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: 300
31
<< 297  298  299    301  302  303 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What do you mean by saying "allowed to"??? If they can procreate they're the same species, if they can't, they're not. It's simple biology
Ok mr simple biology, how do you explain a horse breeding with a donkey to produce a mule? They aren't the same species, how does that work?


Funnily enough, this same argument has been offered to you as a possible speciation event happening as we watch:

Too whit, horses and donkeys have a very recent common ancestor, so recent in fact that they are still, ALMOST the same species, that is by the definition that they can still produce offspring. However they have evolved far enough apart that all offspring they produce are sterile.

I wonder how many more minor mutations it will take before they are unable to even produce sterile offspring, because that is the point that they will have completed parted as species.
edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: Woohoo---did it, first post on the big three oh oh.

edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
The differance and this is a guess. Is our love for playing with words which is why modern English is different fron old English.

Where language is not given the same freedom it is international. The language of science and computer language. Thats my two pennies worth.


edit on 15-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


We have a winner ladies and gentleman. tooth has admitted that he has no documentation to verify his claims.



Your entire argument is based on faith because you impressively fail at presenting any evidence proving your point!


tooths reply:


Actually our roles are reversed here, I'm going by clear documentation with what I understand, and your going by an unproven theory. Evolution has never been proven, and this is also proven by the links I have been sent, clearly stating that its a postulated hypothetical theory. So your the one with the faith, I'm just going by what I have read.


LMAO "role reversal" suggesting that he usualy doesnt go by clear documentaion and normaly uses an un-proven theory.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Yeah! I get that entirley, the fascinating thing for me was that the communication between species geologicaly seperated is the same...

I realy need to track down the artical, but until I do I'll try and bullet the POI as I saw them.

The artical wasnt just about body language i.e. bee dances etc as this is pretty much universal in humans (baring a very few cultural differences)
It covered more of the vocal communications such as chimp chattering, gorrilla grunts etc.

It was the vocal aspect that drew me as other than pure emotional out pourings, screams of pain and the like, the chattering, gossip of non environmental stimulated communication. (I just made that phrase up, sound good tho)

Signing off for a bit now, made first entry on page 300 so happy. Will be back after masterchef



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Again your tiny brain will not let you see past your blinkers. It is not that you disagree with me it is that you will not discuss the points and information given to you honestly. If you try to say you have then you are a liar.
I disscuss everything that is disscusable, you are the incredilous one.




Nope. I have said all along there is nothing unnatural about living in a home. Your ignorant assumption is that it means we are not from here. Which sounds the most plausible, your version or mine?
There is nothing natural about living in homes, aside from the fact that they are usually made out of wood. You grasp nothing when it comes to the word natural. When someone at a cooking convention asked for more smoke you probably blew ciggerette smoke at em. You just have no grasp of whats natural and whats not. Of course you always have to remove humans from the equation to assess this in real time.




The rain forests are being levelled to open farmland to graze cattle not to build homes. Are you unaware of every issue you talk about?
And because cattle is grazing on the prepared grounds you would claim its all natural.




Go live there and see how comfortable you are. Geeze your IQ must be in the record books as an example of how low it can go.
They don't have to wear coats, they don't have to wear clothing or shoes, stoop.




If who attacks us? Are you even answering the correct statement?
Yes I am but your pea brain wont keep you one this delicate subject because there is no bushman in the sentance.




No. Again you are so far wrong there is no word for it. You have had explained that after scavengers came hunter gatherers and then farmers and then industry. Our range of food reflects that. Read some history as it appears this is another area you have total ignorance of.
Thats not what I meant by scavanger stoop, again its because you have bushman on the brain, get that out of there for one moment.




Again explained too many times already.
Oh thats right our technology saved us in this step. Well stoop what were we suppose to do before we could have the technology? Die?




Again cowards like you who are too scared to live in the real world seperate themselves from it. Like you they make up comfy fairy tales. Either grow a pair or go back to cowering in a dim corner and think pretty thoughts
I live, have lived, and will continue to live in a wilder place then you ever would. Go back into your apartment.




I keep telling you dont tell me what you think I wrote. Read what I wrote then come back to me.
If you could just answer the question, which you can't because there is no honest answer and you know this, we could advance.




