Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Praetorius
 


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.
I totally missed your point. I have been a firm believer that you will need calcium to develope it.

If animals stop drinking milk about as soon as they stop being babies - where do they get all the calcium they need to develop big, strong bones? And why does their milk have calcium in it in the first place?

From plant sources, and because they eat lots of plants, my friend - some much better than others. I believe I saw another poster earlier in-thread give a list of calcium-rich plants that are prime sources for people to get calcium from without spiking their protein intake and contributing to osteoporosis (and all the other fun & fairly disgusting things that go along with milk).

Don't get me wrong - I personally like milk...preferably organic milk from cruelty-free sources. But, unless I'm needing more protein and my body's already very well off with calcium, that doesn't mean it's good for me.




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I wish it were that easy, Pixi dust LOL


Yup, pixie dust is completely made up...just like "target food". So if you're laughing about pixie dust, you should laugh about target food too



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The problem is that your always up against that pesky possibility that a creator explains biodiversity. So untill you can prove that a creator had nothing to do with all of this life, you will always be up against that wall.

Now I'm not saying that I believe that, I'm just saying that you have to rule it out and you haven't done that. Simular genes don't prove relation when a creator could have made it that way.


There's a possibility first life was started by a creator...or because of physical forces...we don't know. But we do know how biodiversity evolved to what we see today. No magic or a creator required.

And if a creator really was involved in evolution, there is no proof or evidence of that because we can explain the process rationally. Hell, we are even applying that knowledge



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






Target food anyone?
Cooking food is a redundant process so there is NO WAY bacon could be a target food as much as I wish it were.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 






Target food anyone?
Cooking food is a redundant process so there is NO WAY bacon could be a target food as much as I wish it were.


I don't think you understand: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!

You made it up, just like you made up its definition before claiming it's now somehow a prerequisite for evolution



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What you call "signs of desperation" has been going on for BILLIONS of years...so yeah, it's definitely quite normal. It's also the reason why 99% of species who ever lived on this planet are now extinct. And those surviving species are mostly unicellular lifeforms...or very simple lifeforms in general.

All that information has been posted to you TONS of times. You seem like a curious guy who likes to read...so read!! And for a change focus on properly sourced material by credible authors. Objectivity matters
So what your saying is that even though the whole idea of creationism is to create new life, and the end result of of evolution is to create new life, that they both would have an agenda to end life through torture.

Doesn't sound like much a game plan to me. I mean you can argue all you want and say that evolution has no intent but the bottom line is it sure in the hell looks like there is motivation of some type there to make new life and you can't deny that. Why such a complex arrray of steps to end up torturing them? Something is wrong.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





Agreed. Based on what we were always taught growing up (here, anyway...), milk does a body good!

As far as the assumption that we started drinking milk to satisfy an apparent deficiency, I don't know. I doubt it, but I've never looked into. Would be an interesting thing for me to actually get around to looking into sometime.
Well you have to at least agree that there was purpose in adopting milk.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





there is motivation of some type there to make new life and you can't deny that


Yes...and that's called a "changing environment".




Why such a complex arrray of steps to end up torturing them?


Argument from complexity



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
the theory of evolution doesn't rely on facts or eyewitness testimony, its main function is to deny the existence of God.

people who can't accept God, chose to believe that a monkey somehow magically rewrote its genetic code and changed to a completely different species.

like a dog turning into a bird, or a fish becoming a giraffe, an ape becoming a human is just a ridiculous.

they also never mention the famous missing link. any missing link would do. because if man has a missing link, then so should a walrus, a dolphin, a bee, a rhino, a tuna etc.

there a billions of species on earth, therefore their should be billions of missing links. the odds greatly favor finding one. not one has been found for any animal on earth.

so the evidence suggests that all animals on earth behave, look and act exactly as intended.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
the theory of evolution doesn't rely on facts or eyewitness testimony, its main function is to deny the existence of God.


this is so incredibly wrong, I don't even know how to begin.


Originally posted by randomname
people who can't accept God, chose to believe that a monkey somehow magically rewrote its genetic code and changed to a completely different species.

like a dog turning into a bird, or a fish becoming a giraffe, an ape becoming a human is just a ridiculous.

they also never mention the famous missing link. any missing link would do. because if man has a missing link, then so should a walrus, a dolphin, a bee, a rhino, a tuna etc.


Hush now and go read a book on evolution theory.


Originally posted by randomname
there a billions of species on earth, therefore their should be billions of missing links. the odds greatly favor finding one. not one has been found for any animal on earth.

so the evidence suggests that all animals on earth behave, look and act exactly as intended.


Wrong, wrong, and most profoundly wrong. have you even bothered to research anything related to the subject ?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 





the theory of evolution doesn't rely on facts or eyewitness testimony, its main function is to deny the existence of God.


