Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by HappyBunny

Not quite. Elevated nitrate levels, as low as 10 ppm, encourage algae growth. Second, high nitrate levels mean decreased oxygen levels.

I'm sure there are elements working that we both don't know about. I think I read they use distilled water to start the tank for some of these reasons.

Now, plants do use nitrates, but if the nitrates rise faster than the plants can use them, the plants themselves get infected with algae and die.

Do these things use filters? If not, its no wonder the poor shrimp die, and no fish could survive such conditions.

Ya these don't have filters.

Then.
It's.
Not.
BALANCED!!!

But there there are elements trying to hold it to a balance. Either way, they still advertise and call it a balance.

You might be thinking of the balance of the shrimp while they are thinking of the balance of the plant. It could also be they are referring to a balance of all things considered.

I think the drive for balance is the objective here not the fact that its never 100% balance.

This is, quite frankly, delusional. Please take a microbiology class in addition to genetics.

taking those classes will not work with the understanding of intervention.

Wow.

If I'm wrong then they would have called that tank a sealed death tank for shrimp. Its just so stupid.

No, they're able to sell them because of the claptrap mythological ecoterrorists' blatantly false statements that there is such a thing as a "balanced ecosystem."

There is no such thing. There is only change.

True, but when that change has a direction of balance, which it does, then they are calling it such.

reply to post by colin42

Yep. So stupid people like you who dont give a fig for life other than your own buy the torture chambers. Jeeze you even had to be told it was a shrimp and not a fish.

I think your seriously popping off without knowing what your talking about. First off, we don't know exactly what type of shrimp is in there, and based on that your guessing the life span.

Speaking of life span I found a much different life span quote than you did. I found 1 to 6 years. Again without knowing exactly what type of shrimp, who knows.

But it just goes to show you colin how you have this ability to take something that there is no way you know the details on and blow it out of proportion.

This also goes against what you have been saying all along. You say the earth is out of balance and humans die younger because of that. They lead a diminished life. Now you say that leading a shorter, deminished life still means balance. You cant have it both ways

Well when we are living out of our element, of course we will live a shorter life. We don't even have target food, when you think about it.

So what is it. The earth is balanced despite intervention or the globe is not balanced?

The globe struggles to try to maintain a balance which it can't because we are here.

You are the one on this thread saying that they are a balanced eco system

They are being sold as such, and I think without your idealist attitude, it is correct.

You call it nit picking, I call it your ignorance

Anyone can look ignorant from the eyes of a nitpicker.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I'm sure there are elements working that we both don't know about. I think I read they use distilled water to start the tank for some of these reasons.

Distilled water won't work for long because you need to add the minerals back into the water or the animals will die. Low mineral counts will also affect the plant growth rate. There are RO/DI filtration systems (common in saltwater setups) but if the unit you're talking about is sealed, I don't see how you can install one.

Ya these don't have filters.

Then it's not going to work.

Have you ever had an aquarium?

But there there are elements trying to hold it to a balance. Either way, they still advertise and call it a balance.

Then they're lying or false advertising.

You might be thinking of the balance of the shrimp while they are thinking of the balance of the plant. It could also be they are referring to a balance of all things considered.

NO. When you say balance, you mean the whole damned thing, plant and shrimp and water and nitrogen cycle. That's what an ecosystem IS.

I think the drive for balance is the objective here not the fact that its never 100% balance.

It's still false advertising, since no ecosystem is ever balanced.

taking those classes will not work with the understanding of intervention.

Then you've doomed yourself to a lifetime of ignorance. I hope it's blissful there.

If I'm wrong then they would have called that tank a sealed death tank for shrimp. Its just so stupid.

That's what they should have called it. At least that would be accurate.

True, but when that change has a direction of balance, which it does, then they are calling it such.

Now you're just trying to mess with me.

reply to post by itsthetooth

When sun hits the tank, several things start to happen. You get photosynthesis from the plant, but you also get reaction to the water. The larger the plant, the more food for the fish and the less nitrates. This allows the fish to eat the plant as necessary. The only way you can harm this tank is by not supplying sunlight which starves the plant and fish.

First. You have been shown and told its algea and shrimp. Second the algea does not supply all the nutrients the shrimp needs hence it absorbs itself as it needs to shed. The shrimp gets smaller.
Now explain to me how you control how much sunlight you let hit the tank to avoid too little growth of the algea or too much. Also does it say on the label that you and the sun are part of this eco system?

Well its never 100% in balance, and in fact with these types of set ups, they are probably more along the lines of 20 to 50%. It's a real shotty attempt to try to do what our planet is constantly trying to do.

Which in any language but yours means it is not a balanced eco system and even though the 20% - 50% was plucked out of thin air by you it still means it is not a blanced eco system. Thanks for finally admitting it.

