Why haven't we evolved to a point where we don't need food?

Question

I don't believe in evolution of species but I was wondering about our ability to adapt in the instance that there is no available food. Why don't we have like an egg sac containing all of our own nutrients for energy?

Answer 1

we need food cos it acts as a fuel for us to carry on  which converts to in our bodies to give us energy, just like cars, they need gas to go.

Answer 2

food is simply an energy scource and all energy ulyimatly comes from the sun only plants and some plankton can eat energy directly from the sun so we eat plants and meat to get our energy, unless someone comes up with a solar panel that can be wired into our tummies we need to eat, but heck who would want to live without strawberries.

Answer 3

Evolution is not a "belief" it is fact.  It has been directly witnessed in insects and animals with short enough lifespans that hundreds and thousands of generations can be observed.

To answer the question, humans do have an "egg sac" its called fat stores.

Answer 4

There is no debate on evolution but rather some of the mechanisms underlying it. There is NO alternative scientific theory to evolution and all attempts to tout Intelligent Design as science have been failed ( The most recent fiasco for the creationists in this regard was the Dover Decision, wherein even the cerationists "experts " agreed that ID was as scientific as astrology. Your failing to accept evolution from personal incredulity is of course your right..but saying that there is a debate about evolution , trying to imply that there are alternative , accepted theories is ridiculous. Bring some facts to the table in the form of a hypothesis with possibility of falsifiability , definitive experiments to test the hypothesis , etc etc ..then we can, as you so blithely put it...debate  

Answer 5

Since you don't believe in evolution maybe you can answer why people still need food when God could refuel everybody magically by sending down heavenly nutrients straight into our stomaches.  

Answer 6

well, think for a second, don't you think the nutrients in the egg sac would need to be replenished at one point? So in the case of no food we would because our cells would be unable to produce ATP for energy for life's processes and we wouldn't be getting any nutrients

Answer 7

We need food.  That's how we obtain matter and energy from our environment.

> Why don't we have like an egg sac containing all of our own nutrients for energy?

We carry a certain amount of energy and matter as a layer of fat, and as glucagon.  As warm-blooded animals, we require a lot of energy.  Carrying around enough to last us for, say, a week, would be impractical.

> Some scientists do NOT accept the theory of evolution as fact.

Michael Behe should either recant his position, or be considered a crackpot.  All of his objections to evolution have been answered.

> people questioning evolution?

Ask questions if you like.  It's how you learn.  But if you're asking "Why is the sun pink with orange polka dots" then you're asking the wrong question.

Answer 8

It's all about thermodynamics.  The chemical reactions that keep us alive require energy to run, which means we need to consume calories or we die.  Unfortunately, that's the insurmountable problem - there is absolutely no way around it.  If we're not eating, we're not living (at least, not for very much longer, anyway).  Reproduction would be absolutely out of the question as well, which is another thing you need for evolution to happen.

So essentially, we will never, ever evolve past the need to eat food because it simply isn't thermodynamically possible.  We will always, always, always need energy.  That's not just humans; that's life everywhere on Earth.

I hope this helps.  Good luck!

Answer 9

Everything requires energy. This energy is then burned to create movement. The more you move the more energy you need. We can last a long time without energy(food) if we stay as static as possible. Still our heart beats and we breath using energy, so we cant last forever. What you envision, the egg sack. How would this be established? How would it be refilled? If it is this type of life, then we would be born, burn our available energy, and die. Even if your entire mass were used in this fashion. The life would be quite short.

Answer 10

Is this an example of the logic that lead you to reject evolution???

For something the size of a human to be born with an "egg sac" large enough to satisfy all our energy requirements for a lifetime, that "egg sac" would have to the size of a three story house!  At the very least that would make childbirth a bit difficult don't you think?    Not to mention the concept that this "egg sac" would have to filled somehow by the mother during gestation of the baby ... so if the mother (with her "egg sac") was not consuming food, then how would the "egg sac" for the newborn be filled.

In other words, you have ask how such a bizarre thing would *EVOLVE*.  

Look ... the answer to your question is that there is no way or reason for an organism to *EVOLVE* to require no food.   Life requires energy.  Food is a really, really simple way of getting that energy ... because plants are really good at turning the huge abundant energy source we call the sun, into an energy source that it can store and use, with plenty left over to support the entire chain of life.  

