Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm not going to go back and reanswer questions I have allready covered.

I would not be asking you to answer them if you had already. Again a poor excuse to avoid answering the questions.

No YOU are profilling ME. And there is no nonsense of going back 21 pages for unanswered questios. Your just to dense to realize that I have answered them. I think you don't grasp both sides of the conversation is why.

You now show you have no concept of the meaning of an answer.

Is there a question here?

Yep this one.

Your insistance that this does not include dogs has no value as even you maintain that a wolf is always a wolf. The amount of jobs we have selected those wolves for shows we have a natural bond from birth to death and in some cases we would not survive without them and they would not survive without us.

The one you purposely misquoted me on and I corrected you and asked again for a proper response.

I asked a question incase you missed it. Are you seriously just being a pin head.

I answered the question you just apear unable to understand the answer.

Uh hu.

Very interesting reply and sadly given how often you give answers is all I have come to expect from you

So your trying to convince me that the tree sparrow evolved into the house sparrow.

Dont care if you are convinced or not. That, the links you have already been given along with explanations from myself and others answered your question. You chose to dismiss all of it without discussing any of it to protect your fantasy. Thats your problem not mine.

Well why don't you suprise the hell out of me and produce some.

What evidence of your inability to think? use the back button. If you want proof of evolution use the back button. Your spoon fed days are over.

It doesn't matter, you clearly admitted he wasn't dependant at one time, and that all that changed was humans did something to make him dependant.

How dense are you? The whole thing about evolution is change. There are thousands of examples of things that have evolved to be dependant on somthing else. The ant eater is but one example and one you love BTW. The tree sparrow found an unoccupied niche, our buildings as nest sites moved in and is now distinctively different from the tree sparrow.

I wasn't looking for things we made dependant on us,

We did not, the tree sparrow took advantage of an oportunity. We did not put up a sign saying nesting sites to let.

I can produce hundreds os such. I'm looking for unique ones that either have been dependant from the start or ones that became so without any intervention from man.

That is your problem. For that question to have any validity you must A) explain what 'the start' was and because you do not understand how all life affects all other life B) explain your meaning of intervention by man.

Until you do that your question has no meaning and my answers to the ones you asked previously still stand.

I know its hard for you to wrap your little brain around this but its pretty simple acatully Action / Reaction.

Oh this should be good.

We made homes, was the action, and he nested in our homes was the reaction. Get it?

Ha ha ha. Are you serious and you say I have a little brain. This is what I have been telling you all along. So now you finally admit we did not purposely encourage the sparrow. That the SPARROW chose to move in. Now all you have to do is admit he is dependant on man and you have answered your own question. That was:

I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death, not something that many invokes like a dog.

So again the answer is House Sparrow. Nests are pretty vital in the sparrows life cycle.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well if only someone were able to show me wrong, within the quidlines. You like to play the game out of the guidlines which is exactly why I said dogs don't count in the last question, so you came up with wolfs.

I see it must be within your guidlines. Guidlines that change every time an Inconvenient answer is given. To hell with what is correct, it must fit your idiotic guidelines.

I go outside your guildlines because the truth is not shuttered by your ignorance.

Given that you have maintained a wolf is always a wolf then my classing dogs correctly as wolves should have been well inside your guidlines so what was your problem with it? Thats a question in case you missed it.

It's pretty sad when your predictable.

I promise to try harder not to be predictable but to be honest the wolf has knocked you off balance hasnt it? Thats another question BTW So you going to address mans natural bond with the wolf? Thats another.

reply to post by colin42

I would not be asking you to answer them if you had already. Again a poor excuse to avoid answering the questions.

Why would I avoid answering your questions when they are so easy to answer.

You now show you have no concept of the meaning of an answer.

And you have been for pages.

Yep this one.

Maybe thats why this hasn't been working. Your puncuation sucks. You end questions with no question mark.

The one you purposely misquoted me on and I corrected you and asked again for a proper response.

You seriously have watched way to many movies. Humans do not have close ties with wolfs. And if I'm wrong, stick out your hand for a wild one next time and watch what happens next.

I answered the question you just apear unable to understand the answer.

No you didn't, but on a rare occasion you actually answer your own questions.

Dont care if you are convinced or not. That, the links you have already been given along with explanations from myself and others answered your question. You chose to dismiss all of it without discussing any of it to protect your fantasy. Thats your problem not mine.

You direct me to links that are said to be based on hypothetical and postualted theorys, then you have the audacity to accuse me of living in la la land.

