Evolution Now Dead. 30 Papers Suggest DNA is Encoded Intelligently

reply to post by solomons path

It's not a personal quest to "disprove" you . . . it's not personal. You are just wrong. While you have a cursory understanding of biology, what you don't know is filtered through the lens of your faith/beliefs. Therefore, you are refusing to accept what is widely known and accepted by those that don't use 3500yr old ideas or insupportable notions of alien creators, to frame the modern world.

Chimps don't eat meat simply to stave off starvation . . . It's a social predatory function.

Again, the question becomes, is this because they are starving?

Early hominids were, while still omnivores, mostly foragers. We had to learn to hunt and kill once we left the cornicopia of food that is the forests and jungles. Being a social animal, we most likely learned from other social predators (wolves) on how to stalk and kill larger prey. The effects of which can't be overstated. Our diet has evolved over millions of years, as it was learned behavior . . . just like any other animal.

Then we evolved so well that we started to need milk , and there is no natural supply for it.

We don't have to do any of that to milk . . . all of those processes are less than 100 years old. Ever heard of raw milk? It's delicious! And, better for you than the milk you will buy at the store, as long as you aren't drinking it from a cow laced with antibotics and pesticides. In the grand scheme of things, dairy is relatively new to our diets as well (lactase problem?). Dairy didn't not come into play in our diets until the domestication of herd animals, approx. 9k yrs ago.

If you drink raw milk, you can die, there are parasites in milk. Sure you can take a chance, but thats like saying most of us are suppose to die early on in life.

Also, humans could get plenty of calcium from natural (non-dairy) sources. The problem has never been the amount of calcium found in other foods, but the body's ability to absorb calcium. Humans need to have sufficient vitamin D intake to absorb/process calcium. This is naturally not a problem, as early humans spent all day outside in the sun. However, today, most humans are vitamin D deficient (thanks cubicle!) and eat high protein diets with lots of phosphorus (soda?) and it effects our calcium levels. Without proper levels of vitamin D the body can't absorb what is taken in through food and must steal calcium from your bones. Diets high in protein and phosphorus also inhibit the body's ability to absorb calcium.

That wont fix a two digit difference.

You are taking modern problems/adaptions to nutritional problems and assuming thats how we have always been . . . not the case. Even grain, in an evolutionary timeframe, is a recent addition to our diet (less than 12k yrs ago) thanks to the development of agriculture. Hominids were here and doing just fine long before steak, milkshakes, and calcium supplements.

Then why the advent? Need creates invention, or in this case adaptation. We chose to drink milk not because its easy, its not, but because we need the source of calcium. There might be peeps that don't touch dairy, they are suffereing, or trying to get it from other places.

The question is where were we suppose to get it from, because there isn't a natural source here for us. Just like the bible tells us, looks like they didn't lie.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
ATS's motto is to deny the OP.

really?....with all the vitrolic, and hyperbolic crap headlines in posts, you somehow think us members should except all posts?...."deny ignorance", does not mean "don't question".

reply to post by itsthetooth


You obviously didn't read the link I provided, if you are still contending it is because of starvation. Evidence shows that the incidents higher during the dry season for the group studied, but it is not because there is nothing else to eat. Read the link in my last response to you.

I drink raw milk at least once a week, sometimes a day. Just had a glass yesterday with breakfast. Never had a problem with parasites. People drank milk raw all of the time before the 1920's and the human race didn't die out.

You seem to think we "have" to drink milk or "had" to adapt to . . . not true. Whether it started as ceremony or some random sheppard putting his mouth on a teet, humans devoped a taste for it. We didn't have to; we did out of choice. Paleoman and cultures where milk is not prevalent, like China, did just fine . . . regardless of what the bible says. Again, the issue isn't with our need for calcium but what we eat that blocks absorbsion and subsequent stealing of calcium from our bones by our own bodies. Milk and dairy are pushed in the western world . . . nowhere else. Travel the globe and see that outside of America and Europe . . . you see very little dairy.

Again . . . humans don't need milk outside of weening. It's your assumption that we do because you were raised in a culture that promotes it, as well as promoting all of the things that rob our bodies of the calcium that it already has. There is absolutely no evidence to support your positon . . . and no the bible isn't evidence.

