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.
"First off I totally understand your confusion. Here is what will clear this up for you. Evolution is a NATURAL process, adaptation is not. Evolution occurs at the molecular level, adaptation does not."
Adaptation is a an ability and its not occuring at the molecular level like evolution.
No, your missing the point.
Adapting is not an option. If you want to live, you have to adapt.
Those that don't die.
The genes that enables the animal to adapt to passed on; This is part of the process of Evolution.
www.google.com...=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=conveniently%20defin&cp=3&gs_id=2a&xhr=t&q=adaptation+definition&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=ada+defi nition&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f24798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541
ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.
Probably the best proof is the fact that not all species have the ability to adapt, at least not to the degree that humans do anyhow. So in other words what your basically saying here is that only the smart get to live and thats just perfectly normal and how things were planned out.
Adaptation is an unnatural sign of desperation where a species has to work around a problem. These types of problems aren't normal on a balanced planet.
This is utter horsesh!t.
Provide evidence, or else your a lier.
Of course I do, but I have been told by others on here that eovlution only keeps the positive changes as well.
You do not understand.
Evoltuion is a PROCESS. It does NOT FAIL, and does NOT SUCCEDE.
Do you understand this?
And what exactly is that? If it is indeed responsible for evolving over a billion unique species, I would surely call it a creator. It's obvious to me that evolution was just a series of theorys made to take place of any religion. In the process do it in such a way to omitt the idea that there even could be a creator. But at over a billion species its pretty hard to say its not a creator. Now just so that we are on the same page, a creator doesn't have to be a person, it can be a process, or a thing, just like evolution. And at over a billion species, it surely qualifies for such a title. Aside from the creation aspect, I haven't heard about any thing else that evolution does, so again its pretty fitting.
Evolution is NOT what you, or I, want it to be. It IS what it IS, and scientists that have spent their entire lives working and providing not only proof of evolution but actually practical applications of evolution, those people get to define what evolution is.
I wouldn't say they are corrupt, but I'll bet when they find changes they automatically call them evolution.
Many of the math / science people go into banking type industries because it's way more lucrative.
Scientists that work on biology and evolution and, hell, even scientists at CERN, they get paid very little compared to what their skills would bring at a bank. Yet they sacrafice all that yet I bet you think they are all corrupt without even meeting any.
I woudln't say nobody, but it is pretty few and far between. Your only having a problem seeing it because it's not in abundance.
NOBODY HAS TARGET FOOD, BECAUSE YOU MADE UP THE TERM "TARGET FOOD," THUS "TARGET FOOD" DOES NOT EXIST.
But you can't compare how much time they spend to what we should spend. Now look at it this way. Lets say mr anteater lost his supply of ants, and termites, since they are almost one in the same to the anteater. As a result he has to adapt by venturing off his menu. Now first of all we are assuming he will know how to do this, he might not, lets assume. So lets say the next food in line for him as a replacement of insects is bumble bees. I know this sounds rediculous but its just an example. So he is going to target bumble bees as his next source of insects. Now he has to climb a tree that he never used to have to do, which also takes longer then digging out ant farms, and he also has to now deal with getting stung like crazy, as the bees attack him. In addition the bees as it turns out, are not an exact replacment in terms of nutrition so now his health is suffering a little too. In addition for some reason the bees aren't as filling so he needs to eat more of them, which requires even more work. Now you should be realizing the importance of target food.
You're right Itsthetooth. Things would be so much easier if we stuck with out target food, like the anteater. Then each and every one of us would spend the vast majority of our waking time gathering and eating food. Wiki says the average giant anteater visits around 200 ant/termite nests per day, with approximately 1 minute ate each nest. Hmm, over 3 hours of pure eating, plus all that time walking from nest to nest, listening and smelling for ants, etc etc, over and over. That's a rough day!
Depends on what all your considering. Are you asking how much time was spent to get the cow to that point, or just what I spent? I have to pay for the time I don't have invested in getting the cow to the table, but I would think it would be hundreds of hours otherwise.
Or we could could keep our massively complicated redundancies that somehow conspire to make us the fastest and most efficient food preparers on the planet. How long did you spend preparing and eating that cow today?
Exactly, and whats better for the quality of life, spending 2 hours for preparation or not having to?
Only about 15% of the people in this country work in the food industry, and the average person spends about 2 hours preparing and eating their own food per day. Then we can spend all that time we aren't using on food to do other things, like relax, and make up words on the internet.
There is nothing easy about redundancy.
Maybe there are some advantages amidst all that farming, raising, packaging, freezing, shipping, and cooking? Maybe that's why we its so much easier for us to get our nutrition from unnatural, redundantly prepared and processed food than it is for an anteater to get his from his target food?
The question is, is that just a precaution?
