It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 188
31
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Well, itsthetooth seems to have dropped of line, So we can all take a quick 10 minute break, maybe check our personal messages or even view a few other threads.

OOh heres a good one www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Thats me for tonight. Early start in the morning.

A BTW. I was looking for somthing unrelated and stumbled onto Feral Children that I think could shine a light on aspects of instinctive behaviour.

I have not had a lot of time to spend digging but what I have is very interesting and could even suggest walking upright is learnt behaviour to some extent.

Yep looked at that link earlier. Expect tooth is dismissing the wolf at this very moment. I'll leave that to you


edit on 19-1-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.


Well thats not true at all. My challenge is still up and open and I'm waiting for someone to find a species that has a natural relationship with man that is not either brought on by man or invoked.

Still waiting.




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.


Only if you assume that evolution also includes adaptation. If you check Wiki you will see the only people that endorse the definition of adaptation as part of evolution, are evolutionist.




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.


Well if I said good relationship I was wrong. Any relationship is fine in the scope. An anteater has a relationship with the ant, but I don't think its any good for the ant.




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.


No, its not. Perhaps the word automatic would be better.




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.


Well even in your prior example of feeding the egg from birth requires intervention, so thats not what I mean. Probably the word automatic or assumed.




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?


No I didn't, I will go back and see if I can find it.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





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.
Thats because thats not what I'm asking for. I'm not looking for relationships that are bought, I'm looking for ones that are automatic or assumed.




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.
Ok that is something to look at however since bacteria and viruses are in a special class, just like they are in evolution, I'll put them off to the side. But I want you to share what you mean about them.




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.
Well its neither, and in part from me not being able to explain well what I'm looking for. It is complex, but I think you guys helped me narrow it down. Looking for an automatic, or assumed relationship.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

Lol barcs,
Thanks for clearing that up.
I thought I had read one to many threads about time lapses and seeing things that are not there.
I was about to make a thread on the "Mysteries of disappearing Post"

Quad



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Since we seem to be having such a hard time understanding what you're asking for why don't you provide use with some examples using other species? Since you claim that every species other than humans have these kinds of relationships it should be easy for you to provide numerous examples.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.


Did I miss a question mark? Let me go back and look...
Wow, I did miss a bunch.




So why did you get so upset when I correctly classed dogs as wolves?
Because I assumed you were smart enough to know that wolves are dogs.




So you are not aware of. Guide dogs, hunting dogs, sheep dogs, sniffer dogs, guard dogs, rescue dogs to name just a few.
Of course, and don't forget black dogs, white dogs, big dogs, small dogs, and smart dogs, and dumb dogs. We can produce over 2 dozen dogs, but when all is said and done, we still have DOGS. Nothing has changed. There might be some slight varations in these dogs, but they are all still dogs. I might have jumped past this because I figured you had caught on to this from prior posts.

On your link, did you kindly overlook this "
It is unknown which animal initiated the relationship"
www.infobarrel.com...'s_Best_Friend
This sentance tells you they are even assuming it was an invoked relationship.
Granted that relationship goes back pretty damn long ago, but its even obvious to the author that it was invoked.




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.


Your being narrow minded and not looking at this from my point of view which is why your not understanding this. Your side on this is a lot like a man saying that he found the perfect match for love. While your ignoring the fact that she was the ONLY woman on the planet. If its a choice, its going to be hard to dismiss it as valid. When its invoked, then its not natural. Don't bother trying to find anything natural, I have looked myself, and cant find anything. Humans are not here naturally is why.




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.


Again your example is no different from feeding mice at your door, then turning around and claiming they have evolved because of it. Now they are called door mice. LOL. It's not natural. You have to find something that is automatic, assumed and has not been invoked. Would you like an example? The anteater and ants.




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.
Possibly but you might be missing half the picture. What if we ran him out of his natural habitat to begin with. Aside if we just happend to give him an easier way to live and he chose to use it, its still invoked, and its not automatic, and its not natural. Now here is the twist. If we tore down our houses, and he had no where to nest, and still took a liking to humans and found himself getting closer to us even though there was no place for him to live, then yes, its a prime example of what I'm looking for.




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.


But keep in mind they have a place to live, unless we ran them out of it, which again is invoked.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.
No its not that, its just that Colin seems to get my first attention as he seems to be the hardest at grasping all this.

I went back and looked at the link, and it wasn't to different from my original link as well. My link was saying they didn't think it was proof of design either. All I was trying to say, is just by looking at the design, how can anyone even question that it wasn't designed.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
Both are not natural.




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)
Well several possibilities come to mind, first off are they just counting him missing from homes, or are they able to take a total head count in cluding the ones not livng in homes. Next, is it also possible that humans ran them out of there natural habitat. It wouldn't be the first time.




