Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





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.


It happens out of necessity because our environment is constantly changing. For example, when first life appeared earth wouldn't have been a very friendly place for humans.




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.


It's not always starvation, but in the end species have been dying out for billions of years...it's nature.

In a few million years whatever we turn into won't be "homo sapiens" anymore because we're still evolving.




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.


Yeah, a lot of it is part of evolution if it affects future generations.




But just like creation, none of the full theory is proven.


Evolution is a FACT





There are some small areas with specieation proven and thats it. Macroevoltuion has never been observed, or traced for that matter.


Speciation IS macroevolution, and yes, DNA, migratory trends and the fossil record all clearly back it up


Hell, we're actively applying it to predict future outcomes!!




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.


It's NOT logical because it's a MADE UP WORD with a MADE UP DEFINITION


Fact is, we have food that's perfectly suitable for us...and only a change in the environment would make that more difficult.




There is just order behind it, which is something that evolution lacks in theory.


Argument from complexity





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.


Well, we kind of are...if the earth was where Neptune is, we wouldn't look the same





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.


What do you mean by "without some type of motivation"??? The motivation is SURVIVAL in a constantly 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.


Over a long enough time frame and considering billions of mutations can happen at the same time it's really not that improbably given probabilities...




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.


The argument from complexity is a fallacious argument no matter what




posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
>>
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.
>>

How can a species evolve over billions of years and then starve? That would be kind of missing the entire point of evolution!

EACH SINGLE particular living being on this planet is proof of evolution, their simple EXISTENCE is.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


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.


This is the same logic as to attribute the lottery win of some random woman in Wisconsin to the paranormal, since, according to logic and math, it's extremely, extremely unlikely that she could've have won. NEVERTHELESS, she won.

Yes, it's actually correct that almost infinite "complex" factors played a role which, ultimately, lead to the result that some particular women in Wisconsin won the lottery - but this does NOT make it a godly event or "esoteric", if we assume that there will always be one winner each week.

While evolution is indeed "complex", so it is also incredible SIMPLE.....in fact, i think "Creationists" explanation attempts are far more complex in a sense than how evolution works.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 





This is the same logic as to attribute the lottery win of some random woman in Wisconsin to the paranormal, since, according to logic and math, it's extremely, extremely unlikely that she could've have won. NEVERTHELESS, she won.

Yes, it's actually correct that almost infinite "complex" factors played a role which, ultimately, lead to the result that some particular women in Wisconsin won the lottery - but this does NOT make it a godly event or "esoteric", if we assume that there will always be one winner each week.

While evolution is indeed "complex", so it is also incredible SIMPLE.....in fact, i think "Creationists" explanation attempts are far more complex in a sense than how evolution works.
But if she won every single lotto for 100 years straight, like evolution predicts, then now tell me whats going on.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


That's not what evolution states


And you are assuming it was all blind chance...clearly it isn't.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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.



It happens out of necessity because our environment is constantly changing. For example, when first life appeared earth wouldn't have been a very friendly place for humans.
Necessity? What exactly are you saying, that its necessary for mass extinctions?




It's not always starvation, but in the end species have been dying out for billions of years...it's nature.
Now I have a scientific reason why its happening, and you turn up with its nature, while I'm calling it the after effects of intervention.

Can you give me a more scientific answer?




In a few million years whatever we turn into won't be "homo sapiens" anymore because we're still evolving
There is no proof of that and your assuming, do you have a more scientific explanation.




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.



Yeah, a lot of it is part of evolution if it affects future generations.
Here is what I'm going to say about this. It's a fact that species need a balance of things to survive. Colin admitted this himself back when we were on about the shrimp in a sealed fish tank. That shrimp lives a shortened life based on the fact that not all of the necessary things are present to help it live longer. So your wrong. Target food is an obvious fact just based on that simple observation.




Evolution is a FACT
Well what you mean to say is that CHANGES, are a fact, and so is ADHD that makes some of those changes.




Speciation IS macroevolution, and yes, DNA, migratory trends and the fossil record all clearly back it up

Hell, we're actively applying it to predict future outcomes!!
Sure, and I'll bet it even works to, the bottom line is that relation doesn't prove evolution, its an assumption.




