Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Quadrivium
Tell me about it. I am thinking of looking for an alternative and posting it myself. This thread has been infected by an itch you cant scratch and are unable to ignore.

Is there a name for an alien creationist spam machine sent in to ensure debate does not happen?

Idmonster: I loved the 'Actualy, trooth be told '

reply to post by idmonster

And termites, and fruit, Or hsd you forgot about that.

The Anteater EVOLVED to feed primarily on a specific food source, its called specialisation. But he is more than capable of eating other foods. Due to his extreme specialisation, he would struggle to eat anything other than insects, but wouldnt die if all the ants disapeared.

Well sure, anything can become a scavanger.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

And termites, and fruit, Or hsd you forgot about that.

The Anteater EVOLVED to feed primarily on a specific food source, its called specialisation. But he is more than capable of eating other foods. Due to his extreme specialisation, he would struggle to eat anything other than insects, but wouldnt die if all the ants disapeared.

Well sure, anything can become a scavanger.

No, ACTUALY eats fruit and termites..not will if it is forced to. i.e. does not rely on a single food source as per your claim/

reply to post by Varemia

That's actually one of the biggest ways that evolution is observed. The weak genes get killed by nature and the strong genes survive.

Man-made buildings are a result of our recent lifestyle change. AGRICULTURE. Everything man-made is a result of AGRICULTURE and spreading to environments that we are not naturally suited for. We evolved primarily in rainforests and deserts.

Is any of this ringing a bell or is it just whooshing over your head?

Except you forgeting that it still doesn't answer what we are suppose to eat once we evolve into a different species.

Are we suppose to eat someone elses food, then they suffer? Where is our target food?

reply to post by idmonster

Liar...Liar...and thrice Liar. Not once did colin state that we never need medical intervention, that is your fabrication and you should apologise.

Your statement was that we COULD NOT SURVIVE WITHOUT medical intervention. Colin merley pionted out not only that humans had survived in the past without intervention, that some still do.

No he was persistant enough that, he came up with the bushman. He was clear that I was wrong in saying we need medical intervetion.

reply to post by colin42

That is why I gave the bushman as an example of a group that lives way past puberty without medical intervention or any of the other things you say we must have. If we did not live past puberty then we would all be dead wouldnt we.

I never said we would all be dead, now your putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Are we suppose to eat someone elses food, then they suffer? Where is our target food?

Thats exactly what happens. If one species (species A) becomes a better food gatherer (hunter, gatherer, scavenger) than the species (species B) that is currently occupies a particular niche, then species A displaces species B and species B become extinct.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

That is why I gave the bushman as an example of a group that lives way past puberty without medical intervention or any of the other things you say we must have. If we did not live past puberty then we would all be dead wouldnt we.

I never said we would all be dead, now your putting words in my mouth.

Yes you did, page 168, shall a repost the link?

reply to post by idmonster

Above is your assertion that, and I think it bears repeating " If we had none of our technology in medical science, we would be dead"

I don't see where I said that either. Are you sure your not putting words in my mouth again.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Above is your assertion that, and I think it bears repeating " If we had none of our technology in medical science, we would be dead"

I don't see where I said that either. Are you sure your not putting words in my mouth again.

Its a quote from your post.

LMAO

I think I should add, I've never put anything in your mouth, that is a blatant attempt to lead people to believe that you have been treated unfairly.

reply to post by idmonster

Thats exactly what happens. If one species (species A) becomes a better food gatherer (hunter, gatherer, scavenger) than the species (species B) that is currently occupies a particular niche, then species A displaces species B and species B become extinct.

Well this totally ignores the idea of a target food for one, but also doesn't explain what would happen if there simply werent food for us.

Would we still evolve into that species, with no food?

reply to post by idmonster

Yes you did, page 168, shall a repost the link?

I have allready re explained to colin twice now that what I said was there are over 2 dozen genes that wont allow us to make it past puberty without medical intervention. And he still doens't get it.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Thats exactly what happens. If one species (species A) becomes a better food gatherer (hunter, gatherer, scavenger) than the species (species B) that is currently occupies a particular niche, then species A displaces species B and species B become extinct.

Well this totally ignores the idea of a target food for one, but also doesn't explain what would happen if there simply werent food for us.

Would we still evolve into that species, with no food?

Of course it ignors the idea of a target food. target food is your fantasy and bears no resembalance to what actualy occurs in the real world.

As to your other point, what do you think would happen if there were no food for us?

