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: 17
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Got me thinking. I think I'm gonna change my diet. Even going to subway really doesn't give you the nutrition you probably need. Althought the mushrooms and onions are good.

But I think stuff like:

Leafy greens

Asparagus

Blueberrys

Onions

Mushrooms

Kale

Lemons

Cantaloupe

I got to try and change where I shop or the ilse I shop in, before the poor diet catches up on me! I'm already not feeling fully how I use to and sporting a bit of a beer belly.

As far as evolution goes, Darwin appearently didn't like the direction TPTB went with his work. My understanding is it was just a weak theory he used to make his claim to fame. But he didn't know the atheistic science community would pervert it and try and turn it into gosple truth to try and replace the bible. The same thing has happened to tons of people in different feilds. They create something, or theorize something, then others come in pervert what they did and or use it for nafarious purposes.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 




itsthetooth:
It doesn't come as any type of a suprise at all. The ONLY thing it tells is that the ant and aphid are obviously from the same place, but by no means does that mean earth.





but by no means does that mean earth.


Your entire made up argument is based on ants being from earth. Obvious troll obvious.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well I never said there was a person of sorts behind any of the target food. Would you not agree that since evolution has created possiblly over a billion species that you could say there is an intent to make new species. I find it hard to believe there is not.

No. Evolution is not a person. It's a process. If you say the food was intended, it implies creator. Otherwise it couldn't have been intended. Sorry, but your definition of an already false concept is proving to be very speculative and contradictive of itself.



Now hold on here, you can't just throw the four basic food groups at me and claim thats what we evolved into eating.

Why not? That is what we eat today, is it not?


It's like claiming the anteater is made for protien, while ants might be a protien, you need to narrow it down. We as humans also need protien but we don't eat ants, at least as a regular part of our diet, or any part for that matter. So you have to narrow it down.

You aren't narrowing it down, you are expanding it. Calling something a protein IS narrowing it down, because that is the specific nutrient that matters. We could get into more specific details for example omega 3s and other fatty acids, if you'd like. It doesn't matter what source you get the protein from, as long as you get it you can survive and be healthy. Same with iron in many vegetable and vitamin C in many fruits.


Let me give you another example. The anteaters ears are fine tuned for hearing ants, not protien, his claws are made to tear up ant hills not claw protien, his snout specifically detailed in sniffing out ants, not protien, and his tounge specifically made to grab ants from afar, not protien.

Ants = protein so you point is meaningless. Technically he does hear the protein. Surely he can hear tons of other stuff but he doesn't eat it. Why do you think? He needs protein to survive and to him the ants taste good.


So since he has evolved, we too should have evolved. He is a fine tuned instrument for harvesting and eating ants, what are we fine tuned for?

How many times do I have to repeat the same point? I already explained how humans are perfectly suited for using their intelligence to make tools for hunting and planting / harvesting plants. Read my earlier posts, I break it down into details. How do you just ignore something like intelligence that I have already explained, but still ask me about it? It's been answered.

The ant eater is well suited for ants and termites.

Humans are well suited for intelligence and tools, specifically because of our intellect, bipedalism and opposable thumbs. Yeah the five senses help too. We can detect with our eyes blemishes in the fruits as well as feel them to know their texture so we can tell if they are rotton. Taste and smell help this as well. Humans are perfectly suited for hunting / gathering. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here today, we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Humans are perfect for that lifestyle.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Spruk
 





I could surmise that its evolution was because of this dietry need (Evolution by Nessessity). However creatures of omnivore descent (humans) we do not have specialized biological equipment because we have simply "do not have a need for it" (So no evolution by nessessity). If a food source drys up we go out and find a different source. Now couple this with human technology we no longer need to hunt or adapt to get food, we head on down to the store and buy it


Well here is where things don't make any sense. Is evolution going to wait untill we run out of food, to evolve us, because we either become unhealthy or die as a result. Now if we have to suffer from lack of something, how long and how deep does evolution wait before saving us. Now if evolution made these changes before we ran out, then that would be proactive, but I'm assuming that doesn't happen.

Your claiming that changes are based either on chance, or need. So let me stress our need to you. Our dietary needs are scattered over a large array of different food. From what I can tell, there is no such thing as a perfect diet for humans. Of course we have bad diets, and we have better diets, but none give us everything we need, its just not possible. For starters, our bodies need more calcium as we get older. Standard fruits and veggies can't give us what we need in calcium unless we gorge ourselves on them. Sardines being the highest but does this mean we were suppose to eat sardines everyday? In addition, all of the natural things that supply calcium aren't accesable everywhere we live, so there is another problem, and we must rely on transporting.

