Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingAtlas
Also i just realized what you might say, that those food aren't available everywhere.

Here is a good thought for you, if the species developed in a certain area, then those nutritional necessities might be more prevalent in the area where the species originated.


Well, yes. That's why until recently you couldn't raise cattle and sheep in the same geographic area. Their nutritional requirements are totally different. But that doesn't mean that one species would automatically die out--they will find foods that supply the nutrient deficiency.

We see this even in humans, pregnant women and small children in particular. It's called pica. When you're nutrient deficient, especially in iron, you'll eat soil, clay, rocks...anything with that particular nutrient in it. Iron is particularly common.

Your body knows what it needs and where to get it.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
Evolution doesn't have a goal or an intent, it is a process and not a personality.

The evolution of species is also affected by the environment, natural disasters and major catastrophic changes (also historically meteorite impacts, the spread of human hunters and their livestock and diseases) that affect entire ecosystems.

Species can become very specialized to one form of food or prey when that is advantageous, but when it suddenly disappears then a very specialized species won't have time to adapt, and it will become extinct.
This happened to the big sabre-toothed cats when the mega-fauna became extinct.
It became a victim of its own specialized adaptations.
But such abrupt extinctions imply abrupt environmental changes.
If the change had been gradual then the species would have gradually adapted.

The rate of adaption also depends on how quickly a species can breed and multiply, since the more it multiplies the more it can diversify and produce a variation that can further adapt.
Most species breed at a rate where they do not exhaust their food source (which also causes extinction), so that too must gradually adapt according to the environment.
However rats and cockroaches breed very fast in human environments, so they quickly increase those individuals who are immune to poisons and pesticides.

So evolution actually explains it very well.

The question of motivation is really one for the creationists: why would a creator create a species just to make it go extinct?
edit on 2-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)


please,. please...you're using logic along with critical-thinking, this doesn't work with what the OP is saying. we just can't have that here, we need more fear and ignorance



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Re-reading the OP I increasingly feel it's not about a creationist vs. evolutionist debate.

It's confusing in all ways, because he personifies evolution and projects creationism onto it:


I think its a contradiction, why would evolution go to such lengths to create new life just to have them go extinct?


What is really at the core is alien seeding (the Bible says the earth is not our home) and that somehow regional imperfections in food suggest that when humans were seeded on earth the aliens forgot to drop off our lunch-box with some perfect "wonder food" to make us truly satisfied in every way.

That's actually a really good theory, I think.
But it's so interwoven with other things, I'm not sure it's the central point.

It doesn't explain why so many cultures found good nutrition, from the jungles to the deserts, before colonialism, and few were malnourished.
In fact, at first they were misguided enough to feed the malnourished European sailors and missionaries who would destroy their cultures.

But to ask anything of evolution is pointless.
It only has what appears to be a design in hindsight.
And it is a bottom-up design - always in perfect development with other species and Geo-physical events.
But to evolutionists the results are also sometimes clumsy, chaotic, imperfect - cosmically astounding and hilarious.

He must ask God for the reason things go extinct, or why they cannot adapt fast enough when changes come.
He must ask creationists why God creates species and then destroys them.

The only drive that creates life in most multi-celled organisms (and it doesn't always succeed) is sex.
The same thing religious groups want the human species to abstain from or sublimate into a recent cultural construction of monogamous marriage.
Yeah, sex.
That's the key to our evolution.

If you can eat enough to do that to an adult partner of the opposite sex at least once, then you're a success!
Hey, if you can do it more times to many, then your genes have a real future.
Unfortunately culture and STDs do make it a gamble for the parent and the off-spring.
But isn't life a gamble?
edit on 2-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Lactose is just a by product of cows milk.

I'll just assume you're correct, there...this being why cow's milk does not NEED to be drunk by humans as you stated, since most adult humans are lactose intolerant. Other animals' milk may be less problematic on that front, but I haven't looked into this.


I have never heard nor does it make sense that cows milk or the abundance of such would cause OP.

