Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by Noncompatible

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 ?

The idea of man being an interloper is dead on. You can look at this from any angle you want but when you start testing this idea you begin to see that we actually don't fit in on this planet. We share NOTHING with this planet, we are not from here. I have explained this on other threads to the point that we have no target food, our smiles are inverted compared to the rest of the life here. We share no natural unforced relationship with any species here. We don't fit in on this planet, and any that we do is just us forcing things to work.

reply to post by cypruswolf

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

Now apes had a good diet, at least they don't have to depend on suppliments and diet control or medical intervention for diet and sickness.

Cows milk was never meant to be our milk, we just drink it because its the next best thing thats able to give us something we are looking for. Granted I'm sure there is some marketing in there as well, but the reason why it ever started was to fill a need. The human body acutally grows in its need for calcium as we get older. Now there are a few places we feed this with. Sardines rank highest on the list under processed cheese, but you would have to have access to sardines everyday. The rest of the things on the list would imply that you might need to gorge yourself on them to get the RDA, in addition to not any of these all being easily accessable in any geographic location.

You start to realize, in a way, we are screwed in this problem. There is something missing from our menu, and its all because we aren't from here, and our food isn't here with us. Of course we have documentation to back up why this is. According to the bible, we were placed here and everything we could imagine or need in terms of food and herbs were also brought to earth, with the exception of our home planet. Those things were not brought here, and if you want those you need to go back home.

So from both angles, we don't have our intended food, and we have it in writting.

reply to post by rickymouse

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.

It's funny you say this, I have always agreed here with what your saying. And the eating meat part, I have never thought of us as raw meat eaters. We do have canine teeth but they are small and lead me to believe they are more for tearing fruit.
Someone once told me that our species was meant to eat from trees, not from things you find on the ground. So like picking fruit and so forth. The problem is that if your target food is missing on this planet, there is no way to know what it even looks like, all we can do is make assumptions based on what food we do have. It's entirely possible that there is a plant that feeds us calcium.

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.

I have never head of that, I thought they were just burying it for later.

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.

So in other words, we made a bad thing worse in some ways. It doesn't shock me. Or desperation to fill the need for calcium will reach great lengths. This is what happens when you have food missing. The only difference between us and other critters on this planet is we do have smarts and the ability to adapt.

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.

I agree that sometimes we are just creating more problems for ourselves, in our attempt to adapt. You have to keep in mind that we have to only because we are not from here. It's this reason why we keep stumbling over ourselves.

reply to post by rickymouse

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.

Well a target food shouldn't ever change, at least according to the term I made up.

Target food is one or more idea foods that is perfect for a species in many ways. It will yeild high nutrients for that species, it will be avaiable and it will be all natural. Its when things get out of balance that any food can go extinct, so you need to rule that out as well. But we never had quot unquote the perfect food, that dissapeared off our radar.

reply to post by rhinoceros

There is no such thing as target food.

If you don't believe in target food then you believe in total chaos. The species on this planet would be in a free for all as a result of not having food that was intended for each of them. Eating off of others menus and causing extinctions, like we see today. But keep in mind just because its happening doesn't mean its correct.

You also believe that while its obvious evolution has a goal in its process to create new life, that its ok to torture this new life by presenting the fact that there is no food to eat. I'm sorry but it makes no sense

reply to post by rhinoceros

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

I see, so your saying they are gears and sprockets that are protien based. Either way you sum it up it looks like creater is all over it.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Explain something that would qualify as a target food for humans, and why something like spinach, banana or chicken would not be considered despite containing pretty much all essential nutrients and being able to be grown easily or picked easily with our hands? You are just making up your own definitions of words and essentially "target food" only means what you want it to mean.

Also, please give examples of target food for other creatures on earth.

Sorry but target food doesn't exist. Creatures eat whatever they can find to survive. It's been like that since the beginning. Life isn't convenient like that where every animal has some magical food that's simple for them to attain and gives all nutrients.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

There is no such thing as target food.

If you don't believe in target food then you believe in total chaos. The species on this planet would be in a free for all as a result of not having food that was intended for each of them. Eating off of others menus and causing extinctions, like we see today. But keep in mind just because its happening doesn't mean its correct.

You also believe that while its obvious evolution has a goal in its process to create new life, that its ok to torture this new life by presenting the fact that there is no food to eat. I'm sorry but it makes no sense

You think grass grows for the purpose that gazelles can eat it? Gazelles procreate for the sole purpose of getting eaten by lions? Darwin recognized that competition exists in nature. Species adapt or die over generations. This target food idea of yours is ridiculous and not backed up by anything. Evolution is not a conscious process. It doesn't have goals or feelings. It's simply the outcome of imperfect replication of DNA and natural selection.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

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

I see, so your saying they are gears and sprockets that are protien based. Either way you sum it up it looks like creater is all over it.

