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.
So ants then as they fullfil your absurd prerequesite and more. They farm. Build homes scavenge and hunt. Now where doe that leave the anteater?
The fact is that non indiginious species can should be able to be identified in part based on the lack of target food, in addition to them possibly being a scavenger.
You dont seem worried about posting the other rubbish that is discredited why this? Post it and see. It would be a first from you.
No my guess is that even if I did post proof you would do nothing but try to discredit it after the fact but here you go, eat up.
And I always say answer the point you fool. It does not matter if 50% or more die because of not having vaccines it still disproves your moronic statement that
Well colin is just one, but others agree with him. He keeps referring to he bushman as proof that we don't need vaccines, and I always tell him he needs to let doctors know this.
So explain the bushman.
There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty
Originally posted by idmonster
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
The thread has been hijacked by an individual who insists that life was not created on this planet at all, that it arrived here fully formed from elsewhere. His "proof" is as follows: (I will paraphrase)
That's interesting because I have never said that all life never started on this planet.
6. We would all be dead without medical intervention. (despite millions of "live" people who appear to have managed life without it)
There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty. Of course what everyone is blind to is that we don't know if they are autosomal dominant genes. Everyone on here argues with me that medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines.
The fact is that non indiginious species might be able to be identified in part based on the lack of target food, in addition to them possibly being a scavenger.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
Fair comment, just us and some other as yet unidentifeid species which I guess is a claim yuo will make when somebody points out anoither animal, that in your world appears to have a target food
No my guess is that even if I did post proof you would do nothing but try to discredit it after the fact but here you go, eat up.
An outright lie. No-one has made any such claim, if they had, i'm sure you could quote them. But you cant. Personaly, if i were accused of being a liar, I wouldnt care where the quote was that proved that I wasnt a liar, I would find it and post it. My guess is that your reply will be "that it was so long ago", "i cant go back" etc etc.
Well colin is just one, but others agree with him. He keeps referring to he bushman as proof that we don't need vaccines, and I always tell him he needs to let doctors know this.
So theres a challenge, prove that you are not a liar, find the quote that anyone made that states that "medical intervention is not needed at all, doctors are stupid and don't know what they are doing, and there purpose is useless. We simply don't need vaccines."
It has no difference with anything I have presented.
So ants then as they fullfil your absurd prerequesite and more. They farm. Build homes scavenge and hunt. Now where doe that leave the anteater?
I did.
You dont seem worried about posting the other rubbish that is discredited why this? Post it and see. It would be a first from you.
Well its not my decision colin, I didn't tell all the doctors that we need vaccines, and that despite us not needing them we need to still recieve them.
And I always say answer the point you fool. It does not matter if 50% or more die because of not having vaccines it still disproves your moronic statement that
Well obviously not everything is autosomal dominate.
So explain the bushman.
Explain how man survived before vaccines. If without vaccines we would not live past puberty we would not reach breeding age and die out.
As usual your information is tripe, spewed from ignorance with no ability to grow.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
It's not my fault you instantly dismiss scientific studies and experiments, written by people that have dedicated their lives to learning as much as they can about evolution. You don't read, you just find a buzz word like "hypotheses" and instantly think it means the entire thing is a guess.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what hypotheses means?
I have never denied this, viruses has mutated into the same virus and flu into the flu, and bacteria into bacteria, but nothing is ever changing into another species.
I see, so because there is no better explanation, that means its proven to be evolution, now I see how evolution has made it all this way. Races don't prove evolution, races proves races, and that's it.
Intervention has never claimed to prove who or what made us, only in how we got to earth.
And you do realize that what your telling me here is that the so called missing link has been observed in labs, we just aren't able to find any bones of fossils of them. These slight changes you speak of would fit the bill of what we keep looking for in a missing link, its just odd that out of 5 million species they never die leaving any bones or fossils. I call BS on it.
Really coming from a moron that replies to any other post that also does not include questions marks as already pointed out. That shows little knowledge of how to construct a sentence at all. This pathetic excuse is used as a way to avoid responding to a question or statement you cannot answer. But how do you explain not answering my question in a post above and pasted below?
Just remember that this is all coming from a guy that stakes a claim about the non use of question marks as being totally sensible.
Not enough question marks or is it now too many?
If without medical intervention we cannot live passed puberty (Breeding age) explain the bushman??????????????
From a guy, you. That never answers any point made, rejects out of hand any argument made. Who's closest attempt to answer any valid point is a stupid question from a point of pure ignorance or avoidance as in this post I am replying too.
A guy that incorrectly answers my questions and then argues they are valid.
Ignorance at its best. You asked for an example of a relationship between humans and even one animal and did your usual denial yet never attempted to discuss. Replied by changing the original question and failed as usual to make any valid argument in defence.