It's NOT logical because it's a MADE UP WORD with a MADE UP DEFINITION

Fact is, we have food that's perfectly suitable for us...and only a change in the environment would make that more difficult
Well then you need to march right into your local mega super suppliment store and let them know they should have been out of business a hell of a long time ago, because there was never a need for them. And while your at it, let all the quacks know that diebetes, IBS, chrones disease and every other disorder associated with eating are all fake.




What do you mean by "without some type of motivation"??? The motivation is SURVIVAL in a constantly changing environment.
But your not getting it, what does that have to do with not having healthy food to eat for everyone?




Over a long enough time frame and considering billions of mutations can happen at the same time it's really not that improbably given probabilities...
And aside from some bacteria and viruses we can't observe any of it in motion.




The argument from complexity is a fallacious argument no matter what
You think so? Then google an image of flagellum, and be prepared to explain to me how it is exactly, in detail that gears and sprockets evolved.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 





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.
>>

How can a species evolve over billions of years and then starve? That would be kind of missing the entire point of evolution!

EACH SINGLE particular living being on this planet is proof of evolution, their simple EXISTENCE is.
The problem that everyone keeps overlooking is that starving and dying is not evolving, as the species no longer produces offspring when its dead.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That's not what evolution states

And you are assuming it was all blind chance...clearly it isn't.
So now your admitting that there is some type of intelligence behind its motivation?



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flexy123
 





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.
>>

How can a species evolve over billions of years and then starve? That would be kind of missing the entire point of evolution!

EACH SINGLE particular living being on this planet is proof of evolution, their simple EXISTENCE is.
The problem that everyone keeps overlooking is that starving and dying is not evolving, as the species no longer produces offspring when its dead.


What species evolved billions of years and is now starving and dying? I cant follow you.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





That's not what evolution states

And you are assuming it was all blind chance...clearly it isn't.
So now your admitting that there is some type of intelligence behind its motivation?


Do you consider physical forces like gravity "intelligence"?


Absence of chance doesn't automatically imply intelligence.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 





What species evolved billions of years and is now starving and dying? I cant follow you.
You have to go back to the beginning where it all started...

Life as we know it, at least according to evolution, started out from a primordial slime. So from day one on planet earth, which I believes sets us back to about 4.3 billion years, There was life on a very fundamental level. All life as we know it, evolved from this slime. Not only were there magic male and female of the same species, but there must of been food around for these new species as well. Of course there was water and air. Primordial slime may have even of been durring a period in which some of these basic things weren't here yet, and those came later.

The point is we are all made from that first slime.

Not directly of course, they woud be ancestors. So you see that the first species that emerged from this soup must have also included a plethora of other life as life as we know it usually only survives if there is many other types of life in addition to food for all of those species.

Just to show you how complicated this is, I once offered the idea of the sealed fish tank. The sealed fish tank is a real product and apparently they also have a shrimp in a sealed tank. It's sealed so you don't change the water, you don't feed them, all you do is expose them to sun light and because of the specific water, and an alge plant you have this very lame version of what you would call a balanced eco system. These tanks are proof positive that man understands the meaning of things being in balance in order for them to survive. However because its just alge and water, the shrimp or fish actually lives a siginificiantly reduced life because many other elements are missing from the balance. Basically its a shotty attempt to create a balance and market it.

In the real world many other things will come into play in those lives giving them a much more realistic life span. So back to the point, we all started from primordial slime. Now this slime evolved into what we see today rendering over 5 million species. Now thats a big number. I don't think its premature to say that someone or something is a driving force for biodiversity. I tend to lean on the side that there must be intelligence behind it. Back to the fish or shrimp, they must have to interact with probably about 60 other elements just to stay in balance, so there is no way that things just evolve as we understand it, everything would have to evolve along with everything else in some technical accomodating manner.

What we see today is the opposite. We are in the 6th largest extinction right now. If you threw in some things wiht the fish or shrimp tank that didn't belong there, it would upset the balance and either lessen the life span or possibly cause some of them to go extinct. Thats exactly what we see and deal with today. Evolution claims this is all normal, but its not, its due to the introduction of other species that don't belong to the system. This introduction can be called transpermia if its on a cellular level and intervention if its life forms brought here by ET.

