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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.



Nope, thats what you're saying. That's what you always say. That's what you will continue to say until you understand what evolution is
I understand evolution, but I'm beginning to question if you see the forest before the trees. There is no denying that there is some sort of an agenda.




Anyway, well done on starting the thread.

Along with a few others, I probably have a clearer idea of what you mean when you say "target Food".

So a question, How does target food prove evolution false?
If our planet was in balance, target food would be obvious no matter where you look, but thats not the case right now. life can only survive when there is balance and thats a fact. With humans we maiuplate that balance so that we can survive. However there is still a big difference between getting by, and eating the correct food. We don't have our correct food here because we are not from here, and our food was not brought here along with us. We also have documentation to back story up. And a good thing we do becasue incredulous people would be in disbelief. So if we aren't from here, there is no way that evolution can explain how we got here.




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Ya but humans don't eat anything that qualifies as target food.


So, what qualifies as target food, then? How do you make such a determination when humans along with many other creatures on earth have a big variety in what they eat.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





You have already accepted that speciation and genetic change are fact. You have accepted that genetic changes are heritable
Specieation has been observed in some aquatic life, bacteria and viruse, which is a far cry from us sharring a common ancestor with apes.




So regardless of whether you believe evolution is only applicable to lower life forms, or only applicable to this planets original inhabitants, acceptance of inheritable genetic change is acceptance of the evolutionary process
Again, your making assumptions here, and you know what they say when someone assumes.




How does target food change those facts?
Well for starters, evolution claims that torture and starvation is a normal part of the process, which contradicts the very idea of evolution making new life. It's like your agreeing that evolution is sadistic.

I just don't buy that. In addition, there can only be life when there is balance. I know I must sound like a ying yang freak but I'm not really like that, its the observation through common sense. Evolution has never accounted for the fact that balance is always needed in order for life to go on. You can't pretend that species evolve just to end up fidning out they have nothing to eat. You can't assume that we just eat the same things as what I eat looks nothing like what a bird eats. You could pretend that the food evolves along side everything else but then humans have this problem where our food has obviously not evolved properly so we had to adapt and process our food to fit our needs. Evolution is obviously failing in a bad way.

Still if food was supposed to evolve right along side everything else, it would also require some sort of intelligence to keep it in line with the demands of new species

So its comes down to two options here, either evolution is looking more like its backed by some sort of intelligence or it doesn't exist at all.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





If IC exists and demonstrates intelligent design, and we were all created through intlleigent design, why am I not irreducibly complex?

Surely if intelligent design were true, all life would be IC!

I'll even go as far as to say the lack of irreducible complexity the majority of all life proves any level of design wrong
All of the things are mentioned are irreducibly complex. If you cut a human or other species open you can see even in the blood cells that life is very small and very complex. Your confusing the fact that we have studdied these things for a long time therfore we know about them, with the physical characteristics not being believeable. I always think of flagellum.

So please give me your version on how gears and sprockets evolved.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 





This proves the old adage of: "Give a man enough rope and he'll"...eat it?
For those that don't know, hemp cereal is real.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


First of all Colin is welcome to my thread just as I have been to his.

And yes you are correct, that it appeard that I changed my mind and am now agreeing with him.

It's actually not that. We are both still right in this situation. The tank is SOLD as a balanced tank.
The problem is that its a crude example so the shrimp doesn't live as long as he should, none the less its still sold for the balance purpose, which is what I was arguing.

Now Colin is right that it would live longer if it were in the wild. The fact is there are many elements missing from the tank that would allow this shrimp to live a 20 year span, I'm still standing on the fact that they sell it as a balanced tank, but I'm agreeing with Colin that its a crude example. He called it a torture tank and I will agree to disagree.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





So, what qualifies as target food, then? How do you make such a determination when humans along with many other creatures on earth have a big variety in what they eat.
Just remember that the majority of what you see is species venturing over to other menus trying to survive and avoid becoming extinct.

A target food is a food that is ideal for a specific species. It will yeild high nutrition and be larger part of ones diet. It is not a processed food, it is natural. Taking redundant steps to obtain it would be a clue that its not a target food, if its not natural thats another clue its not a target food. Taget foods cant be replaced, at least not exactly. So what happened is when we got dropped off here, we were purposely denied our intended food. So everything we eat is a substituite.