It's like watching the Titanic hit that iceberg over and over and over again

I never thought stupidity on that level even exits...

How on earth can you criticise something you so obviously don't understand is beyond me. It's like me saying nuclear physics is a total lie without understanding the theories. What a joke.

For those who care about the evolution of food sources during the evolution of men: LINK

Or read this.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
ATS's motto is to deny the OP.

really?....with all the vitrolic, and hyperbolic crap headlines in posts, you somehow think us members should except all posts?...."deny ignorance", does not mean "don't question".

There's a difference between questioning something and making an obvious attempt at misinterpreting data to sell "snake oil"...which is exactly what the OP did because none of those studies supports the claims in the title or text of his post

reply to post by solomons path

You seem to think we "have" to drink milk or "had" to adapt to . . . not true. Whether it started as ceremony or some random sheppard putting his mouth on a teet, humans devoped a taste for it. We didn't have to; we did out of choice. Paleoman and cultures where milk is not prevalent, like China, did just fine . . . regardless of what the bible says. Again, the issue isn't with our need for calcium but what we eat that blocks absorbsion and subsequent stealing of calcium from our bones by our own bodies. Milk and dairy are pushed in the western world . . . nowhere else. Travel the globe and see that outside of America and Europe . . . you see very little dairy.

No one started drinking cows milk as a ceremony, the reasons are the same today in which they decided to, its a good source of calcium, and there is still no other better source of calcium aside from seaweed.

If you are drinking raw cows, milk, then you are a fool, and don't spend enough time online reading up on what your headed for...
raw cows milk

[exWASHINGTON — An outbreak of bacterial infections on the East Coast illustrates the popularity of raw, unpasteurized milk despite strong warnings from public health officials about the potential danger.

Even presidential candidate Ron Paul has joined the cause of consumers looking to buy unprocessed "real foods" straight from the farm, saying government shouldn't deny them that choice.

An outbreak of campylobacter illness is a reminder of the potential hazards, however. Raw milk from a dairy in Pennsylvania is now linked to 38 cases in four states, and the farm has temporarily suspended sales. Campylobacter can cause diarrhea, cramping, abdominal pain, and fever and can be life-threatening if it spreads to the bloodstream.

]

More farm outbreaks

The latest outbreak associated with raw milk has put a toddler and two young teens from the Portland metro area in the hospital with E. coli poisoning, two with kidney failure.

A fourth child -- also under 15 -- fell ill but was not hospitalized.

All of them were sickened by E. coli O157:H7, one of the deadliest foodborne pathogens.

Officials from Oregon Public Health said Friday the children consumed raw milk from Foundation Farm, a family run operation in Wilsonville. At least seven other people who drank the farm's raw milk -- adults and children -- have developed either diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, a sign of E. coli O157:H7.

More outbreaks

Milk and milk products provide a wealth of nutrition benefits. But raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms that can pose serious health risks to you and your family. According to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1993 and 2006 more than 1500 people in the United States became sick from drinking raw milk or eating cheese made from raw milk. In addition, CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products

Still drinking raw cows milk ????....

More down

Claravale Farm of San Benito County, one of two raw milk dairies in the state of California, has been under quarantine because tests showed campylobacter bacteria in its products. And, no surprise, California has seen clusters of campylobacter illnesses that correlated to raw milk consumption, so state officials wanted to see if those were tied to the non-pasteurized milk.

If your drinking raw cows milk, your playing russian rulette with your life, and I wish you the best of luck.

Again . . . humans don't need milk outside of weening. It's your assumption that we do because you were raised in a culture that promotes it, as well as promoting all of the things that rob our bodies of the calcium that it already has. There is absolutely no evidence to support your positon . . . and no the bible isn't evidence.

So I stand corrected, humans dont need to drink cows milk, we do however have a need to get 1000mg per day. Can you please explain to me where you think we are suppose to get it from?

reply to post by solomons path


What you need to do is get ahold of the CDC and let them know that you personally have confirmed that pasturization of raw cows milk is not necessary for human consumption and the breakthrough that Louie Pastouer achieved was actually nothing.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Plants don't usually have protein, meat is a better source for that.