When I asked for one single example of species that has a natural un provoked relationship with man, he gives me the house sparrow. So a sparrow has a relationship with our homes so he takes it as though that includes us.
How dense are you? Still a dormouse is a craeture that lives in woodlands and fields. You have been told this. I expect you meant to say the common housemice. You were also told your analogy does not have any validity and that you are ignorant for posing it as a reply. It is still not valid. You are still ignorant.
Leaving feed at your door, to purposly attract field mice does NOT cause evolution so that those mice turn into door mice.
You have made everything up you have ever wrote. I and others have corrected and proved you wrong every time. So what was it I fell in?
Sorry colin, I made it up and you fell in it.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Probably the most important thing you need to realize is your making some bold assumptions on a lot of things.
Has it not occurred to you that these observable changes they have witnessed in a lab, might just be changes that are allowable in that species to begin with?
In addition to you and everyone else still avoiding the golden question of food source. If a new species does happen, what is it suppose to eat? It can't eat the exact same food and only that food as it would be the same species, it would also be stealing food from the original species.
Your reply:
So ants then as they fullfil your absurd prerequesite and more. They farm. Build homes scavenge and hunt. Now where doe that leave the anteater?
That is not an answer to my point above. In fact it is not an answer to anything. Are you agreeing ants are not from here or maintaining the scavenger ant that farms and builds homes does not fulfill your requirements?
It has no difference with anything I have presented.
As Id and others including me pointed out no one has said vaccines are not important but only you are saying we will not progress past puberty without them. Well now show evidence that NO one would live past puberty without vaccines.
Well its not my decision colin, I didn't tell all the doctors that we need vaccines, and that despite us not needing them we need to still recieve them.
I see you have learned a new word. I expect to see you misuse it a lot more
Well obviously not everything is autosomal dominate.
It just seems to be missing that little important word in front of it saying scientific.
(Emphasis mine)
In the statement "evolution is both fact and theory", evolution as theory refers to the scientific (as opposed to the vernacular) definition of theory. In the first scientific meaning, a theory is an overarching framework that makes sense of otherwise disconnected observations and includes, for example, the theory of gravity. Evolutionary theory unifies observations from fossils, DNA sequences, systematics, biogeography, and laboratory experiments. Theodosius Dobzhansky, a key contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis, articulated the unifying power of evolutionary theory in a famous paper entitled: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
And I'm suppose to take your word on this after your trying to convince me that hypothetical, postualted theorys are fact.
Google it, even wiki has a good one
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".
From wiki en.wikipedia.org...
I think your english is very poor, and you need to go back to school.
Not that mine is any better but at least I don't boast about it.
Once again Hypothetsis is in the first sentance.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
So now your turning around and admitting that it's listed as a hypothetical theory.
Neither of which are they listed as.
Most are that obvious, you are correct but the type of virus I found doesn't apply in that way, it is very different.
Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by colin42
I don't know why anyone is still arguing with tooth. You guys aren't arguing what happened, your arguing what words to explain what happened. Tooth says that this species is the same as this species, so really there not two different species, therefore nothing changed, therefore no evolution took place. But this is all based on the definition of evolution, and the defintion of species, and every word in between. Why don't we try arguing the facts in 22 different languages other than ones we already understand, we would end up in the same place.
It depends, did you mention anything else in the book that wasn't a cat?
Context is everything. If I write a book about dogs and mention the word cat once, does that mean my book is actually about cats? You need to learn about the scientific method and how it proves things.
I didn't ignore it, I quoted...
news.bbc.co.uk...
Why did you ignore this the first time I posted? A CLEAR example of one species changing into another.
I can't wait to see how you instantly dismiss this one.
One becomes two
Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.
Thats a lot bigger of a deal then you realize. We have been visited from many differnt races of humanoids. Some stayed for what ever reason, and some left. Of course we stayed. Religion could play a part in how these things ended up. Anyhow, there were many differnt races and we even mated with a lot of them. One of which we were punished for doing.
No, the fact that evolution has evidence behind it is what proves it, not because you have nothing better. Evidence, science and dedicated people is what gives us all of our current technology and understand of the world. Maybe for you, evidence means nothing, but for me and the rest of the scientific world, it means everything. Okay, so explain how the races of humans emerged. If we were all created on another planet, why are there several races, with geographical distribution all around the planet? Good luck with that one.
Well aside from the bible indicating so, and sitchen, and von daniken, and pye. I don't know what else to tell you. Everyone else is wrong and your right?
No, invention doesn't prove that. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest we were brought to earth.
I think documentation is proof enough, I think the proof in our DNA just proves it even more.
Nothing at all that can be verified, just your personal opinion about an author and BS claims about how we don't fit in, even though we're the dominant species on this planet, lol.