What evidence of your inability to think? use the back button. If you want proof of evolution use the back button. Your spoon fed days are over.

I'm sorry but I don't digest hypothetical postulated garbage.

How dense are you? The whole thing about evolution is change. There are thousands of examples of things that have evolved to be dependant on somthing else. The ant eater is but one example and one you love BTW. The tree sparrow found an unoccupied niche, our buildings as nest sites moved in and is now distinctively different from the tree sparrow.

Well then let me spoon feed you a little worm. He started out as a sparrow, and ended up as a sparrow, and according to google images, there is also no change in his appearance. So the only thing that changed was his name. And guess what, we name him. It's all in your mind, and its always been in your mind and you just don't get it. It's never going to get any better until you check yourself in.

We did not, the tree sparrow took advantage of an oportunity. We did not put up a sign saying nesting sites to let.

Thats right, but had man of not created that opportunity, he wouldn't have taken advantage. Plain and simple he would have remained living the way he was before. Your concept in understanding is way off. If I'm 13 then you must be 7.

That is your problem. For that question to have any validity you must A) explain what 'the start' was and because you do not understand how all life affects all other life B) explain your meaning of intervention by man.

From the start of birth, and the just explalined example with the bird is CLEAR intervention. It's as though your telling me if you start to leave food at your door step, that in turn starts to attract a bunch of mice, that we all of a sudden have mice evolving. I'm sorry but this is the piss poorest example of a shared relationship from birth.

Until you do that your question has no meaning and my answers to the ones you asked previously still stand.

Your question could not be answered because it lacked guidlines as well. So give me some guidlines and I can answer.

Ha ha ha. Are you serious and you say I have a little brain. This is what I have been telling you all along. So now you finally admit we did not purposely encourage the sparrow. That the SPARROW chose to move in. Now all you have to do is admit he is dependant on man and you have answered your own question. That was:

OMG, are you really this dense, dude, go get some coffe and think about this. It's a prime example of intervention. Just like leaving food at your door that attracks mice. Mice are not evolving as a result, OK.

So again the answer is House Sparrow. Nests are pretty vital in the sparrows life cycle.

Probably my fault for not explaining this to you, so I know your going to assume I'm moving the goal post again, is that you have to have humans in before and after light. Did that bird live before humans, YES. Did he always depend on humans, NO, Did humans do something that caused him to depend on them, YES. Either way you slice it, we caused it. Just because the bird depends on us for convenience, does not make it a necessity. If our homes suddenly disappeard, would that little bird go back to living his old way, YES.

reply to post by colin42

Given that you have maintained a wolf is always a wolf then my classing dogs correctly as wolves should have been well inside your guidlines so what was your problem with it? Thats a question in case you missed it.

Dogs ARE Wolves, and there is no gametic isolation between them, they can even breed with one another which tells you they are the same species. And I allready told you this.

I promise to try harder not to be predictable but to be honest the wolf has knocked you off balance hasnt it? Thats another question BTW So you going to address mans natural bond with the wolf? Thats another.

Aside from movies and nature finatics, I'm not aware of any special bonds we share with them. However they are dogs, and we CHOOSE to have a bond with dogs, Thats probably the best thing I should have given you right there. If its a choice, it's not valid. When we make a choice to build homes the sparrow nests in, its not valid. When the sparrow makes a choice to live in our homes over his old habitat, thats his choice and not a necessity. There is a clear difference.

Why would I avoid answering your questions when they are so easy to answer.

That is the vey question you have been asked by ALL posters on this thread time and time again. The way things work in a discussion is you ask a question. Someone replies and then you address that reply, that does not mean dismiss off hand the reply.

Maybe thats why this hasn't been working. Your puncuation sucks. You end questions with no question mark.

HA HA that old ploy, and you get it wrong. You asked the question

Is there a question here?

I answered your question

Yep this one.

FYI there should not be a question mark at the end of what I wrote and you have shown again poor reading skills. Poor understanding of what a question is or is not. So you failed massively with this ploy to avoid the question again. Lets see if you did.

You seriously have watched way to many movies. Humans do not have close ties with wolfs. And if I'm wrong, stick out your hand for a wild one next time and watch what happens next.

You did'nt. You believe that is an answer. Another dismissive comment. In that case you recieve the same.
You dont have one clue about anything around you do you. You must only watch Sci Fi and only the kids programs at that

You direct me to links that are said to be based on hypothetical and postualted theorys, then you have the audacity to accuse me of living in la la land.

