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: 21
6
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You keep ignoring what I'm saying and repeating your original arguments. Nothing is intended, ever. You have no proof that any food or creature on the planet was ever "intended to" be eaten by a certain other creature. Not one piece of evidence whatsoever. You need to prove the intention, rather than rely on a concept you made up out of thin air because some creatures seem more adapted to their environment than others. If you can't do this, your argument is invalid.

Going by your list it's easy. 1000mg of calcium. That's 500 twice a day.

Almonds - 92
Brocolli - 36
Spinach - 138
Beans - 50
Kale - 45
Rhubarb - 174
_____________

Total: 450

Twice a day = 900.

Then you throw in an orange for breakfast and a side dish of Kale with lunch or dinner, and you're over 1000mg for the day. Have some salmon/fluke with your salad and you'll be well over the 1200 if you're old enough. You can even be less extreme in the salad and eat more side dishes, other foods also contain calcium as well. You will not gorge yourself eating a salad like that. And this is all assuming you don't have access to milk or its byproducts.

You can pretend that vegans don't exist, but they do and they are among the healthiest people I know. They eat no meat, fish, eggs, or milk products, but still live perfectly healthy without that stuff. Don't forget soybeans are also a good source of calcium.

Let me guess, next you're going to say humans were never meant to eat fish because they don't have handles to help you take a bite or come with a built in BBQ skewer. Humans were never meant to eat orange because they have to climb a tree to get them


I already clearly demonstrated that milk is processed for profit, not for our health. I also clearly demonstrated that you can get enough calcium without drinking milk. I already clearly demonstrated that humans can get all essential nutrients naturally. Address these points in bold or don't bother responding.



Cows milk aka cows muchous was by no means ever intended for humans to consume, your just sold on the product and the idea of its advent. There is no proof that we suppose to be drinking another animals milk, just think about how that sounds, drinking another animals milk, YUCK.

yeah I'm sold on the product. I RARELY drink milk. Again, you talk about intent or "supposed to". You need to prove that because there's no such thing as "we're supposed to eat xxx". If you say that, you need to post a source of whoever defines what humans are supposed to eat. In other words prove it with science, not meaningless concepts you made up.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





So you cannot answer any of my points then your incoherent and meaningless replies to both my posts is proof enough for me that you do not have a clue about the meaning of a term you made up. That's both hilarious and pathetic at the same time.
I didn't say I can't answer, what I said was "You would have to determine whether or not your target food is dealing with any extinctions." Don't tell me what you want to hear, learn how to read.

Your made up term. Your claim. Your responsibility to show the evidence and answer the questions you are asked. You have failed to do either.



Come on man you should know this. You show very little substance to your claim of being a science major let alone borderline genius.

Until you do that then I am forced to assume you have no answers.

edit on 16-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





It was not a joke.

The way you responded shows that you can't read.

What I said about Marijuana applies to all drugs and medications derived from plants.

How is it that there are so many plants with chemicals on Earth that fit into receptors in our brain?

That is a serious question. It is the basis for all the life saving revolutions within the medical field in the last 100 years.
Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.
I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts.
You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened.


edit on 16-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Confusion42
 





It was not a joke.

The way you responded shows that you can't read.

What I said about Marijuana applies to all drugs and medications derived from plants.

How is it that there are so many plants with chemicals on Earth that fit into receptors in our brain?

That is a serious question. It is the basis for all the life saving revolutions within the medical field in the last 100 years.
Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.
I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts.
You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened.


This is like the evolution thread all over again. I'm pretty sure I remember having this exact conversation with him already.. The problem is the conversations take painfully long to progress because he keeps answering counterpoints with his original arguments and everything has to be spoon fed. Ah well, hopefully someone will learn from it all someday without having to bang their head against the wall.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I've resisted and tried to stick to the topic of 'target food', but since it has been demonstrated to be a made up concept and gotten completely obliterated, let's open this up and get to the meat and potatoes behind his intervention theory. I say "his" because his theory is much different from the commonly believed ancient astronaut theories.

Answer this, Tooth:

When were humans brought to earth?

Homo sapien fossils go back around 200,000 years and since you don't believe in human evolution, that must be your answer. But then you must explain why Neanderthals were already there and almost identical to humans. So then you could bump it back futher to 500,000 years ago, for the early Neanderthals, but then there's another species just like them, Heidelbergensis, Rhodensis, Erectus, Habilis, and you just keep going back and back and it never ends.