Then I would have to say it sounds like you haven't put ample research into this. Milk, despite having a decent amount of calcium, also has a LOT of protein - and a lot of people already eat more protein than they need. Allow me to start you out with this article:

Experts agree that calcium is one of the central building blocks of bones and is essential for normal body functions. Several studies show that extra calcium beyond the minimum requirement of 400 mg does little or nothing to stave off osteoporosis. Americans, whose calcium intake is among the highest in the world, also have one of the highest rates of osteoporosis. In any given population, the greater the intake of protein, the more common and more severe the incidence of osteoporosis.[6] Osteoporosis is a condition caused by a number of factors, the most important of which is excess dietary protein.[7] Low-protein diets create a positive calcium balance, and high-protein diets create a negative calcium balance. This occurs in men and young women, as well as in post-menopausal women.

The high protein content of milk may actually contribute to the very disease that the calcium in milk is alleged to prevent. In the United States, osteoporosis is not a problem of calcium intake, but of calcium loss.[8] Doubling your protein intake above that required results in a 50% increase in calcium losses in the urine, and protein intakes that are twice the RDA are quite common in typical Western diets.[9] According to an FDA report on the relationship between calcium and osteoporosis, the negative calcium balance that results is "quite sufficient to explain the 1% to 1.5% loss in skeletal mass per year noted in post menopausal women."[10] By consuming dairy products, you are increasing your urinary excretion of calcium.

And this:

And yes…. For example: In Greece the average milk consumption doubled from 1961 to 1977 (21) (and was even higher in 1985), and during the period 1977 - 1985 the age adjusted osteoporosis incidence almost doubled too. (22) In Hong Kong in 1989 twice as much dairy products were consumed as in 1966 (21) and osteoporosis incidence tripled in the same period. (23) Now their milk consumption level is almost “European”, and so is osteoporosis incidence. (24)

It is very simple: where the most milk is consumed, the osteoporosis incidence is highest. Compared to other countries, the most milk is consumed in Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and The Netherlands (300 to 400 kg / cap / year), and osteoporosis incidence in these countries has sky rocketed. (25)

Like Australians and New Zealanders, (26) Americans consume three fold more milk than the Japanese, and hip-fracture incidence in Americans is therefore 2½ fold higher. (27) Among those within America that consume less milk, such as the Mexican-Americans and Black Americans, osteoporosis incidence is two-fold lower than in white Americans, (28) which is not due to genetic differences. (29)

In Venezuela and Chile much less milk is consumed than in the US, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland, while the hip fracture incidence in Venezuela and Chile is over 3 fold lower. (61)

Chinese consume very little milk (8 kg / year), and hip-fracture incidence, therefore, is among the lowest in the world; hip-fracture incidence in Chinese women is 6 fold lower than in the US. (30) (The average American consumes 254 kg milk / year)

The less milk consumed, the lower is the osteoporosis rate. (31) In other countries where very little milk is consumed, on the average, as in Congo (32), Guinea (33) and Togo (34) (6 kg / year) osteoporosis is extremely rare too. In the Dem. Rep. Congo, Liberia, Ghana, Laos and Cambodia even less milk is consumed (average person: 1 to 3 kg a year !!), and they've never even heard of age-related hip fracture.

And there are a multitude of other pages discussing this out there. The main thrust is that excess protein, which milk is full of, results in excess calcium secretion and bone density loss.

Con't...



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
What they do in other countries is drink goat milk, not cow's. Goat milk is the closest to human milk. Everylthing that we have to do to cow milk is naturaly done with goat milk. Goat's milk is naturally homogenized, easier to digest, low allergies and rarely causes lactose intolerance. The drinking of cow's milk in the US is the result of a very intensive marketing campaign.

The poster is also making the mistake, among many others, of looking at this from a first world country.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 


What the poster doesn't realize and what you have been touched upon is called ethnic dieting. The Japanese eat fish and rice, why? Because their island provides them with fish and rice. Europeans have trouble with rice, it shoots the blood sugar, making them hunger, because their ethnicity hasn't developed the proper enzymes to deal with rice.

