Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by MrXYZ

So are you now going back to the old god of the gaps argument where you claim "science can't explain that, ergo god/aliens did that"

Really??

No I was actually looking at it from the other angle that the gaps of evolution don't explain it. Evolution can't explain how things with gears evolved.

reply to post by flexy123


Radio Lab does a good job of explaining this. That the numbers are not as infinite and complex as they seem. It is a very, very infteresting show on randomness and coincidence.

That while some odds seem almost incalculable, they actually are not.

They liken winning the lottery to playing golf. The chances of winning seem extreme, like you are one of the blades of grass on a green hoping to get hit by the golf ball. Now among all the billions upon billions of blades of grass that it could land on, the odds are pretty sure that it will never be you.

But,the gaurentee is, that ball WILL land on a blade of grass on that green, and not a sandpit on the other side of the earth.So the chances are pretty good, that it will be a blade of grass.

Here is the podcast:

Stochasticity

reply to post by nixie_nox

Radio Lab does a good job of explaining this. That the numbers are not as infinite and complex as they seem. It is a very, very infteresting show on randomness and coincidence.

That while some odds seem almost incalculable, they actually are not.

They liken winning the lottery to playing golf. The chances of winning seem extreme, like you are one of the blades of grass on a green hoping to get hit by the golf ball. Now among all the billions upon billions of blades of grass that it could land on, the odds are pretty sure that it will never be you.

But,the gaurentee is, that ball WILL land on a blade of grass on that green, and not a sandpit on the other side of the earth.So the chances are pretty good, that it will be a blade of grass.

Here is the podcast:

I guess it depends on how you do that example. If the person were blind folded there is a higher chance they might make it in the sand pit. There is obviously direction helped from the player. One of the things that sticks out in my mind is it was explained to me that the odds of change are all confinded within some variables, in other words its not actually random, there is direction. The problem here is that it even more looks like there is intelligence behind it. At least motivation of some type.

Using the example of ADHD that changes our genes, it would be obvious there is some type of motivation behind it becasue some of the genes dissapear while other multiply, but on the other hand, its NOW no longer viewd as though changes being evolution.

Here we go again.

There is no such thing as target food. You can't say a type of food is "intended" for something. Who intends it? What are you claiming? That all creatures were designed with 1 specific food type? Organisms adapt to their food, they don't have a set target. Many eat whatever they can find to survive, which includes a large variety of foods. Many animals eat various foods. Humans have a big variety because we are smart and can analyze which foods are healthy and which foods taste good. Bad argument. Humans are omnivores so our "target" food is meat and plants. No animal has one specific food that they eat exclusively.

reply to post by Barcs

Here we go again.

There is no such thing as target food. You can't say a type of food is "intended" for something. Who intends it? What are you claiming? That all creatures were designed with 1 specific food type? Organisms adapt to their food, they don't have a set target. Many eat whatever they can find to survive, which includes a large variety of foods. Many animals eat various foods. Humans have a big variety because we are smart and can analyze which foods are healthy and which foods taste good. Bad argument. Humans are omnivores so our "target" food is meat and plants. No animal has one specific food that they eat exclusively.

I never claimed to know all the answers. Your obviously saying that there is nothing to support the direction of what a species eats. I think its a little odd however that not everything on this planet is a sentient being, yet its smart enough to know what to eat, and what not to eat.

I guess you could argue and say if they did have any smarts, they at least have that. Your basin your view and understanding on the perception of how humans eat, which is totally false, you need to look at other life and consider them as well.
You will never be able to convince me that each species is NOT suppose to have intended food. If they didn't, that would mean total chaos with species eating off of others menus and species dying from extinction being normal, and its not.

Saying that humans survive because they are smart and adapt is like saying that only the smart should survive, and I don't agree with that either. Of course no species has one food alone, I never claimed that.

Your trying to convince me that some type of process like evolution creates so much life that we are over 5 million species, but has little to nothing to do with how those species eat. First of all its a little hard to imagine that all of this life is just by chance, second its seems like a waste of time to just find out that a species has nothing to eat or dies from starvation. I don't buy it. Food for everyone was weighed into the picture, which means this is obviously a lot more complex then you could imagine.

Now if you were right, what we would see is a lot of brand new species being born, and dying on their first existance because they have nothing to eat, and thats not the case. What we have is species losing their food that they once had, like to another species or they become food themselves, which is clear indication that outside life was brought to earth and has upset the balance. Also if you were right on about evolution we would also see a hell of lot of species that are almost the same, but instead we have mostly species that are different with some minor things that are the same.

