Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by idmonster

And that still doesn't disprove evolution.

Your thread title is "Target food proves evolution wrong". Even if you prove we didnt evolve on this planet, (we did) all you're pointing to is that we evolved somewhere else.

Or am I missing something?

Ya your missing the fact that there is no way we could have a common ancestor with apes if we never evolved from here to being with. So its all been false all this time.

I fail to see how having, not having a target food proves anything. But your thread, I'll enter into your fantsy for a while. How does target food prove we didn't evolve somewhere else...in other words, how does target food disprove evolution.

My answer....it doesn't. Another thread soon to be skunked I think.

Why would we have reason to believe we evolved at all when we never evolved here.

reply to post by idmonster

So you dont know what scientist or creationist mean when the use the term "irreducibly complex"?

IR is just an argument of intelligent design that biological structures are to complext to have evolved from simpler ones.

So I take it you have no explanation on how gears and sprockets evolved in the flagellum?

>>
You see had we of evolved correctly the first time, we wouldn't have needed to adapt. Adaptation is whats happening as a result of evolution failing.
>>

Evolution is not "failing", evolution is not "right" or "wrong" - evolution is more a result than an actual "process".
There is also no such thing as "evolving correctly", what is that supposed to mean to evolve correctly?

Life/Nature works in a way that a species will always develop/evolve in the "right" way, as i pointed out earlier because there is simply no other outcome possible.

Far fetched EXAMPLE: One of zillions of factors how a species evolves could also be how much gravity exists on a planet. Life on a given planet will in some way reflect this, on a hypothetical planet with very low gravity life could form where the strength of their bones as well as their size etc. wont play a big role - such beings could be very large as well.

On a planet with more gravity, this is unlikely since a very large animal/being would not do well having to carry a lot of weight around, the bones might be bigger etc..

The same principle you could apply to zillions of scenarios, eg life developing in water, in dry desserts, in the jungle etc...etc..

Similar as in my example with the "impossiblity of that a woman wins the lottery", you see everything from the WRONG end and claim there must be godly intervention since, in the end, everything is so perfect.

Only, when you look at this from the "correct" side, it comes to make sense.

YOU see a fish and see it has fins and lungs which enable it to breathe under water - you wonder "what the heck, this is so incredible perfect, someone must have planned this".

Yes, it is indeed "perfect", but that's the beauty of nature...it's the only logical outcome.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Well... it is a free for all. You adapt or not pass your genes to the next generation.'I.E. Evolution.'

To live, or not to live.

Lets see how true thats looking about now. First of all with us being in our 6th largest extinction it places us at about 10,000 die, and 10 live. One can estimate that the planet is collapsing. How do you explain this as all being a part of the evolution cycle when it is in fact breaking the cycle.

You see from everything I have been able to understand, with all understanding, evoltuon is a creator of new life. But your trying to say that evolution is also a taker of life. So in terms of it being a cycle, its failing and will soon run out of life.

Extinctions are part of a natural process and have been since before the fossil record. If it were not for the mass extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, there is no reason the dinosaurs would not still be here.

What your actually saying here is that your assuming extinctions are part of evolution simply based on the fact that it has always gone on since our earliest detection. Of course your ommiting the fact that the life on this planet has been wiped out in the past and outside life brought in.

Their reign was 165 million years, this alone is proof the eat or be eaten system was working just fine for them, and could have for another 100m years.

Brown lizards have evolved white scales in order to blend in with their environment to avoid becoming a tasty snack for a variety of other species.

I don't understand, your claiming on one hand that they are just suppose to be a cycle of life, which is including being eaten, yet your saying that they have defenses to detour that.

What's really exciting, is that these bleached skin lizards are in the process of evolving into two separate species from their brown cousins.
Brown Lizard

You started with lizards, and you ended up with lizards, I don't see any evolution.

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.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Hi Tooth.

I have to say this critique of evolution, specifically the idea of basically how early life forms would need other life forms to survive, does make sense and is interesting.

I do apologize for being mean to you before.

The "6th extinction" part (which you provide no evidence for, in this post), and your original post; Many things you say you provide no proof for and are a bit quacky, but hey, provides for interesting reading.

Also, you keep personifying evolution as if it's a self aware conscious being.

Evolution is a process,, not a person.

Let me provide an example. A = Normal Evolution, B= "Personified Evolution" (quote of what you said)

A. Evolution is a process that tries to explain the biodiversity of life, that is, adaptations to new environments along with genetic mutation over many generations leads to new species.

