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: 246
31
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





LOL let me guess.. My dogs alien
Dogs eat dog food, and that is processed. Unless they were supppose to be scavengers in the wild.


My dog just ate some fresh trout from the river, I can guarantee the process was me cooking it on the grill.
He (Kenny) will scavenge but I have seen him kill a rabbit.




posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





What the ducksauce? I said evolution isn't this thing that exists within animals to make them change. Evolution is the DESCRIPTION of the effect of gene changes and distribution through time.
Genes changing, now that is funny



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





You're a dirty rotten assumer. That's what you are. Did you have any evidence of this freaking statement? NO! You are a liar and an idiot.
No I'm going to disagree with you and say that shoes actually serve a purpose.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





You're a dirty rotten assumer. That's what you are. Did you have any evidence of this freaking statement? NO! You are a liar and an idiot.
No I'm going to disagree with you and say that shoes actually serve a purpose.


Like a stick serves a purpose for chimps to gather termites? How about gloves, shoes for your hands, you don't need them they are just tools.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What the ducksauce? I said evolution isn't this thing that exists within animals to make them change. Evolution is the DESCRIPTION of the effect of gene changes and distribution through time.
Genes changing, now that is funny


What a clown, genes are constantly changing in order to survive, and over the years the genes in rice and fungi have co-evolved. Resistance is relative to the specific pathogens.
Link



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What the ducksauce? I said evolution isn't this thing that exists within animals to make them change. Evolution is the DESCRIPTION of the effect of gene changes and distribution through time.
Genes changing, now that is funny


I assume this means that you are asserting that genes don't change. Well, I guess we know that Tooth is officially outside the realm of sanity.



posted on Feb, 19 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





What the ducksauce? I said evolution isn't this thing that exists within animals to make them change. Evolution is the DESCRIPTION of the effect of gene changes and distribution through time.
Genes changing, now that is funny


I assume this means that you are asserting that genes don't change. Well, I guess we know that Tooth is officially outside the realm of sanity.

Who knows maybe he is talking Levis will always be button flies while Wranglers will always be zippers. In any case tooth is ignorant to world.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Like a stick serves a purpose for chimps to gather termites? How about gloves, shoes for your hands, you don't need them they are just tools.
I don't agree with that, I think that some things were made out of need. What are we spoiled?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





What a clown, genes are constantly changing in order to survive, and over the years the genes in rice and fungi have co-evolved. Resistance is relative to the specific pathogens.
Well of course there are allowable things to change within a species, but how do you not know they are normal things within the species. Like blue eyes, or brown eyes? The fact is you don't. We don't know what the limitations are within a species for changes. We simply don't know and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than DNA just changing on its own.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





I assume this means that you are asserting that genes don't change. Well, I guess we know that Tooth is officially outside the realm of sanity.
We don't know what the bounderies are of any species including humans. Whats to say that purple eyes are a normal part of our species, but that we just haven't ever gotten any to pop up. Whos to know that 8 feet tall humans are normal and our current idea of normal is off. You see the whole problem is that assumptions are made based on what we find to be common. So when we do get a person that is 8 feet tall, we tend to accept him as a defect. How do we not know that he is actually the normal one and the rest of us is all off. We don't. But your claiming you do.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Who knows maybe he is talking Levis will always be button flies while Wranglers will always be zippers. In any case tooth is ignorant to world.
No I don't think I'm the ignorant one here, but I do see you guys doing a lot of assuming.

This thread should have been titled Evolution, assumed.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





I assume this means that you are asserting that genes don't change. Well, I guess we know that Tooth is officially outside the realm of sanity.
We don't know what the bounderies are of any species including humans. Whats to say that purple eyes are a normal part of our species, but that we just haven't ever gotten any to pop up. Whos to know that 8 feet tall humans are normal and our current idea of normal is off. You see the whole problem is that assumptions are made based on what we find to be common. So when we do get a person that is 8 feet tall, we tend to accept him as a defect. How do we not know that he is actually the normal one and the rest of us is all off. We don't. But your claiming you do.





There is no "normal" that is why there is infinite diversity,, there are trends of for better or for worse.... if you only ate bread and butter your whole life,, you wouldn't be as thrivingly normal as someone who ate a wide variety of nutrients consistently......... I believe humans eating many different kinds of foods, experimenting with nutrients is what allowed them to grow physically more excellent and mentally more intelligent......

