Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Read and learn. You really need to clean up your ignorance:

en.wikipedia.org...

Nice try, I clicked on the wiki for it, then on the person named for genetic drift only to find that it was written by someone with an evolutionitsts background.

So this is all in the eyes of evolution with nothing to back it up.
I have read about genetic drift and know that a species will die if dire changes are made. So in other words there is no way a species can change without dying.

Fine, if you won't read your beloved wikipedia, here's a University page:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Pull your head out of your ass, man.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Weather you want to belive in survival of the fittest which you do, or that things start out in an eco balance, either way, they will be in an eco balance.

Dont tell me what I believe in because as usual you are wrong.

I am astounded at the depth of your ignorance and the very low level of knowledge displayed.

Learn what an eco system is

An eco system neither starts in balance or ends up in balance. It is exactly how I explained it to you as simply as I could bearing in mind your capacity to take on information. It appears you did not manage again to understand.

Species have to eat.
Species have to survive.
Species have to grow, and multiply.
So either way you look at it, there must be a balance.

And what part of any of the above requires a balanced eco system?

No I think I understand pretty well htat species need to eat and grow.

so this is how you answer to what I posted. Pasted below

There are always adjustments to maintain sustainable numbers because the enviroment is continually changeing and so a balanced eco system that you talk about exists nowhere.

As low as your education level is even you cannot really believe that is a response to what I wrote? If you think 'I eat and grow therefore I am in balance' has any meaning then you are more foolish than I give you credit for.

Only when it comes from the master of dilusion, Colin.

When it comes to delusion you make a someone with Alzheimer’s look on the ball.

You know they say if you gave a monkey a typewriter and eternity he would eventually write Shakespeares plays. I am convinced despite this the monkey could never type the total garbage that streams from you like a city sewer spews out sewerage

Originally posted by flyingfish

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.

Cats will do the same. Watching a cat hunt is fascinating--like watching a tiger or lion in miniature. There's a feral cat in the neighborhood that gets birds and squirrels with no trouble at all.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Cats will do the same. Watching a cat hunt is fascinating--like watching a tiger or lion in miniature. There's a feral cat in the neighborhood that gets birds and squirrels with no trouble at all.

This is very true. I have an indoor/outdoor cat that loves to hunt. She stalks birds all the time. I haven't seen her catch a squirrel yet, but it is really fun to watch her chase that big bushy tail around. I've seen her get birds, mice, chipmunks, small snakes, and she also keeps the stray cats away, so that is a bonus as well. Even though she spends a lot of time outside she's still a very friendly cat and sleeps next to me every night. I wouldn't trade her for the world.

reply to post by andersensrm

Thats why it doesn't happen with one, it happens with many, the reason one would change, would be the same reason the others would change.

So we just aren't able to see these changes in all of us today, why is that?

reply to post by Varemia


I'm sorry but this new link you sent me, as nice and informative as it is, also appears to be written by an evolutionist according to the options at the bottom of the page.

reply to post by colin42

An eco system neither starts in balance or ends up in balance. It is exactly how I explained it to you as simply as I could bearing in mind your capacity to take on information. It appears you did not manage again to understand.

I'm sorry DR Colin, but I don't see anything on this page that deflects it being in a balance.

Species have to eat.
Species have to survive.
Species have to grow, and multiply.
So either way you look at it, there must be a balance.

And what part of any of the above requires a balanced eco system?

all of it.

so this is how you answer to what I posted. Pasted below

Well you are seeming to just be incredulous.

There are always adjustments to maintain sustainable numbers because the enviroment is continually changeing and so a balanced eco system that you talk about exists nowhere.

As low as your education level is even you cannot really believe that is a response to what I wrote? If you think 'I eat and grow therefore I am in balance' has any meaning then you are more foolish than I give you credit for

You quoted yourself stoop.

Only when it comes from the master of dilusion, Colin.

When it comes to delusion you make a someone with Alzheimer’s look on the ball.

You know they say if you gave a monkey a typewriter and eternity he would eventually write Shakespeares plays. I am convinced despite this the monkey could never type the total garbage that streams from you like a city sewer spews out sewerage

Why are you being so hateful? It's not my fault your not able to answer any of my challenges with an honest answer.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Sure everything is here, but broken up into a plethora of other things. This is why we have such a large food list. Of course there could be a big difference between whats needed and whats an extra. A good example is meat. We could say that all cattle fell off the face of the earth, so lets say no animals to give us any meat. We could turn to eating insects for protein, and we would have to.