If we have any target foods for ourselves...
We wouldn't have super suppliement stores, thats for sure. We wouldn't be suffering in the diet arena and needing medical care from the plethora of food related sicknesses we have today.
We would have a common food we could claim as a target food. And we would eat it and depend on it frequently.
We don't depend on any specific foods we do have, becasue we are scavengers. The whole idea of the term scavenger opens up your eyes, when your trying to figure out target foods for a species. Scavenging is a clue that something might be wrong



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 

If our planet was in balance, target food would be obvious no matter where you look, but thats not the case right now. life can only survive when there is balance and thats a fact. With humans we maiuplate that balance so that we can survive. However there is still a big difference between getting by, and eating the correct food. We don't have our correct food here because we are not from here, and our food was not brought here along with us. We also have documentation to back story up. And a good thing we do becasue incredulous people would be in disbelief. So if we aren't from here, there is no way that evolution can explain how we got here.


Ok, your thread, so happy to play by your rules.

Lets pretend that all your above statements are correct......I ask again, How does any of that dis-prove evolution?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





If IC exists and demonstrates intelligent design, and we were all created through intlleigent design, why am I not irreducibly complex?

Surely if intelligent design were true, all life would be IC!

I'll even go as far as to say the lack of irreducible complexity the majority of all life proves any level of design wrong
All of the things are mentioned are irreducibly complex. If you cut a human or other species open you can see even in the blood cells that life is very small and very complex. Your confusing the fact that we have studdied these things for a long time therfore we know about them, with the physical characteristics not being believeable. I always think of flagellum.

So please give me your version on how gears and sprockets evolved.


Mr XYZ has already provided ample information on flagellum earlier in this thread.

Nothing you say above makes any sense, and certainly doesnt address the point I made.

If I am a product of design, why arent I irreducibly complex (you do know what IC is?)
edit on 4-8-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by JustXeno
 





I think it's time I start a thread called Walmart and asda food prove evolution right.

We don't have to work for our food anymore, not in the sense our ancestors did, and the effects of that can be seen worldwide in western societies. We're getting lazier softer and more stupid with every generation that goes by.

So supermarkets are causing us to devolve surely
Our meat still has to be slaughtered, someone has to get that little piggy to market. It's just been ramped up to the point that we breed them to keep the process going.

We still have to pick fruits and veggies, and most is done by hand. There are some small mechanical examples but most by hand.


OK ty for pointing that out for me, but as I've worked the land myself for at least ten years, and worked in an abattoir for a good few years after leaving school there was no need. My post was meant lightheartedly but I guess it may have come across as cantankerous.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





+1.

Fascinating stuff. Not the argument itself, but the logic behind it, fascinating.
Thank you, I wish the incredulous mates on the evolution side felt the same way. I haven't figured out if they dislike it because it proves evolution wrong, or because they simply don't like it.


I'll say this for you tooth. Though I completely disagree with your point of view, you do seem indefatigable and unshakable. Amongst it all you seem to remain respectful to your antagonists, in a personal sense and there seems something likable in all of that. So in this way at least, I salute you. I guess it doesn't always hurt to have those with views that go against accepted knowledge. Stimulates a lot of debate and can be very educational, if nothing else.



edit on 4-8-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: because



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


You in fact missed the entire thrust of my post.

So in a nutshell:

Evolution is well documented. Using us a a metric became null and void once we began manipulating our enviroment to target (see what I did there) our needs and wants.

The cause of this manipulation : Intelligence. The outcome? Undecided...yet..but it looks pretty grim.

The rest of your arguments (mass extinctions etc) appear to rest on the condition of what can only be called a steady state ecosphere (into which man as an interloper was introduced). Something that even you must acknowledge is impossible on a geologically active planetary body.

Did I miss anything ?


edit on 5-8-2012 by Noncompatible because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The ability to drink milk is an adaptation and a recent one at that. Not only that, lactose intolerance shows adaptations at work. There is a reason lactose intolerace tends to appear in a wide variance of populations based on genetic ancestory. There is no ambrosia out there that is specificly meant to be eaten by people. We have evolved to be able to digest more than just basic friut and vegetable plant matter.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Most species have a target food except for scavengers which group humans are a member of. Humans cannot digest raw meat right and I doubt it we ever could, we lack some enzymes and would probably get slowly poisoned if we ate raw meat for a long time. Cats eat meat and like organ meat. They also eat grass and need certain grasses to help with conditions. They instinctively know which grass to eat. No grass in the house, no problem. Certain houseplants work just fine.
Dogs bury food so it can gain nutrients from the ground. They did down to the clay layer where bacteria can't grow well. Clay can and will kill bacteria of most kinds. If you want to kill off the bacteria in your gut get some Bentonite clay but plan on repopulating it with probiotics afterword.

