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: 214
31
<< 211  212  213    215  216  217 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 


I'm not sure If I have not blown my mind and completely lost the plot. I am now wondering if because ants have a queen just like the English, if the English are not from here. I mean we only appeared after the last ice age and the queen likes gold


Dude, you're making too much sense and it's all starting to come together.....






posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 
Well I have only one piece of the puzzle left to answer. I have read that there are several races of aliens. one is the INSECTOIDS.


Does anyone know if their size has ever been given? Have our ant masters been watching us from the garden all these years? Should we replace our dogs with anteaters the new saviours of humanity



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
There is No Proof! There will never be proof.
Some scientists are now thinking that maybe the apes evolved from humans.

anthropology.net...
A Human Ancestor for the Apes?

Nature cares not about intelligence.
Its primary objective is Survival!
And so all life develps to live in its environment.
Apes/monkeys are much better adapted to this world than we humans.
For one, They developed a very useful Thumb on their feet.

Human arrogance does not make them the highest life form on this planet.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Connector
 
Well I have only one piece of the puzzle left to answer. I have read that there are several races of aliens. one is the INSECTOIDS.


Does anyone know if their size has ever been given? Have our ant masters been watching us from the garden all these years? Should we replace our dogs with anteaters the new saviours of humanity


This confirms your ant theory and tooth's mucous as well... An ant's varied diet and examples of farming to produce aphid mucous, as introduced a page back by colin

Just like humans and the others not from here ( so far, I think we've agreed whales and chickens are suspect). So why are ants, the anteater's target food, when ants aren't from here?


Too heavy for my brain....




edit on 5-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





No, you claimed that was a totally different seminar and had nothing to do with a "blue laminate". You claimed that the man holding the seminar said that DNA was in the shape of a cross or that the shape of the cross was present in DNA.
Those were one in the same, I only went to one about DNA.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 





I already explained this. Our decision to drink milk didn't extend past, "Hey, babies drink milk. Those cows we've domesticated produce milk. Let's drink it." The first people to drink cow's milk had no concept of nutritional science. They were simply looking for food and drink to stay alive. It just so happens that milk is a great source of calcium. However, as I have pointed out numerous times now many items we would have foraged during our hunter-gatherer days would have also contained calcium. In fact we're finding now that these things are better at increasing bone density than cow's milk despite having less calcium. That's why calcium intake needs to increase as you're getting older. Your bones are becoming more frail. However, as I have also pointed out already, when humans first started drinking cow's milk they weren't living to the point where bone density began to decrease. That didn't occur until the past century or two.
Now you want me to believe that we started drinking milk by accident. I don't know man, I think there was more to it than that.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





AH, but Xcalibur, you forget -- itsthetooth is a Biblical literalist. He believes that people used to live to be 1000 years old, so they would have been well past the prime age for decreasing bone density.
No what was done to us, as mentioned in the bible, wouldn't work like that. If your 30, then you could say you look how you would look if you were 300. Our rapid ageing process is very unfair. Of course most people say heck I wouldn't want to live that long. Providing the gross defects we have in our genes, I agree. But those aren't suppose to be there either.

We are also suppose to get several sets of teeth. There might be some other things we are missing as a result of having our years sped up.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Evolution was an accepted fact LOOOOOOOOOOONg before Darwin. I even posted a slightly off topic "short history of evolution" a few pages back. Darwin didnt discover evolution. Darwin recognised the mechanism for evolution which he called "natural selection", he even published a book called "origin of the species" or "Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", you may have heard of it, it had pictures in it.(these were drawn by Darwin in black and white, so you could colour them in.)

Natural selection as Darwin understood it has been revised many times but still hold more or less accurate. The current model of the mechanism for evolution is call "neo-darwinian synthesis".

In summary, your statement above is false, I will accept a tacit apology.

tacit - adjective
1.
understood without being openly expressed; implied: tacit approval.
Your on the wrong channel for apologies. The only thing I have gotten from this thread is people pushing horrible links on me that always warn me first off to be either a hypothetical or postulated theory.
If I wanted sci-fi, I would have asked for it.
Doesn't it bother you that before darwin, after darwin, to present, people are still trying to prove hypothetical theorys?
Doesn't it bother you that after 150 years and over 2.5 million bones and fossils we still have no missing links, out of the 5 million species we have on earth?

If evolutionism was real, we would be cramming it down every kids throat in school. As I recall, colln was one such kid as he is out of the country. Hey what can I say, its not my fault you live where you do, which left you with this horrible choice. Evolutionism has NEVER been observed in any life. We have some small speciation events with viruses and bacteria, and thats it. Someone saw a four leaf clover and ran with it. I'm sorry, but its fake.

There is a very good reason why you never say or refer to the missing link but choose to use the term common ancestor. It's just an easy way of saying we still havent found any missing links but this is the closest thing to it. It's an easy out, to a difficult problem called evidence.