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
Not at all, and in fact it once again goes back to mice your feeding at your door. Just because you chose to feed them, and they became dependant on that, does not mean you have a natural relationship with thim. If they evolved from field mice to door mice because of it, are you willing to admitt that you forced them to evolve?




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).
Well it was proven before you started, we never had a pre exising relationship with them to start with.




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.
Well simple, and with some understanding and some experteese, you will nail it on the head. This is how we know how to build, bird houses, frog houses, snake houses, rabbit houses. Speaking from the wild end of course, we know how to build them so well, the species will come. It's a business, a big business actually and just requires a little homework.

Now to apply it to your question, it seems to be totally accidential, as they didnt design the homes with these sparrows in mind. But that off chance does not create a natural relationship. This would be like you dropping crumbs at your door step by accident and turning a field mouse into a door mouse, its still not natural. It was invoked, not intentionally but still invoked.




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.
Thats exactly right, the fact is they do. You see they had a natural way to live before we came along.




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.
If you go back and read you will see that I wasn't referring to myself on the piss poor example, but yours.




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.
Yes it is pretty hard to find just one, a single one. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because what I have been saying all along is correct, We arent from here.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 






Since we seem to be having such a hard time understanding what you're asking for why don't you provide use with some examples using other species? Since you claim that every species other than humans have these kinds of relationships it should be easy for you to provide numerous examples.
Well the best one that comes to mind is the ant and the anteater. There are of couse others. Another one is whales and plankton.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 



Since we seem to be having such a hard time understanding what you're asking for why don't you provide use with some examples using other species? Since you claim that every species other than humans have these kinds of relationships it should be easy for you to provide numerous examples.
Well the best one that comes to mind is the ant and the anteater. There are of course others. Another one is whales and plankton.


Here's your whales and another


There are numerous examples of vestigial organs in the animal kingdom. In whales and other cetaceans, one can find small vestigial leg bones deeply buried within the back of the body. The evolutionary explanation is that these bones are the remnants of their land-dwelling ancestor's legs. Many whales also have undeveloped, unused, pelvis bones in the anterior part of their torsos, added remains from their land-dwelling ancestors (LiveScience.com).

Several flightless birds, including Dodo birds (now extinct) and penguins, have hollow bones, a feature usually reserved for flying birds (since the weight reduction is crucial to staying in the air). Thus, these hollow bones are explained by evolution to be the remnants of a flying ancestor. The wings of emus, and some other flightless birds, like the dodo, are often identified as vestigial as well, much like the hollow bones. However, there is a difference with penguins. While penguins' wings are not used for flight, they are essential for the penguin to be able to navigate underwater (they essentially act as flippers). Thus, penguin wings are often not identified as vestigial, since they have gained an essential function that has not been found in any ancestral state (Theobald, 2004).


......guess what would happen to your fed mice on the doorstep?..... Behavior would change first. Because of that behavioral change comes traits that are forgotten and new ones learned. The ones that work, are favored over generations and reproduced. Eventually ( the root word being evolve)changing the species for the better or worst. That is Evolution which adaptation is a large part of. At some point the same species will not be able to breed to reproduce with the old, due to genetic drift and TADA!!!!!! Evolution....

The fact that you can't understand that, is awe inspiring. Regardless of your beliefs, alien intervention, God, religion, magic, the slime and goo millions of years ago, you CANNOT refute the facts that we and ALL have changed throughout the EARTH'S history. THAT is the definition of evolution. If your a young Earth follower, then I at least understand your argument, but if your not.....your a fool.

Troll be Trollin'


edit on 19-1-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


This was perhaps some of the best response yet, I'm impressed. Unfortunatly it doesn't prove evolution. It does however make it pretty darn suspicious in my eyes. We have many vestigal organs. The pineal gland, Scent glands where our tempils are, apendix, and so on. IMO things that have vestigal organs MIGHT not be from earth either. Just like the bible says, there were a lot of things that were brought to earth. Winged birds that dont fly, Whales with extra bones that appear to be feet, could all have had a use elsewhere. Flightless winged creatures that were once in a much less dense athmosphere, could take flight.

Profiller be profilling.
edit on 20-1-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Well the best one that comes to mind is the ant and the anteater. There are of course others. Another one is whales and plankton.


How is the ant and the ant-eater's relationship any different than humans with agriculture, or animal farms?

Ant eaters have long thin snouts which are great for eating ants, while humans have hands that are great for planting and harvesting crops, and the mental capacity to do it efficiently and effectively to feed millions. You are talking more of the place in the food chain.

If all ants went extinct tomorrow, would the anteaters all die as well? I think not. They can harvest much more than just ants.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Because I assumed you were smart enough to know that wolves are dogs.
You did not have to assume anything I told you. Oh I forgot your reading skills.