You could say that it happened 7-8 million years ago around when the split from ancient ape first occurred, but then you must accept evolution from that point forward, because man today is much different than the first hominid species.

Why don't you consider genetic manipulation, rather than humans being a total stranger to the planet? It's much more logical and fits the AA theory better. Evolving on another planet and being moved here isn't very logical. Why bring people that evolved to a different set of environmental factors to a foreign place, when your science is so advanced you could create intelligent life by manipulating existing genetics, sort of, speeding up the process of evolution, if you will.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Let's not pretend you care about proof if it disagrees with your fairytale religion. If you were honest to yourself you would jump off the empire state building because "gravity can't be proven"
First of all there is nothing factual about the information you provided in the link. Second, I noticed how they are once again trying to frame the proof of the relation on the DNA. Like I keep explaining over and over, for all you know a creator could have made those changes in the DNA. You have no proof, Never had, Never will, a complete fantasy.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





You keep ignoring what I'm saying and repeating your original arguments. Nothing is intended, ever. You have no proof that any food or creature on the planet was ever "intended to" be eaten by a certain other creature. Not one piece of evidence whatsoever. You need to prove the intention, rather than rely on a concept you made up out of thin air because some creatures seem more adapted to their environment than others. If you can't do this, your argument is invalid.


So let me get this straight, you do believe that a species ventures out to eat a food that he finds fitting for him. Now he has no science degree and wouldn't know how to tell the difference between what would be good for him and what might be better, in addition to him meeting his RDA on a broad scale. In other words you think that species just eat what ever they can and let the chips fall where they may.

You also ignore the fact that all species do actually target specific food. You don't have to be a genius to know that you never find anteaters eating trees, and you never find aphids eating ants, but you do find ants eating aphids. But let me tell you where the real nail in your coffin is on this matter. What you do see as being consistant is that if one anteater eats ants, they all eat ants. Your trying to convince me that all species have choice, but that isn't possible as they all eat the same things within their species. Now you could be witty and claim that they have a complex social structure and language and sophisticated equipment to let the others no wihin their species what they are supposed to be eating, but I'm not going that direction. Your an idiot. There is no way in hell that you can claim there isn't some form of direction. You can call it instinct, you can call it target food, but what ever you call it, its obvious and its real.




Going by your list it's easy. 1000mg of calcium. That's 500 twice a day.

Almonds - 92
Brocolli - 36
Spinach - 138
Beans - 50
Kale - 45
Rhubarb - 174
_____________

Total: 450

Twice a day = 900.
Ok lets say I go with your 12 servings a day, not that I would have room but lets pretend its possible. Now you just have to worry about the rest of my diet needs. What about my iron intake, what about my protien intake. OOPS looks like we ran out of room a long time ago.




Then you throw in an orange for breakfast and a side dish of Kale with lunch or dinner, and you're over 1000mg for the day. Have some salmon/fluke with your salad and you'll be well over the 1200 if you're old enough. You can even be less extreme in the salad and eat more side dishes, other foods also contain calcium as well. You will not gorge yourself eating a salad like that. And this is all assuming you don't have access to milk or its byproducts.
Sure, as long as I eat all 12 servings in a day, and don't have to maintain any other part of my diet.




You can pretend that vegans don't exist, but they do and they are among the healthiest people I know. They eat no meat, fish, eggs, or milk products, but still live perfectly healthy without that stuff. Don't forget soybeans are also a good source of calcium.
I have heard the same, but I have also known that most I have seen that are vegan also struggle with being anemic, and often times take supplements for it. Soy I love but just like all of my friends, after a prolonged exposure, your body starts to reject it.




Let me guess, next you're going to say humans were never meant to eat fish because they don't have handles to help you take a bite or come with a built in BBQ skewer. Humans were never meant to eat orange because they have to climb a tree to get them
Cooking food is an obvious sign that it was not food that was intended for us to eat. Cooking is not natural.
www.rawfoodinfo.com...

Check out Rhios response about this matter.