I believe intervention is what happened to us, and we have documentation to back it up. The bible makes reference several times to our home being elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Do you consider physical forces like gravity "intelligence"?

Absence of chance doesn't automatically imply intelligence.
No gravity is not intelligence. Intelligence would be some type of thought or persuasion from another life form, but one that is in the intelligent position.

Now evolution can supposedly change our DNA, that sounds pretty intelligent right there.
Evolution supposedly can make these changes without revealing where the motivation came from, to where we are unable to identify whats behind the changes, that again sounds pretty intelligent.
I'm also told that evolution has the ability to select who and how the changes will be made, that sounds all intelligent.
Evoluton also has the ability to to make sure that we either evolve into something that fits an available menu, to make sure we have something to eat, or perhaps evolves the food to fit our needs, I never got a clear understanding on which one is correct.

When Evolution has the ability to make sure we have food, or make sure we evolve into accepting the food we do have, there is obviously some sort of thought there, and its premeditated.
Just to set the record straight however, Evolution must be failing as we are in our 6th largest extinction from species losing there food or being eaten themselves. Now if you want to believe that the food evolves, its still failing, as not only is the extinctions prevailing but as a good example, our food sure in the hell hasn't evolved for us as we have had to adapt to make it work.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm still waiting for you to explain to me exactly how the gears and sprockets evolved in the flagellum.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Do you consider physical forces like gravity "intelligence"?

Absence of chance doesn't automatically imply intelligence.
No gravity is not intelligence. Intelligence would be some type of thought or persuasion from another life form, but one that is in the intelligent position.

Now evolution can supposedly change our DNA, that sounds pretty intelligent right there.
Evolution supposedly can make these changes without revealing where the motivation came from, to where we are unable to identify whats behind the changes, that again sounds pretty intelligent.
I'm also told that evolution has the ability to select who and how the changes will be made, that sounds all intelligent.
Evoluton also has the ability to to make sure that we either evolve into something that fits an available menu, to make sure we have something to eat, or perhaps evolves the food to fit our needs, I never got a clear understanding on which one is correct.

When Evolution has the ability to make sure we have food, or make sure we evolve into accepting the food we do have, there is obviously some sort of thought there, and its premeditated.
Just to set the record straight however, Evolution must be failing as we are in our 6th largest extinction from species losing there food or being eaten themselves. Now if you want to believe that the food evolves, its still failing, as not only is the extinctions prevailing but as a good example, our food sure in the hell hasn't evolved for us as we have had to adapt to make it work.



Ummm, you appear to believe evolution is an entity with an agenda judging by your posts.

"It" isn't and "it" doesn't. You really do not understand the way it works do you?

Edible flora does not evolve to be edible, any changes that occur do so because it has proven to be conducive to species survival. There is no target food, there are manipulated food plants (and animals) that we have deliberately hybridized and bred to use as food..but in its natural state if a plant looks, tastes or smells appealing to you (or a bird or a bee etc...) then it does so because that mutation was successful..no guiding hand required. In other words, you'll ingest it and either:
1. Swallow and then crap out the seeds
2. Eat the fruit and toss the seeds/pit.
Both ways are a win for the plant involved, it reproduces and the species survives.

The best (and ironically the one used by creationists to argue their case for what you label target food) example is the banana, yes the banana. look it up in its natural state. Then look at the "designed for us" version that you see in stores everywhere. One you will find unappealing (and you can't eat the seeds..yes seeds), the other has been "shaped" by man for around 8000 years and cannot propagate without the intervention of man.

Incidentally, the jury is still out on our intelligence as a beneficial evolutionary path. After all we are doing ourselves no favors with our "smarts" and seem to being doing our level best to take the rest of the planetary biosphere with us.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm still waiting for you to explain to me exactly how the gears and sprockets evolved in the flagellum.


First please tell me why they (you seem to imply) could not of ?