I asked if you were talking about some proteins. I guess you weren't since you couldn't name them. Nothing about proteins looks like they were designed, to the contrary we see clear signs of evolution over time. See for example my genetic code thread for reference.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

There is no such thing as target food.

If you don't believe in target food then you believe in total chaos. The species on this planet would be in a free for all as a result of not having food that was intended for each of them. Eating off of others menus and causing extinctions, like we see today. But keep in mind just because its happening doesn't mean its correct.

You also believe that while its obvious evolution has a goal in its process to create new life, that its ok to torture this new life by presenting the fact that there is no food to eat. I'm sorry but it makes no sense

Well... it is a free for all. You adapt or not pass your genes to the next generation.'I.E. Evolution.'

Extinctions are part of a natural process and have been since before the fossil record. If it were not for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, there is no reason the dinosaurs would not still be here.

Their reign was 165 million years, this alone is proof the eat or be eaten system was working just fine for them, and could have for another 100m years.

Brown lizards have evolved white scales in order to blend in with their environment to avoid becoming a tasty snack for a variety of other species.


What's really exciting, is that these bleached skin lizards are in the process of evolving into two separate species from their brown cousins.
Brown Lizard

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Noncompatible

 

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 ?

The idea of man being an interloper is dead on. You can look at this from any angle you want but when you start testing this idea you begin to see that we actually don't fit in on this planet. We share NOTHING with this planet, we are not from here. I have explained this on other threads to the point that we have no target food, our smiles are inverted compared to the rest of the life here. We share no natural unforced relationship with any species here. We don't fit in on this planet, and any that we do is just us forcing things to work.

*sigh* We don't fit on this planet ?

We fit just fine, or did, until we became "smart". From that point on we had the capability to change our enviroment to please us.

Which we have, without any thought to the impact it would have, for most of our "reign" as the dominant, not best not greatest just dominant, species.

It is only relatively recently we began to appreciate that our actions can have global impact on flora, fauna and even weather patterns.

Not from here ? All evidence shows otherwise.

Oh and there is no such thing as target food, never has been, never will be.

Incidentally there are plenty of unforced relationships within your body alone. But I suspect you'll say that is not what you mean.

reply to post by Barcs

Explain something that would qualify as a target food for humans, and why something like spinach, banana or chicken would not be considered despite containing pretty much all essential nutrients and being able to be grown easily or picked easily with our hands? You are just making up your own definitions of words and essentially "target food" only means what you want it to mean.

Also, please give examples of target food for other creatures on earth.

Sorry but target food doesn't exist. Creatures eat whatever they can find to survive. It's been like that since the beginning. Life isn't convenient like that where every animal has some magical food that's simple for them to attain and gives all nutrients

A target food would yeild very high nutrients for that specific species, and would almost be irreplacable. It wiould be all natural and plentiful for that species unless its gone extinct. It's not anything processed, and you could have more than one.

Humans don't have any target food here on earth, this is the whole proof if you will that earth is NOT our home. If this planet were ours, we would obviously have food here.

reply to post by rhinoceros

You think grass grows for the purpose that gazelles can eat it? Gazelles procreate for the sole purpose of getting eaten by lions? Darwin recognized that competition exists in nature. Species adapt or die over generations. This target food idea of yours is ridiculous and not backed up by anything. Evolution is not a conscious process. It doesn't have goals or feelings. It's simply the outcome of imperfect replication of DNA and natural selection.

I have my reservations about a species that enguages in desperate acts just to eat. It's not proof, but it does make you wonder.

Anyhow, there is no proof that lions aren't suppose to eat other animals, lord knows they sure are equipped to do that.

reply to post by rhinoceros

I asked if you were talking about some proteins. I guess you weren't since you couldn't name them. Nothing about proteins looks like they were designed, to the contrary we see clear signs of evolution over time. See for example my genetic code thread for reference

I was referring specifically to flagellum. It has gears and sprockets, and I want to know how something with gears and sprockets evolved.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

And that still doesn't disprove evolution.

Your thread title is "Target food proves evolution wrong". Even if you prove we didnt evolve on this planet, (we did) all you're pointing to is that we evolved somewhere else.

Or am I missing something?

I fail to see how having, not having a target food proves anything. But your thread, I'll enter into your fantsy for a while. How does target food prove we didn't evolve somewhere else...in other words, how does target food disprove evolution.

My answer....it doesn't. Another thread soon to be skunked I think.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

So you dont know what scientist or creationist mean when the use the term "irreducibly complex"?

reply to post by flyingfish

Well... it is a free for all. You adapt or not pass your genes to the next generation.'I.E. Evolution.'

To live, or not to live.

Lets see how true thats looking about now. First of all with us being in our 6th largest extinction it places us at about 10,000 die, and 10 live. One can estimate that the planet is collapsing. How do you explain this as all being a part of the evolution cycle when it is in fact breaking the cycle.

You see from everything I have been able to understand, with all understanding, evoltuon is a creator of new life. But your trying to say that evolution is also a taker of life. So in terms of it being a cycle, its failing and will soon run out of life.