B. this is how you approach it, personifying evolution

The problem that everyone keeps overlooking is that starving and dying is not evolving, as the species no longer produces offspring when its dead.

See, your tying together Evolution with the species itself, as if the species is only one creature. The species produces offspring while it's alive; Evolution is a process, reproduction is evolution.... Creatures reproduce and pass their genes along. Every species has members that starve, and every single living thing we know of dies, but evolution is about reproduction...

Also, if you say we are from another planet, can you provide scientific proof or at least a logical explanation>?

Your not stupid (as I assumed before; Apologies again); And since personally I am an agnostic, I am always open to new ideas but to actually believe in it ...... What planet where we "originally from"? Who brought us here? Why?

What is our "target food"? What "was our originally life span on our original planet?"

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Do you consider physical forces like gravity "intelligence"?

Absence of chance doesn't automatically imply intelligence.

No gravity is not intelligence. Intelligence would be some type of thought or persuasion from another life form, but one that is in the intelligent position.

Now evolution can supposedly change our DNA, that sounds pretty intelligent right there.
Evolution supposedly can make these changes without revealing where the motivation came from, to where we are unable to identify whats behind the changes, that again sounds pretty intelligent.
I'm also told that evolution has the ability to select who and how the changes will be made, that sounds all intelligent.
Evoluton also has the ability to to make sure that we either evolve into something that fits an available menu, to make sure we have something to eat, or perhaps evolves the food to fit our needs, I never got a clear understanding on which one is correct.

When Evolution has the ability to make sure we have food, or make sure we evolve into accepting the food we do have, there is obviously some sort of thought there, and its premeditated.
Just to set the record straight however, Evolution must be failing as we are in our 6th largest extinction from species losing there food or being eaten themselves. Now if you want to believe that the food evolves, its still failing, as not only is the extinctions prevailing but as a good example, our food sure in the hell hasn't evolved for us as we have had to adapt to make it work.

Evolution is a process, not a person..

Evolution is not a person changing our DNA. It's a process that serves as an explanation of how DNA changes.

Evolution does not "has the ability to make sure we have food."

Evolution is a process that explains why some species die and others live and evolve.

I can keep going on but every sentence in your post makes no sense.

Evolution must be failing as we are in our 6th largest extinction from species losing there food or being eaten themselves.

Proof the 6th largest extinction.

Evolution does not fail, and does not succeed. It just "IS" (it's an explanation for how nature works).

If lions evolve to become intelligent, and they eat all of us humans and become the dominant speciies on this planet, and the lions leave some humans as slaves (kind of like Planet of the Apes but lions instead lol), if that where to happen...

you would say "evolution failed, we humans are in cages where those smart lions rule the Earth" (and if I where in a cage next you to, i might agree lol)

But seriously, in such a scenario as above, it would just be evolution. No fails, or succeed. It's just an explanation.

reply to post by flyingfish


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

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Disagree? How can you believe that species were made just to be tortured in finding out they have no food to eat, it honestly makes no sense. How can you believe that any given species may or may not have food, yet we don't see the plethora of new species being born with no food right out of the box. Instead we see current species venturing over to somone elses menu and dying from starvation due to extinctions and becoming food themselves.

How can you NOT believe that there is an obvious goal or motivation behind evolution to make new life. We do have over 5 million species you know, so someone or something likes to make life.

The only answer in all of this is if the food evolves with the life on this planet like in a symbiotic way. Unfortunatly we have proof that isn't happening because we have been adapting to the food we have for centuries, it hasn't been evolving for us. In addition we are in the 6th largest extinction right now, and most of that stems from species not having anything to eat. So evolution is failing at every corner.

Common sense?

This is possibly one of the most ridiculous arguments ever to grace the pages of ATS . If you want to know why, perhaps go over the literally hundreds of pages of people trying to talk sense to you. Your mind is obviously made up and nothing will change it. There is no more point. Though your arguments are interesting in other ways, that have more to do with insights into human nature, than the topic at hand. To you there is no such thing as evolution , because target food proves it...All I can say is, we are entitled to our opinions, good luck with it...

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

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Explain something that would qualify as a target food for humans, and why something like spinach, banana or chicken would not be considered despite containing pretty much all essential nutrients and being able to be grown easily or picked easily with our hands? You are just making up your own definitions of words and essentially "target food" only means what you want it to mean.

Also, please give examples of target food for other creatures on earth.

Sorry but target food doesn't exist. Creatures eat whatever they can find to survive. It's been like that since the beginning. Life isn't convenient like that where every animal has some magical food that's simple for them to attain and gives all nutrients

A target food would yeild very high nutrients for that specific species, and would almost be irreplacable. It wiould be all natural and plentiful for that species unless its gone extinct. It's not anything processed, and you could have more than one.