Some cultures gained the ability to drink goats milk and cows milk. Some cows milk has antigens that are not compatible with many peoples bodies. In the USA these cows are prized for their ability to make lots of milk so most of our milk contains these antigens. New zealand did studies on this and most countries have learned from these studies except the USA. That allergy is not the Lactose intolerance allergy. Another allergy is to the change of the milk because of homogenization. Homogenization breaks open the cells holding the contents of the fats and mixes the fat chemicals into the milk so it won't separate. This means the chemicals are all released at one time instead of slowly as they digest. This changes the area of the digestive system receiving these chemicals. It's like getting shot with a shotgun instead of a bb gun. Next comes the change in food fed to cows. It changes the chemistry of the milk. All these things cause changes that made something good for you into something mildly toxic and long term consumption of mildly toxic things causes severe disorders.

Humans have target foods based on their genetics. We evolved from our ancestors eating habits and our food tolerances slowly need to be increased to survive in the world. If we change our food chemistry too quick we get sick. Look at the changes that have happened in the western diet over the last two or three generations. We have started eating things from all over the world in the last fourty years, something we could not do before. We can't adapt to this rapid change. Add all the chemicals added to the foods and we have problems. Remnember though that all foods have a companion food or antidote that should be eaten or drank with it. If our subconscious knows how to identify the companion food we crave the antidote. Trouble is that we are fed chemicals that confuse our immune system and subconscious. Then we can't recognize the food and don't crave the antidote, just more of the food. These chemicals can be natural also. We are going to have major problems with our offspring in the western world in the future, what we are seeing is nothing. They will turn more and more delusional in the coming generations, a problem with taking apart food right. Everyone will be on antipsychotic or antidepressant meds. It won't be like now where 40 percent take these. Ask yourself, why do our young take drugs, why do they desire to drink or smoke pot or cigarettes. They are searching for a self medication to neutralize the problems they have. I can't explain this in a whole book let alone in a paragraph.

Our Target foods are always changing and to go back also requires the body to adapt and possibly a generation or two to change back also. People don't understand the psychotropic effect of foods. I have been studying them for years and barely know anything at all as to the long term hereditary effects they have. The FDA is not worried about the long term effects, they are trying to promote businesses. Many food companies have designed their food to be healthy by adding things including chemicals also. Sometimes those chemical names are safe yet the natural versions are much worse. Locust bean, carrageen, and many other seemingly natural names can have adverse effects. Just because they are organic doesn't mean we can eat them.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
There is no such thing as target food.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Ok, your thread, so happy to play by your rules.

Lets pretend that all your above statements are correct......I ask again, How does any of that dis-prove evolution?
It's real simple, if we didn't originate from this planet, there is no way we could have evolved on this planet.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Mr XYZ has already provided ample information on flagellum earlier in this thread.

Nothing you say above makes any sense, and certainly doesnt address the point I made.

If I am a product of design, why arent I irreducibly complex (you do know what IC is?)
I believe so, and what I'm saying is you can find IC in humans as well, its just a matter of opinion.

It's everywhere, and Mr xyz has never explained how it is that sprockets and gears evolved.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
It's everywhere, and Mr xyz has never explained how it is that sprockets and gears evolved.

Please use the correct names of the proteins (I assume) you're referring to. This way we can see what has been written about their evolution.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JustXeno
 





OK ty for pointing that out for me, but as I've worked the land myself for at least ten years, and worked in an abattoir for a good few years after leaving school there was no need. My post was meant lightheartedly but I guess it may have come across as cantankerous.
I don't know what abattoir and cantankerious means.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





I'll say this for you tooth. Though I completely disagree with your point of view, you do seem indefatigable and unshakable. Amongst it all you seem to remain respectful to your antagonists, in a personal sense and there seems something likable in all of that. So in this way at least, I salute you. I guess it doesn't always hurt to have those with views that go against accepted knowledge. Stimulates a lot of debate and can be very educational, if nothing else.
Disagree? How can you believe that species were made just to be tortured in finding out they have no food to eat, it honestly makes no sense. How can you believe that any given species may or may not have food, yet we don't see the plethora of new species being born with no food right out of the box. Instead we see current species venturing over to somone elses menu and dying from starvation due to extinctions and becoming food themselves.

How can you NOT believe that there is an obvious goal or motivation behind evolution to make new life. We do have over 5 million species you know, so someone or something likes to make life.

The only answer in all of this is if the food evolves with the life on this planet like in a symbiotic way. Unfortunatly we have proof that isn't happening because we have been adapting to the food we have for centuries, it hasn't been evolving for us. In addition we are in the 6th largest extinction right now, and most of that stems from species not having anything to eat. So evolution is failing at every corner.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join