Here you go again. Another fantasy. What the hell is bushman science? I never decided the bible, pye or sitchin is not acceptable to science. They did when they offered nothing to varify or evidence to back up their claims. Again get over it. Your childish tantrums will not change your documents meaning nothing to science
I think its the other way around, your not the judgment icon.




Blar blar. Trouble is everyone else can see you were shown wrong. Dont spit your dummy out in my direction.
Then be a man, and man up to the truth, take the challenge and place your hand in front of a dog the next time he smiles, I double dare you.




Yep and all you have to do is explain why the ant, that does all the things humans do, does fit while we supposedly dont.
Anything that we do that matches the ant is in process. The ant does it out of instinct you stoop, its natural, unlike what we do.




Name a few that farm both livestock and crops. That use antibiotics to kill fungus on their crops. That also build cities, roads. That go to war and take slaves.
Oh I'm sure there are many, its not like its a mystery. The problem is that you fail to realize that when we do it, its not from natural causes. In fact we probably learned these things from them. There is a big difference between instinct and learning something. I'm realizing you understand neither.




Hair is hair and we have the same amount as a chimp. But hey have you thought our hair may have evolved for this so called different use?
No its not stoop. Our hair on the top of our heads is NOT to keep our head warm you ignit. It would not need to grow so long as to keep our butts warm too. OMG you are such an idiot.




Another infantile response to being called on an attempt to troll.
Your new name is BT for bushman troll.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





What do you mean by saying "allowed to"??? If they can procreate they're the same species, if they can't, they're not. It's simple biology
Ok mr simple biology, how do you explain a horse breeding with a donkey to produce a mule? They aren't the same species, how does that work?


Funnily enough, this same argument has been offered to you as a possible speciation event happening as we watch:

Too whit, horses and donkeys have a very recent common ancestor, so recent in fact that they are still, ALMOST the same species, that is by the definition that they can still produce offspring. However they have evolved far enough apart that all offspring they produce are sterile.

I wonder how many more minor mutations it will take before they are unable to even produce sterile offspring, because that is the point that they will have completed parted as species.
edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: Woohoo---did it, first post on the big three oh oh.

edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)


Interesting, its an in the proccess speciation event, which I would expect at any given time, for any number of species, but sadly it will be shot down because theres no video about it happening.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Only replying to a select few points.


There is nothing natural about living in homes, aside from the fact that they are usually made out of wood.
Or stone or brick or concrete or straw and any of the many other materials used outside of Spokane. Sorry but the rest of your poorly constructed attack was so bad as to be not worth the trouble


And because cattle is grazing on the prepared grounds you would claim its all natural.
Again telling me what I would claim when what I actually pointed out that the rain forests were not being cleared for homes.


They don't have to wear coats, they don't have to wear clothing or shoes, stoop.
No they live in a desert where you would fry in hours and dehydrate because you had been crying for mummy 2 minutes after you got there.


Thats not what I meant by scavanger stoop, again its because you have bushman on the brain, get that out of there for one moment.
Never mentioned the bushman. So what did you mean by scavenger?


I think its the other way around, your not the judgment icon.
Nope it is definitely the way I explained. Science requires varifiable, repeatable evidence that is peer reviewed. Your sources offer no such thing so science cannot accept them as valid. Get over it.


Then be a man, and man up to the truth, take the challenge and place your hand in front of a dog the next time he smiles, I double dare you.
Just did. He licked my hand. Went further and played tug where he not only bared his teeth but growled as well. When I stopped he licked my hand because he wants to carry on playing. Your point is?


Anything that we do that matches the ant is in process. The ant does it out of instinct you stoop, its natural, unlike what we do.
Now all you have to do is prove it.


Oh I'm sure there are many, its not like its a mystery
It is until you give examples of other animals that farm both livestock and crops. That use antibiotics to kill fungus on their crops. That also build cities, roads. That go to war and take slaves your examples of other animals that also do this remains a mystery. So name those animals


The problem is that you fail to realize that when we do it, its not from natural causes. In fact we probably learned these things from them.
That has to go in the top ten most stupid things you have ever wrote and everything you write is stupid.


There is a big difference between instinct and learning something.
What if your instinct is to learn?