I never supplied you with links, that was someone else. I have already told you I concluded you were not worth supplying links too. Show me where they were 'hypothetical and postulated'. Show me where the house sparrow numbers plumeting to near extinction levels was 'hypothetical and postulated'. You see you never did any of that and that is why this question comes up time and again and will continue too until you do.

I'm sorry but I don't digest hypothetical postulated garbage.

Yeah your too full of junk as it is

Well then let me spoon feed you a little worm. He started out as a sparrow, and ended up as a sparrow, and according to google images, there is also no change in his appearance. So the only thing that changed was his name. And guess what, we name him. It's all in your mind, and its always been in your mind and you just don't get it. It's never going to get any better until you check yourself in.

HA HA HA. Where is the link backing up your rubbish? Notice your research was looking at images, very scientific. Again, against my better judgment I'll link you. Dont worry it has pictures but you will have to read as well. House_Sparrow

Thats right, but had man of not created that opportunity, he wouldn't have taken advantage. Plain and simple he would have remained living the way he was before. Your concept in understanding is way off. If I'm 13 then you must be 7.

And that shows what? What do you think you have proved?

From the start of birth, and the just explalined example with the bird is CLEAR intervention.

The start of birth? As the egg cracks? when the parents mate? whose birth, the bird? the man? The house?

It's as though your telling me if you start to leave food at your door step, that in turn starts to attract a bunch of mice, that we all of a sudden have mice evolving. I'm sorry but this is the piss poorest example of a shared relationship from birth.

Again I have never said that. You saying what I am saying is still you saying it and I agree you gave a piss poor example Whereas ALL the examples I gave you are very good examples. Discuss them.

OMG, are you really this dense, dude, go get some coffe and think about this. It's a prime example of intervention. Just like leaving food at your door that attracks mice. Mice are not evolving as a result, OK.

Have you ever looked at what the definition of intervention is?

Your question could not be answered because it lacked guidlines as well. So give me some guidlines and I can answer.

Only one guidline. Answer the questions asked of you and address the points made when some is giving you an answer. You should not need instruction on how behave in a forum for discussion.

Hold on the next is nearly an answer. New page

reply to post by itsthetooth

Probably my fault for not explaining this to you, so I know your going to assume I'm moving the goal post again, is that you have to have humans in before and after light. Did that bird live before humans, YES. Did he always depend on humans, NO, Did humans do something that caused him to depend on them, YES. Either way you slice it, we caused it. Just because the bird depends on us for convenience, does not make it a necessity. If our homes suddenly disappeard, would that little bird go back to living his old way, YES.

You really cannot grasp anything can you?

Lets go back to your request for an answer.

I'm still looking for anything that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death, not something that many invokes like a dog.

So the animal has to have a natural bond with man out of necessity.

The house sparrow needs mans structures for nesting sites. Nesting sites other than our homes are either taken or not suitable for the house sparrow. So that is 'A natural bond out of necessity.'

When recently his nesting sites were denied him the house sparrow did not go elsewhere, he tettered on the verge of extinction so your assumption was again wrong and proved wrong.

Humans are the only animals to build the structures the house sparrow uses. So that relationship is with us.

Just incase you are unaware. Birds nest to lay eggs and raise young. That fulfills the 'from birth'

House sparrows do not change how they live. That means they repeat this action every year until they die. 'To death'

So your answer has been addressed. I have shown using the house sparrow 'something that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death, not something that many invokes like a dog.'

Now you can throw another childish hissy fit but it does not change the fact that your question has been answered. That means your original stance that man has no natural interaction with life on this planet is also wrong as you maintained you would accept even one example that shows you wrong. Do you now admit you are wrong?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Dogs ARE Wolves, and there is no gametic isolation between them, they can even breed with one another which tells you they are the same species. And I allready told you this.

So why did you get so upset when I correctly classed dogs as wolves?

Aside from movies and nature finatics, I'm not aware of any special bonds we share with them. However they are dogs, and we CHOOSE to have a bond with dogs, Thats probably the best thing I should have given you right there.

So you are not aware of. Guide dogs, hunting dogs, sheep dogs, sniffer dogs, guard dogs, rescue dogs to name just a few.

How_Wolves_Became_Man's_Best_Friend

The link explains our relationship with wolves and how far back it goes.

It took one 2 second search to get this info so how you are not aware of the long standing relationship escapes me when you maintain you have searched high and low to find examples of mans interaction with other animals.