This is why I'm questioning your claim of evolution stepping in when needed. We have needed for some time. So much so that we have not only identified the short comings of our diet, but have tried to circumvent the problem with super supplements. Just to show you how overdue help is needed, we also suffer from many different sicknesses and diseases that are diet related.

Perhaps the biggest problem with your theory here, is if evolution really is existant, why are we headed for our 6th largest extinction. This is a really big problem, wiki states we will have lost 99% of all known species. Extinctions in my opinion are proof that evolution is failing. Obviously the original idea was to go forward and make new species, but some are coming to a quick end when they find out they have nothing to eat.

Planets can't house life unless there is balance in that life. It's seriously easy to see that everything is dependant on everything else. If you pull one species from the picture, you might cause a good portion to go extinct. If you add alien species where they don't belong, its the same thing. There is good reason to believe this is exactly what happened to us. We have historical documentation that tells us first off that earth is not our home, and second that many things were brought to earth but none of them were from our home.

The type of balance that is required to keep things in order, I don't think is simplistic by any means. It's a spider web of relationships between species that will all work together in the right element. Scientists are baffled right now over the mass extincitons, and they can't seem to figure out what is causing them. I think this is in part because they are first making the assumption that all the species that are here, originated from here, which is false. You can' just ass a plethora of species to a planet and expect them all to live, its way more complicated than that.

You probably believe that a species will eat what ever it can, and given the desperation of extinctions, we actually see some of that. The problem is thats not the norm. Each species is suppose to have its own food, all in the structure of the balance.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Which is why there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE behind any of your claims
There are tons of credible witnesses, and thats as good as its going to get.

You can't ask for objective evidence when science can't recreate it.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Just remember that target foods are ones that are eaten frequently and in good amounts to justify they serve a purpose.
So if any on your list can be used like that, then they can't be target food.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





itsthetooth:
It doesn't come as any type of a suprise at all. The ONLY thing it tells is that the ant and aphid are obviously from the same place, but by no means does that mean earth.






but by no means does that mean earth.



Your entire made up argument is based on ants being from earth. Obvious troll obvious.
No it was Colins argument to justify how ants must be from earth and how much ants are like humans so we must both be from earth.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well I never said there was a person of sorts behind any of the target food. Would you not agree that since evolution has created possiblly over a billion species that you could say there is an intent to make new species. I find it hard to believe there is not.

No. Evolution is not a person. It's a process. If you say the food was intended, it implies creator. Otherwise it couldn't have been intended. Sorry, but your definition of an already false concept is proving to be very speculative and contradictive of itself.
So are you trying to tell me that even though evolution has resulted in possibly over a billion new species, that you don't detect the slighest degree of intent to make new species?




Now hold on here, you can't just throw the four basic food groups at me and claim thats what we evolved into eating.

Why not? That is what we eat today, is it not?
Your trying to say that because we are scavengers, that must be our diet.




It's like claiming the anteater is made for protien, while ants might be a protien, you need to narrow it down. We as humans also need protien but we don't eat ants, at least as a regular part of our diet, or any part for that matter. So you have to narrow it down.

You aren't narrowing it down, you are expanding it. Calling something a protein IS narrowing it down, because that is the specific nutrient that matters. We could get into more specific details for example omega 3s and other fatty acids, if you'd like. It doesn't matter what source you get the protein from, as long as you get it you can survive and be healthy. Same with iron in many vegetable and vitamin C in many fruits.
I'm narrowing it down to specific food types, your keeping it vague.




Let me give you another example. The anteaters ears are fine tuned for hearing ants, not protien, his claws are made to tear up ant hills not claw protien, his snout specifically detailed in sniffing out ants, not protien, and his tounge specifically made to grab ants from afar, not protien.

Ants = protein so you point is meaningless. Technically he does hear the protein. Surely he can hear tons of other stuff but he doesn't eat it. Why do you think? He needs protein to survive and to him the ants taste good.
You don't see him going up to cows and taking a bite.




How many times do I have to repeat the same point? I already explained how humans are perfectly suited for using their intelligence to make tools for hunting and planting / harvesting plants. Read my earlier posts, I break it down into details. How do you just ignore something like intelligence that I have already explained, but still ask me about it? It's been answered.