I already clearly demonstrated that milk is processed for profit, not for our health. I also clearly demonstrated that you can get enough calcium without drinking milk. I already clearly demonstrated that humans can get all essential nutrients naturally. Address these points in bold or don't bother responding.
Well then you were wrong. Cows milk is NOT processed for profit. Pasturization is a process you should read up on which kills bacteria. Fortified is a process where we add vitamins back into the product. Homogenized is a process where the cream is maintained in the milk for consumption purposes. So you see, none of the processes are for profit.




yeah I'm sold on the product. I RARELY drink milk. Again, you talk about intent or "supposed to". You need to prove that because there's no such thing as "we're suppose



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





yeah I'm sold on the product. I RARELY drink milk. Again, you talk about intent or "supposed to". You need to prove that because there's no such thing as "we're supposed to eat xxx". If you say that, you need to post a source of whoever defines what humans are supposed to eat. In other words prove it with science, not meaningless concepts you made up.
If you were right, except that your not, we would see all species experimenting on eating different things. We would also see large variations in diet within the same species. The fact is we know what most species eat, and we are correct.

As an example, anteaters eat ants and termites mostly.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your made up term. Your claim. Your responsibility to show the evidence and answer the questions you are asked. You have failed to do either.
I have done nothing but answer your akward questions colin.




Come on man you should know this. You show very little substance to your claim of being a science major let alone borderline genius.
Actually I have done a pretty good job, and proven evolution wrong in the process, even though it wasn't the idea.




Until you do that then I am forced to assume you have no answers.
Here is a good question for you Colin. If you honestly believe that a species is just going to eat whatever it can, like it says in the evolution hand book. Then can you please explain to me why it is that these species are always found to be eating the same things?



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

If we are going through a mass extinction (which I don't know, proof please) it's most probable that we are the culprits this time. Mankind had been so successful that we bascially kill off any large predators near us and as well as any large fauna. Add on top of that our destruction of other species natural ranges and habitats, we just aren't very good neighbors to our fellow plants and animals on earth and in the lakes and ocean.

I would think that evolution would get short circuited by mankind's interference in the way normal natural selection goes on. Species now cease to exist, sometimes solely because mankind just hunts them to extinction or destroys their habitats.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts. You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened.
It's allready proven, there is no way that a species as a whole can just magically end up eating the same things, and you try to tell me that they just eat whatever.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts. You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened.
It's allready proven, there is no way that a species as a whole can just magically end up eating the same things, and you try to tell me that they just eat whatever.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





When were humans brought to earth?
Thats tuff to answer because even according to the bible, it should be about seven thousand years ago, but to toss out that idea, the bible claims that there was other humans here allready in a city.




Homo sapien fossils go back around 200,000 years and since you don't believe in human evolution, that must be your answer. But then you must explain why Neanderthals were already there and almost identical to humans. So then you could bump it back futher to 500,000 years ago, for the early Neanderthals, but then there's another species just like them, Heidelbergensis, Rhodensis, Erectus, Habilis, and you just keep going back and back and it never ends.
Yes its obvious by the anchient alien theory that we have not been the only ones brought here.




You could say that it happened 7-8 million years ago around when the split from ancient ape first occurred, but then you must accept evolution from that point forward, because man today is much different than the first hominid species.

Why don't you consider genetic manipulation, rather than humans being a total stranger to the planet? It's much more logical and fits the AA theory better. Evolving on another planet and being moved here isn't very logical. Why bring people that evolved to a different set of environmental factors to a foreign place, when your science is so advanced you could create intelligent life by manipulating existing genetics, sort of, speeding up the process of evolution, if you will.
Well I know you don't have the 30 years like I have studying the supernatural and paranormal, but I could guess that if you knew anything about aliens that you would at least know they are well known for abducting people. Thats what they do, that is the business they are in. It's obvious when I read the bible that this is what happened.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

If we are going through a mass extinction (which I don't know, proof please) it's most probable that we are the culprits this time. Mankind had been so successful that we bascially kill off any large predators near us and as well as any large fauna. Add on top of that our destruction of other species natural ranges and habitats, we just aren't very good neighbors to our fellow plants and animals on earth and in the lakes and ocean.

I would think that evolution would get short circuited by mankind's interference in the way normal natural selection goes on. Species now cease to exist, sometimes solely because mankind just hunts them to extinction or destroys their habitats.


There are other species than us who act the same way...killer ants for example completely destroy their environment on their treks.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Let's not pretend you care about proof if it disagrees with your fairytale religion. If you were honest to yourself you would jump off the empire state building because "gravity can't be proven"
First of all there is nothing factual about the information you provided in the link. Second, I noticed how they are once again trying to frame the proof of the relation on the DNA. Like I keep explaining over and over, for all you know a creator could have made those changes in the DNA. You have no proof, Never had, Never will, a complete fantasy.