If there was a species between human and apes that ever existed, which I highly doubt can ever be proven, there is no reason for them not to exist today as we have food to cover apes, and humans, so they would have been covered. The only exception is that they didn't adapt fast enough like we have now, to make food for themselves, but if thats the case how did they branch off to us? The bible was written roughly about 2000 years ago, and in this time we have no proof much less documentation of our species trying to evolve into anything else. We have some minor differences with race, color and so on, but thats the extent of it. There is no such thing as evolution in making new species.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Here we go again.

There is no such thing as target food. You can't say a type of food is "intended" for something. Who intends it? What are you claiming? That all creatures were designed with 1 specific food type? Organisms adapt to their food, they don't have a set target. Many eat whatever they can find to survive, which includes a large variety of foods. Many animals eat various foods. Humans have a big variety because we are smart and can analyze which foods are healthy and which foods taste good. Bad argument. Humans are omnivores so our "target" food is meat and plants. No animal has one specific food that they eat exclusively.

I never claimed to know all the answers. Your obviously saying that there is nothing to support the direction of what a species eats. I think its a little odd however that not everything on this planet is a sentient being, yet its smart enough to know what to eat, and what not to eat.

I guess you could argue and say if they did have any smarts, they at least have that. Your basin your view and understanding on the perception of how humans eat, which is totally false, you need to look at other life and consider them as well.
You will never be able to convince me that each species is NOT suppose to have intended food. If they didn't, that would mean total chaos with species eating off of others menus and species dying from extinction being normal, and its not.

Saying that humans survive because they are smart and adapt is like saying that only the smart should survive, and I don't agree with that either. Of course no species has one food alone, I never claimed that.

Your trying to convince me that some type of process like evolution creates so much life that we are over 5 million species, but has little to nothing to do with how those species eat. First of all its a little hard to imagine that all of this life is just by chance, second its seems like a waste of time to just find out that a species has nothing to eat or dies from starvation. I don't buy it. Food for everyone was weighed into the picture, which means this is obviously a lot more complex then you could imagine.

Now if you were right, what we would see is a lot of brand new species being born, and dying on their first existance because they have nothing to eat, and thats not the case. What we have is species losing their food that they once had, like to another species or they become food themselves, which is clear indication that outside life was brought to earth and has upset the balance. Also if you were right on about evolution we would also see a hell of lot of species that are almost the same, but instead we have mostly species that are different with some minor things that are the same.

If there was a species between human and apes that ever existed, which I highly doubt can ever be proven, there is no reason for them not to exist today as we have food to cover apes, and humans, so they would have been covered. The only exception is that they didn't adapt fast enough like we have now, to make food for themselves, but if thats the case how did they branch off to us?

edit on 3-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Holy Mother, you've got to be kidding me.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Holy Mother, you've got to be kidding me.

I'm still trying to figure out which part of that had anything to do with what I said.

Saying that humans survive because they are smart and adapt is like saying that only the smart should survive, and I don't agree with that either. Of course no species has one food alone, I never claimed that.

Actually what I said was that humans have such a large variety in their dietary choices because they are smart. We're talking "target foods" are we not?

I think it's time I start a thread called Walmart and asda food prove evolution right.

We don't have to work for our food anymore, not in the sense our ancestors did, and the effects of that can be seen worldwide in western societies. We're getting lazier softer and more stupid with every generation that goes by.

So supermarkets are causing us to devolve surely

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Holy Mother, you've got to be kidding me.

+1.

Fascinating stuff. Not the argument itself, but the logic behind it, fascinating.

You actually posted this thread

So all these people explaining why you are wrong, are they incredulous as well?

Your still using your baby language e.g. 'intended food'. I thought you made that up for me yet this is my first and last post on such a silly topic

470 pages in the other thread and your understanding of what evolution explains is basically a rat goes to sleep and wakes up as a cat

Now if you were right, what we would see is a lot of brand new species being born, and dying on their first existance because they have nothing to eat, and thats not the case.

If we have intended food then explain the part taste buds play. All animals have them so why as we do not need to taste food that is 'intended'?

Anyhow. You have found a new home to live in. Job done. Told you I was a Puppet master and I just pulled your strings.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So what your saying is that even though the whole idea of creationism is to create new life, and the end result of of evolution is to create new life, that they both would have an agenda to end life through torture.

Nope, thats what you're saying. That's what you always say. That's what you will continue to say until you understand what evolution is.

Anyway, well done on starting the thread.

Along with a few others, I probably have a clearer idea of what you mean when you say "target Food".

So a question, How does target food prove evolution false?

You have already accepted that speciation and genetic change are fact. You have accepted that genetic changes are heritable.

So regardless of whether you believe evolution is only applicable to lower life forms, or only applicable to this planets original inhabitants, acceptance of inheritable genetic change is acceptance of the evolutionary process.