Humans don't have any target food here on earth, this is the whole proof if you will that earth is NOT our home. If this planet were ours, we would obviously have food here.

You didn't answer a single question I asked or address a single point I made. Try again.

Survival isn't about eating a magic food that has an exact balance of all good nutrients. It's about eating what you can. Most creatures on earth do not eat perfectly balanced meals with all nutrients. Give me examples of other target foods for other species that have perfect balance of nutrients. Stop avoiding that. Why isn't a banana a target food?

reply to post by flexy123

>>
You see had we of evolved correctly the first time, we wouldn't have needed to adapt. Adaptation is whats happening as a result of evolution failing.
>>

Evolution is not "failing", evolution is not "right" or "wrong" - evolution is more a result than an actual "process".
There is also no such thing as "evolving correctly", what is that supposed to mean to evolve correctly?

A result of what? The process? Rather than answering the questions with more questions, lets look at some facts.
Evolution creates new life. It doesn't matter how pretend to look at this as its just an accidental process, the bottom line is we have over 5 million species that are all here supposedly here by accident. These five million species all have the power to procreate and make more of the same life, I guess this is just a big accident too. In addition to this, all of these five million species were born into this with food to eat. Just another big coincidence right?
These five million species all share this same planet but vary in a wide range yet still have several required elements or impact on the planet. For example if one of them goes extinct, its very likely that 1000 others will follow because things are out of balance as a result of them missing.

From the evolution point of view your trying to claim that when a new species is made (which we have never seen) that they will magically have food waiting for them, and will magically be a part of an eco system that had never seen them before.

Life/Nature works in a way that a species will always develop/evolve in the "right" way, as i pointed out earlier because there is simply no other outcome possible.

Far fetched EXAMPLE: One of zillions of factors how a species evolves could also be how much gravity exists on a planet. Life on a given planet will in some way reflect this, on a hypothetical planet with very low gravity life could form where the strength of their bones as well as their size etc. wont play a big role - such beings could be very large as well.

On a planet with more gravity, this is unlikely since a very large animal/being would not do well having to carry a lot of weight around, the bones might be bigger etc..

The same principle you could apply to zillions of scenarios, eg life developing in water, in dry desserts, in the jungle etc...etc..

Similar as in my example with the "impossiblity of that a woman wins the lottery", you see everything from the WRONG end and claim there must be godly intervention since, in the end, everything is so perfect.

Only, when you look at this from the "correct" side, it comes to make sense.

YOU see a fish and see it has fins and lungs which enable it to breathe under water - you wonder "what the heck, this is so incredible perfect, someone must have planned this".

Yes, it is indeed "perfect", but that's the beauty of nature...it's the only logical outcome.

How did the structures of evolution come to be programmed? How did all of this life come to be so perfect in each of their own ways? How is it that they all have food waiting for them, so that they can survive? How is it that any of this happens without some type of intelligence behind it?

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?

reply to post by Confusion42

Hi Tooth.

I have to say this critique of evolution, specifically the idea of basically how early life forms would need other life forms to survive, does make sense and is interesting.

I do apologize for being mean to you before.

The "6th extinction" part (which you provide no evidence for, in this post), and your original post; Many things you say you provide no proof for and are a bit quacky, but hey, provides for interesting reading.

Also, you keep personifying evolution as if it's a self aware conscious being.

Evolution is a process,, not a person.

Let me provide an example. A = Normal Evolution, B= "Personified Evolution" (quote of what you said)

A. Evolution is a process that tries to explain the biodiversity of life, that is, adaptations to new environments along with genetic mutation over many generations leads to new species.

B. this is how you approach it, personifying evolution

Yes I do this on purpose because I'm in disbelief that it's not having some type of intelligence behind it.

As far as the 6th extinction, I just assumed everyone knew we are in it right now as we speak, here is a link if you like...

www.livescience.com...

This article names humans as the reason for the extinction and while the majority of that is probably true, its not the whole picture. We have had outside species (including humans) brought into this planet, which is causing this.

reply to post by Confusion42

See, your tying together Evolution with the species itself, as if the species is only one creature. The species produces offspring while it's alive; Evolution is a process, reproduction is evolution.... Creatures reproduce and pass their genes along. Every species has members that starve, and every single living thing we know of dies, but evolution is about reproduction...

Also, if you say we are from another planet, can you provide scientific proof or at least a logical explanation>?

