Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

But we don't have any proof that we ever evolved from apes, or even share a common ancestor.

As always...you are dead wrong.

Evidence of common descent.
Hey look, more objective evidence for common descent.
Guess what…there's more.

Of course you're simply going to ignore all that like all the other evidence you like to ignore so much

reply to post by itsthetooth


"Here is where the conflict lies with evolution, the ultimate goal of evolution is to create new species."

Bzzt wrong answer. An organism evolves in response to environmental pressures. Those that can best adapt to their environment survive to reproduce. The ones that can't end up on the extinction list. The change can be simple or complex. Not necessarily resulting in a whole new species.

Your post actually proves that evolution exists. It proves that organisms have moved from place and adapted themselves to thrive in their present locations. If they didn't adapt then they wouldn't survive there. Simple.

reply to post by KingAtlas

Also i just realized what you might say, that those food aren't available everywhere.

Here is a good thought for you, if the species developed in a certain area, then those nutritional necessities might be more prevalent in the area where the species originated.
Another consideration in this thought line would be, using your OP, that the target food that was once used for the specific nutritional requirement may have gone extinct, therefor forcing the species to move to other less rich sources.

You have to logically think out the variables before making a wild assumption to back your line of thought.

At last, a good thinker. Now you see that what it comes down to is were humans only suppose to live in areas that support their needs? Of course a new problem with that is as soon as you find a good location for one need, another one is short. I'm convinced its because this is not our planet and we aren't from here. Yes food can go extinct too, but we know of nothing in our history that did go extinct that would have been our target food.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Toothy, I can't believe you started a thread on this.

Really?

Colin told me to

Target food anyone?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny

 

Toothy, I can't believe you started a thread on this.

Really?

Colin told me to

If someone tells you to jump off a cliff, will you blindly comply too?

Colin, you're an evil son of a b****!!

reply to post by HappyBunny

Well, yes. That's why until recently you couldn't raise cattle and sheep in the same geographic area. Their nutritional requirements are totally different. But that doesn't mean that one species would automatically die out--they will find foods that supply the nutrient deficiency.

Provided they are smart enough to do so, which isn't always the case.

We see this even in humans, pregnant women and small children in particular. It's called pica. When you're nutrient deficient, especially in iron, you'll eat soil, clay, rocks...anything with that particular nutrient in it. Iron is particularly common.

Your body knows what it needs and where to get it.

And thats all true, but I don't think those signs of desperation are normal or supposed to be anyhow.

reply to post by itsthetooth


What you call "signs of desperation" has been going on for BILLIONS of years...so yeah, it's definitely quite normal. It's also the reason why 99% of species who ever lived on this planet are now extinct. And those surviving species are mostly unicellular lifeforms...or very simple lifeforms in general.

All that information has been posted to you TONS of times. You seem like a curious guy who likes to read...so read!! And for a change focus on properly sourced material by credible authors. Objectivity matters!

reply to post by halfoldman

What is really at the core is alien seeding (the Bible says the earth is not our home) and that somehow regional imperfections in food suggest that when humans were seeded on earth the aliens forgot to drop off our lunch-box with some perfect "wonder food" to make us truly satisfied in every way.

That's actually a really good theory, I think.
But it's so interwoven with other things, I'm not sure it's the central point

No you got it perfectly. Excellent rewording.

Originally posted by pikestaff
Okay, most humans are lactose intolerant, who drinks the milk, who eats the cheese? I don't know anyone who is lactose intolerant, never met anyone who was at work, or socially, so, who eats and drinks?????

I would have to assume that most people you know are of european descent?:

Lactose intolerant individuals have insufficient levels of lactase, the enzyme that metabolizes lactose into glucose and galactose, in their digestive system. In most cases this causes symptoms such as abdominal bloating and cramps, flatulence, diarrhea, nausea, borborygmi (rumbling stomach), or vomiting[1] after consuming significant amounts of lactose. Some studies in the U.S. and elsewhere[where?] suggest that milk consumption by lactose intolerant individuals may be a significant cause of irritable bowel syndrome.[2]

Most mammals normally become lactose intolerant after weaning, but some human populations have developed lactase persistence, in which lactase production continues into adulthood. It is estimated that 75% of adults worldwide show some decrease in lactase activity during adulthood.[3] The frequency of decreased lactase activity ranges from 5% in northern Europe through 71% for Sicily to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries.[4] This distribution is now thought to have been caused by recent natural selection favoring lactase persistant individuals in cultures that rely on dairy products.[5] While it was first thought that this would mean that populations in Europe, India and Africa had high frequencies of lactase persistence because of a particular mutation, it has now been shown that lactase persistence is caused by several independently occurring mutations.[6]