Without evidence, your going to have to continue believing in the series of postulated and hypothetical theorys because its the only thing there is. The only reason I get resistance on this thread is because of attrition. If there was no religion, and no intervention, people would have to believe in evolutionism as its all there is.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





We're not. Adult cows and sheep continue to drink milk into adulthood, its called "cross suckling". This is when an adult identifies a lactating mother and drinks the milk to the detriment of the calf/lamb.

But they're the same species, so how about cats stealing milk from the teat of nursing elephant seals. (as well as a plethora of birds)
You want me to believe that birds latate? Do they even have nipples, I don't think so. I'm thinking of Meet the Faukers. You have to be kidding me. As far as cats stealing, it doesn't shock me. Do they depend on it like we do?



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





We're not. Adult cows and sheep continue to drink milk into adulthood, its called "cross suckling". This is when an adult identifies a lactating mother and drinks the milk to the detriment of the calf/lamb.

But they're the same species, so how about cats stealing milk from the teat of nursing elephant seals. (as well as a plethora of birds)
You want me to believe that birds latate? Do they even have nipples, I don't think so. I'm thinking of Meet the Faukers. You have to be kidding me. As far as cats stealing, it doesn't shock me. Do they depend on it like we do?


We are not your personal google......this is a factual, verifiable debate. Please show common courtesy ( notice the root word) and provide evidence for your musings, such as the one bolded by me above....

Birds / Reptile / Fish Mucous Utilized by Offspring


It’s moderately well known that several families of birds (pigeons and doves, flamingos, and penguins) secrete a kind of milk (called “crop milk”, though penguins don’t have crops) for their young. This is real milk, secreted by a special gland – not regurgitated, half-digested food from the parent’s stomach. (Regurgitators put their bills into the chick’s mouth to deliver food, whereas in milk-providing species the chicks put their bills inside the parent’s mouth to nurse. ) The three families evolved this capacity independently, for three different reasons. With penguins it seems to be an emergency food substitute in case the feeding parent (usually the female) doesn’t return to the nesting parent in time. With flamingos it’s apparently because the chicks aren’t able to handle normal food, and perhaps because the flamingo’s bill makes the regurgitation method awkward. In the case of pigeons, it allows them to raise several small broods per season (only one or two eggs each), since their well-fed squabs grow extraordinarily quickly. (This is probably also why squabs are so fat, juicy and tasty.)
edit on 5-2-2012 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


If they have to go down there throat to get it, its not going to be stolen then.

You guys are using one extreme of an example that has nothing to do with where I stand on this.
They don't depend on it, if they are able to steal any at all.
Your comparing this to what we do which has evolved ( no pun intended ) into a friken industry. There is no comparison.
edit on 5-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


If they have to go down there throat to get it, its not going to be stolen then.

You guys are using one extreme of an example that has nothing to do with where I stand on this.
They don't depend on it, if they are able to steal any at all.
Your comparing this to what we do which has evolved ( no pun intended ) into a friken industry. There is no comparison.
edit on 5-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)


This is what I responded to...



itsthetooth
You want me to believe that birds latate? Do they even have nipples, I don't think so.


I addressed your assertion that birds don't lactate and provided a link that not only birds lactate, but so do fish, and reptiles I.E. Create a secretion ( milk mucous) that their offspring utilize for sustenance. You said birds don't lactate illustrated by your quote above.

Also, what's response on ant's not from here as they also farm milk(mucous)?

Don't be so obtuse to save face......be honest.

Unless less you can answer this post with verifiable facts, don't bother answering



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Actually, this post is getting educational. I'm learning a few things I wasn't aware of.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
There is No Proof! There will never be proof.
Some scientists are now thinking that maybe the apes evolved from humans.

anthropology.net...
A Human Ancestor for the Apes?

Nature cares not about intelligence.
Its primary objective is Survival!
And so all life develps to live in its environment.
Apes/monkeys are much better adapted to this world than we humans.
For one, They developed a very useful Thumb on their feet.

Human arrogance does not make them the highest life form on this planet.



Now that's just being silly. There are over 7 billion humans right now. If that's not adapted for survival, I don't know what is. We adapted intelligence and tool-making as our mode of living in environments we are not directly suited for. It seems to be working, though some of our egoism seems to be causing new health problems to arise. It happens when the guys eating the wrong food or doing stupid stuff are allowed to survive (evolution is essentially no longer basally affecting humans due to our ability to circumvent nature's killing of those that normally would die and leave the genetic pool).



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





I addressed your assertion that birds don't lactate and provided a link that not only birds lactate, but so do fish, and reptiles I.E. Create a secretion ( milk mucous) that their offspring utilize for sustenance. You said birds don't lactate illustrated by your quote above.

Also, what's response on ant's not from here as they also farm milk(mucous)?

Don't be so obtuse to save face......be honest.

Unless less you can answer this post with verifiable facts, don't bother answering
Its a good reply it just doesn't compare to what we are doing in growing, harvesting, processing, shipping, and storing with cows milk.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It is also not uniquely human. Ants farm and 'milk' aphids even though they do not need too to survive. It may not be milk but it is a secretion from another animal. Ants even take aphid eggs to their nest during the winter and place them back on selected plants later. Thus farming in every sense of the word.