Your not stupid (as I assumed before; Apologies again); And since personally I am an agnostic, I am always open to new ideas but to actually believe in it ...... What planet where we "originally from"? Who brought us here? Why?

What is our "target food"? What "was our originally life span on our original planet?"

There are many things that provide clues that we aren' from here. Starting with the bible indicating that earth is not our home. And in a plethora of other ways, indicating that we were brought here. There seems to be some confustion to this as alegedly god created us in his image, so how could we have a prior home if we were created. Well according to our mtDNA, we have a common ancestor that dates back 200,000 years ago. This clearly debunks the myth that god created us 7000 years ago, well except for one possibility. If we were frankensteined, where he took existing DNA from several others and combined them to make us, that could be what happend, and still explain why our DNA has a predated period.

Either way, one thing is for sure, our understanding of god creating us, is obviously wrong. In the bible god does make an appearance with a four headed creature of lion ox eagle and man, so it also looks like he does play with DNA. All of our punishments that get handed down to us in the bible are said that they will carry on to our offspring, again as though they were invoked through our DNA. So genocide, its really screwed up.

We are destroying this planet in such a fast way that its obvious that we don't belong here. We would not need to do the things that we do here, to survive, that would cause these types of problems, on a planet that we belong on.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
There are many things that provide clues that we aren' from here. Starting with the bible indicating that earth is not our home. And in a plethora of other ways, indicating that we were brought here. There seems to be some confustion to this as alegedly god created us in his image, so how could we have a prior home if we were created. Well according to our mtDNA, we have a common ancestor that dates back 200,000 years ago. This clearly debunks the myth that god created us 7000 years ago, well except for one possibility. If we were frankensteined, where he took existing DNA from several others and combined them to make us, that could be what happend, and still explain why our DNA has a predated period.

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"?

reply to post by Confusion42

Evolution is a process, not a person..

Evolution is not a person changing our DNA. It's a process that serves as an explanation of how DNA changes.

I was told that evolution has the ability to change our DNA. So how does this sit with people that work in crime labs? How dies this sit with people that work in paternity labs?

Evolution does not "has the ability to make sure we have food."

Well this might be an easy observation right now, because we are in the 6th largest extinction right now. So you claim that species will just be born with nothing to eat. Yet I bet you totally believe in balance... check out this link...

www.eco-sphere.com...

EcoSphere Closed Ecosystems

These are a very crude example of something being in balance. With just a handfull of componets they tried to achieve what is in the wild. The basic needs are there but this life will live a reduced life based on the fact that all the elements aren't present for them to live a normal life.
You obviously believe that a species has to have food to eat or dies. We never see or hear of a species being born with no food to eat.
So my point here is that while you claim that evolution will not make sure that we have food, something has been doing just that. Even in our example where humans don't have any target food, we still have food to eat, so something is going on. Unless its just an issue of us having access to everything possible and thereby being able to adapt.

Evolution is a process that explains why some species die and others live and evolve.

So what your saying is that evolution that is responsible for creating so much life, will have some cases where the species is first born with nothing to eat.

Proof the 6th largest extinction.

en.wikipedia.org...

Evolution does not fail, and does not succeed. It just "IS" (it's an explanation for how nature works).

Now I was told that only the positive changes succeed. I'm not sure what that means because positive can be from one angle.

If lions evolve to become intelligent, and they eat all of us humans and become the dominant speciies on this planet, and the lions leave some humans as slaves (kind of like Planet of the Apes but lions instead lol), if that where to happen...

you would say "evolution failed, we humans are in cages where those smart lions rule the Earth" (and if I where in a cage next you to, i might agree lol)

But seriously, in such a scenario as above, it would just be evolution. No fails, or succeed. It's just an explanation

This is a perfectly good example of what happend to us with evolving from common ancestors of apes. We just magically grew a brain and now we keep lions in cages.

reply to post by Confusion42

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

I only use that becasue I'm in disbelief.

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.

reply to post by Barcs

You didn't answer a single question I asked or address a single point I made. Try again.

Survival isn't about eating a magic food that has an exact balance of all good nutrients. It's about eating what you can. Most creatures on earth do not eat perfectly balanced meals with all nutrients. Give me examples of other target foods for other species that have perfect balance of nutrients. Stop avoiding that. Why isn't a banana a target food?

Are you missing the fact that you need food to survive?

Most creatures on earth do not eat perfectly balanced meals with all nutrients.

Thats right, and thats because the planet is out of balance.

Give me examples of other target foods for other species that have perfect balance of nutrients.

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.

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.

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.