Its hard to imagine animals evolving from one another,, because we dont see that happen.... but what the science of evolution is trying to do ( they thought they successfully did ) is look at a birds eye view and take in millions of years at a time of a never ending/who knows how starting swarm of what we know as living biologic life....

you think all the life that is on earth now, all animals plants, fish, birds, insects ,,, were created at one point at the beginning of life on earth,, and there has been no sort of, what evolutionists call evolution to the original animals?

also it seems what evolutionists describe as evolution,,, exists in a microcosm, in a single human life.... from baby to man you evolve ( at least some do) and your DNA does change through this process..



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 





I assume this means that you are asserting that genes don't change. Well, I guess we know that Tooth is officially outside the realm of sanity.
We don't know what the bounderies are of any species including humans. Whats to say that purple eyes are a normal part of our species, but that we just haven't ever gotten any to pop up. Whos to know that 8 feet tall humans are normal and our current idea of normal is off. You see the whole problem is that assumptions are made based on what we find to be common. So when we do get a person that is 8 feet tall, we tend to accept him as a defect. How do we not know that he is actually the normal one and the rest of us is all off. We don't. But your claiming you do.



No, you're thinking of something very specific called gene "expression." This has nothing to do with when only half of the possible genes get passed down to the next generation, or when a mutation changes genes in an animal.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Anyways Tooth, to sum up, and make sure it doesn't get ignored. The main point is that we get all of our nutrients here on earth, no problem. It's not even that hard to eat healthy if you do your research. If we can lead such healthy lives and get all the essential nutrients, then how are we not eating our "target foods" (as defined by you)?


I had a feeling this would get ignored so I am reiterating it. We can get all of our nutrients here on earth and lead a perfectly healthy life. How are we not eating our "target" foods, if we're eating everything we need to be healthy?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





What a clown, genes are constantly changing in order to survive, and over the years the genes in rice and fungi have co-evolved. Resistance is relative to the specific pathogens.
Well of course there are allowable things to change within a species, but how do you not know they are normal things within the species. Like blue eyes, or brown eyes? The fact is you don't. We don't know what the limitations are within a species for changes. We simply don't know and there is no way to prove or disprove it. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than DNA just changing on its own.


Because there's 7 billion of us, thats why. It's the same as saying, well you can go outside on a sunny day, and get struck 50 times by a lighting bolt. Is it impossible, I guess not, but it ain't gunna happen I can tell ya that.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think that the evolution is just that we were like a baby...
then a child ...
then a boy...
then a teenager ...
then a man...
then an old man...
Do you think that there is an evolution after 100 years old...
It,s just like a pyramid just a pyramid
begins a little then uprising until it goes to the top then it goes downstairs until death .
that is the evolution in my opinion.
and remember that's just in beings not in inventions ok
bye >>>ha ha ha



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Target food is a main staple used by a species.
You see here is the problem. Trying to communicate via the written word when tooth shows he has not got a firm enough grasp of the english language to understand 'Target Food' in the context he uses it is frankly uneducated. His insistance to continue using it is ignorance


Natural relationship is one where it doesn't have to be forced or invoked. For example, if blue birds all of a sudden took a liking to humans and started sitting on there shoulders, for no apparen't reason, it might be a natural relationship. Of course the main question would be why wasn't it always like this and what changed that could have caused this to happen. Feeding field mice so that they come to your door is not evolution and is provoked since your feeding him. It's called cupboard love.
Another example of such a low level of education I would gamble tooth cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.

There are relationships. Thats it. Some may be positive, some negative some both but they are all relationships. By those taking part in this thread we have entered a relationship. Your refusal to discuss the points raised has made this a negative relationship but it is still a relationship. Everytime two or more things interact they form a relationship. The only reason to cling so hard to invoked or un natural relationship is because the fundemental misues of english suits tooths fundemental and completely wrong view on the world around him.


Autosomal domminance or the lack of could enable the bushman to not be stricken with the gross defects that are in our genes. Either way, everyone is a carrier.
Again his low level of ecucation comes to the fore. You spouted autosomal dominance might explain the bushman. Now you say it may or may not and both to this question.


What part does autosomal dominance play in the contiued existance of the bushman
You offered autosomal dominance to explain why the bushman lives past puberty. It is up to you to explain the part you think it plays


The only thing that has been well known about an ants traits is there ability to lift and carry absurd amounts of weight. Unfortuntatly humans don't compete with this. I'm not aware of any that are shared between us. There are a lot of traits in general that we might share but none unique from other species.
The only explanation for you not being aware of any traits that we share with ants despite being linked and being given detailed information is your education level falls below that of knowing how to click on a link or read and gain knowledge.

The only other explanation which I believe is the real one. The ant shows you to be completely wrong and you are too dishonest to accept it. You lie to yourself as much as you do others.