A question mark at the end of your last sentence, I assume you require an answer, one I am unable to provide because the questionis totaly undefined. Would we evolve into WHAT species?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

That is why I gave the bushman as an example of a group that lives way past puberty without medical intervention or any of the other things you say we must have. If we did not live past puberty then we would all be dead wouldnt we.

I never said we would all be dead, now your putting words in my mouth.

Here are your words

Actually now I remember what it was, you were claiming that I said we would all die without intervention.
I never said that, I said there are over 2 dozen defects in our genes that wouldn't allow us to live past puberty without intervention.

If our children do not live past puberty then there is no one to carry on the human race. So your words are describing the end of humanity if we did not have medical intervention.

So expalin the bushman. You cannot and that is why you do not because you are wrong.

No he was persistant enough that, he came up with the bushman. He was clear that I was wrong in saying we need medical intervetion.

I still am telling you that your wrong in the context that you are using.

Except you forgeting that it still doesn't answer what we are suppose to eat once we evolve into a different species.

You are truely pure ignorance. Troothfully

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Yes you did, page 168, shall a repost the link?

I have allready re explained to colin twice now that what I said was there are over 2 dozen genes that wont allow us to make it past puberty without medical intervention. And he still doens't get it.

No, what you said has been reposted as a quote. What I have posted is what you said. There is no gene that prevents us growing past puberty, let alone 2 dozen.

reply to post by idmonster

Of course it ignors the idea of a target food. target food is your fantasy and bears no resembalance to what actualy occurs in the real world.

And looking at the trouble we go through whith our diet, how do you explain any species being able to get what they need in nutrition if there is no such thing?

As to your other point, what do you think would happen if there were no food for us?

A question mark at the end of your last sentence, I assume you require an answer, one I am unable to provide because the questionis totaly undefined. Would we evolve into WHAT species?

Well as an example, lets say we were still apes, and just evolving into humans. There is no food for us as humans, at least no balanced food. So would evolution allow us to continue to evolve or would it prevent us from evolving? Notice we still have no food.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Of course it ignors the idea of a target food. target food is your fantasy and bears no resembalance to what actualy occurs in the real world.

And looking at the trouble we go through whith our diet, how do you explain any species being able to get what they need in nutrition if there is no such thing?

By eating a varied diet. Cows eat grass, only grass, as do all ungulates, yet they still need to find salt licks to get the minerals the require.

As to your other point, what do you think would happen if there were no food for us?

A question mark at the end of your last sentence, I assume you require an answer, one I am unable to provide because the questionis totaly undefined. Would we evolve into WHAT species?

Well as an example, lets say we were still apes, and just evolving into humans. There is no food for us as humans, at least no balanced food. So would evolution allow us to continue to evolve or would it prevent us from evolving? Notice we still have no food.

We didnt wake up one morning and discover we were a new species, with a whole new menu of dietary requirements. We evolved, slowly, tiny changes. And quite possibly the other way around to what you think.

Chances are that an evolutionary change in us made us more able to exploit a new food source, so we did

reply to post by colin42

So expalin the bushman. You cannot and that is why you do not because you are wrong.

Thats not true, see your making another assumption, like you always do, that the bushman has the same genes we do. We don't know that. Quit assuming.
When you assume you make an @$$ out of you and me.

If our children do not live past puberty then there is no one to carry on the human race. So your words are describing the end of humanity if we did not have medical intervention.

And your wrong again because you fail to realize even though I have explained this to you, that just because something is in our genes doesn't mean it gets expressed through every person.

So expalin the bushman. You cannot and that is why you do not because you are wrong.

Its possible that the bushman is another species, possible he doesn't have our same genes, and possible that he just may not have those defects. Again your making a lot of assumptions.

You are truely pure ignorance. Troothfully

Your the one that knows nothing about genetics, and I'm the ignorant one.

reply to post by idmonster

No, what you said has been reposted as a quote. What I have posted is what you said. There is no gene that prevents us growing past puberty, let alone 2 dozen.

How do you just know this? Are you assuming? Are you a doctor.

Watch Pye's vidoe on human genetics I think he explains it best.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Well a species evolves into a new species it doesn't start off with a new food source. It generally keeps the same food source as the species it evolved from. Using your example of the anteater, its ancestors also ate insects and fruit. Its cousins also eat fruit and insects. Or we can look at humans and other primates. Our natural diet is very similar to that of other primates. Things don't just start over after a speciation event. The biggest difference is that the new generation can no longer reproduce with the previous generation.