Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'This is not intelligent design'
07-20-2010, 12:35 PM,
#76
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-20-2010, 10:48 AM)h3rm35 Wrote:
Quote:why is human bone density so much more fragile than any of our primate antecedents? It surely isn't going to be because of vitamin B.
Because possessing dense bones hasn't been so necessary for Man's survival for aeons. A survey of tree-dwelling apes and monkeys discovered that broken bones were not at all uncommon. And THEIR bones are strong...

Quote:my hypothesis is that because of our dependence as a species on milk-based calcium (due to agriculture and husbandry,) and as yet, a not completely developed ability to totally assimilate lactose
Surely those go together? And the earliest husbandry could have been was around 25,000 years ago, which means possibly too little time for full evolutionary adaptation.

Quote:as well as our transition from a tropical species, (dependent on sunlight for our development of solar synthesis of vitamin D,) to one that necessitates a lack of sunscreen, (in our hypochondriac society in fear of skin cancer), to create the vitamin in order to create proper bone-density, we have developed a plague of osteoporosis in mostly post-menopausal women, which, in a traditional primate culture, would not exist.
A few problems with this. In a traditional primate culture the post-menopausal state would be - death - and the need to maintain skeletal calcification wouldn't be pressing. Calcium would be freely available in a fish diet, but movement away from the coast into the continents would naturally restrict calcium intake until husbandry came along.

Quote:Basically, as our melanin dropped, and we moved farther from the equator and tropics, we needed another way to assimilate vitamin d, (which is one of the main factors in bone density,) and we haven't found a form, (other than fish body oils,) to provide us with a decent source of it, as well as omega 3 fatty acids...
True enough.

Quote:We keep killing the oceans, and we keep drinking milk, and unless us white folk have a better way to create or assimilate vitamin D, (even if we get rid of the sunscreen,) we're all going to die of degenerating bones or skin cancer.
My wife is a 65 year old vegetarian. She takes no dairy products save for a little "exotic" cheese. More than a quarter of a century ago she took calcium pills absolutely regularly for twenty years. Recently she undertook a full medical check-up, and the bone specialist declared her bone density to be typical of a twenty-five year old person. It may be, of course, that she is some sort of exception to the rule, but I doubt it. If you TAKE CARE to ingest calcium, your bones remain strong.

Quote:Take that, eugenicists!
I'm not sure Eugenics has a leg to stand on, considering the nature and coverage of genetic variability in Man. You cannot take "the jew", the "arab", the "caucasian", the "aborigine", the "negro", etc., out of the gene pool without severely diminishing that which remains.
Reply
07-20-2010, 12:40 PM,
#77
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
what?
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
07-20-2010, 08:40 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-20-2010, 08:45 PM by Deathaniel.)
#78
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
ClapClapClap

[quote j-roc]
You can't go back and back in time, forever saying life was "seeded". There still HAD to be a "soup" phase originally. I think you're using a fallacy to avoid considering this.

ok i can concede on this for the life forms who engineered us of which current man has less then 40% compatibility with (so i've been told by two groups separate from each other who may or not be full of shit! but then again so may or may we not be...) this was done as originally we were 80 % and well nephlium is the answer and the second cycle, those in control Char064 fixed that glitch

but yes at some time there must have been no multi celled organisms but since it was not HERE that it formed we can never know the conditions it will take to create true life from nothing!

[quote j-roc]
tomatoes could kill from eating them.
Boil them in an aluminum saucepan before eating them all your life and see what happens.


LOL really r you shitting me.... check when aluminum was created for cookery and when we gave up on the tomato killer myth, get back to me on that one...Whatthe
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-21-2010, 12:15 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 12:22 AM by JazzRoc.)
#79
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-20-2010, 08:40 PM)Deathanyl Wrote: ok i can concede on this for the life forms who engineered us of which current man has less then 40% compatibility with (so i've been told by two groups separate from each other who may or not be full of shit but then again so may or may we not be...) this was done as originally we were 80% and well nephlium is the answer and the second cycle, those in control fixed that glitch. but yes at some time there must have been no multi celled organisms but since it was not HERE that it formed we can never know the conditions it will take to create true life from nothing !
You appear to be short on evidence here, for visiting lifeforms engineering us. In fact you have stated this several times without providing confirmatory evidence. Could you do so? Thanks.