No its not stoop. Our hair on the top of our heads is NOT to keep our head warm you ignit. It would not need to grow so long as to keep our butts warm too. OMG you are such an idiot.
Bunny gave you a complete discription of hair and yet you come out with this completely wrong, moronical nonsense. But what about the fact we have the same amount of hair as a chimp? Bit of a coincidence what?


Your new name is BT for bushman troll.
Fair enough but yours is still ignorant idiot. It always will be it seems.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





You have read everything yet think Moby Dick is a childrens book. That different races is the same thing as different species. That things evolve over night. There is no evidence that you have read anything at all.
Moby dick is a children s book you stoop. You do everything you can just to be incredulous.

www.amazon.com...

www.amazon.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.amazon.com... k&rh=n%3A4%2Ck%3AMoby%20Dick&page=1

www.amazon.com...

Your dishonesty is showing again.




For someone that has shown a reading age of 5 I doubt you will understand this but I was makeing a statement. There is no need to add a question mark as I was telling you you need to get an education and your answer proves my point
I know you tried to validate your non use of question marks last time. Maybe your right, your ape after all and not human so maybe you don't need to use question marks.




Again a very poorly constructed sentence but I agree you have no basis for a faith. You have no basis for anything you believe to be true but have made a faith out of it anyway.
If you weren't so incredulous you might actually learn something.




Cite those documents
I have already have multiple times, its not my fault your not paying attention. Go back and read. Pye, the bible, Sitchen, Von daniken.




Then its time for you to go because you have been spoon fed all the answers and rejected every one of them
Well its true that I am looking for valid answers, not childrens attempts.




Again a very poorly constructed point. My answer to your question is you have got everything wrong and it is not what I believe, it is evidenced by 300 pages of your ignorance.
And all you have done is sidestep the question.




And everytime you deny all you have is faith it shows you have no understanding of anything. Get educated.
Getting educated has nothing to do with you claiming to know what I believe.


you forgot this childrens book

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331849803&sr=1-3
edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 

Theres quite a few "events" like this occuring all around us.

I think it was posted earlier in this thread, (maybe a hundred pages ag or so) a particular species of newt that lives around the rim of some natural bowl thats hundreds of miles long and only broken at one point.

Starting from the break, all of the newts can breed with there imediate neighbours, but the newts seperated by a few miles either side of the break are unable to breed with each other.

If anyone can remember more details than that, let me know and I'll search for more info, unfortunatly Google doesnt like searching based on paragraphs


Ring Species

Found the artical, and its salamanders, not newts.
edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I'm not sure if I'm impressed that this thread has made it to 300 pages or saddened that it's effectively because a handful of us have chosen to argue with the always dishonest and incredulous High Priest He-who-shall-not-be-named of the First Church of Evil Alien Overlords rather than out of any real discussion of people's explanation for biodiversity without evolution.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
My dog smiles, baring her teeth.

Its not the same as when shes being agressive and very easy to differentiate between agresive tooth baring and pasive happy tooth baring.

When she smiles the lips directly over the front teeth and just infront of the canines are drawn back, similar to a snarl, but with a snarl, the tooth baring extends to behind the canines. But there are also other major, major differences, and bunny hit it on the head...its in the eyes, as well as the waggy tails, the scampering around my feet and trying to jump up and lick me. When shes being agressives, towards a stranger perhaps, she is baring her teeth, growling and becomes very fixated on the object of her anger.

We are the same. We bare our teeth when we smile, but the mouth tends to remain more closed, (not talking about laughing here, just smiling) when we're demonstrating anger we bare our teeth more.

My sources, dead simple, I own a dog who smiles, and I did a images search on google for "smiles" and another for "anger". (I also have a proffesional thing going relating to body language, cultural differences etc)

Smile images are primarily mouth closed, anger primarily mouth open.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 
Watching QI last night a french guy took pictures of a person he had fixed electrodes to in order to study facial expession.

His conclusion after electrocuting this poor guy was anyone can fake a smile with the mouth but it does not work unless the eyes's 'Smile' as well and we have no control over the muscles around the eye. Will look for a link

Heres a link


edit on 15-3-2012 by colin42 because: Link added



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster
 
The differance and this is a guess. Is our love for playing with words which is why modern English is different fron old English.

Where language is not given the same freedom it is international. The language of science and computer language. Thats my two pennies worth.


edit on 15-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


The difference between "olde" and "new" english is more to do with being a mongrel nation. We have been conquered so many times and each conqueror assimilates some of the language and traits of the indigenous people.