Anyhow, our food choices are redundant. You can see that anytime we have a need, there is more than one source for that specific need. Based on this you might be wondering how I could possibly figure out that our target food is not here. It's because there is a big difference between foods helping us get by, and foods that are packed with our specific nutrition. As good of a source cows milk for calcium is, it would appear that there should be a better source of it for our intended diet. Drinking cows milk and having to process it, homogenize, pasterize, fortify, and package, ship, refrigerate, are all things that are not an expected part of the requirement.

First, there are many animals in nature that can get the nutrients from multiple sources. Many can eat practically every thing we do. Many don't because they don't have global access to food. That is not a good argument, unless you are somehow claiming that all animals that eat a large variety of foods were brought here. That doesn't make sense at all and actually goes against your argument because being able to live off of a plethora of things, ties us more strongly to the earth. Your argument is backwards. If there were only 1 or 2 things here that we could survive off of, and they were manufactured pills then I'd begin to question if we were from the earth, but that's simply not true. Many animals survive with mainly protein, and protein is found everywhere. Look at food based on its nutritional content, not just the outside appearance. Humans dietary requirements are quite similar to most other mammals on the planet.

We do not HAVE to eat a large variety of things to get our daily nutrients. You can survive with a salad, some fruit and some nuts and be perfectly healthy. Plus humans can survive even without full nutrients, they just wouldn't have an ideal healthy body. Humans are picky and often go for taste over nutritional value, but you don't need to eat a crazy variety of foods to stay healthy. There are also plenty of sources of protein that don't involve meat or insects. Depending on your location you can grow your own garden and never have to worry about nutrients again.

Milk is pasteurized and refrigerated for shelf life, it is not necessary for us to consume it. You can drink milk straight from the cow if you wanted to, you just risk catching an illness if the cow has one. A lot of studies have shown that unpasteurized milk is actually healthier for you because the process of boiling it takes away nutrients. Unpasteurized milk can't be stored for long without going bad, so in order to sell it efficiently and safely they do it.

You need to understand we are an intelligent advanced society that has utilized the principles of science to learn about things like nutrients, and mass produce. You can't compare us to the animal kingdom in that regard, because our lives are much different. There's billions of us and without mass production we couldn't sustain it. We can pick and choose what we want to eat without having to hunt it. This is why the variety of our diet is so huge. If I had to hunt and gather my own food, my diet would probably consist mostly of deer, along with other vegetables and fruits that I could get a hold of. I'd still survive without a luxurious diet.

So we just aren't able to see these changes in all of us today, why is that?

Knock it off already. We DO see the changes. Just compare humans today with humans 30,000 years ago. You can see the change that has happened during that time period. Slow change over time, man. It's not that complicated but you seem to fail to grasp it every time.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sorry DR Colin, but I don't see anything on this page that deflects it being in a balance.

It never mentioned a balanced eco system because there is no such thing. Boy your IQ must be a record low.

all of it.

Again your knowledge level indicator is showing empty

Well you are seeming to just be incredulous.

And you are too stupid to realise how poor that answer is.

You quoted yourself stoop.

And you think that allows you not to answer?

As low as your education level is even you cannot really believe that is a response to what I wrote? If you think 'I eat and grow therefore I am in balance' has any meaning then you are more foolish than I give you credit for

My mistakes can be corrected whereas your ignorance is indemic

You know they say if you gave a monkey a typewriter and eternity he would eventually write Shakespeares plays. I am convinced despite this the monkey could never type the total garbage that streams from you like a city sewer spews out sewerage

You do not know what honesty is. All your rubbish has been answered yet you refuse to address any reply and your responses in this post are no different. Dishonest, dismissive and completely ignorant.

Why are you being so hateful? It's not my fault your not able to answer any of my challenges with an honest answer.

You want to try being honest and enter a discussion then you can ask for different treatment. Till then you remain a sewer outlet.

reply to post by Barcs

First, there are many animals in nature that can get the nutrients from multiple sources. Many can eat practically every thing we do. Many don't because they don't have global access to food.

The question is should they have to. I think you have the global access backwards, it was the need that drove that access.

That is not a good argument, unless you are somehow claiming that all animals that eat a large variety of foods were brought here. That doesn't make sense at all and actually goes against your argument because being able to live off of a plethora of things, ties us more strongly to the earth.

Well that's a good point but you do also have to take into account the fact that when things are out of balance (which they are in a bad way right now). It's when things are out of balance that everything else can be off as well.