Quote:really r you shitting me.... check when aluminum was created for cookery and when we gave up on the tomato killer myth, get back to me on that one...
Aluminum is soluble in tomato acids. Also in rhubarb acids. It isn't soluble with less acidic materials, and apart from those two instances is reasonably safe to cook with.
Aluminum was first bulk-refined just after the beginning of the 20th century, when raw electrical power became available to separate molten cryolite by electrolysis. Before that it WAS available in small quantities: then it was as valuable as platinum.
Reply
07-21-2010, 04:32 AM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 04:40 AM by Deathaniel.)
#80
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-21-2010, 12:15 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:
Quote:really r you shitting me.... check when aluminum was created for cookery and when we gave up on the tomato killer myth, get back to me on that one...
Aluminum is soluble in tomato acids. Also in rhubarb acids. It isn't soluble with less acidic materials, and apart from those two instances is reasonably safe to cook with.
Aluminum was first bulk-refined just after the beginning of the 20th century, when raw electrical power became available to separate molten cryolite by electrolysis. Before that it WAS available in small quantities: then it was as valuable as platinum.

so once again how did that become a fact that tomato's were considered poisonous (myth was pretty much killed by 1830's and aluminum as not mass produced or considered common till 1906, before that one can hardly assume it was used to make pots when iron was the more common material for cooking devices like pots and sauce pans... history is MY foray...

Oh and I'll come up with documentation as quick as you can like i said no one knows who's right it's all guessing as to how we formed here! Though you'd like to think you've got it down, and i congratulate you. As one of the sheeple it's rare you have solid views that r not changed every time you read a new book. But theories r just that theories, and it's more logical to look at evidence and see fact then to base beliefs on speculation (so far 80% of your posts re evolution) As for monkeys sharing DNA with us they r of this planet and r mammals right? So what ever creature ET used as a host donor for his additions was probably also mammal and monkeys along with other forms of Sapiens r remnants of other engineered organisms from before the 1st cycle to see how life can thrive here, before mammal introduction all the planet was coldblooded as that if left alone is where the genomes of a planet develop.

Now i will admit i don't know the why we were engineered as a work force or an experiment, but thats irrelevant to the argument here. Which is r we intelligent design? And I say yes, designed by higher intelligence, higher then even NOW! including even you J-roc sorry man.
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-21-2010, 12:12 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 12:18 PM by JazzRoc.)
#81
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-21-2010, 04:32 AM)Deathanyl Wrote: so once again how did that become a fact that tomatoes were considered poisonous
I don't know why. It was you that mentioned it. I just pointed out that tomatoes certainly aren't safe if you boil them in aluminum pans.
Tomatoes are a relative of a whole family of poisonous plants, and I'm suggesting that non-poisonous strains of tomatoes have been cultured over the millennia. The history I leave up to you. See if you can find this out.

Quote:one can hardly assume it was used to make pots when iron was the more common material for cooking devices like pots and sauce pans... history is MY foray...
I wasn't anywhere near trying to make that sort of point.

Quote:Oh and I'll come up with documentation as quick as you can
I don't understand you. I asked you for it and now you're telling me you'll do it. Why haven't you JUST produced it?

Quote:As one of the sheeple it's rare you have solid views that r not changed every time you read a new book.
You are an irritating little shit. Kindly quit the abuse, or I will show you WHAT abuse really feels like.

Quote:But theories r just that theories
Wrong.
There are informed theories (with underlying evidence), and there are your theories (which apparently need NO underlying evidence).

Quote:and it's more logical to look at evidence and see fact
WHAT evidence? I've seen none in favor of the tripe you profess.

Quote:than to base beliefs on speculation (so far 80% of your posts re evolution)
So that's what you do is it? Base beliefs on speculation, eh? Well I DO NOT. Science is NOT a "belief system".

Quote:As for monkeys sharing DNA with us they r of this planet and r mammals right? So whatever creature ET used as a host donor for his additions was probably also mammal
ERV insertions occur randomly and insert themselves into host DNA in a random, but for ever after, FIXED location. This PROVES that Man and all apes and monkeys have a single common ancestor in an evolutionary line unbroken by ANY other event. Any such event would be PLAINLY obvious in the genomic plots we now possess. So let's cut to the chase - you are talking unadulterated CRAP.

Quote:and monkeys along with other forms of Sapiens r remnants of other engineered organisms from before the 1st cycle to see how life can thrive here, before mammal introduction all the planet was coldblooded as that if left alone is where the genomes of a planet develop.
And this is unconstructed gibberish.

