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: 234
31
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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.
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?


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.
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 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.
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


There are over 2 dozen defects in our DNA that will not allow you to live past puberty
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.




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

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.


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




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.


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.

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."


edit on 15-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------
Dishonest, discredited and disgusting. Below is your reply to the original post shown above. You clearly make a statement that " 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"

I called you out on this asking you to post the quote from the member who made this statement. You revoltingly reply as per below. There is no misunderstanding here, you have deliberatly attempted to make it appear that I have called you a liar regarding something totaly unrelated, you have posred a link to something totaly unrelated, and I have no doubt that were I not to quote both the original and your reply, you would be screaming that I am ignoring you evidence.

I have laughed at you ignorance, I have entered into arguments/debate with you, but this putrid, revolting display of utter dishonesty has ended all of our discourse. While I can not prevent you from replying to any posts I make for others on here I will no longer respond to anything you post. Any transparent attempts to misquote me in order to draw me into discourse with you will result in a complaint being raised against you.

You sicken me!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

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
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.




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.
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.

www.youtube.com...




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."
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.


edit on 15-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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?
It has no difference with anything I have presented.




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.
I did.




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 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.




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.
Well obviously not everything is autosomal dominate.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

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?

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 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.


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.



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.

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.


Intervention has never claimed to prove who or what made us, only in how we got to earth.

No, invention doesn't prove that. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest we were brought to earth. 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.


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.

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. Even with dinosaur fossils, we haven't found THAT many and they roamed the entire earth for a hundred million+ years. Hominids have only been around for 7 million give or take and have only lived in isolated parts of the world until recently. Living in a jungle environment, the chance of fossilization is incredibly low. Things break down after time, even faster with such a high level of competition between species and an environment with hot, wet conditions causing the plants to grow and change / recycle back to the earth quickly. This is a fact. Don't get me wrong, we've found millions of fossils... but that's out of a probable hundred billion+ organisms to ever live on earth. In reality that's a TINY percentage, and likewise with hominids who lived in fast paced environments the sample size is also small... but they still do find a new hominid species every 5-10 years, give or take. People act like we should have found every single creature to ever exist on this planet by now, but that's not the way the earth works.

edit on 15-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



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??????????????
Not enough question marks or is it now too many?


A guy that incorrectly answers my questions and then argues they are valid.
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.


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.
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.


Leaving feed at your door, to purposly attract field mice does NOT cause evolution so that those mice turn into door mice.
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.


Sorry colin, I made it up and you fell in it.
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?



edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Probably the most important thing you need to realize is your making some bold assumptions on a lot of things.

What assumptions am I making and how does it disqualify the theory of evolution?


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?

Allowable by who? So now you're telling me evolution happens in some creatures but not others because they are all designed that way? 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. 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.

www.genetics.org... Here's one to wet your whistle. What do you think? Did the scientists all make this up?



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.

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.
edit on 15-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
interesting fact about the door mouse. (more correctly, the dormouse)

It has absolutly nothing to do with doors. The "doors" refered to in the name is a bastardisation of the french word "dormir" meaning to sleep and reflects that particular mouses habit of undergoing extremly lengthy periods of hibernation, giving it the name of "sleeping mouse", in french "dormir mouse" and in english "dormouse".

thought I'd share.
edit on 15-2-2012 by idmonster because: swapped a g for a h



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
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?


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.
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 obviously not everything is autosomal dominate.
I see you have learned a new word. I expect to see you misuse it a lot more



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
The Dormouse also featured in Alice in Wonderland. It was one of the members of the mad hatters tea party. I believe this is what has attracted tooth.

A fantasy story inhabitted by a madman.


edit on 15-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 
Sorry mate but you are 100% wrong. Tooth has been told many times this thread is to discuss the diversity we see today without refering to evolution.

Not only does he insist on not doing this even once he fills every page with complete trash about how we have hands which shows we are not from this planet. He constantly talks about target food and how because we have a varied diet we must not be from here ignoring all the other animals that also have a varied diet. How evolution says we 'change' into another species and so would have no food.

He refuses to discuss, answer or make any attempt at a reasoned argument to support his views. If you believe he is discussing evoluiton then you need to do no more than read about five pages because all of his nonsense is repeated page after page.

He has infected this thread to peddle and preach his stupidity.

I ignore the troll as much as I can but when this fool calls me a liar it becomes a little hard to ignore as he is the most dishonest person I have talked to on this whole site.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
So I actually wasted a few minutes googling for that elusive "evolution bug". Here's what I found:

1) They can be found in Evolution, a Linux mail app. So my guess is, your best bet to find them is to download Linux and install that mail app. I'm sure if you look long enough, you'll find those mysterious evolution bugs


2) There's a game called Evolution where bugs play an important role...give it a go tooth, you can create entire "Evolution bug farms"


3) Bugs' Bunny was an unnamed rabbit before he was evolved into Bugs Bunny. "Evolved" and "bugs" both play a part in Bugs' Bunny's story (I didn't actually know this, so thanks for making me learn something valuable for a change tooth)


4) If you google for images, you get a lot of VW Beatles, bugs (duh), and even some Pokemon pictures.