Oh, and tell all those super supplement stores they don't have to go out of business just yet, it seems that the San Francisco Zoo supplements its anteater food with vitamins and minerals,
Well this is complicated but if the vitamins are replacing something they aren't getting from what I hope is a natural diet, that would be why.
and yet ant eaters in captivity live longer than in the wild. Wierd.
I woudln't say nobody, but it is pretty few and far between. Your only having a problem seeing it because it's not in abundance.
What do you mean zero, don't you believe that every species is going to have proper food to eat?
11 pages about a made up word that has ZERO scientific significance...wow
But adaptation is an ability, and not all species have this ability, so your basically saying since everything is collapsing right now, its survival of the fittest and only the smartest will survive, and its supposed to be that way.
Nope, for evolution to occur, adaptation is a MUST. You forget the basic Primal Programming that exists within all species that we call "instinct" and instinct dictates that a creature be driven to survive at all costs, hence adaptation is a part of its process. If the animal refuses to change its behaviors to adapt, it dies off.
But adaptation is an ability, and not all species have this ability, so your basically saying since everything is collapsing right now, its survival of the fittest and only the smartest will survive, and its supposed to be that way.
First of all pixi dust does exist, its that dust from eating pixi sticks.
Tooth, repeat after me:
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXITS BECAUSE I MADE IT UP!!
Just like pixie dust doesn't exist
Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.
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.
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.
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.
Supplements were invented because its very hard to hit all of your needs with any carful diet.
Supplements have nothing to do with my point. Some people prefer to supplement vitamins rather than get them naturally. It certainly isn't required for survival or an ideal diet.
You totally dropped the ball here, you see if it were actually our food in the first place, we wouldn't have to study it.
Human's are intelligent and analyze everything. Don't fault evolution for capitalism. The fact that people have studied our diets and what the healthiest foods are, shows we are most certainly from here since we can get all essential vitamins and nutrients through nature.
That depends on if or not you think we are hitting marks that consider us to be thriving. We might be growing in population but we might grow much faster if more things were right.
7 billion people speak otherwise. Yes, humans are thriving. We are reproducing faster than we are dying. That is the definition of a successful species. Supplements & dieticians = straw mans, nothing to do with target food, and more to do with customer demand and the quest for knowledge.
You looked into the past with anteaters and made an assertation that they evolved into eating ants and termites, so do the same for us, what did we evolve into eating?
Nobody's preaching here. What do you mean explain what we are evolving into eating. I can't predict the future, but you can analyze the past.
And see the strawman arguement in that is that if that was such a good diet, why did we leave it?
Look at early hominid diets. Look at most primate diets. There's lots of comparing and analyzing to do, if you are genuinely interested in this and not just trolling. The evolutionary process takes millions of years.
Target food works the same way except it requires no suppliments to hit good allowences and you don't have to worryy about the food not being nutritious. With everything we eat right now, its a maze of possibilities. Granted none of this is from our target food missing, its from all of the food we were given in the bible, excluding our target food.
If we can survive off a certain food(s), we will never change our diet.
This is just common sense, but what I'm saying is there is no proof that this is natural aside from the fact that we are guilty of it. Keeping in mind most of the things we do on this planet are considered unnatural.
If a big event happens and we get pushed into a harsh environment without food readily available we will either change our diet and survive eating something else, or die out.
True, but your not going to be healthy on an abundance of apples and pears.
Nutrients are nutrients, they aren't limited to types of food.
Its very technical, you see not all basic food types are all the same, there are some difference, and that difference is where your quality of life or redundant adaptation lies.
They are in tons of foods, which is why we can easily live off of tons of different foods. Chimps and Gorillas do as well, athough Gorillas eat more veggies and less fruits than Chimps, but they both still get all their nutrients. They eat insects, fruits, seeds, flowers, nuts, and leaves. Their diet can change on a monthly basis but they are still fine. The bottom line is that many foods contain similar nutrients and many of them are ideal for a physically fit individual and can be obtained naturally. So how are they not target foods as defined by you?
Ok let me rephrase that, its not naturaly intended food when its processed. Processing is not natural, its a man made step....
It's actually the exact opposite. The food is "treated and processed" precisely for humans to eat it.
www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=620hUILmDdOHqwG40YCQDg&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f2 4798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541
nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".
Of course we do, its something greatly lacking from us always having to adapt to make things work. It real simple you see, more steps more work, the less quality of life.
Humans like convenience, hence we buy processed foods.
In comparison to target food, you would obviously be wrong. You just admitted yourself that we yearn for convenience.
Either way we are still getting the essential nutrients to thrive.
According to your definition of tar
The nine or more unnatural steps that it takes to get meat to your plate, including cooking prove that its not a natural food. Target foods are natural, and don't require process. Cooking alone is a process. So unless we are supposed to eat meat raw, NO.
According to your definition of target food, the food has to be intended for a species, and that can of tuna shows exactly that. So why is that not considered a target food? Why is meat not considered a target food? You haven't yet answered that question.