You cling onto your belief by ignoring any challenging information and your avoidance to discuss the ant shows your belief is so shaky you will not test it for fear of collapse.


Humans have had an un-natural relationship with a lot of other species on this planet. I'm looking for natural unique ones.
There are only relationships. No such thing as an un natural relationship in this context


Humans also get bit and attacked by wolves, placing them into a generic catagory with a lot of other wild life.
So now you admit we are in a genetic catergory with a lot of other wild life. You know what you have just stated.

We are either from here or a lot of other wild life is also not from her.


House sparrows are probably victims of loss of structures to build there nests on, so found an easy way to use our homes for nesting. This is not a relationship between man and bird its a relationship between bird and house, and it is provoked. Almost every species is affected by the things that humans do on this planet. Nesting in our homes may not be a negative thing, but its not positive either. It's not natural thats for sure.
Let me get this right. You say that a relationship between an artificial structure and a bird is natural yet a relationship between a wolf and man or a bird and man is not. what sort of logic is that?

Again you are wrong. It is a relationship between the sparrow the house and man. Man changes the house it affects the bird. A relationship.

edit on 20-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





also it seems what evolutionists describe as evolution,,, exists in a microcosm, in a single human life.... from baby to man you evolve ( at least some do) and your DNA does change through this process..
Ya I should correct my comments on DNA never changing. I am aware of some of the DNA process, I watched that video showing DNA being reorganized.

There must be sections of genes that are allowed to change, based on procreation, and other genes that are not suppose to change, in order to keep the species straight. This is why when we are talking about new things popping up in a species, I'm always saying that it must be a part of the the genes that is allowed to change.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





No, you're thinking of something very specific called gene "expression." This has nothing to do with when only half of the possible genes get passed down to the next generation, or when a mutation changes genes in an animal.
How can only 1/2 of the genese get passed down, is that even possible? Or do you mean to say 1/2 of them get expressed?



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


With the few links I gave you allready, its clear that cows milk is a main source for calcium.
You mean the few links you claimed showed we were dependant on cows milk that actually just explained the main sources for milk man uses.


While its not the easiest source, it might be the cheapest considering the other options. Drinking another animals milk is just sick and wrong.
Why is drinking milk sick and wrong? Does this mean eating meat is wrong? Of course not but what is does show is you total disconnect with the world you live in. For something to live something else must die be that deer, cow, plant. Life is like that and no matter how much you lie and fantisize you cannot change it. Grow up.


Granted there have been a few rare cases of other animals stealking others milk, its nothing like the giant home grown milk industries humans have made out of cows milk.
I have shown you the ant farms aphids. protects his herd. moves them to new pastures and milks them. If you scaled up their size the aphid milk industry would be just as big as ours.Another ant link you will ignore


There is only one way this could happen, a lot of deaths and sickness, in addition to some of the genes not being autosomal dominant.
Please describe the part autosomal dominance plays in your theory.


Mans invetivness is a good clue to things that might be missing to begin with.
No mans inventivness describes man


It's an alternative to making due with what we have, and cover for something that was missing to begin with.
No its mans ability to see a better way and to improve life. He invented the tiolet and sewers because it improved health and reduced smell. Not because on some home planet our crap did not smell.


In other words its because of us not being on our correct planet that has driven us to this.
In other words another massive un supported leap of faith while your ears and eyes are closed to the truth you try to bypass.


Well he didn't, as far as I'm concearned, and we have nothing to prove that we ever gave anything up in trade.
Another garbled reply that does not address the point made. Avoidance? I think so.


I never heard that he did. Unless you meant to say why did he give up starving for storring food. Don't you think its odd that he was smart enough to store food but not smart enough to keep records or books of life?
You lose the plot so easily dont you. Again grabled rubbish that makes no sense.


I don't think that alone makes him alien but it sure does make him a sick $#*&. So you think because there is a surplus of something, that its our cue to eat it up? What do you do with a surplus of monkey poo?
What a plonker. If there was a surplus of monkey poo humans would use it to fertilise his land, burn it as fuel. He would also have competiton from all the other animals making use of a bountyful resource. Of course they could also use it to pelt passing idiots so you had best avoid walking past trees as you are a definite to get covered.


The fact that we have to wear shoes alone is not proof we are not from here. It might not tell you what type of terrain we were fitted for but it sure does prove it aint this one.
We wear shoes. Plain and simple for practicle and fashion reasons nothing more.


Good for Larry.
I was joking. Larry would never get laid anywhere.


edit on 20-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 243  244  245    247  248  249 >>

log in

join