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: 253
31
<< 250  251  252    254  255  256 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
First thing first another of my posts you side stepped


Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
So you even get your post wrong. This is the link you should have supplied

[Ecosphere

Below is a comment made by an ex owner

Ecosphere's are quite cruel! The shrimps inside suffer from ammonia and nitrite poisoning, the little bit of algae isn't enough for the shrimps to survive well, and because of this every time they molt the shrimps consumes itself, growing smaller each time! The only reason they can live for 1 - 3 years in the torture chamber is because these Hawaiian Red Shrimps are extremely hardy. Most shrimps wouldn't survive more than a few days!


So it is algea and a shrimp. So much for algea free. Notice the comments the shrimps suffer from ammonia and nitrate poisoning this shows you there is no balance.

BTW also no fish and no plant.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: Link added






edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
The first part of your post is the 'spoiled child throwing a hissy fit' Boring


So you admit that, just not that anything is in a balance. How can you be so boldly blind to the obvious. I don't believe your a hunter, hunters are usually pretty smart, I know a few myself.
I admit nothing as there is nothing to admit fool. I explained to you in easy to understand words my stance that has not changed in this thread that all life is connected, entangled. That any action of one affects the whole either directly or indirectly.

Just because you are too stupid to ever read and understand that is not my problem its a problem with your education level.

What you believe or do not beleive about me hunting I could not give a hoot. Your a proven liar and it is no suprise that you transfer your failings onto others.

I have not blindly held to the belief there is no balance. I have, unlike you showed and explained why I know there is no such thing as a balanced eco system.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42


Below is a comment made by an ex owner

Ecosphere's are quite cruel! The shrimps inside suffer from ammonia and nitrite poisoning, the little bit of algae isn't enough for the shrimps to survive well, and because of this every time they molt the shrimps consumes itself, growing smaller each time! The only reason they can live for 1 - 3 years in the torture chamber is because these Hawaiian Red Shrimps are extremely hardy. Most shrimps wouldn't survive more than a few days!


So it is algea and a shrimp. So much for algea free. Notice the comments the shrimps suffer from ammonia and nitrate poisoning this shows you there is no balance.

BTW also no fish and no plant.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: Link added




Thanks Colin. I missed that or I wouldn't have gone looking for his sealed aquarium.

Shrimp are not fish and algae are not plants. They're autotropic organisms.

A goldfish can overwhelm an aquarium in no time flat, no matter how good your filtration system and no matter how many live plants you have, and they grow to be as big as your aquarium.They will also eat anything they can get in their mouths including frogs, snails,and other fish. (We won one at a raffle when my daughter was in kindergarten and he lived to be 9 years old, but what a mess. I'd have gotten a good amount of money for him had I sold him to a Chinese restaurant.)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I was about to ask you the same question. I butted in on that reply, and I made that clear.
Again another garbled nonsense reply. Wipe the drawl off your chin and try again.


Well if your killing your own mean, it sounds like your doing the dirty work.
It is called taking responsibility. Its way beyond your understanding


Tis tis, and tout tout, what are you crying about now. You have never proving anything that I have commented about to be a lie.
Have you got something wrong with your keyboard. It seems to be set to drivel. Please try again in english.


My point is that there is a difference between freezing and storing, if you missed it.
You freeze food to store it numpty. Storing food can be done in many ways. Freezing being one of them. Jeez what do they teach in Spokane?


It's not a significant element, a lot of things store food.
Finally an answer in english. Shame it is pathetic.


Squirrels. Moles. Dogs. Beavers. Otters. Raccoons. Hamsters. Mice.
I see why you avoided answering this question now. You actually believe any of those farm? grow crops or tend livestock? Really? Links please.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The myth of the balanced ecology.

When we look at nature, we see a small snapshot of what is happening right now. In geological terms “right now” spans many generations.

Any observer of “right now” might not notice changes happening due to the glacial speed at which they occur. This might mislead the observer into making the assumption that the eco-system is in balance, that somehow the needs of the inhabitants of an eco-system are well managed and met on a daily basis.

Unfortunately this is not the case, never has been and never can be.

It has already been pointed out on this thread that in order for one species to survive and thrive, it is normally at the expense of some other species. Either via completion for resources or predator / prey arms races.

When we look at predators, it is easy to see how the apparent balance is flawed.

Cheetahs and Gazelles.

Cheetahs are a fine example of an evolved gazelle killing machine. Gazelles are fast breeding, large population herbivores. When we look at the “right now” of these species this is what we see, small numbers of highly specialized predators, and large numbers of prey animals, balance, right?