Mostly wrong. It doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony because that would be SUBJECTIVE evidence...just like the bible is SUBJECTIVE evidence for anything other than what people believed back then based on their compared to today limited knowledge.

The definition of evolution is:




change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.


Now, I might not be a genius...but I can read. And nowhere do I see the word "god" in there, so clearly you're wrong.

LINK




people who can't accept God, chose to believe that a monkey somehow magically rewrote its genetic code and changed to a completely different species.


Yeah...that's not really what the theory states. You might wanna read up on it before making demonstrably wrong claims like that. Here's a link explaining human evolution: LINK




like a dog turning into a bird, or a fish becoming a giraffe, an ape becoming a human is just a ridiculous.




Again...that's not how evolution works, and if you knew what the theory really is, you'd realize that.




they also never mention the famous missing link. any missing link would do. because if man has a missing link, then so should a walrus, a dolphin, a bee, a rhino, a tuna etc.


Missing links, or "transitional fossils" as experts call it aren't "missing". We have THOUSANDS of them!!


Also, the whole missing link argument is complete and utter nonsense and has been debunked tons of times: LINK




there a billions of species on earth, therefore their should be billions of missing links. the odds greatly favor finding one. not one has been found for any animal on earth.


As mentioned above, that's just blatantly wrong.




so the evidence suggests that all animals on earth behave, look and act exactly as intended.


That's complete and utter nonsense because 99% of all life forms which ever lived on earth are now extinct. The only survivors are some unicellular lifeforms and very simple other life forms.

LINK

Sorry, but the "alternative" to all those facts just isn't rational and logical enough for me:




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

You quite clealry feel threatened by the theory of evolution. You must be a creationist backing into a corner....nuff said but I'm sure defensive agitation will kick in, so here's some more bones for you to chew on.

your argument is so full of holes due to bad interpretation I don't know where to start. One thing though, evolution does not "think" as your language implies. It is a natural order to the universe that results in life surviving irrespective of food sources, sudden catastrophes and/or slow changes. As Dr Malcolm succinctly puts in the film Jurassic Park : Life will find a way.

If you need to invent a mythical creature who has mysteriously existed forever (whew wow flaw there I think) you are merely indicating a profound lack of understanding and/or inability to state "I do not know......yet".

There is nothing wrong with not knowing, it's what science does, investigate and understand. Faith says "God did it" when you don't know, what a sad copout. Humans in loin cloths invented God for the sun rising because they didn't understand (amongst gadzilions of other events). Surely you can see why folks like me despair at the necessity of 21st man to need God. So very very sad, so very very wrong, so very very primitive.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 





If animals stop drinking milk about as soon as they stop being babies - where do they get all the calcium they need to develop big, strong bones? And why does their milk have calcium in it in the first place?

From plant sources, and because they eat lots of plants, my friend - some much better than others. I believe I saw another poster earlier in-thread give a list of calcium-rich plants that are prime sources for people to get calcium from without spiking their protein intake and contributing to osteoporosis (and all the other fun & fairly disgusting things that go along with milk).

Don't get me wrong - I personally like milk...preferably organic milk from cruelty-free sources. But, unless I'm needing more protein and my body's already very well off with calcium, that doesn't mean it's good for me.
Cows milk was just an example of our desperation, by no means was it to look like a good substituite for something that is missing from our menu.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Yup, pixie dust is completely made up...just like "target food". So if you're laughing about pixie dust, you should laugh about target food too
If you dont believe in target food then you agree that species are suppose to spend billions of years evolving just to end up starving and dying. It makes no sense to me. Maybe you can explain it.

There is obvious motivation for the diversity of life, regardless of what you believe in. It makes no sense that all this life would come to an end from starvation.

This entire planet could colaps and your trying to say ya thats all part of the plan of evolution.

It's more like you noticed thats whats happening, so just like everything else that got noticed like changes occuring, you threw it in with the theory of evolution because it must be evolution.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





There's a possibility first life was started by a creator...or because of physical forces...we don't know. But we do know how biodiversity evolved to what we see today. No magic or a creator required.

And if a creator really was involved in evolution, there is no proof or evidence of that because we can explain the process rationally. Hell, we are even applying that knowledge
But just like creation, none of the full theory is proven.

There are some small areas with specieation proven and thats it. Macroevoltuion has never been observed, or traced for that matter. And thats the real kicker, we should be able to trace all of this as its all here, where at least religion has an excuse as to why it can't be proven.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I don't think you understand: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!

You made it up, just like you made up its definition before claiming it's now somehow a prerequisite for evolution
Target food stems from the logical thinking that everything must have something to eat, not that everything might be able to find something to eat.