As an example, when humans get sick, its the planet striking back at us because we are not part of the balance of this planet. Of course we do everything we can to try to force the planet to accept us, but it will be a never ending battle. This planet will reject us forever.

What a load of twaddle

Apes and chimps as an example might get sick once in a blue moon, but they also don't have medical intervention from there first day of birth. They can live just fine, and no problems. When they do get sick, its most likely from our presence, because we are the ones that don't belong here. Our presence on this planet makes a lot of other life sick. We don't belong here.

273 pages and you still come out with this brain dead rubbish. You have never backed any of this up and have denied any information given showing it to be rubbish. Please just answer me one thing. Why do you post in this thread???????????????????????????????????????????????

I think from a fundamental point of view, it proves the point.

Dont stop there. What point does it prove?

You could argue that, but only in the eyes of perfection. The basic idea wins, which is also why they are able to sell them.

I have and do argue that. You admitted above it is not a balanced system. The idea does not even get off the ground let alone win

A sealed system insinuates that it is in fact a balanced system.

You really need to work on your level of education. Are you never embarrassed by the ignorance you write?

Again I think your just nit picking and this is also why they are able to sell these tanks sealed. Your not going to get a perfectly balanced eco system with just 2 or 3 elements of life contained. This planet and its life is a hell of a lot more complicated than that. These are not being sold solely for there science, but there novelty as well.

Do they let you walk the streets of Spokane unattended?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think your seriously popping off without knowing what your talking about. First off, we don't know exactly what type of shrimp is in there, and based on that your guessing the life span.

You are really beyond a joke. I have supplied you with this information 4 times and now a 5th

The Hawaiian 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.

The only person popping off without knowing what they are talking about is you despite being spoon fed the information. Your ignorance is really beyond description

Speaking of life span I found a much different life span quote than you did. I found 1 to 6 years. Again without knowing exactly what type of shrimp, who knows.

Having just shown your ignorance you then show your dishonesty. How did you get 6 years when you do not know what type of shrimp it is?

But it just goes to show you colin how you have this ability to take something that there is no way you know the details on and blow it out of proportion.

It just goes to show you Pinocchio how lacking in any intelligence you are. I found the information. Linked you to it 4 times. Explained it as well and you make that statement. You really are beyond my contempt.

Well when we are living out of our element, of course we will live a shorter life. We don't even have target food, when you think about it.

Whatever. Your brain it appears is a sealed unit and decaying in its own filth. Again dishonest refusal to address the point.

The globe struggles to try to maintain a balance which it can't because we are here.

I know what it is. Spokane had a zombie attack and you have ate your brain.

They are being sold as such, and I think without your idealist attitude, it is correct.

And you are a hero in Spokane because after eating your brain the zombies died of starvation. It looked like a brain but had no real substance.

Anyone can look ignorant from the eyes of a nitpicker.

I am looking at you

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Where is your basis for this comment? How do you know it would take trillions of years? And that also implies that you acknowledge that evolution exists, just that you can't see how it would happen in such a relatively short amount of time. "I can't think of how it would work, So it must not exist!"

I speculate that scientists are overlooking one major flaw in the realization of microevolution. Evolutionists are seeing this as a must be proof of things changing out of there species. Meh.

What I see is that we base our understanding of life and species on what we call normal. Again its normal that people are 5 or 6 feet tall, and when we get someone out of bounds, it appears to be a defect. What I'm saying is we are basing our idea of a defect on what we consider to be normal and nothing scientific behind it to back it up. Now had scientists have stepped forward and located the genes that determine how tall we are suppose to be, and from that were also able to tell that anything between 4 and 8 feet tall is normal, then I would believe in whats going on. But thats not the case. We base it on whats the norm. What this teaches us is that first of all we don't know a damn thing when it comes to knowing what is suppose to be normal and whats not, we are making assumptions.

The other thing it teaches us is that these changes that evolutionists try to eyeball as evolution might in fact just be normal and have nothing to do with evolution.

Actually its based off statistics. We use statistics to tell us what is normal. If your saying that doesn't work, then all of our statistics are worthless, but thats not the case, as there are many verifiable instances in which statistics are incredibly accurate to a relative degree. This is how we can say what is normal, and what is not.

reply to post by andersensrm

Actually its based off statistics. We use statistics to tell us what is normal. If your saying that doesn't work, then all of our statistics are worthless, but thats not the case, as there are many verifiable instances in which statistics are incredibly accurate to a relative degree. This is how we can say what is normal, and what is not.

Which might mean nothing to evolution.

reply to post by colin42

The only person popping off without knowing what they are talking about is you despite being spoon fed the information. Your ignorance is really beyond description

How do you know these are the shrimp in these tanks?

Having just shown your ignorance you then show your dishonesty. How did you get 6 years when you do not know what type of shrimp it is?