Tuna and many other types of fish can be eaten raw, as can many things in nature and still provide a perfectly healthy diet. We cook because it tastes better in most cases.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Supplements were invented because its very hard to hit all of your needs with any carful diet.
You totally dropped the ball here, you see if it were actually our food in the first place, we wouldn't have to study it.
The fact that people have studied our diets and what the healthiest foods are, shows we are most certainly from here since we can get all essential vitamins and nutrients through nature.
That depends on if or not you think we are hitting marks that consider us to be thriving. We might be growing in population but we might grow much faster if more things were right.
And see the strawman arguement in that is that if that was such a good diet, why did we leave it?
Look at early hominid diets. Look at most primate diets. There's lots of comparing and analyzing to do, if you are genuinely interested in this and not just trolling. The evolutionary process takes millions of years.
Are you seriously still denying that somebody can get all essential nutrients from a healthy natural diet? Pay attention. That debunks target food right there based on your definition.
Target food works the same way except it requires no suppliments to hit good allowences and you don't have to worryy about the food not being nutritious. With everything we eat right now, its a maze of possibilities. Granted none of this is from our target food missing, its from all of the food we were given in the bible, excluding our target food.
And neither will an ape. Creatures that only eat 1 type of food are rare. Most animals eat a big variety of food.
True, but your not going to be healthy on an abundance of apples and pears.
Ok let me rephrase that, its not naturaly intended food when its processed. Processing is not natural, its a man made step....
In comparison to target food, you would obviously be wrong. You just admitted yourself that we yearn for convenience.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
The nine or more unnatural steps that it takes to get meat to your plate, including cooking prove that its not a natural food. Target foods are natural, and don't require process. Cooking alone is a process. So unless we are supposed to eat meat raw, NO.
But we don't because the parasites that are associated are kind of a clue that the risk is pretty heavy just to eat something.
There is nothing ideal about health damaging food.
But you can't compare how much time they spend to what we should spend.
Lets say mr anteater lost his supply of ants, and termites, since they are almost one in the same to the anteater. As a result he has to adapt by venturing off his menu. Now first of all we are assuming he will know how to do this, he might not, lets assume. So lets say the next food in line for him as a replacement of insects is bumble bees. I know this sounds rediculous but its just an example. So he is going to target bumble bees as his next source of insects. Now he has to climb a tree that he never used to have to do, which also takes longer then digging out ant farms, and he also has to now deal with getting stung like crazy, as the bees attack him.... Now you should be realizing the importance of target food.
There is nothing easy about redundancy
The question is, is that just a precaution?
I apologize, I must have missed something.
I find your lack of acknowledgement for my arguments disturbing...
Well according to the nit filled in by an evolutionist on the wiki page, ya. The problem here is that evolution and adaptation actually have nothing in common with each other. Evolution is changes that occur on a molecular level, and adaptation is physical changes that a species makes that involves any number of processes. The problem here is that evolution is natural, and adaptation is not...
Nope, for evolution to occur, adaptation is a MUST.
www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=K5QhUNXdA4feqgHewIDIAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=e7f2 4798c128fce0&biw=1115&bih=541
nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".
Well of course we are going to try to live, but that doesn't mean that the processes we used to do so are natural.
You forget the basic Primal Programming that exists within all species that we call "instinct" and instinct dictates that a creature be driven to survive at all costs, hence adaptation is a part of its process.
But you totally missed the whole picture here and whats going on. Anytime any species has to take adaptation steps for ANY reason, its a sign of desperation. That sign could stem from a collpas in the food chain, or global warming, or any number of things. It's not a sign that everything is normal, and on A, OK, quite the opposite. When you see this happening, its a sign that things are going wrong, and as a result, the species has to work around the problem. Now anytime that a species has to add steps or processes to anything that they do, this reduces the quality of life, as they are having to put forth more effort to achieve what they once used to with less effort.
If the animal refuses to change its behaviors to adapt, it dies off.
And you would be correct, well provided we don't go through anymore epic plagues. This planet was not made for us, there is no question about that.
If humans were not reproducing at a way too fast of a rate that WILL end us if we don't stop it soon, then why may I ask, according to my estimates which were confirmed by comparing a chart on Wikipedia concerning the increase of world population was the world population around 5 to 5.9 billion at the time of my birth, and now only 30 years later, it stands at 7.1 billion? WE ARE GOING TO KILL THIS WORLD!
Originally posted by itsthetooth
And you would be correct, well provided we don't go through anymore epic plagues. This planet was not made for us, there is no question about that.
Oh Barc, you had me all twitterpated on the first sentance. I thought wow, for once your about to agree.
I think this is the first point you are correct on. The earth wasn't made for us, or made for anything. It's been here for 4.5 billion years and we came from the earth. The earth wasn't magically set up here for humans. We evolved like everything else.