In short, I'm afraid none of it has anything to do with evolution...not even close. I suggest you read this and then come back once you have something valuable to contribute to this thread.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Im sorry, but that was absolutely perfect. I was trying really hard not to laugh at work.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


It just seems to be missing that little important word in front of it saying scientific.

Yeah… no one calls the theory of evolution a scientific theory. Especially not Wikipedia:


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".
(Emphasis mine)


And I'm suppose to take your word on this after your trying to convince me that hypothetical, postualted theorys are fact.

Don't take my word for it, prove me wrong. Show me how you've substantiated your claim to discovering an "arcane virus".


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.

If you had the scientific credentials you claim to have, you'd know that the colloquial definition of a theory, which you just posted, is different from the scientific definition of a theory. I mean, this is really getting sad on your part. You're actually lying about information that anyone can look up and verify. You should stick to lying about esoteric things like the existence of a blue laminate on DNA.

You can look it up on Wikipedia to understand the difference between the two definitions of "theory". Or you can go straight to the source and see how actual scientists define the word:

From the United States National Academy of Sciences:

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.

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

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.


Do you understand the difference between the colloquial definition and scientific definition of the word theory yet? I mean, someone of your scientific credentials should already have known this, no?


So now your turning around and admitting that it's listed as a hypothetical theory.

Your dishonesty continues. My listing of names was in reply to your question about why aren't people shouting it from the rooftops if evolution is really a fact. Not of people who would agree with you regarding your definition of it as a "hypothetical theory". That list of names would have two people: you, your idiot boss.


Neither of which are they listed as.

Really? Because the Talk Origins site we've been discussing has an article called Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.


Most are that obvious, you are correct but the type of virus I found doesn't apply in that way, it is very different.

So you discovered a virus, but it's not really a virus. Sounds like more of you making up definitions to words as you go. Again.
edit on 15/2/2012 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, I see what you're saying. In essence it seems to be just for aimless entertainment, but I do feel a glimpse of hope sometimes and it inspires me to try and teach him a little something. Then of course it usually comes back and slaps me in the face



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





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.
It depends, did you mention anything else in the book that wasn't a cat?




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.
I didn't ignore it, I quoted...


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.


It looks like they are even having issues deciding if its one or two. I can tell however that your imagination runs away with you and you just see a golden opportunity to claim evoltion is working.
I don't even look at this from a technical point of view, I look at it from a broad point of view.
What did they start with "fruit flys" what did they mate "fruit flys" what did they end up with "fruit flys" So once again, as you can see, your imagination is running away with you. If you read on, you will see that one thing is clear in there findings, they are still fruit flys. Rather than grasping this fiction so hard, why don't you try to grasp reality just for this one article.




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.
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, invention doesn't prove that. You have no evidence whatsoever to suggest we were brought to earth.
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?
Heres a good one, watch this video and explain to me how humans have altered DNA. www.youtube.com...
Who in the hell did this? Monks ????????????
The only thing we can even begin to consider for this type of advanced technology is aliens.
So there are aliens in the bible, space travel in the bible, and the mention of our home being elsewhere in the bible.
Seriously, do you have to be a rocket scientist to see whats going on?




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.
I think documentation is proof enough, I think the proof in our DNA just proves it even more.




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.
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.

The bones and fossils you tout, I never found any that claimed to be the missing link we were looking for that proved evolution. And I did look at them.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Okay but wheres the mountain of evidence that humanoids visited us several different times, leaving us here. Wheres the evidence that the universe is older than 15 billion years, you haven't even recognized that one.

About the fruit flies:

Why did the scientists even bother to name them different names? Maybe because there were differences? And if there are differences, shouldn't you point those out, or just say, nah there the same. That sounds really scientific.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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??????????????
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.

Well if I forgot any question marks, I'm shocked you realized they were questions.




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.
I'm sure if you learned to speak a bit better english, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Comprende, capish, caput, understad?




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.
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.




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?
Well you might have won every argument, but if I could only understand it if it were in english.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Allowable by who?
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.




So now you're telling me evolution happens in some creatures but not others because they are all designed that way?
I think its possible that some of the mechanics of evoltuion are only privy to certain species.




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 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 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.
Well that was the other side of the coin as well, who are we to determine whats normal.




www.genetics.org... Here's one to wet your whistle. What do you think? Did the scientists all make this up?
I think we are two differnt pages here.
Your sending me this link (which I looked at some time ago but tx) anyhow did the mutations ever occure enough to change us into a different species NO. So thats what I'm looking at.




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.
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.
The food is what really gets me though. It's fine to think we might eat the same food, so what I'm saying is ya, we are the same species.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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?
OMG colin, for the third time, Ants are from earth, I never said they weren't.




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.
Colin for the third time again your overlooking autosomal domminance. You need to read up on that man.




I see you have learned a new word. I expect to see you misuse it a lot more
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?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 231  232  233    235  236  237 >>

log in

join