I looked up shrimp.

It just goes to show you Pinocchio how lacking in any intelligence you are. I found the information. Linked you to it 4 times. Explained it as well and you make that statement. You really are beyond my contempt.

Speaking of contempt where did you get that they only live a few years in the tank?

Whatever. Your brain it appears is a sealed unit and decaying in its own filth. Again dishonest refusal to address the point.

It's common sense actually and cracks me up when you fail to understand it.

I know what it is. Spokane had a zombie attack and you have ate your brain.

Help save us with your dishonesty DR Colin.

And you are a hero in Spokane because after eating your brain the zombies died of starvation. It looked like a brain but had no real substance.


Anyone can look ignorant from the eyes of a nitpicker.

I am looking at you

Then you must be looking in a mirror.

reply to post by andersensrm

Actually its based off statistics. We use statistics to tell us what is normal. If your saying that doesn't work, then all of our statistics are worthless, but thats not the case, as there are many verifiable instances in which statistics are incredibly accurate to a relative degree. This is how we can say what is normal, and what is not.

Even better, its an educated guess. That is exactly what your explaining.

We access these things through an educated guess.

reply to post by itsthetooth

How do you know these are the shrimp in these tanks?

Get off your lazy fat butt. Use the back button and find the information I gave your 4 times previously. If you cant do that use google. You will find videos of people demonstrating how to open the sealed globe and release the shrimp into a proper tank as they are so disgusted at the inhumane treatment.

This is my biggest problem with you. You are too lazy and too ignorant to educate yourself before yo make insane statments and to ignorant to accept or even consider any information that is offered you.

I looked up shrimp.

Do you know how many types of shrimp there are? Do you think anything called shrimp will be the same?
The company abusing these animals chose the Volcanoe shrimp because they are so hardy and can survive in many enviroments. Your honest company is abusing the shrimps hardyness. Is the penny dropping yet? I doubt it.

Speaking of contempt where did you get that they only live a few years in the tank?

Look above under get off your lazy fat butt.

It's common sense actually and cracks me up when you fail to understand it.

Common sense.Please. I see no signs of any type of sense from you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by andersensrm

 

Actually its based off statistics. We use statistics to tell us what is normal. If your saying that doesn't work, then all of our statistics are worthless, but thats not the case, as there are many verifiable instances in which statistics are incredibly accurate to a relative degree. This is how we can say what is normal, and what is not.

Even better, its an educated guess. That is exactly what your explaining.

We access these things through an educated guess.

You do realise you must have an education before you make an educated guess. Stop doing things you have not got the tools for. Stick with your tall stories Pinocchio

reply to post by colin42


I think I can see where you confusion is here, the eco system tries to stay in a balance, of course its never 100% in balance at any time.

I think your just a little under educated on what it is and how it works.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It seems you accidentally missed my last message.

But I'm beginning to kind of see what's going on here. It's confusion with terminology, just like Andersen said.

First with balance. Balance is one of those terms that can apply in many different ways. When you are talking about balance it depends on what exactly you are comparing. What is balanced? What is the balance of x vs y in this mixture? You could enjoy the balance of one ingredient in a recipe compared to another. "That was a nice balance of dill and mustard". That doesn't mean they are exactly equal amounts. It can be relative, or it can be exact, so if you're going to continue with the balanced ecosystem argument, you either need to be specific in exactly what is balanced with what, or let us know what you mean by balanced. Are you simply saying that ecosystem is life sustaining? If so then you certainly aren't disagreeing.

Speaking of balance here are some of my favorite lyrics:

The world keeps a balance, through mathematics
Defined by whatever you've added and subtracted

Then there's normal, which can have different meanings for different people, or could have to do with probability. Andersen did a good job explaining that aspect. You can't just guess at something and say "What if it's normal?" What if it IS normal? Does it change anything? Does it mean genetic mutations and natural selection suddenly don't happen because they are normal? Not at all. The funniest thing about it is they are completely normal.

Sorry I don't have song lyrics for this one.

You admit change happens, you admit genetic mutation exists, you admit natural selection happens, but still say it's not evolution. This is where the problem is. Those things are exactly what define evolution. I really think you should order those free DVDs I posted. You'll learn a lot, and what have you got to lose really? This is why the digital age is great. Free knowledge everywhere. I'm about to order a couple more right now. I haven't yet checked out their latest material.

reply to post by Barcs


I don't think colin would understand.

reply to post by colin42

Get off your lazy fat butt. Use the back button and find the information I gave your 4 times previously. If you cant do that use google. You will find videos of people demonstrating how to open the sealed globe and release the shrimp into a proper tank as they are so disgusted at the inhumane treatment.

This is my biggest problem with you. You are too lazy and too ignorant to educate yourself before yo make insane statments and to ignorant to accept or even consider any information that is offered you.