They also farm certain fungus as we grow certain plants. This leads me to believe that ants do not know their target food as they also are not from this planet. Of course this means the anteater who knows he belongs because he eats ants is completely wrong and in fact as he is so reliant on ants he must also not be from here.

I have asked tooth to explain this anomaly with his theory and he refuses. I dont know why?

Edit
After further thought. Ants like humans build their own homes (nests) very unnatural if you ask me. The nests even have certain rooms for certain activities just like humans. Oh and a queen just like the English.

Ants are either definitely not from earth or humans definitely are from earth and the anteater is the key ironically because tooth says the anteater knows he is from here because he eats ants. The anteater therefore proves humans are from this planet. Who would have guessed.


I am crushed you have not only chosen to ignore the first post over the page addressing you being a science major you have totally ignored a logical post discussing what you have admitted is your favourite example of all, the ant eater.

I think I have made a good argument that the anteater shows humans are from here. Please try to discuss this and not ignore it because you will be stretched/unable.

Failure to even discuss this will show you in an even worse light. Answering it with just another question will also be seen as avoidance.

Edit



Its a good reply it just doesn't compare to what we are doing in growing, harvesting, processing, shipping, and storing with cows milk.
I see above you do indeed intend not to discuss my post.

What part does not campare that we (ants and humans) both grow, harvest, process, ship and store.

Grow and harvest even with your stunted world view you must agree.

Process: Please give your definition for process as this can mean many things

Ship: Ants not only transport food to the nest comparitively large distances they carry nectar and honeydew (aphid milk) inside their bodies turning themselves into container lorries of the insect world. They also follow set paths, roads.

Store: Well of course they store food and in many ways so that the colony can survive the winter. BTW without the home they build and the food they store they would not survive also just like humans.

Ants have fulfilled all your qualifactions for being another candidate for not belonging just as humans but your stance on the anteater seems to kill your whole idea which means if it is wrong for ants it is wrong for humans.

There are many google pages you can read to confirm this. If you wish to contest any of the points made I would reccomend you do some research.

Now back to THE ANTEATER PROVES MAN IS FROM EARTH.
edit on 6-2-2012 by colin42 because: No wiggle roon for tooth

edit on 6-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 





I addressed your assertion that birds don't lactate and provided a link that not only birds lactate, but so do fish, and reptiles I.E. Create a secretion ( milk mucous) that their offspring utilize for sustenance. You said birds don't lactate illustrated by your quote above.

Also, what's response on ant's not from here as they also farm milk(mucous)?

Don't be so obtuse to save face......be honest.

Unless less you can answer this post with verifiable facts, don't bother answering
Its a good reply it just doesn't compare to what we are doing in growing, harvesting, processing, shipping, and storing with cows milk.


Using our intelligence to acquire nutrition from sources that we normally wouldn't be able to? How is this making us implanted here by aliens?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


If evolutionism was real, we would be cramming it down every kids throat in school.

Argumentum ad populum -- appeal to the masses -- the logical fallacy that if everyone believes it, it must be true. If you want to play that game, you've already lost. In the United States, it's part of the state standards for science education in every state. So, by your logic, because we're "cramming it down every kids [sic] throat in school", it must be true.


There is a very good reason why you never say or refer to the missing link but choose to use the term common ancestor.

Yes, there is -- it's because the term "missing link" is about as scientifically valid a concept as the luminiferous aether, phlogistan, or Thomson's plum pudding model of the atom.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Then what information were you going to provide, given that you've now admitted that you can't find any information on a blue laminate? Do you have a copy of the presentation? Did the speaker hand out copies of the paper upon which his presentation was based? Were you able to find the sources that he used for information? What was the speaker's name?



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This milk thing is simple. I have a milk allergy and can drink milk from some farmers that feed their cows natural stuff like what my ancestors cows ate. I have tried organic milk and some is better than others for not giving me adverse reactions. If I'm active I can process more of it efficiently, probably since it warms my internal organs and raises my metabolism to allow my liver to manufacture lactose reductase. This requires supplementation of foods high in molybdenum. Food grown on soil that is not burnt out. By not homogenating the milk it makes the milk break down slower and my body does not have a quick overpowering histimine reaction to the immune system chemicals stored in the milk cells. Changing the food of the cows alters these chemicals and more people 's bodies sense changes that makes the body confused as to what neutralizing chemistry is needed. Too much change in one or two generations of the food chemistry can be bad for people. We need to slow this change down. There are also type a and type b cows. I studied this for a while but it's made it necessary to go study other things for a while and then I will return to these articles. Sometimes you need more broadform understanding to evaluate the evidence or you jump to conclusions that are flawed. This practice destroys you're credibility and should be avoided at all costs. I still have much to learn. I find much possibility at this site because people tend to think out of the box. I burnt my box in the fireplace to make sure it isn't tempting me so I am now checking out the construction of other peoples boxes to incorporate their knowledge into the box I will create. Being a builder of houses I have much experience in design of boxes.




top topics



 
31
<< 211  212  213    215  216  217 >>

log in

join