Quote:Now i will admit i don't know (whether) we were engineered as a work force or an experiment, but that's irrelevant to the argument here. Which is r we intelligent design? And I say yes, designed by higher intelligence, higher then even NOW! including even you J-roc sorry man.
Actually the thread is 'This is not intelligent design' and I agree with that.
Further than that, in your case it wasn't even successful.
Reply
07-21-2010, 12:56 PM,
#82
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
the lack of muscle strength and bone density aspect is still not suitably accounted for.
Reply
07-21-2010, 03:39 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 04:14 PM by JazzRoc.)
#83
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-21-2010, 12:56 PM)nik Wrote: the lack of muscle strength and bone density aspect is still not suitably accounted for.
I have to ask you for more detail. In what respect? Some sort of mathematical aspect?
I had the impression that muscles and bone density are in some sort of dynamic equilibrium. The harder one works, the denser and larger one's bones and musculature become*. It certainly worked that way for ME when I used a pick and shovel for a while.
Animals in the wild are forced to work manually for their living, and their bones and musculature will approximate to a norm, with species variation.
Human beings, on the other hand, have striven for centuries to reduce their physical workload, so their bodies are wasted down as a consequence.
Perhaps you should check with Arnie.

*It could be you consider your body to be a "design". It isn't. It's a realtime physical representation of a set of "strategic responses", with a brain to boot up as well. The reason why plants appear to react intelligently while possessing nothing at all similar to a "brain" is that they too are realtime physical representations of sets of "strategic responses". We all share this "design architecture" because we all came from a common ancestor. That's as clear as mud. Heck. DNA is a recipe, not an architectural drawing. Well, I, know what I mean. lol
Reply
07-21-2010, 06:41 PM,
#84
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
The science you talk in this thread is a belief, and like i said what we know is what we think we know in the MS, like we can't clone humans yet....? So? What i was mentioning with the other allegories (Tomatoes being one) is we r told what "they " want us to know, and other science is closed off, they had the Sheeple believing lots of tripe before and they still do. YOU R PROOF!

A wise person looks into all possibilities and believes what there is evidence to support. Or waits for more data. Most of what you dismiss i can reference to google and a few authors of ol fashioned books, now the thing i have on my side is "evidence" as I'm talking history vs beliefs.

So you can research our development through historical facts, re being created, by off worlders and we being the descendants of those few. Why do we have a common ancestor with monkeys. As I explained though clear as day so I'll do it again was they did use a local life form as the primary creature to evolve to make more useful. would it have been something with 4 limbs and a face like them Yes! As we r made in Gods own Immage. Near all the creation stories say this when talking bout god and creation.

And to watch over men there was angles, spirits, Djiin what ever name you want to give... not that these beings r all the same, but lets us not digress...

Why would they use any other form other then the beast of burden 4 legged form which they Char064may have only altered also a bit, but We humans were designed to be able to be taught and to use the same tools/ vehicles (read vidic). So the argument is on your side that we ARE NOT intelligent design is the false logic, where as we r intelligent design as an intelligent being(s) created us. Abet from another life form here, giving us parts of it's own genome so not evolution, but engineering!

And So again We R intelligent design

but I'm done here so chaoSigns042
Remember Knowledge is the only thing THEY can't take from you, and Knowledge is Know how, and Know how is Power!!!

Live long and Prosper!!!! Have a plan beyond words, and worry not of why the storm is coming as to how you're going to survive in it!!!!

Deathanyl @gmail!!!!!!
Reply
07-21-2010, 10:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 10:06 PM by JazzRoc.)
#85
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-21-2010, 06:41 PM)Deathanyl Wrote: The science you talk in this thread is a belief

So YOU say.

Maybe I could believe in your "evidence"...

All I know is that when I ask you for the "evidence" you base your beliefs upon, YOU DO NOT SUPPLY IT.

So EXACTLY WHY should I believe a word you say? Why the hell am I asking this?
Reply
07-22-2010, 01:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-22-2010, 02:12 PM by ---.)
#86
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-21-2010, 03:39 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(07-21-2010, 12:56 PM)nik Wrote: the lack of muscle strength and bone density aspect is still not suitably accounted for.
I have to ask you for more detail. In what respect? Some sort of mathematical aspect?
I had the impression that muscles and bone density are in some sort of dynamic equilibrium. The harder one works, the denser and larger one's bones and musculature become*. It certainly worked that way for ME when I used a pick and shovel for a while.
Animals in the wild are forced to work manually for their living, and their bones and musculature will approximate to a norm, with species variation.
Human beings, on the other hand, have striven for centuries to reduce their physical workload, so their bodies are wasted down as a consequence.
Perhaps you should check with Arnie.