The only one thats lazy is you. Your to lazy to admit when your wrong.

Case and point again, I was talking about fish tanks and you had to weigh importance on a shrimp tank. Your just all over the place and can't focus.

Just like trying to find a species that has a relationship with man, so you find a bird that has a relationship with our homes. Come on man, give it up.

reply to post by Barcs

It seems you accidentally missed my last message.

But I'm beginning to kind of see what's going on here. It's confusion with terminology, just like Andersen said.

No I just didn't know if you wanted me to respond.

First with balance. Balance is one of those terms that can apply in many different ways. When you are talking about balance it depends on what exactly you are comparing. What is balanced? What is the balance of x vs y in this mixture? You could enjoy the balance of one ingredient in a recipe compared to another. "That was a nice balance of dill and mustard". That doesn't mean they are exactly equal amounts. It can be relative, or it can be exact, so if you're going to continue with the balanced ecosystem argument, you either need to be specific in exactly what is balanced with what, or let us know what you mean by balanced. Are you simply saying that ecosystem is life sustaining? If so then you certainly aren't disagreeing.

Well I totally see the point, and was using balanced as such but I'm not sure if colin will understand the difference.

Then there's normal, which can have different meanings for different people, or could have to do with probability. Andersen did a good job explaining that aspect. You can't just guess at something and say "What if it's normal?" What if it IS normal? Does it change anything? Does it mean genetic mutations and natural selection suddenly don't happen because they are normal? Not at all. The funniest thing about it is they are completely normal.

I think my run in with our use of the word pertaining to genetics, was that it seems to all be made on educated guess.

You admit change happens, you admit genetic mutation exists, you admit natural selection happens, but still say it's not evolution. This is where the problem is. Those things are exactly what define evolution. I really think you should order those free DVDs I posted. You'll learn a lot, and what have you got to lose really? This is why the digital age is great. Free knowledge everywhere. I'm about to order a couple more right now. I haven't yet checked out their latest material.

Holy crap, I forgot about those. I never got around to ordering those and that was before xmas. I lost the links too.

Well here is something for thought. I know it sounds weird that I agree with some of the parts of evolution, but there are technical issues I question. For example, how and what we base normal on, IMO is a very good point. If we are saying that certain things in genetics are normal just because we are used to seeing them. Then I'm saying we might not know the full picture. And to make matters worse we are basing changes on evolution when we still have no confirmation of genetic vectors.

reply to post by Barcs


Exactly, thanks for the acknowledgement.

reply to post by Itsthetooth


In statistics we look at data. When we look at past data, we see what is normal or what is not normal based on averages: Mean, and median. A global population, lets say, all life on Earth, is a massive amount of data, especially when you include the fact that it goes back millions of years, with the fossilized evidence we have acquired. Using all of this data, we can categorize it: taxonomy. Over billions of animals, we can average out specified traits, and we can see what is normal, or what isn't based on standard deviations from the mean. This is a scientifically based method for determining what is normal, from what isn't. From what I gather, you are trying to say, that there could be data that doesn't even show up on the bell curve. This is a possibility, a small one, but we can't really rule it out. The problem is, we have so much data, you would expect to see all outliers in the population. The percentage is so small, that we can say with confidence that it isn't a probable possibility.

Hi ya'll,
WOW, looks like I have A LOT of catching up to do.
Or has the thread really gone anywhere since I left?
Still the same old back and forth?
I guess what I am asking, would it be worth while going through the last 50 pages?
Quad

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Hi ya'll,
WOW, looks like I have A LOT of catching up to do.
Or has the thread really gone anywhere since I left?
Still the same old back and forth?
I guess what I am asking, would it be worth while going through the last 50 pages?
Quad

No not really, there are a few stars but the black hole still exist.

reply to post by andersensrm

In statistics we look at data. When we look at past data, we see what is normal or what is not normal based on averages: Mean, and median. A global population, lets say, all life on Earth, is a massive amount of data, especially when you include the fact that it goes back millions of years, with the fossilized evidence we have acquired. Using all of this data, we can categorize it:

But again, those figures are derived from an educated guess.

This educated guess is the basis of evolution. We think we know when something is not the norm (and we don't) and base changes on that.

taxonomy. Over billions of animals, we can average out specified traits, and we can see what is normal, or what isn't based on standard deviations from the mean. This is a scientifically based method for determining what is normal, from what isn't. From what I gather, you are trying to say, that there could be data that doesn't even show up on the bell curve. This is a possibility, a small one, but we can't really rule it out. The problem is, we have so much data, you would expect to see all outliers in the population. The percentage is so small, that we can say with confidence that it isn't a probable possibility.

Again that Data as you call it, is all from an educated guess, and whats sadder is its the basis for evolution.