat raw, NO.

But we can still gain all of our essential nutrients without eating cooked food. This point alone proves you wrong. If you respond to anything in this response, respond to that. Look up the raw diet. People live like this are extremely healthy.



But we don't because the parasites that are associated are kind of a clue that the risk is pretty heavy just to eat something.

Are you kidding me? I eat sushi quite often. All creatures pose risks when they eat anything in nature. That's how nature works. Humans are intelligent to know the risks, hence why we have 7 billion people. Other animal species are not, so they do what they need to do to survive, but their population will not ever grow like ours does because of disease alone.


There is nothing ideal about health damaging food.


Health damaging food? Like what? I told you already. One can have a nutritional, healthy, natural meal without having to do anything to it. They can pick and eat everything and still be perfectly healthy. This fact proves you wrong. I've stated it several times. You need to provide evidence that counters that if you want this conversation to continue.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



But you can't compare how much time they spend to what we should spend.

Of course not. It makes no sense to use known target foods as a reference point. Why look at evidence when we can rely entirely on something that exists only in your imagination. (and even in your imagination its only a vague concept) You're essentially saying that no matter what we do or how easy it is to get food, our target food will somehow be easier to get, which is silly.



Lets say mr anteater lost his supply of ants, and termites, since they are almost one in the same to the anteater. As a result he has to adapt by venturing off his menu. Now first of all we are assuming he will know how to do this, he might not, lets assume. So lets say the next food in line for him as a replacement of insects is bumble bees. I know this sounds rediculous but its just an example. So he is going to target bumble bees as his next source of insects. Now he has to climb a tree that he never used to have to do, which also takes longer then digging out ant farms, and he also has to now deal with getting stung like crazy, as the bees attack him.... Now you should be realizing the importance of target food.

Wow, when you say it like that it does seem ludicrous. There's no way that could happen, and that pretty much shows why evolution is bunk and could never work in reality. No wonder target food is so important.
...but wait. I recall pointing out that the food anteaters eat in zoos is actually better for them than their target food. So, if it has been shown that it is possible to replace a target food with a superior alternative, maybe you were wrong about other things too?

It turns out that anteaters do eat bees. (en.wikipedia.org...) Tamandua, a genus of anteater (comprises several closely related species) is semi arboreal often spend more than half their time in trees. (en.wikipedia.org...) You have no idea what you're talking about. You seriously just made up an example to show how "rediculous" something would be, when it is in fact true.




There is nothing easy about redundancy

Then why is it the more "redundancies" we develop, the more food we get for less collective effort? We have more meat for less effort now than we did 100 years ago. (More of almost any food, actually) And we had more 100 years ago for less effort than we did 1000 years ago. And so on and so forth. Getting more for less is pretty much the definition of "easier." Why is it that the way things are is so often the opposite of what you say?




The question is, is that just a precaution?

Sure, a precaution against being less healthy. The same way that food is a precaution we take against hunger.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 





I find your lack of acknowledgement for my arguments disturbing...
I apologize, I must have missed something.

Let me back up to your last post and I will re-answer it.




Nope, for evolution to occur, adaptation is a MUST.
Well according to the nit filled in by an evolutionist on the wiki page, ya. The problem here is that evolution and adaptation actually have nothing in common with each other. Evolution is changes that occur on a molecular level, and adaptation is physical changes that a species makes that involves any number of processes. The problem here is that evolution is natural, and adaptation is not...

At least when humans are involved anyhow...


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".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=K5QhUNXdA4feqgHewIDIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f2 4798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541
Please not that anything natural is NOTmade or caused by human kind. There is some insight when it comes to this definition and why they would exclude humans from being a natural part of anything. We are not natural to this planet.

So if mankind manipulation of any type was done in the process to adapt, its not natural.




You forget the basic Primal Programming that exists within all species that we call "instinct" and instinct dictates that a creature be driven to survive at all costs, hence adaptation is a part of its process.
Well of course we are going to try to live, but that doesn't mean that the processes we used to do so are natural.




If the animal refuses to change its behaviors to adapt, it dies off.
But you totally missed the whole picture here and whats going on. Anytime any species has to take adaptation steps for ANY reason, its a sign of desperation. That sign could stem from a collpas in the food chain, or global warming, or any number of things. It's not a sign that everything is normal, and on A, OK, quite the opposite. When you see this happening, its a sign that things are going wrong, and as a result, the species has to work around the problem. Now anytime that a species has to add steps or processes to anything that they do, this reduces the quality of life, as they are having to put forth more effort to achieve what they once used to with less effort.



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
If humans were not reproducing at a way too fast of a rate that WILL end us if we don't stop it soon, then why may I ask, according to my estimates which were confirmed by comparing a chart on Wikipedia concerning the increase of world population was the world population around 5 to 5.9 billion at the time of my birth, and now only 30 years later, it stands at 7.1 billion? WE ARE GOING TO KILL THIS WORLD!



posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AsherahoftheSea
 





If humans were not reproducing at a way too fast of a rate that WILL end us if we don't stop it soon, then why may I ask, according to my estimates which were confirmed by comparing a chart on Wikipedia concerning the increase of world population was the world population around 5 to 5.9 billion at the time of my birth, and now only 30 years later, it stands at 7.1 billion? WE ARE GOING TO KILL THIS WORLD!
And you would be correct, well provided we don't go through anymore epic plagues. This planet was not made for us, there is no question about that.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And you would be correct, well provided we don't go through anymore epic plagues. This planet was not made for us, there is no question about that.


I think this is the first point you are correct on. The earth wasn't made for us, or made for anything. It's been here for 4.5 billion years and we came from the earth. The earth wasn't magically set up here for humans. We evolved like everything else.

Also please don't forget to respond to my points about gaining all nutrients from a healthy natural diet, which people do all over the world, debunking the notion of "target" food. Also please don't forget to list a primate that gets all its nutrients from a single food source. If you can't justify / counter these 2 points, your entire premise is invalid.
edit on 8-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I think this is the first point you are correct on. The earth wasn't made for us, or made for anything. It's been here for 4.5 billion years and we came from the earth. The earth wasn't magically set up here for humans. We evolved like everything else.
Oh Barc, you had me all twitterpated on the first sentance. I thought wow, for once your about to agree.

Well if the process of evolution is real, its more like the process of the planet falling apart. There is no proof that we were hear when the earth first formen, there isn't any proof that wern't placed here, on the contrary there is otherwise.

We have documentation telling us that we were placed here. Now we don't have any documentation about our aleged journey through evolution, in fact we don't have any documentation about anything proving we were even here prior to biblical times. It's as though we just appeard here.

Planets start out with life on them, regardless of what your belief is, this life is in a balance. Target food and the ideas that support it are compulsory for life to start out in a balance. So you see the once thought of idea that evolution claims species just eat whatever they can find, is false, and out the window, this type of activity can't support balance.

The old idea that god created us, is also out the window as he would have also had to create a balance of life to accomodate a system. It's so confusing that it's not just a possibility that someone made a bunch of life, there was some intelligent planning going on, in complex arrays. To think that humans have been here for 4 billion years is just idiotic. You have to really think about what your saying. Take a look at what we have an where we are with living in general and your trying to tell me that in 4.3 billion years we havent advanced any more than geo thermal heating.

Its just another attempt at us trying to make this planet fit in with OUR needs. You only see this because OUR needs don't match the planets. Your confusing our abilitys and attempts as normal play to survive.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join