Your argument is backwards. If there were only 1 or 2 things here that we could survive off of, and they were manufactured pills then I'd begin to question if we were from the earth, but that's simply not true.

That's because there were many things also brought to earth to help us as well. But with that keep in mind that its also written that those things that were brought to earth for us, are not from our home, so they are not part of our intended diet.

Many animals survive with mainly protein, and protein is found everywhere. Look at food based on its nutritional content, not just the outside appearance. Humans dietary requirements are quite similar to most other mammals on the planet.

Which is somewhat true, but our need for calcium actually goes up with age.

We do not HAVE to eat a large variety of things to get our daily nutrients. You can survive with a salad, some fruit and some nuts and be perfectly healthy. Plus humans can survive even without full nutrients, they just wouldn't have an ideal healthy body.

I tend to believe in more strict circumstances. From a creationist point of view, I look at it like this, if someone was smart enough to make us, then they would also be smart enough to make a planet and food to accommodate us as well.

Humans are picky and often go for taste over nutritional value, but you don't need to eat a crazy variety of foods to stay healthy. There are also plenty of sources of protein that don't involve meat or insects. Depending on your location you can grow your own garden and never have to worry about nutrients again.

Well I never met anyone that didn't want to be healthy, but I think your confusing foods we can get by on for a short time with an acceptable diet.

Humans are picky and often go for taste over nutritional value, but you don't need to eat a crazy variety of foods to stay healthy. There are also plenty of sources of protein that don't involve meat or insects. Depending on your location you can grow your own garden and never have to worry about nutrients again.

So if your implying that cows milk was meant for us, isn't that the same as saying that our food is supposed to make us sick?

A lot of studies have shown that unpasteurized milk is actually healthier for you because the process of boiling it takes away nutrients.

Which is a dead on clue that we shouldn't have to cook our food. But in situations where we have to, it becomes a question of weather or not we are supposed to be eating that food. Again, its because its not our food.

You need to understand we are an intelligent advanced society that has utilized the principles of science to learn about things like nutrients, and mass produce. You can't compare us to the animal kingdom in that regard, because our lives are much different.

This was of course an angle I looked at when I thought about all of this, and breaking it down, I realized that even though this possibility exists, we still have to eat.

Knock it off already. We DO see the changes. Just compare humans today with humans 30,000 years ago. You can see the change that has happened during that time period. Slow change over time, man. It's not that complicated but you seem to fail to grasp it every time.

Your talking about our lifestyle, I'm talking about evolutionary changes.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm sorry but this new link you sent me, as nice and informative as it is, also appears to be written by an evolutionist according to the options at the bottom of the page.

Well, what do you want, an article that's written by a creationist? Or Erich von Daniken?

reply to post by colin42

It never mentioned a balanced eco system because there is no such thing. Boy your IQ must be a record low.

Ok DR Colin, if your going to be so incredulous, I'll just have to look up some links for you.
Below are some links regarding a balanced eco system.

wwf.panda.org...
www.ehow.com...
And perhaps the best definition I have seen yet...

An ecosystem is balanced when the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) parts of the ecosystem are in equilibrium. This means that the nutrients are able to cycle efficiently, and no community of organisms or natural phenomena is interrupting the flow of energy and nutrients to other parts of the ecosystem.

Read more: Describe a Balanced Ecosystem | eHow.com www.ehow.com...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
wiki.answers.com...
wiki.answers.com...
www.google.com... l%2520Science%2FChapter%25206%2520notes.ppt&ei=vd1DT8DVDsiG2gWArL3WCQ&usg=AFQjCNFvVPBdvboqxSCXTvamk23pvOS5Qw&cad=rja
www.youtube.com...
www.globalchange.umich.edu...

So you can see from the amount of link I was able to capture off the first page, it simply proves that your being nothing but incredulous.

Why are you being so hateful? It's not my fault your not able to answer any of my challenges with an honest answer.

You want to try being honest and enter a discussion then you can ask for different treatment. Till then you remain a sewer outlet.

The links I was able to provide on what you were claiming to be a non existent subject, proves you are the only one being dishonest here. And its always been that way.

reply to post by HappyBunny

Well, what do you want, an article that's written by a creationist? Or Erich von Daniken?

Well an unbiased one would be best, but if there are none then ones from different beliefs would be best.

reply to post by itsthetooth
For the idiot

In an aquatic ecosystem rocks are needed for shelter and plants provide oxygen for fish. An ecosystem is balanced when the natural animals and plants and non-living components are in harmony- i.e. there is nothing to disturb the balance.

