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: 301
31
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Every human on Earth has different genes. My genes are different than yours. Are you trying to say that only some of us are aliens now?
Some of our hair could serve a supernatural purpose, and wiki doesn't know everything. Isn't it strange how we supposedly know we eventually came from apes yet we know very little about our bodies. Very strange, sort of like we just popped in from no where.


Er, Toothy, I didn't write that. I think you have me mixed up with someone else.




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster

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 Language: Language doesn’t fit into the equation, therefore, evolution is obsolete in the equation of the minds on earth because it doesn’t explain the varieties of the many languages that exists here today.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


Intrestingly enough, and I do not offer this in support of either argument, latest reasearch ( I will try and find a link) into ani,al communication throws up a reather strange anomily when it comes to human language versus animal language.

It revolves around variety. Bees communicate through "dancing". a bee from a hive in one country communictes with a bee from a hive in another country with no difficulty whatsoever. Dolphins all seem to communicate in the same languge, as do the various groups of primates other than.....you got it,...us.

We seem to be the only species so far discovered/observed that communicate in different languages within the specieal group.

Will def' try and find the artical.


You just reminded me of something. Whales and cows have regional "dialects" and "accents" and "cultural groups".

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.sciencedaily.com...

whitelab.biology.dal.ca...



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
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.


The ears are a tip-off, too.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastProphet527

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.


Red herring. What's that got to do with anything? Evolution makes no claim as to the beginnings of life.


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.


How do we know they didn't? Art and painting has been around for at least 100,000 years. Let's not forget that there just plain weren't that many people around, especially after the eruption of Toba. The Ice Age was also a formidable barrier--and we've been in one big ice age for the last 3 million years. There is evidence of tally marks--writing!--and lunar calendars dating back about 40,000 years.


All animals are born with language embedded inside of them...humans was not, and for some reason they had to be taught.


Humans are animals. What makes you think we're the exception?


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.


Wow, can you say "paranoid"?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 
Hi Happy

I searched the other day for Dogs see smells and this book review came up on the list.

“flicker fusion” rate of a dogs eye is faster than ours. It takes more snapshots of the world if you like so it see more information than we do.

It also describes how we are only aware of the visible sights, sounds and certain smells whereas a dog with it vastly superior sense of smell is not only more aware of its immediate surounds but aslo smells the recent history of the area and smells the contents of the area it approaches, see's the future in a way so even a dogs sense here and now is significantly superior to ours.

What the piece says about how a dog looks closely at our expressions is also of interest in this current topic as its 'flicker rate allows it to take in every minute facial change and funnily when I smile at my dog he wags his tail. He in no way confuses it for aggression which he naturally would if tooth was anywhere near correct.

edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by HappyBunny
 
Hi Happy

I searched the other day for Dogs see smells and this book review came up on the list.

“flicker fusion” rate of a dogs eye is faster than ours. It takes more snapshots of the world if you like so it see more information than we do.

It also describes how we are only aware of the visible sights, sounds and certain smells whereas a dog with it vastly superior sense of smell is not only more aware of its immediate surounds but aslo smells the recent history of the area and smells the contents of the area it approaches, see's the future in a way so even a dogs sense here and now is significantly superior to ours.

What the piece says about how a dog looks closely at our expressions is also of interest in this current topic as its 'flicker rate allows it to take in every minute facial change and funnily when I smile at my dog he wags his tail. He in no way confuses it for aggression which he naturally would if tooth was anywhere near correct.

edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


What an interesting article!

It seems that while dogs live in a world dominated by their sense of smell, they don't see very well in comparison. Does anyone know if their sense of smell evolved because their sight is relatively poor (like a blind person's hearing becomes the dominant sense) or for some other reason? And for us, it's the other way around: is our world more visual because our sense of smell is (relatively) poor?

Dogs can be a little unnerving when they look at you. It's like they're trying to look into you. Cats just ignore you.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


My mistake sorry.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





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.
I think there is a big difference between a book being written for kids, and one that has a special edition for kids.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
Quit trying to profile me, your lame in your attempts. The best yet is ID's profiling and claiming my name is larry and I frequent dating sites. The fact that you evolutionists have to resort to such tactics tells me that you either don't know how to address a debate to your liking, or I truly have the upper leg and no one can stand that.