Well…no, not really!

A scenario.

The gazelles have plenty of food and few predators, in these condition the gazzelles breed and breed and breed and the population increases. The gazelles live in their own “right now”. They have no concept of birth control, no concept of rationing. The gazelles increase their population to, and beyond the point where the available food source can maintain the existing population. Many of the gazelles will starve.

During the “boom” phase of the population growth of the gazelles, the gazelle population as a food source will be able to sustain a higher population of predator animals, cheetahs. The cheetah population will also increase. Cheetah predation of gazelles, plus the limited food supply will quickly diminish the population too, and below the level of sustainable food supply for the gazelle.

When gazelle numbers drop below the number able to be sustained by its food source, the predator population is far too high for the existing gazelles to be able to meet the needs of the predator. Many of the predators will starve.

The gazelles now have plenty of food and few predators, in these condition the gazzelles breed and breed and breed and the population increases. The gazelles live in their own “right now”. They have no concept of birth control, no concept of rationing. The gazelles increase their population to, and

There is no balance here, just a wildly teetering seesaw of existence.

When resources are abundant, competition for those resources increases beyond the point of sustainability. When resources are low, animals die off in droves from starvation and increased predation caused by previous high population numbers.

Gazelles either live in times where interspecies completion is high, and risk of death by predation low, or competition low and predation high. Starvation or fear.

It is situations such as the above that contribute to the evolutionary development of an animal. The animals that survive in those conditions do so because there is something different, some adaptation that allows them to take advantage of something in their environment that allows them to survive long enough to sire offspring, where other members of their species didn’t.

It doesn’t have to be a big adaptation, a slightly different mouth that allows them to graze grass closer to the ground, a longer neck enabling them to reach higher leaves, sharper, keener eyesight- all the better to see you with.

Whatever it is, those traits will be passed on to the offspring. Add thousands of millions of years and huge changes can occur.

edit on 22-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 
Here is a thing.

The Halocaridina rubra: The Hawaiian red volcano shrimp

Red Volcano Shrimp


These unique shrimp have been dubbed “super shrimp” for being highly adaptive and for having one of the longest life spans of any shrimp specie- up to twenty years! Keeping these creatures healthy and happy should be easy and the reward is hours of entertainment for many years.


So the ex owner says 1 to 3 years tops in the globe yet these shrimps have one of the longest lifespans of all shrimp, 20 years. They must truely be torture chambers for the poor shrimp and certainly not a balanced eco system.


edit on 22-2-2012 by colin42 because: Forgot link



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





The myth of the balanced ecology.

When we look at nature, we see a small snapshot of what is happening right now. In geological terms “right now” spans many generations.

Any observer of “right now” might not notice changes happening due to the glacial speed at which they occur. This might mislead the observer into making the assumption that the eco-system is in balance, that somehow the needs of the inhabitants of an eco-system are well managed and met on a daily basis.

Unfortunately this is not the case, never has been and never can be.
Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.




It has already been pointed out on this thread that in order for one species to survive and thrive, it is normally at the expense of some other species. Either via completion for resources or predator / prey arms races.

When we look at predators, it is easy to see how the apparent balance is flawed.

Cheetahs and Gazelles.

Cheetahs are a fine example of an evolved gazelle killing machine. Gazelles are fast breeding, large population herbivores. When we look at the “right now” of these species this is what we see, small numbers of highly specialized predators, and large numbers of prey animals, balance, right?

Well…no, not really!
Most of the out of balance that we do see is from things like humans being brought to this planet and knocking the balance off. Unfortuntaly its not just humans that were brought here so you can see that this problem is actually very large.




A scenario.

The gazelles have plenty of food and few predators, in these condition the gazzelles breed and breed and breed and the population increases. The gazelles live in their own “right now”. They have no concept of birth control, no concept of rationing. The gazelles increase their population to, and beyond the point where the available food source can maintain the existing population. Many of the gazelles will starve.
And again this could be from other things that have knocked off that balance.




When gazelle numbers drop below the number able to be sustained by its food source, the predator population is far too high for the existing gazelles to be able to meet the needs of the predator. Many of the predators will starve.
So the cheetah might have to turn to an alternate source, which will rely on yet other areas. He is a scavengar however so I would be worried that he might not be from here as well.

Nothing in stone, I'm just saying.





It doesn’t have to be a big adaptation, a slightly different mouth that allows them to graze grass closer to the ground, a longer neck enabling them to reach higher leaves, sharper, keener eyesight- all the better to see you with.
Anytime you see adaptation, you are seeing the results of evolution failing.