The ant eater is well suited for ants and termites.

Humans are well suited for intelligence and tools, specifically because of our intellect, bipedalism and opposable thumbs. Yeah the five senses help too. We can detect with our eyes blemishes in the fruits as well as feel them to know their texture so we can tell if they are rotton. Taste and smell help this as well. Humans are perfectly suited for hunting / gathering. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here today, we'd have gone extinct a long time ago. Humans are perfect for that lifestyle
I don't understand, are you saying we are suppose to eat intelligence and tools, or that we are so smart that its not a worry so our efforts were placed somewhere else.

I'll break this down for you. It doesn't matter that we are more sophistcated, we still need to eat. We still have a digestive system just like all the animals, we still have a stomach like the rest of the animals and we still have teeth like the rest of the animals. We would eat, just like the rest of the animals, but we don't. Our eating is very complicated, and diverse.

We don't have any specific food we hone in on either, leading me to believe we are scavengers as well. All I'm saying is that we should have food intended for us, but we don't. Now you can assume that because we had to venture out and try to fill voids in a weak menu that its all normal, but I see things differently. It's not normal, if it was we wouldn't have the problems associated with it.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Which is why there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE behind any of your claims
There are tons of credible witnesses, and thats as good as its going to get.

You can't ask for objective evidence when science can't recreate it.


Subjective evidence is obviously worthless...because if you believe every subjective evidence you also have to buy into a ton of other bat# crazy stuff that's demonstrably wrong...like people living inside whales.

Why are we still talking about the evolution of anteaters btw? We know how anteaters evolved.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by r2d246
 


Just remember that target foods are ones that are eaten frequently and in good amounts to justify they serve a purpose.
So if any on your list can be used like that, then they can't be target food.


Again: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!


You made it up, all of it, including the definition of that non-existent word


So no, he doesn't have to remember anything...



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





itsthetooth:
It doesn't come as any type of a suprise at all. The ONLY thing it tells is that the ant and aphid are obviously from the same place, but by no means does that mean earth.






but by no means does that mean earth.



Your entire made up argument is based on ants being from earth. Obvious troll obvious.
No it was Colins argument to justify how ants must be from earth and how much ants are like humans so we must both be from earth.


No your entire argument of target food, rested on the example of the ant and the anteater. You used this example to illustrate the anteater being from earth or "fitting in" because the ant is his so called target food. From this you extrapolated that people weren't from earth because we don't eat only one item, such as the anteater.

So now you claim the ant isn't from earth, ergo the anteater isn't either. You do realize this is the antithesis of your original claim, right? Are you getting that mixed up in your fantasy?



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Subjective evidence is obviously worthless
How is it subjective when other species are proving it?




...because if you believe every subjective evidence you also have to buy into a ton of other bat# crazy stuff that's demonstrably wrong...like people living inside whales.
Or like someone being able to make it rain indoors, well to bad for you, its allready been witnessed, and several policemen and a jail warden is pretty hard to just say they all worked together in a lie.




Why are we still talking about the evolution of anteaters btw? We know how anteaters evolved.
Of course you keep missing the fact that those relations can just as easily be explained through creation.

How can you place any trust in DNA when you actually believe in a false religion that claims DNA just changes on its own.


Now THAT is bat crazy.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





No your entire argument of target food, rested on the example of the ant and the anteater. You used this example to illustrate the anteater being from earth or "fitting in" because the ant is his so called target food. From this you extrapolated that people weren't from earth because we don't eat only one item, such as the anteater.

So now you claim the ant isn't from earth, ergo the anteater isn't either. You do realize this is the antithesis of your original claim, right? Are you getting that mixed up in your fantasy?
Sorry if there were assumptions made, it does however seem to be the icon of people on ATS that believe in evolution.

There is no proof that the ant eater is from earth, it was just assumed.
There is no proof that humans are from earth, it too is also assumed.
It's these assumptions that are causing scientists to not understand whats causing extinctions.

It's going to be pretty hard to prove who is from where as a lot of things have been moved.
In my original comment about the ant, it could have been taken as though you are assuming he is from here, but I don't remember ever saying that.
edit on 13-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





How is it subjective when other species are proving it?


Proving what? Your anteater example is obviously nonsense...so how exactly ware other species proving stuff?




Or like someone being able to make it rain indoors, well to bad for you, its allready been witnessed, and several policemen and a jail warden is pretty hard to just say they all worked together in a lie.


