Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by rhinoceros


I think perhaps another nail in the coffen that proves we aren't from here, is how humans have a blood type that isn't found anywhere else on this planet.

Now there is speculation that this was a mutation but we all know that an offsprings blood will always match the fathers.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

How would you go about explaining the fact that human and chimp mtDNAs share common mutations not present in gorilla mtDNA, and human, chimp and gorilla mtDNAs share common mutations not present in orangutan mtDNA, and so forth? Same story with nuclear DNAs including integrated viral sequences and such. How do these observations fit your idea of us having been "frankensteined"?

Do you have any links that explain more, what your talking about. It's very interesting, and I would like to look at that.

Not to jump to conclusions but it has been a thought that gorilla DNA is what was used to frankenstein us. I guess its possible. I never heard that we share common mtDNA with them. I did know that our nuclear is almost identicle but a creator could have done that just as much as evolution could have.

Of course we share common mtDNA. We share common mtDNA with virtually all animals, plants, fungi, and other eukaryotes. Mitochondria were only acquired once in the course of evolution, about 1.5 billion years ago. For a comparative study of primate mtDNAs, look for example here. If that doesn't convince you, you could also read about for example nuclear DNA sequences of mitochondrial origin in humans and chimps.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

I think perhaps another nail in the coffen that proves we aren't from here, is how humans have a blood type that isn't found anywhere else on this planet.

Reference?

Now there is speculation that this was a mutation but we all know that an offsprings blood will always match the fathers.

No. For example in the AB0 system people can be AA, AB, A0, BB, B0, or 00. One gene from mother, one from father. E.g. AA father and BB mother means that the kid is AB.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Of course we share common mtDNA. We share common mtDNA with virtually all animals, plants, fungi, and other eukaryotes.

And what exactly does this mean?
Does it mean that we simply all have mtDNA?
Or that the mtDNA proves relation?
Or that mtDNA could prove relation?
Or does it mean that there is obvious proof of a time line of sorts?

Mitochondria were only acquired once in the course of evolution, about 1.5 billion years ago. For a comparative study of primate mtDNAs, look for example here. If that doesn't convince you, you could also read about for example nuclear DNA sequences of mitochondrial origin in humans and chimps.

I took a quick look, it looks like we are still faced with the same problems that could mistake evolution for proving relation. There is still no proof of relation. In addition we can't even make any assumption based on timelines because we don't know if we populated bilateral or unilateraly.

There is simply no way to be sure. We are assume that because we share simular mtDNA that we are related, but like you said, almost everything has simular mtDNA, and simular doesn't prove relation at best it could.

reply to post by rhinoceros

No. For example in the AB0 system people can be AA, AB, A0, BB, B0, or 00. One gene from mother, one from father. E.g. AA father and BB mother means that the kid is AB.

Most sites are saying that you can get it from either the mother or the father. Which still doesn't explain where we got this odd blood type from.

This odd blood type just appears out of no where which is just yet another clue that we aren't from here. There is argument that these things can happen in the wild, but isn't it funny that it only happened to us?

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Nice to know other's are also explaining to Tooth that Evolution is a process, not a person

Theres been almost 500 pages of another thread trying to drill that home to tooth...still ahsnt sunk in tho'

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I have offered the example of anteaters and ants. Ants and termites are a main staple for the anteater. Don't confuse the fact that hes called an anteater with it fitting either. He has special claws for tearing up ant hills, special ears for hearing ants in the ground, and a special tounge to reach in hard to get places and pull ants out to eat them. They also eat soft fruit, and other insects, but ants and termites would be a target food.

I have offered the example of meat and plants. They are a main staple for the human. He has special hands with opposable thumbs, perfect for harvesting fruits and vegetables. He has a special tongue that can taste sweet and bitter as well as warn of rotten food, and a special brain capable of learning how to cultivate his own food, as well as design tools for hunting and farming.

Apes eat fruit, so bananas, apples, and nuts. Fruit is obviously a main staple. If apes prefered bananas, and it could be proven that it wasn't a replacement to anything else that went extinct, it could be a target food. Keeping in mind that study would have to be done to prove that bananas, yelid high nutrients for apes, and that it is a main staple.

Various apes have different diets, but why are you able to count fruit for apes, but not for humans? We know the nutritional value of bananas. They are high in potassium and very healthy for humans. Humans could live off fruits if they had nothing else. Why do fruits not count as a target food for humans? Please answer that.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Thanks... but there is no less than a dozen others that have tried explaining to Tooth what Evolution is.

It's futile.

I'm just here to keep some resemblance of sanity

A process that has created over 5 million unique species, right, I get it.