There is a chain of thought that obesity and disease would be reduced if people ate the food of their ancestors. For example,Europeans shouldn't be eating a mango, because mangos are not found in Europe.
The Native Americans now have an obesity and diabetes epidemic after the introduction of white flour.

So in a sense, our ancestors ate "target" foods.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Con't...


Never heard about plants being good either.

Then you REALLY haven't looked into this. How do you think herbivores, especially LARGE ones develop strong teeth and bones (which are made of calcium)? Where do you think the calcium in milk we drink comes from, since I'm more than a little sure (COULD be wrong, I suppose...) that it's not produced by the bodies of the animals themselves?

If you're going start making claims like this, I strongly suggest more thorough research - on all sides.


What I do know is that looking at a chart which you can get from a google search, we don't have the needed calcium in an easy to obtain source.

I won't speak as to all sorts of random information one can find online, and what percentage of it may be correct as compared to not - but I can tell you that with a proper diet and avoiding excess intake of protein and various other nutrients, we can easily get more than enough of the calcium we actually need.

And now that I'm back in the same state of mind as I was when I originally started reading this last night (which frustrates me, since I have my own serious qualms with evolutionary theory in light of current information), I'll be off and will try to come back to actually dig into the rest of your post later.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
It is interesting that there would be all of this theory without addressing Darwin's finches, beaks adapted for changing food sources.

If one does not know about Darwin's finches one can not say they are familiar with evolution.

www.news.harvard.edu...




Darwin wondered about the changes in shape of bird beaks from island to island. So-called cactus finches boast longer, more pointed beaks than their relatives the ground finches. Beaks of warbler finches are thinner and more pointed than both. These adaptations make them more fit to survive on available food.


or Wiki

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 2-8-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





Evolution doesn't have a goal or an intent, it is a process and not a personality.
I know, but I'm saying its a little hard to believe considering all that it's claimed to do.




The evolution of species is also affected by the environment, natural disasters and major catastrophic changes (also historically meteorite impacts, the spread of human hunters and their livestock and diseases) that affect entire ecosystems.
One such example was ADHD. Scientists just recently found out that ADHD actually changes our genes. Apparently lead introduced to a person can cause this, and smoking can introduce lead as well. So my big question about this was ADHD possibly being mistaken for evoltuion.




Species can become very specialized to one form of food or prey when that is advantageous, but when it suddenly disappears then a very specialized species won't have time to adapt, and it will become extinct.
This happened to the big sabre-toothed cats when the mega-fauna became extinct.
It became a victim of its own specialized adaptations.
But such abrupt extinctions imply abrupt environmental changes.
If the change had been gradual then the species would have gradually adapted.
Well here are some contradictions. Adaptation is not evolution. I know if you read the wiki on evolution it will claim that it is, but you have to keep in mind that was written by an evolutionists, and there is no proof that adaptation is part of evolution, its only assumed. Now the conflict is that we wouldn't have to adapt had we of evolved properly to begin with. So there seems to be a redundant form of evolution going on if you believe in evolution.
We adapt, we don't evolve, so evolution is failing us right now and we are adapting like crazy, in fact our adaptation is usually redundant.
Its not the best example but look at how we made shoes to deal with the harsh terrain. Now had we of evolved we wouldnt have needed shoes but that failed so we made shoes. Then we ended up with fungus, amongst many other problems, so evoltuion failed us once again and we had to invent socks.
These results in steps involving just about anything we do, always seem to reveal the fact that evolution is failing and we are redundantly adapting.
I think the next thing that evolution is going to create in another theory is that our species has reached the end of its line for evolving so now we just adapt. This will be proven in about a million years from now when humans have not created any new species through evolution.