FALSE. Already explained and sourced.

So now your about to explain to me how it is that all this life here on earth has a special nose for protein. Does it have a certain appearance? A certain smell perhaps? Anyhow I'm just going along with your ill informed idea.

So you are suggesting protein doesn't exist?

So we need protein as well. When you are gathering food, I want to specifically know what trait you use to detect protein. Now no cheating. Food lables and others telling you where protein comes from doesn't count. So please clue me in on this as I want to know what I have been missing all my life.

eyes, nose, taste, touch, and memory of such experiences. How do you think the primitive humans did it before technology? Just because they didn't know specifically what protein was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They knew that if they caught an animal and ate it, it would provide energy for them to stay alive. They learned that fruits give them energy. Just because you have issues using your brain, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. It's not that difficult to understand. It's called trial and error, and then using your brain to remember and pass the info down to your children.

Do you have something that shows that they eat meat and grains, because I'm having a hard time finding anything. Also when and how do they eat dairy?

I've posted it for you before. Chimps eat grubs and insects. They get milk from their mothers. They eat a huge variety of things. Just google chimp diet LOL. I'm not doing the work for you again, this has already been discussed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by solomons path

 

What you need to do is get ahold of the CDC and let them know that you personally have confirmed that pasturization of raw cows milk is not necessary for human consumption and the breakthrough that Louie Pastouer achieved was actually nothing.

We pasteurise milk not because it makes us sick...we do it because not everyone lives on a damn farm and milk needs to be transported and stored. Of course that can cause issues, just like other food and drinks have to be treated for storage or transport.

If everyone lived next to a cow there wouldn't be any issues...

Kids getting sick because of E.Coli bacteria has nothing to do with milk being bad...it's a friggin' bacteria for crying out loud

So I stand corrected, humans dont need to drink cows milk, we do however have a need to get 1000mg per day. Can you please explain to me where you think we are suppose to get it from?

You know, if you wouldn't be so unbelievably ignorant you'd do a quick google search for "sources of calcium" and realise that (as seemingly always) you are dead wrong and asking stupid questions that have been answered before.

Sources of calcium other than milk:

Beans and Bean Products
Serving
calcium (mg)

Tofu, medium firm or firm, made with calcium sulphate
150 g
347
Tofu, firm or extra firm, made with calcium sulphate and magnesium chloride
150 g
234
White beans
3/4 cup
119
Navy beans
3/4 cup
93
Black turtle beans
3/4 cup
75
Pinto beans, chickpeas
3/4 cup
58

There are TOOOOONS of other non-milk sources. Use your brain, just for one bloody time.

So...unbelievably...CLUELESS!!

reply to post by Barcs

So you are suggesting protein doesn't exist?

No I'm suggesting that you reveal your protein detecting method.

eyes, nose, taste, touch, and memory of such experiences. How do you think the primitive humans did it before technology? Just because they didn't know specifically what protein was, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They knew that if they caught an animal and ate it, it would provide energy for them to stay alive. They learned that fruits give them energy. Just because you have issues using your brain, doesn't mean the rest of the world does. It's not that difficult to understand. It's called trial and error, and then using your brain to remember and pass the info down to your children.

I'm going to explain this again, in the hopes that someone will be paying attention this time. Your indicating that protein is detected through the eyes, nose, taste, and touch, but then you turn around and claim that its just trial and error and we go by memory as far as what works. Rather than grasping at straws and tripping over your own words, listen to me for once and learn.

Your suggesting that lets just say, all senses are used to detect protein. First of all thats load of crap, and your going to have to share your new findings with scientists because I have never been aware of a protein detector. Lets indulge in your fantasy for a moment and pretend that somehow, someway, some part of a species body is able to locate protein. Your suggesting that the species has to somehow detect protein, and from that point makes a personal decision to consume it. Now you have failed. That quickly and that easily because there is no personal preference made in the choice of this. This is confirmed by the fact that ALL species eat the same foods when the species is exposed to the same choices as a whole. If you challenge this, you should have no problem producing proof that many species have no defined diet that we can observe, and they all wouldn't be eating the same things.