If I remember correctly, there are three commonly accepted language roots, germanic, latin and asiatic. Each seems to coincide with the various exoduses (exodii?) out of africa. i.e. the first exodus being into europe and taking the germanic languages, second towards asia and third back towards europe carrying latin. (latin root homo-sapien displacing and assimilating germanic root neandertal)

Each of these roots are extremly similar in many of the words used to describe common objects (nouns) with the major differences appearing amongst the verbs.

Take the word egg, which in english is also ova.

Dutch ei
French oeuf
German ei
Greek αυγό
Italian uovo
Spanish huevo

These are all germanic/latin root translations and all pretty similar in construct.

Straying off topic, But as with diversity of species only being able to be a result of evolution from a common ancestor, it is apparent when one looks at languages that these too have evolved froma common ancestor.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 



Straying off topic, But as with diversity of species only being able to be a result of evolution from a common ancestor, it is apparent when one looks at languages that these too have evolved froma common ancestor.
No doubt and as with evolution, isolation plays a big part. Have you ever talked to a brummy? Its almost a different language from the south.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
yup
edit on 15-3-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by colin42
 





TextCan you prove evolution wrong


Easy.
1. It cannot be duplicated.


BS. We do it all the time in the lab.


2. Language: Language doesn’t fit into the equation, therefore, evolution is obsolete in the equation of the minds on earth because it doesn’t explain the varieties of the many languages that exists here today.



More BS. Have you never considered that maybe language is as natural to us as breathing or walking upright? Other species have language: whales, dolphins, porpoises, and apes, just to name a few. They may not "speak" the way we do, but to say they're not communicating is just plain wrong.

Look at the way deaf babies "babble" with their hands the way hearing children do with their voices. Sign language isn't just a shortcut way for deaf people to talk, you know. It's a full-fledged, mature language with an extensive vocabulary, grammar, and syntax.

Language is an innate trait--if we can't vocalize it, we'll find another way.


You call bs,but i have yet to see a scientist crash a comet into the earth and replicate what happened as far as birth from a rock or whatever it is they say happened.



If language were natural to humans, then humans would have started writing and drawing pictures some million years ago instead of waiting for it to come to them in the 26th dynasty some million years after the fact…millions of yearssssssssssss after the fact.

All animals are born with language embedded inside of them...humans was not, and for some reason they had to be taught. So therefore God exist and evolution is a detrimental unkind far out theory that disables a human to think there is no god, therefore, evolution is most likely a theory mad up by evil people who really don’t want you to understand the truth.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There is nothing natural about living in homes, aside from the fact that they are usually made out of wood.

Or stone or brick or concrete or straw and any of the many other materials used outside of Spokane. Sorry but the rest of your poorly constructed attack was so bad as to be not worth the trouble
I don't think its not worth the trouble to you, I think its a smoke screen because your speechless.




And because cattle is grazing on the prepared grounds you would claim its all natural.

Again telling me what I would claim when what I actually pointed out that the rain forests were not being cleared for homes.
And I'm agreeing with you but only because you are obviously trying to switch the subject like you always do, without answering.




No they live in a desert where you would fry in hours and dehydrate because you had been crying for mummy 2 minutes after you got there.
Now you agree they don't need these things for protection so I"m saying they live more in comfort.




Thats not what I meant by scavanger stoop, again its because you have bushman on the brain, get that out of there for one moment.

Never mentioned the bushman. So what did you mean by scavenger?
Yes you did, and I'm not talking about them, you thought I meant scavenger as in bushmen, or pre bushmen as you put it, and I'm simply talking about our current diet.




Nope it is definitely the way I explained. Science requires varifiable, repeatable evidence that is peer reviewed. Your sources offer no such thing so science cannot accept them as valid. Get over it.
Evolution is not re creatable, so where does that leave you?




Just did. He licked my hand. Went further and played tug where he not only bared his teeth but growled as well. When I stopped he licked my hand because he wants to carry on playing. Your point is?
Now your just being dishonest to remain incredulious. Your trying to tell me that your dog bares his teeth, and growles but doesn't bite you. How dishonest can you be? WOW!




Now all you have to do is prove it.
It already is proven, we use man made method and tools to acomplish it, ants don't.