How does target food change those facts?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by yorkshirelad

 

I guess it all comes down to irreducable complexity for me. The idea here is that its hard to prove much less imagine how such a complex array of the steps of evolution can't be guided by some intelligent force.

If IC exists and demonstrates intelligent design, and we were all created through intlleigent design, why am I not irreducibly complex?

Surely if intelligent design were true, all life would be IC!

I'll even go as far as to say the lack of irreducible complexity the majority of all life proves any level of design wrong.

Originally posted by nakiel
Guess hemp could be our food source #1.

I just ate big a bowl of hemp cereal with hemp seeds, hemp protein powder, and hemp milk substitute!

This proves the old adage of: "Give a man enough rope and he'll"...eat it?


hempbasics.com...

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Here is what I'm going to say about this. It's a fact that species need a balance of things to survive. Colin admitted this himself back when we were on about the shrimp in a sealed fish tank. That shrimp lives a shortened life based on the fact that not all of the necessary things are present to help it live longer. So your wrong. Target food is an obvious fact just based on that simple observation.

this is blatant dishonesty on your part. My guess is that MR C wont be joining this debate so I will correct the statement above on his behalf.

The debate around the shrimp was colin stating that nothing is in balance and constantly fluctuates. The shrimp in the case was you attempting to provide an example of a balanced ecosphere.

You quoted the sales literature time and again saying they wouldn't be able to sell it as a balanced environment if it wasn't.

colin showed that the life span of the shrimp they used, in its natural environment was up to 20 years, where as in the sphere it slowly polluted itself to death over about a year and a half.

Your statement above is not only an about turn on your original position, (which is fine, were all allowed to change our minds) its also a total misrepresentation of the position of the other ats member involved in the debate, which isn't fine and should get you banned.

Anybody who has the time, inclination and lack of sanity can review the whole discussion on the "can you prove evolution wrong" thread.

reply to post by Barcs

I'm still trying to figure out which part of that had anything to do with what I said.


Saying that humans survive because they are smart and adapt is like saying that only the smart should survive, and I don't agree with that either. Of course no species has one food alone, I never claimed that.

Actually what I said was that humans have such a large variety in their dietary choices because they are smart. We're talking "target foods" are we not?

Ya but humans don't eat anything that qualifies as target food.

reply to post by JustXeno

I think it's time I start a thread called Walmart and asda food prove evolution right.

We don't have to work for our food anymore, not in the sense our ancestors did, and the effects of that can be seen worldwide in western societies. We're getting lazier softer and more stupid with every generation that goes by.

So supermarkets are causing us to devolve surely

Our meat still has to be slaughtered, someone has to get that little piggy to market. It's just been ramped up to the point that we breed them to keep the process going.

We still have to pick fruits and veggies, and most is done by hand. There are some small mechanical examples but most by hand.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

+1.

Fascinating stuff. Not the argument itself, but the logic behind it, fascinating.

Thank you, I wish the incredulous mates on the evolution side felt the same way. I haven't figured out if they dislike it because it proves evolution wrong, or because they simply don't like it.

reply to post by colin42

You actually posted this thread

So all these people explaining why you are wrong, are they incredulous as well?

Your still using your baby language e.g. 'intended food'. I thought you made that up for me yet this is my first and last post on such a silly topic

470 pages in the other thread and your understanding of what evolution explains is basically a rat goes to sleep and wakes up as a cat


Now if you were right, what we would see is a lot of brand new species being born, and dying on their first existance because they have nothing to eat, and thats not the case.



If we have intended food then explain the part taste buds play. All animals have them so why as we do not need to taste food that is 'intended'?

Anyhow. You have found a new home to live in. Job done. Told you I was a Puppet master and I just pulled your strings.

It was a smart move for sure at least to get some fresh minds in on this.

I'm only doing it for the stars.

As far as why we have taste buds, thats a very good question. I never stated that we are to only eat one food, so that could be part of it. But probably the most obvious is that the tast of the food could change. For example ripe fruit to rotting fruit, and so on.

There was a study (and I can't link to it...) that showed the coexistence of Neanderthal and modern Man in what is now Europe. Due to climate change, and a change to the land masses from ice melt etc. they found that modern man adapted by increasing their consumption of aquatic foods like shellfish. Numerous middens were found where none had existed before. The Neanderthal, being primarily hunter-gatherers, did not not adapt in the same way and simply 'followed the herds.' Their numbers dwindled, and they found adapting to the new environment difficult.

Modern man, having found a readily available food source, with high levels of nutrients, were able to survive much easier than the nomadic Neanderthal. To me, this shows adaptation worked benefiting modern man. From there we see (over the course of centuries) the domestication of livestock, and primitive use of sustainable crops.

Where was the intelligent design in the Neanderthal?