Pick an assorment of your choice, of diets from any species and prove to me where any of them say that the species has no specific diet, and they just eat what ever they can find. The fact is there is a choice, but that choice is driven with the goal of a specific food rather than anything that might be food. If species had no clue about what they are suppose to eat, there would always be an experimental stage, which there never is, followed by a personal choice that would not consistantly match with being the same choice by the rest of the species. So please locate several diets for me that explain how species go through this aleged experimental stage where they are eating things not even considered food, like rocks and dirt.

The reason why I know there is the motivation of a specific food rather than random food is because there never is random experimentation and they all eat the same food. There is specific food that is targeted. When that target food is not in reach, the species will move on to the next closest thing within that food group, when that is not an option the species acts out of desperation and might try eating out of his food groups and eating things that may not even be considered food. This is starvation mode.

I've posted it for you before. Chimps eat grubs and insects. They get milk from their mothers. They eat a huge variety of things. Just google chimp diet LOL. I'm not doing the work for you again, this has already been discussed.

When the diet of a species is large, its obvious they are missing target food. Humans are the prime example of this.

reply to post by MrXYZ

We pasteurise milk not because it makes us sick...we do it because not everyone lives on a damn farm and milk needs to be transported and stored. Of course that can cause issues, just like other food and drinks have to be treated for storage or transport.

If everyone lived next to a cow there wouldn't be any issues...

Kids getting sick because of E.Coli bacteria has nothing to do with milk being bad...it's a friggin' bacteria for crying out loud

My god your dense, what do you think is the purpose of pasturization? It's to kill bacteria, like e coli.

Definition for pasteurization:Web definitions: partial sterilization of foods at a temperature that destroys harmful microorganisms without major changes in the chemistry of the food.

pasturization

You know, if you wouldn't be so unbelievably ignorant you'd do a quick google search for "sources of calcium" and realise that (as seemingly always) you are dead wrong and asking stupid questions that have been answered before.

Sources of calcium other than milk:

Beans and Bean Products
Serving
calcium (mg)

Tofu, medium firm or firm, made with calcium sulphate
150 g
347
Tofu, firm or extra firm, made with calcium sulphate and magnesium chloride
150 g
234

My god your dense, if I was looking at man made foods I would just take supplements.
Tofu doesn't grow on trees and its NOT natural.

White beans
3/4 cup
119
Navy beans
3/4 cup
93
Black turtle beans
3/4 cup
75
Pinto beans, chickpeas
3/4 cup
58

There are TOOOOONS of other non-milk sources. Use your brain, just for one bloody time.

So...unbelievably...CLUELESS!!

Your math skills are lacking, you failed once again. As an example lets take the best one you have on your list.

You will need more than 6 cups of your white beans everyday to meet your RDA, good luck on that.

Seriously seaweed is the best as its 7 to 14 times higher than cows milk, but it also has to be processed to be eaten, therefore its no natural from process.

Sounds like your calcium must be way out of whack unless your eating dairy or taking supplements.

reply to post by itsthetooth


You didn't even listen to what I said. Protein detector? I clearly explained how animals hunt and kill what they can get to eat. You don't need a protein detector to tell you that a certain type of food tastes good and keeps you alive. They get hungry, they eat it, and learn that it does, so they eat it again in the future. The parents teach the offspring. The proof is in the pudding. No creature has a set diet. Move a tiger to America and let him loose in the woods, he'll probably find something to eat, even if he's never eaten a deer in his life, he'll know it's alive and moves and will attempt to kill and eat it. The tiger isn't thinking, "hey, I wonder if that guy has protein?". He's thinking, "I'm hungry, I'm gonna eat!" It really is that simple. You should download every episode of planet carnivore. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this.

I'm not grasping for straws. It IS trial and error AND they use their brain plus senses to determine what to eat. Neither statement contradicts the other, and no magical protein detector is necessary. If a food source gets scarce, guess what they do? They try something else! (trial and error). If they like it and it fills them up, they will eat it again in the future (brain and senses). YOU are grasping for straws, my simple minded friend and making the concept of eat or die way more complicated than it is.