Whatever it is, those traits will be passed on to the offspring. Add thousands of millions of years and huge changes can occur.
Abilitys are not passed on like that. We werent born with the idea of milking cows for milk.
We are taught the things we know, plain and simple, and if I'm wrong, we woudln't have schools.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





The myth of the balanced ecology.

When we look at nature, we see a small snapshot of what is happening right now. In geological terms “right now” spans many generations.

Any observer of “right now” might not notice changes happening due to the glacial speed at which they occur. This might mislead the observer into making the assumption that the eco-system is in balance, that somehow the needs of the inhabitants of an eco-system are well managed and met on a daily basis.

Unfortunately this is not the case, never has been and never can be.
Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.




It has already been pointed out on this thread that in order for one species to survive and thrive, it is normally at the expense of some other species. Either via completion for resources or predator / prey arms races.

When we look at predators, it is easy to see how the apparent balance is flawed.

Cheetahs and Gazelles.

Cheetahs are a fine example of an evolved gazelle killing machine. Gazelles are fast breeding, large population herbivores. When we look at the “right now” of these species this is what we see, small numbers of highly specialized predators, and large numbers of prey animals, balance, right?

Well…no, not really!
Most of the out of balance that we do see is from things like humans being brought to this planet and knocking the balance off. Unfortuntaly its not just humans that were brought here so you can see that this problem is actually very large.




A scenario.

The gazelles have plenty of food and few predators, in these condition the gazzelles breed and breed and breed and the population increases. The gazelles live in their own “right now”. They have no concept of birth control, no concept of rationing. The gazelles increase their population to, and beyond the point where the available food source can maintain the existing population. Many of the gazelles will starve.
And again this could be from other things that have knocked off that balance.




When gazelle numbers drop below the number able to be sustained by its food source, the predator population is far too high for the existing gazelles to be able to meet the needs of the predator. Many of the predators will starve.
So the cheetah might have to turn to an alternate source, which will rely on yet other areas. He is a scavengar however so I would be worried that he might not be from here as well.

Nothing in stone, I'm just saying.





It doesn’t have to be a big adaptation, a slightly different mouth that allows them to graze grass closer to the ground, a longer neck enabling them to reach higher leaves, sharper, keener eyesight- all the better to see you with.
Anytime you see adaptation, you are seeing the results of evolution failing.




Whatever it is, those traits will be passed on to the offspring. Add thousands of millions of years and huge changes can occur.
Abilitys are not passed on like that. We werent born with the idea of milking cows for milk.
We are taught the things we know, plain and simple, and if I'm wrong, we woudln't have schools.



idiot



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Like your previous post. Precise and to the point but you did get one admission


Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.
So despite his refusal to accept anything I show him you have finally got him to admit the is no such thing as a balanced eco system

BRAVO



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
Like your previous post. Precise and to the point but you did get one admission


Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.
So despite his refusal to accept anything I show him you have finally got him to admit the is no such thing as a balanced eco system

BRAVO



Thank you,

While I have no desire to enter into any discourse with him, I will happily contribute to items on this thread, whoevere postulates them in order to add understanding


There is one point where he maybe right, although, as always his remarks are badly worded and poorly understood. He states "its goal is to be so", once again placing intelligence and guidance on a purely environment driven process.

It is obvious to you, me and most people on here that "it" has no goal, no desires, no end game. However in the grand scheme of things, the word entropy springs to mind. And entropy increasing to its maximum is the only point that true "balance of the universe" can be achieved.

Having said that, I personaly believe that maximum entropy will never occur, but thats a discussion for a whole different thread



edit on 22-2-2012 by idmonster because: fat finger syndrome



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
I agree his statement


Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.
Is sort of near the mark. If the gazelle reaches a level of population that is sustainable and the level of predation compliments the birth rate then it moves towards a balance.

The only problem is that there are more forces at work than prey and predator. Rainfall, disease competition. Anything within the enviroment that causes change and moves away from sustainability.

The goal is not balance more sustainable numbers but there are too many variables for this to ever be achieved as your expalnation pointed out.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
I agree his statement


Well its never in an exact balance, but its goal is to be such.
Is sort of near the mark. If the gazelle reaches a level of population that is sustainable and the level of predation compliments the birth rate then it moves towards a balance.

The only problem is that there are more forces at work than prey and predator. Rainfall, disease competition. Anything within the enviroment that causes change and moves away from sustainability.