That's a start...now all you need to do is understand the process for what it is, not what you think it should be- to fit your imaginations.
Start with the basics, you will find that through Google.
Once you can understand the basics then we can get into more detail concerning Speciation and other evolutionary processes.

reply to post by Barcs

I have offered the example of meat and plants. They are a main staple for the human. He has special hands with opposable thumbs, perfect for harvesting fruits and vegetables. He has a special tongue that can taste sweet and bitter as well as warn of rotten food, and a special brain capable of learning how to cultivate his own food, as well as design tools for hunting and farming.

But none of these give us an indication that they are food made for us specifically. We don't rely on any of them, and none of them yeild high nutrients for us.

You do realize that we can eat new sheets of toilet paper, it doesn't automatically mean its our food?

Various apes have different diets, but why are you able to count fruit for apes, but not for humans? We know the nutritional value of bananas. They are high in potassium and very healthy for humans. Humans could live off fruits if they had nothing else. Why do fruits not count as a target food for humans? Please answer that.

I was being general, but trying to be specific. There would be specific fruits, not just a fruit group per sey.

None of which are high yeilding for humans.

reply to post by flyingfish

That's a start...now all you need to do is understand the process for what it is, not what you think it should be- to fit your imaginations.
Start with the basics, you will find that through Google.
Once you can understand the basics then we can get into more detail concerning Speciation and other evolutionary processes

You do realize that with 98% of our populas going extinct, its possible that evolution is responsible for creating billions of species. But your still going to take the side that evolution is just a process and not a creator.

Doesn't it seem odd that this process seems to have intention or motivation?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

That's a start...now all you need to do is understand the process for what it is, not what you think it should be- to fit your imaginations.
Start with the basics, you will find that through Google.
Once you can understand the basics then we can get into more detail concerning Speciation and other evolutionary processes

You do realize that with 98% of our populas going extinct, its possible that evolution is responsible for creating billions of species. But your still going to take the side that evolution is just a process and not a creator.

Doesn't it seem odd that this process seems to have intention or motivation?

The only process I see that seems to have intention or motivation is your posts.
You can run from the truth all day long but you can't hide from it when you put it in writing.
Don't you realize your posting incorrect information and any one can see that it's folly.
I'll give you another chance, are you going to come clean or are you going to continue pretending you don't know what evolution is.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But none of these give us an indication that they are food made for us specifically. We don't rely on any of them, and none of them yeild high nutrients for us.

We CAN rely on any of them. Bananas included. Humans could live off nothing but meat and still be in top physical shape. What you don't understand is that the food does not adapt to the species. The species adapts to the food or it goes extinct. It's always been that way, humans included. Our ability to survive on a large variety of foods is one of the reasons we're still here. The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment. Food isn't designed specifically for any species, although humans are smart enough to manipulate them on a mass scale.



Tell me that food wasn't specifically designed for humans.

reply to post by flyingfish

The only process I see that seems to have intention or motivation is your posts.

Your kidding me, you actually don't see how a process that is responsible for possible billions of species, doesn't have an agenda?

You can run from the truth all day long but you can't hide from it when you put it in writing.
Don't you realize your posting incorrect information and any one can see that it's folly.
I'll give you another chance, are you going to come clean or are you going to continue pretending you don't know what evolution is.

Well then you should have no problem providing information that proves it wrong. And BTW evoluiotn doesn't prove target food wrong, evolution just assumes that species eat what ever they can, and that that is normal. I never found anything that claims it to be proof. Then again most of the hypothesis and theories of evolution work on that frail system anyhow.

I know exactly what evolution is, it is what someone pointed out to me on an evolution site, to be a series of hypothesis and theories. ...

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

www.talkorigins.org...

It's clear to me that evolution is real at least on the specieation level regarding some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses, but thats a far stretch from saying that we share a common ancestor with apes. Incredulous people that I have debated with about this also have their own version of what evolution is, but none of that matches anything I have read.

Evolution does not explain diversity.

reply to post by Barcs

We CAN rely on any of them. Bananas included. Humans could live off nothing but meat and still be in top physical shape. What you don't understand is that the food does not adapt to the species. The species adapts to the food or it goes extinct.

If that were true we wouldn't be plagued with super supplement stores and diets, and dieticians, and the plethora of food related sickness that we do have. Instead its the opposite and we keep adding food to our menu as though we are in search of a better food.

It's always been that way, humans included. Our ability to survive on a large variety of foods is one of the reasons we're still here.

And that would be the key word right there. We are surviving. We aren't thriving, and we obviously aren't as healthy from the choices that are available. If I'm wrong that you need to contact all the suppliment stores and let them know they have no reason to be in business and also contact all the deiticians and doctors to let them know that our diet is perfectly fine.