*It could be you consider your body to be a "design". It isn't. It's a realtime physical representation of a set of "strategic responses", with a brain to boot up as well. The reason why plants appear to react intelligently while possessing nothing at all similar to a "brain" is that they too are realtime physical representations of sets of "strategic responses". We all share this "design architecture" because we all came from a common ancestor. That's as clear as mud. Heck. DNA is a recipe, not an architectural drawing. Well, I, know what I mean. lol

No, we can and have measured this profound disparity in bone density (which is tied to) muscle strength with our closest primate ancestors by analysing the earliest known remains of Homo Sapien Sapien . .. and further Cro Magnon man - I am sure these people lived relatively physically oriented lives... not least those folk that were lifting 1400 ton blocks Wink

The explanation, more often or not given, that of having diverged from a much more strenuous existence, over time, to account for this profound lack of strength, in comparison to other closely related primate groups, is not sufficient nor scientific, surely? We simply are very much weaker than other primates, always have been and there is no credible answer with mainstream academia to account for this, that, I myself, have thus far found, at least.

I will endeavour to try and find the relevant research to supporting this obvious claim; I haven't stopped inquiry into Human Chromosome 2 either.
Reply
07-23-2010, 10:12 AM,
#87
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-22-2010, 01:59 PM)nik Wrote: No, we can and have measured this profound disparity in bone density (which is tied to) muscle strength with our closest primate ancestors by analysing the earliest known remains of Homo Sapien Sapien . .. and further Cro Magnon man - I am sure these people lived relatively physically oriented lives... not least those folk that were lifting 1400 ton blocks Wink
Maybe some evidence will turn up in undamaged bone-locked DNA some time soon. Those Atacama mummies, for instance, may show some differentiation from the present. The difficulty is with WHEN differentiation took place. (Is "Lucy" frail?) If far back the 6 million-yr period then all we can know is that we got weaker over a time which holds no evidence as to why. I somehow doubt that.

Quote:The explanation, more often or not given, that of having diverged from a much more strenuous existence, over time, to account for this profound lack of strength, in comparison to other closely related primate groups, is not sufficient nor scientific, surely? We simply are very much weaker than other primates, always have been and there is no credible answer with mainstream academia to account for this, that, I myself, have thus far found, at least.
It could be that you are suggesting something truly scientific, and are quite correct. You merely lack the evidence. If you find it, then a scientific advance will have been made. It's not my field, and so you don't find me looking. I dare say there are others who are.

Quote:I will endeavour to try and find the relevant research to supporting this obvious claim; I haven't stopped inquiry into Human Chromosome 2 either.
I'm becoming interested myself. Please let me know what you discover.
Reply
07-30-2010, 10:36 PM,
#88
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
will do, for sure if I find anything interesting.. but I am hardly the first to broach the question..
Reply
08-02-2010, 12:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-02-2010, 12:50 PM by JazzRoc.)
#89
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
(07-30-2010, 10:36 PM)nik Wrote: will do, for sure if I find anything interesting.. but I am hardly the first to broach the question..
Learning is an entirely personal thing. I consider my own motivation to learn rather poor these days, compared with the motivation I felt when last working close to a technological frontier, which is now a decade ago.
In a field not my own I try to find a "frontier" and work back through its reference literature until I can understand something, and then stagger forward again until I drop. In the case of molecular biology my eagerness to proceed soon withers under the immense scale and scope of the topic. My personal white room, perhaps. Much of history and ALL of theology are in there too, and I pigeon-speak several European languages which echo within it.
I'm not sure I can see any relevance in your position in the line.
Reply
08-02-2010, 06:33 PM, (This post was last modified: 08-02-2010, 06:34 PM by nik.)
#90
RE: 'This is not intelligent design'
true enough, me neither
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Brain scanners to be used to 'design' political candidates TriWooOx 11 3,113 05-14-2010, 10:09 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  'doomsday' Vault Design Unveiled TriWooOx 6 1,923 02-26-2008, 05:29 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass o hardboiled11 13 2,792 10-30-2007, 03:12 PM
Last Post: beyond
  New Nuclear Warhead Design For Us TriWooOx 0 584 03-05-2007, 12:37 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)