If its a choice, it's not valid

What a stupid restriction and a restriction that is not valid when talking about relationships. Not acceptable as a restriction.

When we make a choice to build homes the sparrow nests in, its not valid.

Another stupid restriction and also not acceptable. Man building a house is no different than rain filling a hollow and forming a pond. It is a habbitat that others take advantage of. Again restriction rejected.

When the sparrow makes a choice to live in our homes over his old habitat, thats his choice and not a necessity.

Another statement bourne out of ignorance.

The original sparrow had limited nesting spaces and had nowhere to expand. Man building homes gave the original sparrow an oportunity by providing new nesting space. Overtime the original sparrow adapted his nesting techniques to better suit life alongside man and is now dependant on man for nesting sites.

There is a clear difference.

No there is not unless you can, as I have above give example to back up your argument

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

Wow excuse the post above barcs, I could have sworn that I read one you posted to Bunny but now I don't see it any more.
Definitly need more sleep!!!!!

Nah, that was totally my fault. I misread it at first and while trying to go through her older posts I think I didn't quite get the context of the point and thought you were saying you disproved evolution while talking about abiogenesis. I didn't like the way it came across and realized my mistake so I edited it out. Sorry about that. I'll be back to address the rest.

ITSTHETOOTH

Originally posted by idmonster on page 180 of this thread on the 15th Jan...and ignored since
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Seriously....? you'replanning to jump back 100 pages and start all that milk for calcium nonsense?

Brasov, do yourself a favour and read from about page 60. Its about then that tooth started to change the opinions that he (she?) is about to start spouting. From "we need cows milk blah blah blah" to "i never said we cant survive without milk"

Sorry colin I had to do it, link to flagellum below,

www.newscientist.com...

BTW tooth, as a teacher myself, I can inform you that the modern way of thinking regarding teaching places joint resposibility for learning equally with the teacher and the student. You are being provided with the opportunity to learn, reasearch is being carried out on your behalf to allow you more time to think about the information that is displayed. It is no one elses fault but yours, when all of this work is being done for you, if you remain ignorant.

Tooth has presented an alternative Pan galactic castaway / penal colony, whatever, that he seems to believe in 100%. Thats fine, however this thread has now become can you prove tooths theory or evolution correct.

I have a suggestion. to tooth, stick to the thread, stop trying to push your fantasy, if you have evidence/proof of evolution being wrong present it, if not, then you have nothing more to say relating to this thread. If you want to start a thread where people can attempt to prove your theory incorrect go ahead and do it.

I will state again, with reference to the title of this thread. the answer so far is no, No one has presented evidence to even suggest that the theory (scientific) of evolution is wrong.

My post, page 180 in response to your request regarding Flagellum evolution. Be intrested to see ho many pages you ignore this for.

Although it does provr that your more interested in confrontation that debate.

reply to post by colin42

That is the vey question you have been asked by ALL posters on this thread time and time again. The way things work in a discussion is you ask a question. Someone replies and then you address that reply, that does not mean dismiss off hand the reply.

As far as I know, I have. Is it possible your not understanding my replies?

I never supplied you with links, that was someone else. I have already told you I concluded you were not worth supplying links too. Show me where they were 'hypothetical and postulated'. Show me where the house sparrow numbers plumeting to near extinction levels was 'hypothetical and postulated'. You see you never did any of that and that is why this question comes up time and again and will continue too until you do.

Just because we saved a species from extinction does not count either. Anyone can save a species it doesn't prove a pre determined relationship.

HA HA HA. Where is the link backing up your rubbish? Notice your research was looking at images, very scientific. Again, against my better judgment I'll link you. Dont worry it has pictures but you will have to read as well. House_Sparrow

Note that subspecies are still the same species of sparrow. It's funny how they are mostly listed as an unwanted pest but you think we have a good relation with them. Probably for them, not for us.

And that shows what? What do you think you have proved?

That you shrunk your own age.

The start of birth? As the egg cracks? when the parents mate? whose birth, the bird? the man? The house?

Both the birds and the mans.

Again I have never said that. You saying what I am saying is still you saying it and I agree you gave a piss poor example Whereas ALL the examples I gave you are very good examples. Discuss them.

It was a piss poor example of evolution and an excellent example of what you have been using.

Have you ever looked at what the definition of intervention is?

Of course I do, its what I strongly believe put us here on earth.

reply to post by colin42

So the animal has to have a natural bond with man out of necessity.