On your link, did you kindly overlook this "
It is unknown which animal initiated the relationship"
www.infobarrel.com...'s_Best_Friend
This sentance tells you they are even assuming it was an invoked relationship.
Granted that relationship goes back pretty damn long ago, but its even obvious to the author that it was invoked.
Oh I so knew you were going to say that. You have become sooooo predicatable. It said it is unknown who initiated the relationship because that is true But and this is a big BUT it showed there was and is a RELATIONSHIP between us.

Please stop using invoked its really to funny and let me re enforce what it said WE HAVE HAD A RELATIONSHIPE DATEING BACK INTO PRE HISTORY. But hey you always read want you want to believe and not what is written and is why I shouldnt have bothered linking you.

You know what the rest of this post is not worth replying to



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
No invokes is another case where you are wrong, you used a completely silly word in this context but cannot bring youself to admit it


Well several possibilities come to mind, first off are they just counting him missing from homes, or are they able to take a total head count in cluding the ones not livng in homes. Next, is it also possible that humans ran them out of there natural habitat. It wouldn't be the first time.
I did not want your belief of what might of happened. The figures show that the numbers of sparrows plummeted for the reasons given. I asked you to explain it if we do not have a relationship with them. Not another one of your silly fantasies that avoid the question.


Not at all, and in fact it once again goes back to mice your feeding at your door. Just because you chose to feed them, and they became dependant on that, does not mean you have a natural relationship with thim. If they evolved from field mice to door mice because of it, are you willing to admitt that you forced them to evolve?
Oh dear your stupid anology again. Oh well at least you now admit you accept evolution and have cited an exmple to prove it


If they evolved from field mice to door mice because of it, are you willing to admitt that you forced them to evolve
I didnt know field mice evolved into door mice thanks for the heads up. Not sure how that works though because field mice live in fields planted by man so they should all be door mice but hey just happy your on the evolution boat now.


Well it was proven before you started, we never had a pre exising relationship with them to start with.
Not going to pull a fellow evolutionist on this but tone down your idiotic posts before you give us all a bad name. Wink, nudge, know what I mean.

Again You cant be asked to give a reasoned reply I cant be bothered to answer your bird brained assumptions based on a complete disconnect with the world you live in.

With your dishonest debating technique. Complete ignorance of what evidence is I am not sure I even want you in the evolution camp even though you have shown field mice evolved into door mice. (was that overnight or did it take a week or two? Just asking)

Infact I dont. Please tell me you did not show field mice evolved into door mice.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 






Since we seem to be having such a hard time understanding what you're asking for why don't you provide use with some examples using other species? Since you claim that every species other than humans have these kinds of relationships it should be easy for you to provide numerous examples.
Well the best one that comes to mind is the ant and the anteater. There are of couse others. Another one is whales and plankton.
What whales? There are more than one type you know



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





How is the ant and the ant-eater's relationship any different than humans with agriculture, or animal farms?
Well thats very complex, but try to look at it like this...
If you had to ask the question, were ants a fitted diet for the anteater, would there be any question? No, they sort of go hand in hand.
Now try to do that with anything on the human diet. Our diet is not only screwed up, but at times we are unsure if we are supppose to be eating certain things or not. Then to top it off, we have a plethora of suppliments we take because what we are eating, isn't giving us what we need.




Ant eaters have long thin snouts which are great for eating ants, while humans have hands that are great for planting and harvesting crops, and the mental capacity to do it efficiently and effectively to feed millions. You are talking more of the place in the food chain.
Well its a good start, but its hard to narrow in on exactly what our hands are for because we use them for so many things. I'm a firm believer there is a simple purpose, and its not here on earth.

Our over ability to adapt is clouding our vision from realizing this easy point that you brought up.'




If all ants went extinct tomorrow, would the anteaters all die as well? I think not. They can harvest much more than just ants.
Very true but he might end up lacking something important in his diet. Agreed he might look on, but also realize the ant is important to his diet. Can you name one thing that is important in our diet?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You did not have to assume anything I told you. Oh I forgot your reading skills.
Nope sorry Colin, I have known for most of my life that Wolves are dogs.




Oh I so knew you were going to say that. You have become sooooo predicatable. It said it is unknown who initiated the relationship because that is true But and this is a big BUT it showed there was and is a RELATIONSHIP between us.
Bravo, for missing the point AGAIN, the point was that it was obviously invoked, therefore, not a valid example.




Please stop using invoked its really to funny and let me re enforce what it said WE HAVE HAD A RELATIONSHIPE DATEING BACK INTO PRE HISTORY. But hey you always read want you want to believe and not what is written and is why I shouldnt have bothered linking you.
It doesn't matter, they are even clearly saying that someone initiated the relationship, that tells you its not valid for my point.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Can you name one thing that is important in our diet?


Cow mucus.

#2



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So if evolution doesn't exist, how do you explain life on earth? Like how did everything get to where it was? Or has it just always been that way???????



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 185  186  187    189  190  191 >>

log in

join