But there's ZERO evidence a creator influenced it....just like there's no evidence that unicorns did it



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I have done nothing but answer your akward questions colin.
You obviously do not understand the difference between replying and answering.

1. You have replied to my questions but you have never answered them.
2. The reason you find my questions awkward is because you have no answer to them.
3. The reason you have no answer to them is because your term 'target food' is nonsense so you reply with meaningless replies and not answers.


Actually I have done a pretty good job, and proven evolution wrong in the process, even though it wasn't the idea.
Again you dive head long into your fantasy world. You have not even made a case for the nonsense term 'target food' so how you can claim you have proven Evolution wrong is just more of your self deluded views.


Here is a good question for you Colin.
Nope. You have a long, outstanding list of unanswered questions from me alone. You concentrate on answering those first.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





I think you are trying to prove the saying 'you are what you eat' and your target food is clearly nuts. You must eat plenty of them.

Show the proof or as usual it never happened.
It's allready proven, there is no way that a species as a whole can just magically end up eating the same things, and you try to tell me that they just eat whatever.
A fine example of you replying but not giving an answer.

Telling me that something is already proven when your claim was:


Well first of all these herbs were one of the things that were also brought to earth, at least according to the bible. Second, I'm not impressed by what they do. Granted we have harvested them, and make medication out of them, but what do you expect having a herb from probably every planet.
(nice try at trying to ignore what you wrote originally)

Show don’t tell me it is proven. Don’t expect me to believe such an outrageous statement provide evidence.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



When a species has a very large menu, they could be scavengers, as they will eat just about anything. Humans are a prime example of this as we eat just about everything put in front of us, however, that doesn't mean any of it's our target food. Something else that helps identify this is the steps taken to adapt. A good example is Cows Milk. Cows Milk is another animals milk, but we process it by homogenizing it, fortifying it, pasteurizing it. With this redundant adaptation, its obvious that cows milk was not meant for us to drink, and no one is ever going to convince me otherwise. However the need to drink it is there, and this stems from a reason other than extinction. You see we never had a good calcium source. There are other things we can eat to substitute calcium like processed cheese is the best but its not natural, so it can't be a target food. Other things are either not found in most areas or require a lot of work or are not good sources. We can rule out cows Milk as a replacement to something else as we never knew of anything else we could eat that had sufficient calcium. It's as though we have always been missing a required supply for calcium, and this is for a reason that I will explain. BTW our need for calcium rises as we get older.


You need to ask yourself, "Where did the cow get the calcium from?"

Answer: what it eats. Cacium is widely available in vegetable matter. A good source for many vegans are bitter greens. And if you are a meatatarian, you may just enjoy your offal as well (and scrape off little bits of bone along the way).

Not trying to rain on your parade....just helping to poke holes in your umbrella.

BTW:



Now things are starting to make sense. Here is where the conflict lies with evolution, the ultimate goal of evolution is to create new species. Sure it takes forever and its so slow that we supposedly can't prove it, but that’s what they are saying. If you were just to take you basic religion and subtract the faith part, whats left is creation, and diversity, and evolution supposedly covers that. Now evolutionists will never own up to the fact that evolution creates because they claim there is not purpose or intent behind it, I question this as well. Anyhow, if the millions of species on this planet supposedly evolved from one starting living organism, I think everyone will agree there appears to be some type of motivation here to make new life. And that’s regardless if you believe in god, evolution or whatever.


Evolution has no goal. It isn't a sentient thing. It is a byproduct of something we call "genetic drift". If you disagree with genetic drift, then you obviously have no concept of how genes work. Genetics are not a theory. Genetics are a science.

Now, "evolution" (as it has been known) may be a load of baloney. But genetic drift is a fact, not a theory. There is no baloney there. And that, if nothing else, accounts for most of what you would call "evolution". The rest can be simple catastrophism. Or an underlying facet of reality (a la the 100 Monkeys principle).



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But there's ZERO evidence a creator influenced it....just like there's no evidence that unicorns did it
There is zero evidence that evolution influenced it too. The only thing we know for sure is when scientists are finding change, it must be evolution.




top topics



 
6
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join