The goal is not balance more sustainable numbers but there are too many variables for this to ever be achieved as your expalnation pointed out.



Absolutely, The scenario originaly put forward would be better analogised as a pedulum, which if left alone would eventualy come to rest, i.e. balance. However, you're quite right, there are many contributing factors that "metaphoricaly" give the pendulum a push in one direction or another increasing the swing and preventing it coming to rest.

I didnt want to add too many variable in the original post, but believe me, I had all the same variables you pointed out ready in reply for old beelzebubs comments.
edit on 22-2-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by idmonster

I have also eaten raw meat on may occasions, with no ill effects


When I was in college I worked in a restaurant and there was a couple who used to come in and order raw hamburger. We called them "cannibal burgers". They were so angry when we weren't allowed to serve it that way anymore due to the E coli outbreaks and all meat had to be cooked to 165.


I would have to think that the amount of time we have been processing our meat would effect us in some way. I mean we don't use our appendix any more right, isn't that used to get rid of rocks and sand and such?


Yes, gizzard stones.


We may also have decreased the function of our immune system due to eating better, and better medicine.


Define "eating better." If anything, our diets are probably the worst now they've ever been in our whole history. We intake sufficient calories without sufficient nutrients. Most obese people are malnourished just as starving people are.

Whether our immune systems have decreased from what they were is probably a given. I haven't done any research on that so I really can't answer it. But it's not just our food that's doing it. It's pollution, it's stress, it's lack of exercise...there are a whole lot of factors that go into it. And microbes mutate faster than we can adapt to them.


Your right I should have clarified. Eating better in the sense that we cook our food, are aware of disease and bacteria and such, and have certain regulations in place to make sure we don't eat "bad" food. As far as how we eat today, yea we have poor diets, but in terms of the actual food it is safer.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


"But the world according to DR Colin says that means we don't need medical intervention because a few deaths is acceptable as long as it doesn't take our race out."


What humans did with their intelligence is begin, and continue, to control our adaptive and evolutionary path ( control our future, with the factors and actions we do now)

there are many people who can get through life and reproduce without medicine,, many undeveloped countries perhaps, but ever since the human was a slightly heightened creature of intelligence, it learned to use it surrounding nature for healing purposes, because if there was a plant that helped cleaned cuts, or stopped swelling, or helped with pain,, would it be stupid not to discover it and use it for benefit? I think the Native americans used over 200 different plants as medicine..... with that being said about controlling our now and future with technology and medicine,, a lot of humans that are alive today would have a hard time existing if it weren't for all these "luxuries" ,, you equate this with humans not being from here, when it is really,, our tools allowing humans to survive that couldn't otherwise,, if you are a guy like hitler you would want the weaker humans to die so the evolutionarily superior race can take claim of its rightful planet,, hitler wanting to kill off races, or a white person who hates black people,,,, is like a polar bear hating a black bear,,, or a cheetah harassing a gazelle ... animalistic instincts and tendencies,, any urge or desiree not fully thought out cannot be perfectly intelligent,,, hitler can do whatever he likes, but it is just a random urge or belief,,, it has nothing to do with truth,,, just his mind telling him to do an action,, things can be anyway its pretty funny but people decide to make them the way things are now.......
edit on 22-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
idmonster giving a simple explanation of evolution:



It doesn’t have to be a big adaptation, a slightly different mouth that allows them to graze grass closer to the ground, a longer neck enabling them to reach higher leaves, sharper, keener eyesight- all the better to see you with.

Whatever it is, those traits will be passed on to the offspring. Add thousands of millions of years and huge changes can occur.


itsthetooth's response:



Abilitys are not passed on like that. We werent born with the idea of milking cows for milk. We are taught the things we know, plain and simple, and if I'm wrong, we woudln't have schools.


Simply..............Epic!!!!!!!




posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Actually what happened is we are ongoing victims of genocide, just like it says in the bible and had no other choice but to ramp up our medical intervention trying to combat it. And we are still doing so to this day.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 


So what, you think we are simply born with abilitys like building houses?



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


So what, you think we are simply born with abilitys like building houses?


If they're not passed on they would have to be



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


So what, you think we are simply born with abilitys like building houses?


Please stop....my sides are aching.



posted on Feb, 22 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector
 


So what, you think we are simply born with abilitys like building houses?


You think chimps are born with abilities like sharpening sticks and breaking rocks? They teach their young just like we do. Also, do you remember the intelligence of the crow way back in the thread?



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 250  251  252    254  255  256 >>

log in

join