Unless of course you really believe that anything we do "mechanically" hasn't or cannot be done in nature, if the process is beneficial to species continuation.

I personally marvel at the diversity of life on the this little blue marble and at its ability to adapt and survive.
With no creator or "intelligence" required.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'm still waiting for you to explain to me exactly how the gears and sprockets evolved in the flagellum.


So are you now going back to the old god of the gaps argument where you claim "science can't explain that, ergo god/aliens did that"


Really??


No magic required.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





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.
Provided they are smart enough to do so, which isn't always the case.


Wrong. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. It's a natural urge--we are animals after all.





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.
And thats all true, but I don't think those signs of desperation are normal or supposed to be anyhow.


Why wouldn't they be normal? Soil and food nutritional content varies with the seasons, rainfall, humidity, etc., so the amount you take in varies. Sometimes you get deficient, and your body knows instinctively where to acquire the lacking nutrients.
edit on 8/3/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 





Ummm, you appear to believe evolution is an entity with an agenda judging by your posts.

"It" isn't and "it" doesn't. You really do not understand the way it works do you?
It's my analage based on disbelief of all the things that evolution is responsible.




There is no target food, there are manipulated food plants (and animals) that we have deliberately hybridized and bred to use as food..
So your saying here that when we adapt, that is part of evolution. Adaptation is part of evolution. But there is a major contradiction with that understanding. You see had we of evolved correctly the first time, we wouldn't have needed to adapt. Adaptation is whats happening as a result of evolution failing.




but in its natural state if a plant looks, tastes or smells appealing to you (or a bird or a bee etc...) then it does so because that mutation was successful..no guiding hand required. In other words, you'll ingest it and either:
1. Swallow and then crap out the seeds
2. Eat the fruit and toss the seeds/pit.
Both ways are a win for the plant involved, it reproduces and the species survives.
Sounds more like a trial and error. I'm looking at over 5 million species on this planet and can't seem to come to the understanding that they were all made on a trial and error basis. Is it perhaps the fact that we have the 6th largest extinction going on right now that leads you to believe this? Because extinctions are NOT natural. Our planet is technically dying, so you will never convince me they are normal.




The best (and ironically the one used by creationists to argue their case for what you label target food) example is the banana, yes the banana. look it up in its natural state. Then look at the "designed for us" version that you see in stores everywhere. One you will find unappealing (and you can't eat the seeds..yes seeds), the other has been "shaped" by man for around 8000 years and cannot propagate without the intervention of man
Sounds like DNA manipulation. You have to realize that your giving an example of creation in a way that appears to be evoltuion motivated. In other words we evolved the food. The problem is that evolution is not through manipulation through man, its supposed to be natural.

This is why I was bringing up the example of ADHD. Scientists just RECENTLY found out that ADHD actually changes our genes. What happens is there are some sections that are erased, and others that are multiplied. It's some scary stuff. Anyhow, they have found the culprit, its lead. Introducing lead to ones system causes this to happen. Then I read an article about how cigarette smoke causes ADHD, which is because cigarettes also have lead. My point here is that man has inadvertantly made changes to his DNA, that evolutionists probably used to view as evolution when in reality its not.




Incidentally, the jury is still out on our intelligence as a beneficial evolutionary path. After all we are doing ourselves no favors with our "smarts" and seem to being doing our level best to take the rest of the planetary biosphere with us.
Very smart statement. Not that I'm going to be able to convince you that earth is not our home, but if you think about it for a minute you will realize that 100% of the idea fits. We are destroying this planet because we don't belong here. Our smarts aren't really helping or you see us spinning our wheels because its not our planet.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


But adapting is an evolutionary move. All of evolution is one creature being dependant on another. Having only one food source does not debunk evolution, it is the result of it.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 





First please tell me why they (you seem to imply) could not of ?
Your joking, gears and sprockets evolving, LOL. Come on people, your talking to guy that totally believes in the supernatural and the paranormal, so you know if it were remotly possible I wouldn't have a problem. I don't see any way in hell that gears and sprockets can evolve.

Flagellum is a chemical motor that has gears and sprockets, and I don't see how something like that could have evolved, its was obviously created.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join