You really need to learn the difference between science and pseudo-science







Of course you keep missing the fact that those relations can just as easily be explained through creation.

How can you place any trust in DNA when you actually believe in a false religion that claims DNA just changes on its own.

Now THAT is bat crazy.


There's ZERO objective evidence for creationism, so once again you're talking out of your ass



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





How is it subjective when other species are proving it?



Proving what? Your anteater example is obviously nonsense...so how exactly ware other species proving stuff?
You mean like the abolone eating just kale, its a no brainer. Parakeets eating mostly millet seed. All proves we have asigned foods, not food groups, but actuall food.




There's ZERO objective evidence for creationism, so once again you're talking out of your ass
Thats because the supernatural is not privy to scientific testing, I don't know how many times I have to teach you this.


su·per·nat·u·raladjective /ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/ 


1.(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature
- a supernatural being


2.Unnaturally or extraordinarily great


Notice how it says beyond scientific understanding. So in other words, your an idiot when it comes to this, but we allready knew this.

BTW scientists may have proved a lot of things in the past, but they haven't been able to prove evolution.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So are you trying to tell me that even though evolution has resulted in possibly over a billion new species, that you don't detect the slighest degree of intent to make new species?

Bingo. There is no intent. There is only adaptations to the environment. The creatures adapt to the food, not the other way around.



Your trying to say that because we are scavengers, that must be our diet.

No, I'm saying because that's what we can eat to achieve a balanced healthy meal, that it must be our diet.



I'm narrowing it down to specific food types, your keeping it vague.

Why eat food? The nutrients are what matters, not the type of food, and certain nutrients can be ingested from a large variety of foods. I've already brought this up. There is no one food that a creature needs to eat. Virtually every creature on earth could survive eating a large variety of foods, ant eater included. You could probably feed an ant eater protein pellets and he'd be just as healthy as he'd be eating ants and termites.


You don't see him going up to cows and taking a bite.

You don't see humans doing that either, but we can eat steak. If you cut up the cow and made it into small pieces, he could probably eat it and survive, as long as he gets the same nutrients.


I don't understand, are you saying we are suppose to eat intelligence and tools, or that we are so smart that its not a worry so our efforts were placed somewhere else.

Humans are INTELLIGENT. Their primary evolutionary strength is their mind. The average person could not win in hand to hand combat with almost any predatory species. But they could design weapons and armor that would give humans the advantage. How can you possibly claim that a human's strength is not the mind and our ability to use our hands?


I'll break this down for you. It doesn't matter that we are more sophistcated, we still need to eat. We still have a digestive system just like all the animals, we still have a stomach like the rest of the animals and we still have teeth like the rest of the animals. We would eat, just like the rest of the animals, but we don't. Our eating is very complicated, and diverse.

It's not complicated at all. Everything you said applies to other animals that are from earth, yet humans have all these same features yet they were brought here. It makes no sense at all. Even if that was true, diet would have absolutely nothing to do with it. It DOES matter that we are intelligent, because that's our strength as a species, and its blatantly obvious based on the technology we use and the food we make with it. If you could prove that humans are lacking a certain nutrient that isn't from earth, you'd have a case, but you can't prove it, as humans are the most successful species on the planet today. That directly contradicts your claim.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





You mean like the abolone eating just kale, its a no brainer. Parakeets eating mostly millet seed. All proves we have asigned foods, not food groups, but actuall food.


What are you talking about? How on earth is the fact that some species specialize towards a certain type of food somehow proof against evolution? Hell, we can explain why that happened, like in the case of the anteater.





Thats because the supernatural is not privy to scientific testing, I don't know how many times I have to teach you this.


So basically you are trying to disprove evolution by pretending something that hasn't been proven is real


You're not better than the crazy person at Times Square holding up a "everyone repent, the unicorns are coming" sign


I'll ignore your silly little ad hominem attack


Scientists have proven evolution and are actively applying the theory every day of the year



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Originally posted by itsthetooth
So are you trying to tell me that even though evolution has resulted in possibly over a billion new species, that you don't detect the slighest degree of intent to make new species?

Bingo. There is no intent. There is only adaptations to the environment. The creatures adapt to the food, not the other way around.
Your kidding me, how can something create over a billion species and not have intent to do so.




Your trying to say that because we are scavengers, that must be our diet.

No, I'm saying because that's what we can eat to achieve a balanced healthy meal, that it must be our diet.
I'm sorry but it shouldn't take dozens of food items to try to win a balancing act for eating. Granted your right, that is what we have to do right now, I'm just saying thats not the way it was supposed to be.