It is until you give examples of other animals that farm both livestock and crops. That use antibiotics to kill fungus on their crops. That also build cities, roads. That go to war and take slaves your examples of other animals that also do this remains a mystery. So name those animals
Well I'm not an expert in the bush so I have none, but I'm sure they all have some of the same abilitys. Of course again theres are natural, ours aren't.




That has to go in the top ten most stupid things you have ever wrote and everything you write is stupid.
Not at all, what we learn from insects only scratches the surface.




What if your instinct is to learn?
In believing that you are saying we have the right of passage to anything being a god of sorts. While thats true, it doesn't fit in with the whole idea of us fitting in. In other words we could make ourself fit in anywhere, which is exactly what we are doing here on earth. Of course it will never work.




Bunny gave you a complete discription of hair and yet you come out with this completely wrong, moronical nonsense. But what about the fact we have the same amount of hair as a chimp? Bit of a coincidence what?
I wouldn't doubt if we have the same amount of hair based on scale differences with every other species there is. It doesn't prove anything.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 


That would be for beginniers like yourself.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't think its not worth the trouble to you, I think its a smoke screen because your speechless.
Again I remind you to stop saying what I think and respond to what I write besides thinking is not your strong point. So give me evidence of how you came to the conclusion that living in homes is not natural?

I accept that the home you live in staffed by doctors and nurses is not natural but hey asylums are like that I understand.


Now you agree they don't need these things for protection so I"m saying they live more in comfort.
Again you are telling me what I agree with instead of answering the point I made. You believe the bushmen live in the 'comfortable zone' which is another word made up by you.Kalahari desert
Not that you have the intelligence to read it. Some bushmen live in the Kalahari DESERT and is no where near a comfortable zone.

So again if you spent 2 minutes there you would be crying for mummy or nurse yet the bushmen wear no clothes, dont drink milk, have no shoes, medical intervention, no comforts we must have, drink any water they find. This will hurt you as well. Have a close relationship with the land, the plant life and animals of the Kalahari.


Yes you did, and I'm not talking about them, you thought I meant scavenger as in bushmen, or pre bushmen as you put it, and I'm simply talking about our current diet.
Again you are telling me what I think and not what I wrote. I know the differance between a scavenger and a Bushman you obviously do not. I have never labeled anything as a 'pre bushman' so antoher made up fantasy by you. You was asked to explain what you meant by scavenger. Do it or shut up.


Evolution is not re creatable, so where does that leave you?
Talking to a complete dunce who cannot read the evidence spoon fed him for 300 pages.


Now your just being dishonest to remain incredulious. Your trying to tell me that your dog bares his teeth, and growles but doesn't bite you. How dishonest can you be? WOW!
and you tell me you live in far wilder places than I could imagine. What a plonker. Loads of dogs growl when they play tug not just mine. You really have a very limited experience of life outside your ward dont you.


It already is proven, we use man made method and tools to acomplish it, ants don't.
Great example of you not answering the question. Your opinion on why it is not natural counts for nothing. Supply evidence and or a logical argument to show why the two are different.


Well I'm not an expert in the bush so I have none, but I'm sure they all have some of the same abilitys. Of course again theres are natural, ours aren't.
It has nothing to do with the bush. (Your obsessed with the bushmen). You said there are many other animal that do what the ant and humans do. Now you say you cannot give examples.

I already told you pages back only man and ants do these things. Gave you information to back it up and the best you can come up with is they are natural we are not. Again I say prove it.


Not at all, what we learn from insects only scratches the surface.
Show me where you learned that ants taught us how to farm.


In believing that you are saying we have the right of passage to anything being a god of sorts. While thats true, it doesn't fit in with the whole idea of us fitting in. In other words we could make ourself fit in anywhere, which is exactly what we are doing here on earth. Of course it will never work.
This is another very poorly constructed, confused reply. I asked you what if your instinct is to learn and that is the question I want you to answer


I wouldn't doubt if we have the same amount of hair based on scale differences with every other species there is. It doesn't prove anything.
Sadly neither do you.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Obviously a childrens book..it clearly states it in the title. Are you accusing Amazon of lying!!!!

Obvioulsy you are right and all of the publishers and book sellers in the world who stock and sell this book are wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 297  298  299    301  302  303 >>

log in

join