The reason the ant eater has all the features you named is because it has evolved to efficiently eat the insects that live in its environment. Food isn't designed specifically for any species, although humans are smart enough to manipulate them on a mass scale.

I'm an equal opportunity believer. If your going to preach about how well the ant eater evolved into eating ants, then you should have no problem explaining what we evolved into eating. Surely out of all of the food we eat, we had to evolved into something.

Tell me that food wasn't specifically designed for humans

Obviously food that has to be treated and processed for eating was NOT intended for humans to eat it. Food that has to be cooked, to protect us from getting sick, was obviously not intended for us to eat. Cooking is a process.Smoking is a process, and BTW they are all unnatural processes. Just another form of adaptation.

According to your post, your going with pretending you don't know what evolution is.
Good luck with that.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by Confusion42
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Nice to know other's are also explaining to Tooth that Evolution is a process, not a person

Thanks... but there is no less than a dozen others that have tried explaining to Tooth what Evolution is.

It's futile.

I'm just here to keep some resemblance of sanity

Only a dozen? Oh, just this thread. Your not counting that other thread

Tooth doesn't appear dumb (well, he does in some ways but not in others lol.... )...

Assuming he doesn't somehow profit from doing this, he's been going strong for countless pages over 500?
What's the motivation? He's not trying to convert people to a religion, he's not creationist (similar, but no), and he aint offering us any chance to hitch a ride on a space ship back to (according to his belief) "original home"....

Gotta wonder whats the motivation behind writing, reading, and pretending not to read so many pages

reply to post by flyingfish

According to your post, your going with pretending you don't know what evolution is.
Good luck with that.

I used the word pretending because what most people on ATS are pressing about what they believe, don't match up with what I read about evolution.

reply to post by Confusion42

Only a dozen? Oh, just this thread. Your not counting that other thread

There have been over a dozen variations in the belief of evolution so I know its been over a dozen.

Some claim that only the positive advantages apply in evolution. Others claims that anything random can happen. Most claim that evolution is NOT a creator of life, yet here it is responsible for possibly billions of new species. Some claim that evolution has the ability to manipulate and change our DNA. Others claim that Evolution has the ability to manipulate our food so that our food evolves along with our need, while others claim we evolve into our food choices. Clearly there is a lot of confusion.

The only thing I ever read claimed that speciation has been found in some aquatic life, some bacteria and some viruses, which is still a far explanation of how we evolved from a common ancestor with apes.

Tooth doesn't appear dumb (well, he does in some ways but not in others lol.... )...

I don't think its the appearance that matters on here, you know I forgot to comb my hair this morning, so shoot me. I think the sharing of information and truth is more important.

Assuming he doesn't somehow profit from doing this, he's been going strong for countless pages over 500?
What's the motivation? He's not trying to convert people to a religion, he's not creationist (similar, but no), and he aint offering us any chance to hitch a ride on a space ship back to (according to his belief) "original home"....

Gotta wonder whats the motivation behind writing, reading, and pretending not to read so many pages

I believe in sharing the truth, thats all.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

There is no evolution cycle or extinction cycle.
Evolution does not create new life it's not an it...it's not an entity.
Evolution is a word that describes change across successive generations.

There is no proof that once life gained a foothold that it was ever wiped out. None is omitting life on this planet has been wiped out in the past and outside life brought in but you. This is just fantasy talk.

Your last quote is just some sort of lack of understanding.
Do a little research on evolution so you can understand what it is your talking about.

No its just the way that I emphasize how it must be.

I still don't understand how something can be responsible for creating over 5 million species and you claim that it has no intention. Do you not know how large of a number that is? If you do the math on the aleged creation pattern of evolution, there is roughly about one million species being created every billion years. Thats still a lot. And why is it that we are never finding these new species that this so called process, would still be creating? In addition to this, because evolution happens unilaterally and bilaterally we should be seeing new species hand over fist, but its not like that. Someone offerd to me that its because not all new species succeed, but if that were the problem we would also be able to see failed species and we aren't seeing them either. The only thing we have close to that is species going extinct, but they used to be a successful species before.

So where are our new species, hand over fist?

No its just the way that I emphasize how it must be.

No its just the way that I emphasize how it must be.

So you admit you don't understand how Evolution works, and instead insist that it works however you think it works, regardless of the evidence?

I still don't understand how something can be responsible for creating over 5 million species and you claim that it has no intention.

1. It's intention to stay alive is SURVIVAL.

2. There are two types of organisms - eukaryotes and prokaryotes

reply to post by Barcs


I have to ask you Barc, because you seem like a pretty intelligent guy. Your claiming that food doesn't not evolve, we evolve into the criteria that allows us to benefit from food.

Now what if the food is a living organism or an animal? Are they just exempt from evolving because they are on our food list, or what?