Less lactase = more lactose intolerance. Let me know if you need anything else, but it's various mutations in the smaller part of humanity that results in lactose tolerance after weaning.

reply to post by Praetorius


Thats interesting as all hell. I would have never of guessed that the same milk that people drink, can actually cause OP.
It's ok though because my point which was obviously not clear based on many people commenting about it, was our desperate move to adopt milk for a calcium intake. I wasn't trying to say it was a bad idea or that it was good just that we obviously felt for what ever reason that we needed it, and that was the point. We are lacking something so adopted milk.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Thats interesting as all hell. I would have never of guessed that the same milk that people drink, can actually cause OP.
It's ok though because my point which was obviously not clear based on many people commenting about it, was our desperate move to adopt milk for a calcium intake. I wasn't trying to say it was a bad idea or that it was good just that we obviously felt for what ever reason that we needed it, and that was the point. We are lacking something so adopted milk.

Agreed. Based on what we were always taught growing up (here, anyway...), milk does a body good!

As far as the assumption that we started drinking milk to satisfy an apparent deficiency, I don't know. I doubt it, but I've never looked into. Would be an interesting thing for me to actually get around to looking into sometime.

Take care, and I promise I will actually try to get back to review the rest of your post at some point!

reply to post by nixie_nox

What they do in other countries is drink goat milk, not cow's. Goat milk is the closest to human milk. Everylthing that we have to do to cow milk is naturaly done with goat milk. Goat's milk is naturally homogenized, easier to digest, low allergies and rarely causes lactose intolerance. The drinking of cow's milk in the US is the result of a very intensive marketing campaign.

The poster is also making the mistake, among many others, of looking at this from a first world country.

Actually I was tyring to show more that we made a desperate move, in a way your agreeing with me.

reply to post by nixie_nox

What the poster doesn't realize and what you have been touched upon is called ethnic dieting. The Japanese eat fish and rice, why? Because their island provides them with fish and rice. Europeans have trouble with rice, it shoots the blood sugar, making them hunger, because their ethnicity hasn't developed the proper enzymes to deal with rice.

There is a chain of thought that obesity and disease would be reduced if people ate the food of their ancestors. For example,Europeans shouldn't be eating a mango, because mangos are not found in Europe.
The Native Americans now have an obesity and diabetes epidemic after the introduction of white flour.

So in a sense, our ancestors ate "target" foods.

I can't argue that some things are going to effect others differently depending on prior exposure. So you have a good point. But a target food would be good for humans across the board. Your confusing the disadvantage of us dealing with 100% substituitions and some some small differences it can play on geographic areas. A target food wouldn't not have this problem. From the creation point of view you could say it was food made for humans.

reply to post by Praetorius

Then you REALLY haven't looked into this. How do you think herbivores, especially LARGE ones develop strong teeth and bones (which are made of calcium)? Where do you think the calcium in milk we drink comes from, since I'm more than a little sure (COULD be wrong, I suppose...) that it's not produced by the bodies of the animals themselves?

If you're going start making claims like this, I strongly suggest more thorough research - on all sides.

I totally missed your point. I have been a firm believer that you will need calcium to develope it.

reply to post by spyder550


It looks more like manipulation then it does evolution.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I wish it were that easy, Pixi dust LOL

Oh my........ You should have never mentioned milk. The thread will get steered towards that udder nonsense again.

reply to post by MrXYZ


The problem is that your always up against that pesky possibility that a creator explains biodiversity. So untill you can prove that a creator had nothing to do with all of this life, you will always be up against that wall.

Now I'm not saying that I believe that, I'm just saying that you have to rule it out and you haven't done that. Simular genes don't prove relation when a creator could have made it that way.

reply to post by Foundryman

"Here is where the conflict lies with evolution, the ultimate goal of evolution is to create new species."

Bzzt wrong answer. An organism evolves in response to environmental pressures. Those that can best adapt to their environment survive to reproduce. The ones that can't end up on the extinction list. The change can be simple or complex. Not necessarily resulting in a whole new species.

Your post actually proves that evolution exists. It proves that organisms have moved from place and adapted themselves to thrive in their present locations. If they didn't adapt then they wouldn't survive there. Simple.

Ya but the only problem with this now is that there are over 5 million species on this planet, and now your trying to tell me that the majority of them never got to live because of the way that evolution makes new species. If that were true this planet would be a giant bone yard of singular species that never made it.

What we have is the opposite, and you can aruge and say ya cause they die, but the fact is we don't see the failure rate so it doesn't exist.