The fact is there is a choice,

You finally made an accurate half sentence. Too bad the rest of it is bunk. The choice is eat or die. Most animals in the wild can't be picky. If hunger wasn't a factor, then you MIGHT have a point, but it is and that is how creature know it's time to eat until they are full. It's not about protein to them, it's about filling their stomach with something that tastes good and gives them plenty of energy.

I'm not debating anymore about your made up concept of target food. It's false. End of story.

Tooth, you're so beyond clueless I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

I take it you've never been to Asia? Because people there hardly drink any milk. I was in Thailand for 7 weeks and noticed that people hardly drink any milk...but guess what...they still get enough calcium. Why? Because there is enough calcium in other food. And no, seaweed doesn't need to be treated, you eat it raw

reply to post by itsthetooth

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by solomons path

 

It's not a personal quest to "disprove" you . . . it's not personal. You are just wrong. While you have a cursory understanding of biology, what you don't know is filtered through the lens of your faith/beliefs. Therefore, you are refusing to accept what is widely known and accepted by those that don't use 3500yr old ideas or insupportable notions of alien creators, to frame the modern world.

Chimps don't eat meat simply to stave off starvation . . . It's a social predatory function.

Again, the question becomes, is this because they are starving?

He already said it. It's social predation. There's a group of chimps being studied by Jane Goodall in which the females kill the infants of other female chimps in the same troop, then they eat them.

Early hominids were, while still omnivores, mostly foragers. We had to learn to hunt and kill once we left the cornicopia of food that is the forests and jungles. Being a social animal, we most likely learned from other social predators (wolves) on how to stalk and kill larger prey. The effects of which can't be overstated. Our diet has evolved over millions of years, as it was learned behavior . . . just like any other animal.

Then we evolved so well that we started to need milk , and there is no natural supply for it.

Toothy, we don't need milk. Most humans can't drink it even after 10,000 years. And many of those who can lose the ability to do so in middle age.

We don't have to do any of that to milk . . . all of those processes are less than 100 years old. Ever heard of raw milk? It's delicious! And, better for you than the milk you will buy at the store, as long as you aren't drinking it from a cow laced with antibotics and pesticides.

This is ridiculous. Why do you think pasteurization was invented?

In the grand scheme of things, dairy is relatively new to our diets as well (lactase problem?). Dairy didn't not come into play in our diets until the domestication of herd animals, approx. 9k yrs ago.

If you drink raw milk, you can die, there are parasites in milk. Sure you can take a chance, but thats like saying most of us are suppose to die early on in life.

There are parasites in most things we eat. Really, you don't want to get a good look at a postmortem human brain. Most of us are infected with parasites, and lots of them.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by solomons path

 

What you need to do is get ahold of the CDC and let them know that you personally have confirmed that pasturization of raw cows milk is not necessary for human consumption and the breakthrough that Louie Pastouer achieved was actually nothing.

It's not NECESSARY for human consumption. It's just safer. People got along just fine for 10,000 years without it. In fact, it was much safer than drinking the water. Wealthy people rarely drank water. They drank milk or beer or ale.

reply to post by Barcs

You didn't even listen to what I said. Protein detector? I clearly explained how animals hunt and kill what they can get to eat. You don't need a protein detector to tell you that a certain type of food tastes good and keeps you alive. They get hungry, they eat it, and learn that it does, so they eat it again in the future. The parents teach the offspring. The proof is in the pudding. No creature has a set diet. Move a tiger to America and let him loose in the woods, he'll probably find something to eat, even if he's never eaten a deer in his life, he'll know it's alive and moves and will attempt to kill and eat it. The tiger isn't thinking, "hey, I wonder if that guy has protein?". He's thinking, "I'm hungry, I'm gonna eat!" It really is that simple. You should download every episode of planet carnivore. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this.

Do you need to go back and read what you wrote, you didn't write about taste, and how do they know whats going to keep them alive? If its now decided by taste, how come they all decide on the same taste? It doesn't sound like choice to me.Your trying to convince me that they all decide by taste, yet they all decide on the same taste, how is that possible? Humans are a good example of choice with food, different people like different things and we try different foods. The point here is that you find people that like some things, and others that don't, but you never find these traits in animals, they always like the same foods. Again this doesn't apply to domesticated animals.