If man invokes it, its not natural

The house sparrow needs mans structures for nesting sites. Nesting sites other than our homes are either taken or not suitable for the house sparrow. So that is 'A natural bond out of necessity.'

True but he would not die and he would go back to his old living without them.

It's just a better way for them to live, I'm not looking for things we made better for species, I'm looking for something natural.

When recently his nesting sites were denied him the house sparrow did not go elsewhere, he tettered on the verge of extinction so your assumption was again wrong and proved wrong.

It sounds more like he either forgot how he used to live or man caused destruction in his natural habitat, either way your wrong.

Humans are the only animals to build the structures the house sparrow uses. So that relationship is with us.

It's still forced by humans, and we can force just about anything to need us if done right.

Just incase you are unaware. Birds nest to lay eggs and raise young. That fulfills the 'from birth'

Then how did they manage to make it prior to us building homes?

So your answer has been addressed. I have shown using the house sparrow 'something that has a natural bond out of necessety with man. From birth to death, not something that many invokes like a dog.

Again its like feeding mice at your door.

Now you can throw another childish hissy fit but it does not change the fact that your question has been answered. That means your original stance that man has no natural interaction with life on this planet is also wrong as you maintained you would accept even one example that shows you wrong. Do you now admit you are wrong?

Let me know when you come up with something valid, I'm looking too.

Can i probe evolution wrong?
You bet ya!
I can prove anything wrong, watch me!
So wheres the chickencrock? Huh?! Were is it? Just kiddjng! :-)

But seriously! Where are the dinos?
Huh?!
Extinct, right?
Whose in the white house then?!

Hah! Evolution. Proved wrong again!

i deny you denience and substitute my own truth!
Hun!

Anyway. You want me to disprove evolution again?!

Well let me ask you this!
Have you ever seen this darwin guy?
Huh?!!!
Fishy, right?!
No one sees him for hindreds of years.
I tell ya, something fishy is going on anyway!

Hah!
Did you hear me, i just shouted at you!
Hah, your deaf as a bat.
If your so deaf what makes you think you can read?

Anyway.
Evolution didnt happen, get over it!
If anything is happen

Natural selection you say!
Hah!
Got you!
And who selected nature? What is the natural evolution of nature!
Darwin: proved wrong again!

Anyway, he sees this evolution.
I see a tv, did it evolve?
Yep, is it natural?
No!
Darwin: bustes again!

So, if evolution xists whats with all the junk dna?
Huh!?
Dont tell me you dont know, cause you jst said junk.
Same as darwin: junk science.
Not even a science, just a few words.
Nohing to get excited.
I have better ideas.
Deevolution. Huh! Anti big bang, big crunch style! And if you believe that you may as believe darwin of fairytales!

Bustes!

reply to post by itsthetooth


To your last post, I was going to quote you but my laptop lost 500meg of ram the last time.

Answering Questions:
You have answered, but on answering your points have been demonstrated to be wrong and you have been asked to provide proof. Now, normally on this site, a request for proof is usually followed up by the person making the statement providing links to articles and verifiable quotes. When the poster requesting the proof has read and digested the information provided, they usually come back with more questions challenging the information provided. This is called argument. It doesn’t have to get personal, but usually this allows the debate to move forward. Each person learns something, either the strength of their own arguments, or where the limitations are. this is not happening in this thread and you have consistently failed to produce any evidence of your claims other than your own faulty reasoning.

House Sparrow:
In no way did we "save" this species. You seem to be suggesting that at some point, primitive cave dweller woke up, looked out of the opening to his cave and thought, "some of those sparrows don’t look to happy, I think it’s because evolutionary pressures are forcing them away from their normal habitat, I wonder what I can do to help them? I know, I'll move out of this cave and build a structure for the sparrows to nest in...I'll call it a house and any sparrows who want to move, will from this day be called house sparrows"
We didn’t "save" them, they took advantage of an unoccupied niche, and one that couldn’t have been available before man built houses.
And you not only moved the goalpost, but have also tried to introduce some sort of spiritual, supernatural idiocy with the phrase "pre-determined". If anything was pre-determined it would suggest an influence outside of the natural order and certainly outside of evolution, your request for proof of a pre-determined relationship is ridiculous and exactly the opposite of evolution.

Good relationships:
At no point did anyone suggest that the relationship was "good", "bad" or "indifferent". It’s still a relationship, exactly the kind we have with the house mouse and a variety of rats and lice. Good or bad it’s a relationship and bears relation as to whether that relationship is of mutual or one way dependence.