Please, please, please do not *START* with your desire to reject evolution, and *THEN* manufacture bizarre arguments against it.   Scientists *OVERWHELMINGLY* accept evolution for very very good reasons ... and have very very good evidence to back it up.   They are not total morons or frauds.

>"Some scientists do NOT accept the theory of evolution as fact."

Some scientists do NOT accept the concept of atoms or that the earth moves around the sun.   That doesn't mean anything.   The question is *how many*?

The percentage of scientists (people with a PhD in some biological field).who do NOT accept the theory of evolution is absurdly small ... a fraction of 1%.

And even then, most of these scientists (like Michael Behe) do not dispute the fact that organisms clearly evolved, but dispute only whether Darwinian natural selection is enough to explain it.

But this is precisely what I mean by you STARTING with the presupposition that evolution MUST be false, and then clinging to any sliver of hope you can get that a tiny fraction of scientists question evolution.

>"WHY are people so sensitive these days about people questioning evolution? Isn't it a GOOD thing to use our brains to wonder about stuff?"

Yes.  Of course.   But when you START with the premise the evolution MUST be false, and then manufacture bizarre arguments against it, or believe bizarre arguments found in blatantly deceitful Creationist web sites, or cling to the fact that a tiny fraction of 1% of scientists question evolution (without knowing or caring why), then are not just "wondering about stuff" ... you are grasping at straws.

And when you post or repeat these objections in a *science* forum ... those of us who love science just have to speak out that this is a hugely BAD way to go about understanding how science works.

Answer 11

Well, I guess that would be great, but, I can't see it happening in the natural world.  Now in the spiritual world ,  we see in Revelation 7:16,17  that we won"t have that to worry about once we get into the spiritual realm...

Revelation  7:13 - 17  ...  And one of the elders answered, saying unto me,  What are these which are arrayed in white robes?  and whence came they ?  And I said unto him,  Sir, thou knowest.  And he said to me,  These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple :  and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.  They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;  neither shall the sun light on them  for any heat.  For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters ;  and god shall wipe away all tears form their eyes.  HALLELUIAH !!!

Answer 12

No organism anywhere has evolved the ability to survive without some energy source - whether it is sunlight, heat, or the chemical energy within other organisms.

The laws of thermodynamics, which are fundamental to everything everywhere in our universe, require that we have an energy source in order to function.

In terms of recycled energy, all organisms everywhere DO use their energy sources with as close to maximum efficiency as possible; to do otherwise is wasteful, and is not an advantageous trait.

You say that "Some scientists do NOT accept the theory of evolution as fact. If they did, there wouldn't even be a debate about it."

This may well be true, but the number of scientists who DO support evolution is 95% (across all disciplines), and 99.5% in relevant disciplines (biology and geology). It is the OVERWHELMING consensus of scientists who accept it, with only a few who do not.

And those that do not, despite what they might claim, reject it on absolutely non-scientific grounds; it conflicts with their religious beliefs, so they feel unable to accept the theory.

Ther is NO debate within the scientific community about the veracity of evolution!

It absolutely is a good idea to question accepted doctrine - in fact that is what science is all about. But you need a good, rational, evidence-based reason to doubt the accepted paradigm. Religious beliefs are not an example of such a good reason.

Answer 13

Well... it sounds like you're asking a "If evolution was true..." question. According to evolution, genetic variation that gives advantage in a specific environment allows the organism to reproduce and amplify those genes in the population. (So if there was a human that was provided energy with an egg sac containing all the energy needed, then it would spread among humans in areas plagued by hunger.)

The thing is, genetic variation has to be preexisting. There are simpler ways to obtain energy than to have this source of nutrients that'll last us for the rest of our lives. Most of our energy goes to maintaining body temperature at 98.2 degrees. Imagine how much energy that would take over 80 years.

Yes it is good to wonder about stuff but you should try to understand more about evolution and how it works. Read this article and then feel free to ask any questions about it. I don't like the title of the article because it's pretty much disrespectful and might ward off some readers but it's still a good read.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-a...

And yes people are sensitive because people sometimes question evolution for the sake of questioning and not for any real understanding.   Or people question something without even understanding how something works beforehand. Remember, understanding something and believing in something are two different things so don't be afraid to learn something new.

I don't think you meant to do this. However, because of this ^^^, I wouldn't have said "I don't believe in evolution..." I would've just asked the question and you would've probably gotten better answers.

Hope this helps =)