Notice where it says if there is nothing to disturb the balance. This could be you clue to there being no such thing as a balanced eco system in the context you use it in.

From your second link

An ecosystem is balanced when the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) parts of the ecosystem are in equilibrium. This means that the nutrients are able to cycle efficiently, and no community of organisms or natural phenomena is interrupting the flow of energy and nutrients to other parts of the ecosystem.

Notice it says and no community of organisms or natural phenomena is interrupting the flow of energy and nutrients to other parts of the ecosystem

Again showing you there is no such thing as a balanced eco system in the context you use it.

Given that you again have read your links selectively to suit your argument and not read to understand the information I guess you need to go back and try again.

reply to post by colin42

For the idiot

In an aquatic ecosystem rocks are needed for shelter and plants provide oxygen for fish. An ecosystem is balanced when the natural animals and plants and non-living components are in harmony- i.e. there is nothing to disturb the balance.

Notice where it says if there is nothing to disturb the balance. This could be you clue to there being no such thing as a balanced eco system in the context you use it in.

No your confusing what we see today with there not being the possibility of a balance. Your opinion is shaded because you lack the ability to pull yourself out of the equation.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

For the idiot

In an aquatic ecosystem rocks are needed for shelter and plants provide oxygen for fish. An ecosystem is balanced when the natural animals and plants and non-living components are in harmony- i.e. there is nothing to disturb the balance.

Notice where it says if there is nothing to disturb the balance. This could be you clue to there being no such thing as a balanced eco system in the context you use it in.

No your confusing what we see today with there not being the possibility of a balance. Your opinion is shaded because you lack the ability to pull yourself out of the equation.

edit on 21-2-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Again you have put your mouth in gear before reading what is presented.

What the links show you as 'balance' is to describe an eco system that is able to make the adjusments I described pages back but you blew it off with your usual ignorance.

If you think you have scored points you are wrong you just backed up what I have been telling you all along

Your 3rd link begins with

The balance of nature is a theory that says that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium

This says it is a theory. Do you not expect me to demand a better link than one that says it is theory and postulation. The very same thing you demand of links supplied to you

I see no referance to balanced eco systen in your 4th. Referance to a sewer treatment system in your 5th (pretty apt for you). Broken link in 6

Edit
Your tube link was pretty pictures of mainly man managed plants and boring music with no mention of a balanced eco system. In fact no information at all.

Finally your last link that also does not mention a balanced eco system is one you should read when you get time

Studies of communities examine how populations of many species interact with one another, such as predators and their prey, or competitors that share common needs or resources.

Virtually the exact same information you rejected

reply to post by itsthetooth


How can your theory help humanity? or with your known realization of,, no evolution, humans are not from here,, if everyone were to hear you out, what would be the next step? where would we go from there?

reply to post by colin42

The balance of nature is a theory that says that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium

This says it is a theory. Do you not expect me to demand a better link than one that says it is theory and postulation. The very same thing you demand of links supplied to you

There are isolated examples of such where you can buy a sealed fish tank that has one fish and one plant combined in water. All you have to do is supply the sunlight for the plant to grow. In a balanced system the fish eats the plant, and his waste feeds the plant, along with the sunlight. Quite blowing smoke man.

Studies of communities examine how populations of many species interact with one another, such as predators and their prey, or competitors that share common needs or resources.

Virtually the exact same information you rejected

None of which disproves a balance.

reply to post by ImaFungi

How can your theory help humanity? or with your known realization of,, no evolution, humans are not from here,, if everyone were to hear you out, what would be the next step? where would we go from there?

Well I'm still looking at new things all the time. Of course all of it aids in the direction of intervention without even trying.

What I do is sometimes go through the bible looking for more clues, and they aren't to hard to spot. No imagination needed either, just the understanding of the supernatural.

So where do we go from here. I think educating people is important. That's perhaps what I'm trying to do here. Some people are down right incredulous but I still try.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

The balance of nature is a theory that says that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium

This says it is a theory. Do you not expect me to demand a better link than one that says it is theory and postulation. The very same thing you demand of links supplied to you

There are isolated examples of such where you can buy a sealed fish tank that has one fish and one plant combined in water. All you have to do is supply the sunlight for the plant to grow. In a balanced system the fish eats the plant, and his waste feeds the plant, along with the sunlight. Quite blowing smoke man.

Try that with a goldfish. I promise you the goldfish and the plant will both die.