I'm narrowing it down to specific food types, your keeping it vague.

Why eat food? The nutrients are what matters, not the type of food, and certain nutrients can be ingested from a large variety of foods. I've already brought this up. There is no one food that a creature needs to eat. Virtually every creature on earth could survive eating a large variety of foods, ant eater included. You could probably feed an ant eater protein pellets and he'd be just as healthy as he'd be eating ants and termites.
If you were right, we would occasionaly see anteaters eating beef, but we dont.




You don't see him going up to cows and taking a bite.

You don't see humans doing that either, but we can eat steak. If you cut up the cow and made it into small pieces, he could probably eat it and survive, as long as he gets the same nutrients.
Well where do you think beef comes from, it comes from the cow.




I don't understand, are you saying we are suppose to eat intelligence and tools, or that we are so smart that its not a worry so our efforts were placed somewhere else.

Humans are INTELLIGENT. Their primary evolutionary strength is their mind. The average person could not win in hand to hand combat with almost any predatory species. But they could design weapons and armor that would give humans the advantage. How can you possibly claim that a human's strength is not the mind and our ability to use our hands?
Because that would be the same as saying humans are the only ones that are intelligent enough to survive, and it was meant to be that way.




I'll break this down for you. It doesn't matter that we are more sophistcated, we still need to eat. We still have a digestive system just like all the animals, we still have a stomach like the rest of the animals and we still have teeth like the rest of the animals. We would eat, just like the rest of the animals, but we don't. Our eating is very complicated, and diverse.

It's not complicated at all. Everything you said applies to other animals that are from earth, yet humans have all these same features yet they were brought here. It makes no sense at all. Even if that was true, diet would have absolutely nothing to do with it. It DOES matter that we are intelligent, because that's our strength as a species, and its blatantly obvious based on the technology we use and the food we make with it. If you could prove that humans are lacking a certain nutrient that isn't from earth, you'd have a case, but you can't prove it, as humans are the most successful species on the planet today. That directly contradicts your claim
That was the first thing I proved ions ago in the other thread. We have no natural source for calcium. What we have is cows milk, which your never going to convince me that man was suppose to drink the milk from another animal, thats just discusting.

Next in line we have sardines, your never going to convince me that we were all supposed to live on a boat to have access to them all the time either. The rest of whats on the list would only supply you with an RDA if you gorged yourself on them.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What are you talking about? How on earth is the fact that some species specialize towards a certain type of food somehow proof against evolution? Hell, we can explain why that happened, like in the case of the anteater.
Because your being a hypocrite. Your claiming that anteaters evolve, and humans don't.




Thats because the supernatural is not privy to scientific testing, I don't know how many times I have to teach you this.



So basically you are trying to disprove evolution by pretending something that hasn't been proven is real
no your trying to disprove something that is real but can't be proven by science standards.




You're not better than the crazy person at Times Square holding up a "everyone repent, the unicorns are coming" sign
Well if ANYTHING is coming your way, its websters dictionary.




I'll ignore your silly little ad hominem attack

Scientists have proven evolution and are actively applying the theory every day of the year
If you simply believe that changes alone are caused by evolution, whithout any proof to back that up, sure.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
That was the first thing I proved ions ago in the other thread. We have no natural source for calcium. What we have is cows milk, which your never going to convince me that man was suppose to drink the milk from another animal, thats just discusting.

Next in line we have sardines, your never going to convince me that we were all supposed to live on a boat to have access to them all the time either. The rest of whats on the list would only supply you with an RDA if you gorged yourself on them.


You proved nothing whatsoever. So let me get this straight. It's okay to get meat from another animal, or use it's skin for clothing, or use the bones for weapons, or fat for oil, but there's a problem with drinking the milk? It's fine to harvest nuts and seeds from plants, pick bananas from trees, meat from fish, but drinking milk. Now that's DISGUSTING!! Get outta here. Have you ever eaten a hot dog? So because you think it's disgusting I guess everybody's wrong.

www.nichd.nih.gov...

You can get calcium from broccoli, bok choy, spinach, almonds and many other foods, all of which can be obtained naturally. Humans also produce breast milk.

For those of you keeping track.

Target Food: made up and completely debunked
Milk as only source of calcium: debunked
Evolution: Still not proven wrong

Anything else?
edit on 14-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join