Extinctions are part of a natural process and have been since before the fossil record. If it were not for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, there is no reason the dinosaurs would not still be here.

What your actually saying here is that your assuming extinctions are part of evolution simply based on the fact that it has always gone on since our earliest detection. Of course your ommiting the fact that the life on this planet has been wiped out in the past and outside life brought in.

Their reign was 165 million years, this alone is proof the eat or be eaten system was working just fine for them, and could have for another 100m years.

Brown lizards have evolved white scales in order to blend in with their environment to avoid becoming a tasty snack for a variety of other species.

I don't understand, your claiming on one hand that they are just suppose to be a cycle of life, which is including being eaten, yet your saying that they have defenses to detour that.

What's really exciting, is that these bleached skin lizards are in the process of evolving into two separate species from their brown cousins.
Brown Lizard

You started with lizards, and you ended up with lizards, I don't see any evolution.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I asked if you were talking about some proteins. I guess you weren't since you couldn't name them. Nothing about proteins looks like they were designed, to the contrary we see clear signs of evolution over time. See for example my genetic code thread for reference

I was referring specifically to flagellum. It has gears and sprockets, and I want to know how something with gears and sprockets evolved.

You have to be more specific than that. Flagella have evolved numerous times independently. Which one are you talking about? As far as I know, none of them have gears or sprockets.

reply to post by Noncompatible

*sigh* We don't fit on this planet ?

We fit just fine, or did, until we became "smart". From that point on we had the capability to change our enviroment to please us.

Which we have, without any thought to the impact it would have, for most of our "reign" as the dominant, not best not greatest just dominant, species.

It is only relatively recently we began to appreciate that our actions can have global impact on flora, fauna and even weather patterns.

Not from here ? All evidence shows otherwise.

Oh and there is no such thing as target food, never has been, never will be.

Incidentally there are plenty of unforced relationships within your body alone. But I suspect you'll say that is not what you mean

You think we fit in here LOL. Ok I'll tell you what. Why don't you take the target food test, and see if you can come up with any food, I don't care what you come up with, but any food that proves it was food that was intended for us to eat. Beware however I'm going to be criticle in my judgement becasue it it must meet the target food criteria.

Be natural and not processed. Have a very high yeild of nutritients for the conusmer, be accesable all over the planet not including shipping. Will have to be a food that is more commonly ate than others, etc.

See what you can come up with.

We fit just fine, or did, until we became "smart". From that point on we had the capability to change our enviroment to please us.

In other words as far back as we started to keep record or as far back as we can remember, which is actually the beginning of when we first got here.

Which we have, without any thought to the impact it would have, for most of our "reign" as the dominant, not best not greatest just dominant, species.

I'm not sure if we would reign on our planet, but unless things were moved around like here on earth, there would at least be balance.

It is only relatively recently we began to appreciate that our actions can have global impact on flora, fauna and even weather patterns.

Our actions are devastating to this planet, look at how well we fit in. If this were our planet we wouldn't have to do things to try to fit in that would end up damaging the planet because the natural balance would accomodate us with everything we actually need. We wouldn't have to redundantly adapt like we do now.

Not from here ? All evidence shows otherwise.

Aside from the fact that we drink water and breath air, tell me what leads you to believe that we are from here?

Oh and there is no such thing as target food, never has been, never will be.

So then you believe that everything is just random chance and there is no direction to anything. Then please explain to me how this randomness of evolution has managed to make over 5 million species? Doesn't sound to random to me.

Target food doesn't exist for humans here, you are correct, but in a perfect world, it exists for everyone.

Look at it like this. Every species has to have something to eat or they die, you can at least agree that the ones that live, have something to eat, after all if they starved they would die. So I'm sure youll agree with that. Next just pretend for the moment that there is direction or motivation behind evolution. After all it has managed to make over 5 million species, doesn't sound to chancy to me. I'm speaking in terms of it having some direction or motivation.

If I'm wrong then this would be the same as someone hitting lotto 5 million times in a row. I say in a row because we hardly ever see a species brought into this world that doesn't have any food to eat, its only recently that we now see starving species and species becoming food themselves. This is due to someone bringing in alien life from other planets, that knocked off that balance.

You see at one time way back when, this planet had a balance and there were no extinctions. Everything was in a cycle. Now we are in the cycle of death from poor balance. It makes no sense that evolution would be a creator, then leave us with no food to eat. Thats like torture and makes no sense.

reply to post by Noncompatible

Incidentally there are plenty of unforced relationships within your body alone. But I suspect you'll say that is not what you mean

However they are stuck inside our bodys and suppose to work together.

Unless you have reason to believe that we were dissasembled before delivery I have no reason to buy the idea of them being seperate species.

I'm talking about in comparison to other species on this planet to help determine if we, or they don't belong.

Organisms in my body are not going to help me determine that.