The rate of adaption also depends on how quickly a species can breed and multiply, since the more it multiplies the more it can diversify and produce a variation that can further adapt.
Most species breed at a rate where they do not exhaust their food source (which also causes extinction), so that too must gradually adapt according to the environment.
However rats and cockroaches breed very fast in human environments, so they quickly increase those individuals who are immune to poisons and pesticides.
However you might be looking at this backwards as most species probably change their mating habits when they are starving.




So evolution actually explains it very well.

The question of motivation is really one for the creationists: why would a creator create a species just to make it go extinct?
I should have put some more detail into my OP as this should have been explained. In the theory of intervention I don't believe that the god that plaed us here was actually our real creator. Therefore someone or something else created us.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Bodhi7
 





....All that proves is that humans have no regard for their own health.

You do realize you aren't providing ANY actual facts right?
Actually I am. I think its pretty obvious that there is motivation of some type to make life, we can see this through diversity.

Regardless of what you believe in, someone or something likes to make life. I realize that evolution takes a stand on this claiming that its just a process, but I honestly find that hard to believe considering all the life there is alone on this planet. It's like your saying getting hit by lightning 5 million times in a row can happen, I just don't see it.

I think its convenient to summon the idea that its just a process that happens to occur, and we know nothing about that. It's also convenient that just so happens to replace that odd believe of us having a creator. I'm actually on your side about this part because I totally believe the fact that our mtDNA shows us to have a common ancestor over 200,000 years ago, so there is no way that god put me here 7000 years ago, unless he isn't our real creator. Which is what I believe, I think hes not.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
"Target food" is a word you MADE UP, just like you made up the definition of said word


Let's see how many stars you'll get by arguing against evolution with a word you MADE UP


You are essentially doing this:

1) Evolution requires pixie dust! (Why? F*** it, no explanation required...)
2) There is no pixie dust.
3) Evolution is wrong!

That's RIDICULOUS
edit on 2-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Oh don't worry - I can only add that I've never laughed so heartily.

Thanks for the humor.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





Evolution doesn't result in perfection.
One aspect of an organism that was originally used for something different may become adapted to another advantage.
Thats funny because what I'm being told is that only the advantage prevails in evolution. Now how that is determined I'm not sure because there has to be thought in that somehow. I mean one advantage might be a disadvantage from a different angle.




Evolutionists would point out that there are all kinds of flawed designs in nature.
The human spine, for example, is often mentioned because it still causes humans much pain, and evolutionists say this is because it was once the spine of a creature that walked on all fours, rather than supporting a top-heavy frame.
So evolution often results in workable but imperfect designs, and atavistic appendages that are no longer needed. So we suffer because one thing was tweaked by adaption, but not necessarily perfectly in relation to everything else.
Creationists indeed argue that our design is perfect.
To evolutionists what is advantageous in one generation can be hazardous to the next, if the environment abruptly changes, or if people or animals are suddenly displaced into another environment.
Having white skin in the tropics, for example, is not as advantageous as having darker skin, because of greater sun sensitivity.
Being able to store fat quickly is good in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle where food is seasonal, but in a modern situation where calories are constantly available it can be deadly.
Now see if this were true, we would have a lot more species that are inbetween what we see today. There would be many variations of humans that would different from what we have today but still be humanoid. Instead we have a lot of species that don't appear to be related but share some small things here and there. There should be possibly hundreds of human species leading up to what we are today, but we have no record of any. I realize there are many fossils found that claim to be such proof but how do we not know that those were just simply other species and never related.

There is only speculation that fossils are related. I think this is why the phrase missing link was replaced with common ancestor. They knew they would never find a missing link that connects us to any species, so they had to rename it. The definition is clear, we don't have proof of relation, but we are still related.




Our diet is a matter of much debate, but it evolved as that of hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, and the introduction of sedentary lifestyles and modern processed foods is not what we were adapted to.
I don't think anyone could ever evolve or adapt into processed food if you know what I mean.
We obviously aren't evolving into our diet as we feel the need to make our own food, and the food sure in the heck isn't changing, at least not for the better.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch
 





Bad troll is *very* bad.