Now if I'm wrong, like I already asked of you, you should be able to produce proof that there is this so called experimental phase in eating habbits, and you should also be able to produce proof that there is no solid diet known to many species. The fact is you didn't, and you can't, because you wrong.

I'm not grasping for straws. It IS trial and error AND they use their brain plus senses to determine what to eat. Neither statement contradicts the other, and no magical protein detector is necessary. If a food source gets scarce, guess what they do? They try something else! (trial and error). If they like it and it fills them up, they will eat it again in the future (brain and senses). YOU are grasping for straws, my simple minded friend and making the concept of eat or die way more complicated than it is.

Your still grasping at straws because you failed to prove that personal choice is how this is done. If you were right, it should be all over the net, and in plain english, that a species experiments with food. And even if you did find such proof you still have the argument of them all agreeing on the exact same food. When a species all chooses the same food, which is all the time, that is not personal choice.

You finally made an accurate half sentence. Too bad the rest of it is bunk. The choice is eat or die. Most animals in the wild can't be picky. If hunger wasn't a factor, then you MIGHT have a point, but it is and that is how creature know it's time to eat until they are full. It's not about protein to them, it's about filling their stomach with something that tastes good and gives them plenty of energy.

I'm not debating anymore about your made up concept of target food. It's false. End of story

You haven't debated. All you have done is make false claims that aren't backed up by any proof. I agree with your decision, if your not going to bring anything to the table like I have, quit wasting our time. On the other hand if you are able to prove that animals experiement with food on a natural basis, and that those aren't starving, then by all means please share.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Tooth, you're so beyond clueless I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

I take it you've never been to Asia? Because people there hardly drink any milk. I was in Thailand for 7 weeks and noticed that people hardly drink any milk...but guess what...they still get enough calcium. Why? Because there is enough calcium in other food. And no, seaweed doesn't need to be treated, you eat it raw

I never said you had to drink cows milk to survive, what I said was it was brought in as a better supplement for calcium. Seaweed does have to be processed to be eaten, if you don't believe me run out and try to eat some.

I don't know what their main calcium sources are in asia, seaweed might be one of them, processed of course.

reply to post by HappyBunny

He already said it. It's social predation. There's a group of chimps being studied by Jane Goodall in which the females kill the infants of other female chimps in the same troop, then they eat them.

Again you guys are once again confusing off acts with normal everyday diet.

Do they need meat to survive, and do they eat it everyday. It's just another classic example of you guys finding some small example to try to prove me wrong when it really doesn't apply.

Toothy, we don't need milk. Most humans can't drink it even after 10,000 years. And many of those who can lose the ability to do so in middle age.

Your confusing my statement saying that we need calcium with needing to drink milk. I never said we need to drink milk, what I said was it was brought in as an alternative to something that was never there to begin with.

This is ridiculous. Why do you think pasteurization was invented?

That is a fallacy, raw milk is NOT better for you, and your exposing yourself to many health risks as a result. Here are the benefits to pasturization...

pasturized milk

There are parasites in most things we eat. Really, you don't want to get a good look at a postmortem human brain. Most of us are infected with parasites, and lots of them.

Milk is not a brain so that is a poor analage.

reply to post by HappyBunny

It's not NECESSARY for human consumption. It's just safer. People got along just fine for 10,000 years without it. In fact, it was much safer than drinking the water. Wealthy people rarely drank water. They drank milk or beer or ale.

So what are saying in regards to all of the people that have died and gotten sick from drinking raw milk? What are saying in regards to Loui pastour and everything that realized and invented for us?

Your trying to say that all these people and the CDC are wrong and your right. Thats a pretty bold statement, have you informed anyone about this?

reply to post by itsthetooth


My points all still stand. What you have said proves absolutely nothing and you are just regurgitating the same exact thing you already said. You didn't respond to anything I said, and you are making things up again. I'm not wasting my time. This has already been discussed to death. Personal choice? They don't choose to be hungry. They get hungry and then eat what they can eat at the time. I can't believe you having so much difficulty with one of the most basic concepts in the history of planet earth.