Oh yes I am. BTW your not reading your bible from the supernatural perspective, which it obviously won't make any sense to you. I think your not qualified to read it, just my opinion however.
MANY "missing links" have been found and observed in labs. It's called fossils and bones. Like I said, you haven't studied a single field of science ever in your life, even loosely. You aren't qualified to say its wrong, especially without evidence.
First of all I never said that. You either typed it wrong or missunderstood. What I said was there are over 2 dozen genes in us that wont allow us to live past puberty. Now if your too dense to consider autosomal domminance, thats your problem. And please start typing english. I don't know if its because you get flustered or what the hell is going on, but some of the things you type don't fit the english profile.
Just remember that this is all coming from a guy that stakes a claim about the non use of question marks as being totally sensible.
Really coming from a moron that replies to any other post that also does not include questions marks as already pointed out. That shows little knowledge of how to construct a sentence at all. This pathetic excuse is used as a way to avoid responding to a question or statement you cannot answer. But how do you explain not answering my question in a post above and pasted below?
If without medical intervention we cannot live passed puberty (Breeding age) explain the bushman??????????????
I'm sure if you learned to speak a bit better english, we wouldn't be having this problem.
From a guy, you. That never answers any point made, rejects out of hand any argument made. Who's closest attempt to answer any valid point is a stupid question from a point of pure ignorance or avoidance as in this post I am replying too.
We don't have what I would consider any type of positive relationship with wolves. Do you watch to many movies, what is it man. You just have this thing about being buddy buddy with animals. The next time you spot a wolf, expose yourself to it, and lets see how well that goes for you.
Ignorance at its best. You asked for an example of a relationship between humans and even one animal and did your usual denial yet never attempted to discuss. Replied by changing the original question and failed as usual to make any valid argument in defence.
You forgot to mention our relationship with the wolf. Another issue you denied but refused to discuss.
Well you might have won every argument, but if I could only understand it if it were in english.
You have made everything up you have ever wrote. I and others have corrected and proved you wrong every time. So what was it I fell in?
By the species. For example you could be 5 foot, 6 foot, blue eyes, or green eyes, or brown eyes. They are all allowable, as far as we know.
Allowable by who?
I think its possible that some of the mechanics of evoltuion are only privy to certain species.
So now you're telling me evolution happens in some creatures but not others because they are all designed that way?
Well I always accept the word mutation as a negative, or unwanted change. I know radiation can do this in any species. I think its different from the positive evolution that I'm talking about.
Are you disputing that genetic mutation happens? I just don't understand what you are arguing here. Genetic mutation has been proven to exist and can affect any creature that has DNA.
Well that was the other side of the coin as well, who are we to determine whats normal.
Are you trying to tell me that humans are not effected by genetic mutations? The mutation rates in humans have been studied. Scientists KNOW evolution happens in humans. They're not like , "hey guys, this dude looks a little different from his kid, lighter hair and hazel eyes! OMG it's evolution!!!! PRINT THE REPORT!!!" Sorry to burst your bubble but a lot of study has been done by geneticists on mutations specifically in humans.
I think we are two differnt pages here.
www.genetics.org... Here's one to wet your whistle. What do you think? Did the scientists all make this up?
I'm rejecting your idea at this point based on its weirdness. I think its a little weird how we can claim that there is all this slow changing going on right under our noses, but yet we never seem to find any proof in either the past, current, or future idea of it changing.
I answered this like 50 pages ago. New species don't just happen. A creature changes SLOWLY over time, the food source would change slowly, if at all. They wouldn't just wake up a new species and suddenly be unable to eat what they previously ate. Slow changes. Come on, man, if you learn anything from all of this, please at least understand this very basic fact of evolution. You keep misunderstanding the concept of change. The are many genetic mutations that have little to no effect on the creature, however when combined with others it makes a difference. Small tiny changes, over a million years, you'll expect the creature to look different, just as humans did 30,000 years ago, and just like humans will look 30,000 years in the future. Species is just an imaginary line we draw where one cannot reproduce with another.
OMG colin, for the third time, Ants are from earth, I never said they weren't.
I wrote:
So ants then as they fullfil your absurd prerequesite and more. They farm. Build homes scavenge and hunt. Now where doe that leave the anteater?
Your reply:
It has no difference with anything I have presented.
That is not an answer to my point above. In fact it is not an answer to anything. Are you agreeing ants are not from here or maintaining the scavenger ant that farms and builds homes does not fulfill your requirements?
Colin for the third time again your overlooking autosomal domminance. You need to read up on that man.
As Id and others including me pointed out no one has said vaccines are not important but only you are saying we will not progress past puberty without them. Well now show evidence that NO one would live past puberty without vaccines.
And yes, I agree, at least that it looks like your going to be hearing it a lot more, did you ever wonder why that might be?
I see you have learned a new word. I expect to see you misuse it a lot more