There is just order behind it, which is something that evolution lacks in theory.
The problem is that the results that evolution renders requires order. You can't just have over 5 million species get created through a crap shoot of evolution and then turn around and try to convince me that we got lucky.

I might believe in the supernatural but you believe just a tad to much in luck.
There is no way that 5 million species could get created without some type of motivation, I'm sorry I just don't by the whole we got lucky thing.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





there is motivation of some type there to make new life and you can't deny that



Yes...and that's called a "changing environment".
Yes but I'm trying to say there is something behind it, you can't just say that mutations got lucky and created over 5 million species, totally different species BTW. I don't buy it.




Why such a complex arrray of steps to end up torturing them?



Argument from complexity
Thats a good example of what I'm talking about. Your making an assumption just like in the court case with flaggelum that because a court ruled against irreducable complexity that it automatically means they sided with evolution, and YOUR WRONG.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 





the theory of evolution doesn't rely on facts or eyewitness testimony, its main function is to deny the existence of God.

people who can't accept God, chose to believe that a monkey somehow magically rewrote its genetic code and changed to a completely different species.

like a dog turning into a bird, or a fish becoming a giraffe, an ape becoming a human is just a ridiculous.

they also never mention the famous missing link. any missing link would do. because if man has a missing link, then so should a walrus, a dolphin, a bee, a rhino, a tuna etc.

there a billions of species on earth, therefore their should be billions of missing links. the odds greatly favor finding one. not one has been found for any animal on earth.

so the evidence suggests that all animals on earth behave, look and act exactly as intended.
And I agree with you, everything looks right on. FYI though they got rid of "the missing link" term and replaced it with "common ancestor" they idea was that they realized they would never find an missing link so changed it to common ancestor to claim that we didn't evolve in a unilatteral direction but in a bi latteral direction.
I'm not a big believer in a creator but it sure does look like a series of theories to replace religion.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
What is at the base of the OP..sorry this was too much to read.

Do you presume that someone or something made "target food"? I already have problems with the word already, since "target food" sounds silly and not correct.

An organism will NATURALLY work with those resources which are available. This is what evolution is about, to ADAPT to the current environment.

Example, we humans and animals use oxygen, NOT because someone "placed" the oxygen in our atmosphere as a "target resource". It was a LOGICAL step that organism develop and evolve in a way that we use the resources which are there. Animals have not evolved needing to breathe in some type of gas which might exist on SATURN or JUPITER here on Earth - they have evolved to use oxygen.

Fish evolved to live under water, animals evolved to make use of plants which happen to be on this planet, and plants again live by being able to transform the energy of the sun or pulling minerals from the Earth with their roots.

This happened because THERE WAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE than doing it exactly like that.

Let's assume there is an eco system/environment somewhere (it could be a planet, or an ocean for example)...we can also assume that species which evolve in this eco system over short will also adapt and learn to use whatever compounds are found in this eco-system - let speculate about a hypothetical, still undiscovered planet with an atmosphere rich in methane maybe. You can bet that if there's life on this planet, they will use methane - NOT oxygen or water etc. in particular if it doesn't even EXIST on that planet.

>>
A target food would be a food source that was intended for that species.
>>

Such a sentence alone makes me cringe. An organism could not even do ANYTHING ELSE BUT adapt to the available resources. For a plant to grow, we can assume that a plant at some point must have "learned" to make use of the energy/nutrients in the soil it grows. For an animal, it should NOT be surprising that we involved in a way that we can "use" (ie: eat) other animals and/or plants....what ELSE should we have adapted to? It doesn't need godly invention in advance to "plan this"...it will logically happen if a species wants to survive/evolve.
edit on 2-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 





You quite clealry feel threatened by the theory of evolution. You must be a creationist backing into a corner....nuff said but I'm sure defensive agitation will kick in, so here's some more bones for you to chew on.

your argument is so full of holes due to bad interpretation I don't know where to start. One thing though, evolution does not "think" as your language implies. It is a natural order to the universe that results in life surviving irrespective of food sources, sudden catastrophes and/or slow changes. As Dr Malcolm succinctly puts in the film Jurassic Park : Life will find a way.
I guess it all comes down to irreducable complexity for me. The idea here is that its hard to prove much less imagine how such a complex array of the steps of evolution can't be guided by some intelligent force.




If you need to invent a mythical creature who has mysteriously existed forever (whew wow flaw there I think) you are merely indicating a profound lack of understanding and/or inability to state "I do not know......yet".

There is nothing wrong with not knowing, it's what science does, investigate and understand. Faith says "God did it" when you don't know, what a sad copout. Humans in loin cloths invented God for the sun rising because they didn't understand (amongst gadzilions of other events). Surely you can see why folks like me despair at the necessity of 21st man to need God. So very very sad, so very very wrong, so very very primitive.
It's still to shocking to believe.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join