Have creationists really made it this low now?
Why would you say that, I'm not a creationist either.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

OK, been along day waiting for your reply.

What do you see as a species?

Actually we have a vast fossil record of many hominid species.
edit on 2-8-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Now see if this were true, we would have a lot more species that are inbetween what we see today.


After HUNDREDS of pages in the other thread you STILL don't get what transitional fossils are


Here's why you are wrong (and I realise posting this is pointless as you love to ignore facts): LINK

And here's another example showing why your "missing link" argument is RIDICULOUS: LINK

Everything today is "in between" as we are all still evolving...something you'd know if you bothered to do some actual research and learn what evolution really is. It's pretty clear you haven't done that though


I wish you would just once try to do some proper research and apply logic/rationality to your posts/threads...maybe that way you could prevent stuff like having 7 out of your 10 threads moved to Skunk Works!
edit on 2-8-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Okay, most humans are lactose intolerant, who drinks the milk, who eats the cheese? I don't know anyone who is lactose intolerant, never met anyone who was at work, or socially, so, who eats and drinks?????



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 





I'm just a bit confused by the notion of "target food", because in evolution things develop in symbiosis, and it's not a deliberate race to any target.
Well thats a good frame of mind and shows that you at least to some degree believe in balance, while most other evolutionists don't. The contradiction now lies in the fact that we are in the 6th largest extinction. You see why would there be such chaos if there really was symbiosis evolution, it makes no sense. Our planet is very much out of balance. Evoltuionists would lean on the idea that this is all normal and collaps of the planet is just all part of the process, while I'm leaning more on the idea where we have clear documentation claiming that other things were brought to this planet that werent suppose to be, thus caussing this problem.




If one looks at milk, one can say it is an imperfect food for humans, but domesticating cattle provided many benefits.
Well I have to claiify that milk by no means was an answer to a problem, and it has its share of problems, I was just trying to point out our desperate move to fix that problem.




But saying evolution makes a target food or plant, and them some species develops to eat it is unsound.
That's like saying evolution makes a virus and waits for some species to get it.
Humans were food once, and we had to adapt from a variety of ape pretty fast, but that change in environment made us come down from the trees, and although we barely made it at times, it was our brains that grew larger
But we don't have any proof that we ever evolved from apes, or even share a common ancestor. All we have is assumed relation. This again is why they never have, and never will find anything called a missing link. And I totally get that it could have been bilatteral versus unilatteral evolution that explains that, but even then, we have no proof. The problem is that our mtDNA is showing us that our species never dipped below tens of thousands, so where are the fossils to prove relation? It's more apprean't to me that evoltuion was just a cover story for religion. They both share something incriminating which is no proof. At least with religion there is a very good reason, there were supernatural elements involved that can't be recreated and it happend so long ago. With evolution there simply isn't any excuse, all of the proof should be right under our noses and its not.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 

He lost me at "target food"
Consider this thread to be a moron thermometer: the more stars toothy gets, the more I wince for humanity.
edit on 2-8-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KingAtlas
 





I have to say there is a huge logic jump in your reasoning.

I think the OP is flawed in it's reasoning and conclusion.
What you should do is research your facts when you post. I think that instead of a quick Google search, you might want to look up some papers on early human eating habits.

You should also look up the habits of people in countries that don't regularly drink cow's milk.
A good source of calcium is bone marrow, which most people in more industrialized countries no longer eat.

Another good idea would be to consider that the longevity of life of before civilisation was shorter.
I did all this research, your list is not in order BTW. Sardines pack the most punch for calcium, but is that suppose to mean that we were suppose to live on a boat and harvest sardines all day long. I'm sorry there is something very wrong with the picture here and I can tell your not getting it. The others don't offer enough give us a daily allowence unless your gorged on them. Orange juice is a joke. You also missed my point, Your agreeing with me, as milk was harvested as a suppliment, not that it was a good one, but I was trying to prove desperation, which is a sign that something is very wrong.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join