Both the bird and the mans.
I will address the point as you made it. If you meant something different, learn to communicate. You are suggesting that if when I am born, my mother gave me an egg, and when it hatched, I was the only person to feed it, it would be absolutely dependant on me and would quickly die of starvation of predation in the wild. This is the relationship you were looking for.

I will also answer the question as I think you meant it. Mitochondria is a simple single celled organism, it has its own DNA, its own reproductive life cycle and is prevalent in cells of every animal on this planet. We cannot live without it, no other animal on the planet can live without it, yet it gets along just fine without us. This is the relationship you are looking for, it is also the link between us (humans) and every other animal on the planet. I would not be able to swap organs with the majority of animals on the planet and survive, but I could swap mitochondria with any of them.

The rest of the post is just you trying to wind colin up and adds nothing to the debate about evolution. By the way I re-posted the link to the possible evolution of the flagellum, did you read it? What were your thoughts?

reply to post by itsthetooth


We're seriously having this argument again? Pages ago I mentioned that house sparrows evolved after humans began building shelters. So, they have always had the benefit of using human constructions to use for nesting. I also mentioned that there are a large number of different bacteria in the human body that depend of its human host for survival and vice-versa. The fact that you keep regurgitating the same talking points over and over again after they have been proven wrong means that your are either close-minded or you're trolling this thread. Either way it means that you don't belong on ATS.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As far as I know, I have. Is it possible your not understanding my replies?

No its is because you do not address the answer, you dismiss it. That is not answering.

Just because we saved a species from extinction does not count either. Anyone can save a species it doesn't prove a pre determined relationship.

Here your prove my point above. You have not addressed the points I made and given an off hand response that has nothing to do with what I wrote. We never saved the sparrow from extinction.

Note that subspecies are still the same species of sparrow. It's funny how they are mostly listed as an unwanted pest but you think we have a good relation with them. Probably for them, not for us.

They are also described thus:

The House Sparrow is closely associated with humans

But you seem to have not commented on this. Cherry picking again but of course that one line threatens your story.

That you shrunk your own age.

Yep pathetic avoidance

It was a piss poor example of evolution and an excellent example of what you have been using.

No. It is an excellent example of your dishonest attitude. You acted as if I had wrote that or something similar but did not respond to what I had actually wrote and you still have not. So where do you get the idea that you answer questions asked?

Of course I do, its what I strongly believe put us here on earth.

Again not answering. Show that you understand the definition because the way you use it proves you dont.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If man invokes it, its not natural

If man what? Invokes = To call on (a higher power) for assistance, support, or inspiration. Yes your right that would not be natural but has nothing to do with this topic or question.

True but he would not die and he would go back to his old living without them.

So explain why the house sparrow numbers in the UK dived towards extinction when the fashion for UPVC soffit boards denied his nesting places? (That is a question BTW. One you answer)

It's just a better way for them to live, I'm not looking for things we made better for species, I'm looking for something natural.

This is another example of moveing the goal posts because you cannot address the point made. The nesting place being natural or unatural is meaningless

It sounds more like he either forgot how he used to live or man caused destruction in his natural habitat, either way your wrong.

This is an answer. What you think. A childish, disney like description of the forgetful Sparrow and finished with I am wrong. Now prove it if you can? (That is another question).

It's still forced by humans, and we can force just about anything to need us if done right.

Another off hand, flipant response. Now back up what you wrote with evidence. (this requires a response from you). Explain how you can make a bird nest in a certain place.

Then how did they manage to make it prior to us building homes?

As far as this post is concerned, who cares the fact is they do. Address the points made with answers not avoiding questions.

Again its like feeding mice at your door.

Yes I noticed you have used that twice now as YOUR argument even though you maintain it is a piss poor example. You look like you have no self respect and you are about to renage on your word that you would accept one example that did not include dogs.

Let me know when you come up with something valid, I'm looking too.

And there you go. A whole post and you have not only refused to address any of the points you dishonestly reject the example you requested because it shows you wrong. You are a very dishonest person, bankrupt of any credability what so ever.

Breckenridge blows a mean trombone..pass it on for me, Like that track.

Second

reply to post by idmonster
Dont worry about me getting wound up. I cornered him with the sparrow and the wolf I just wanted to see how low he would stoop to avoid admitting he is wrong at least in part.

'If man invokes it.' Really made me laugh. 'Please god I want to save the sparrow, make him nest in this house I just invented for the purpose.'

It must take a great deal of endurance to maintain his level of ignorance.