Living in homes is not natural. Using our technology to have to survive is a dead on clue that something is wrong. It's also a clue that there are no accommodations here for us. But I can't seem to tell you that as you think its all fine and dandy.




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 what are you saying, they would be better off in the Arctic?




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.
Well I'm saying comfort because they can get away without the need for so many things. Not that its literally comfort.




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.
You just got the boobie prize as you totally missed the point again. I'm not talking about the difference between bushman and scavengers, I'm talking about how our large diet of just about eating anything, would be called a scavengers diet.




Talking to a complete dunce who cannot read the evidence spoon fed him for 300 pages.
You do realize that every time you act so incredulous, it just tells me I'm right.




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.
True but they don't grin there teeth at the same time, your a liar, and a bad one.




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.
That was a very good answer ignit, but your so incredulous that your comprehension is lost.




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.
Ok, I prefer not to feed into your delusion but as an example Bees use a lot of the same methods. Thats as far as I'm going because I'm not an expert with bees.




Show me where you learned that ants taught us how to farm
Nope, that was you that said that, I think your being so incredulous that your forgeting what your saying.




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
If your instinct is to learn then you have nothing special by comparison to all other species here on earth, as they all learn. So it couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't apply.




Sadly neither do you.
Well you have taught me one thing colin, that people can be so incredulous that not only do they appear dim witted but they also contradict themselves and talk in circles.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Quit trying to profile me, your lame in your attempts. The best yet is ID's profiling and claiming my name is larry and I frequent dating sites. The fact that you evolutionists have to resort to such tactics tells me that you either don't know how to address a debate to your liking, or I truly have the upper leg and no one can stand that.
You have profiled yourself with your dishonest approach to this thread. As for you style of dating I could not give a fig. What the hell is having the upper leg? If you have upper legs this may explain why you think your hands are so otherworldly. Go see a doctor. Cant advise on your paranoia never met one until now.


Living in homes is not natural. Using our technology to have to survive is a dead on clue that something is wrong. It's also a clue that there are no accommodations here for us. But I can't seem to tell you that as you think its all fine and dandy.
You try to lecture me on how to debate and then follow it up with this tripe. Building and living in homes is not unnatural for humans. If you believe it is then it is up to you to prove it. Because you say so is not acceptable evidence.

But if you insist that building homes and living in them is not natural please explain the ant who does that very thing?


So what are you saying, they would be better off in the Arctic?
When will you ever start reading what is written and stop telling me what I am saying. You maintain that the bushman lives in this mythical comfortable zone and I am telling you the Kalahari is anything other than a comfort zone. Even other Africans cant live there as they do.


Well I'm saying comfort because they can get away without the need for so many things. Not that its literally comfort.
So tell me how they live in a desert with no milk, medical intervention, processed food, processed water, clothes, shoes and manage to survive with their unworldly hands?


You just got the boobie prize as you totally missed the point again. I'm not talking about the difference between bushman and scavengers, I'm talking about how our large diet of just about eating anything, would be called a scavengers diet.
So finally you explain what you meant by scavenger and you are even more wildly wrong. Go scavenge down your local supermarket and see what happens. You dont scavenge you work for money to pay for food it can no way be likened to scavenging


You do realize that every time you act so incredulous, it just tells me I'm right.
And every time you dodge the question you show yourself to be the dishonest fool I take you for.


True but they don't grin there teeth at the same time, your a liar, and a bad one.
Nothing on this planet GRINS ITS TEETH whatever that is so your a fool and a very poorly educated one


That was a very good answer ignit, but your so incredulous that your comprehension is lost.
Well as it is as you say already proven show that proof.


Ok, I prefer not to feed into your delusion but as an example Bees use a lot of the same methods. Thats as far as I'm going because I'm not an expert with bees.
Give examples of bees doing this and supply the links and educate yourself about bees at the same time.


Nope, that was you that said that, I think your being so incredulous that your forgeting what your saying.
Page 300 you wrote


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.
Caught you out in another really silly lie. Surely you dont think you can get away with it do you?


If your instinct is to learn then you have nothing special by comparison to all other species here on earth, as they all learn. So it couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't apply.
So you have hung yourself by your own words. All animals learn and so the ant learns how to farm just as we do so what they do by your own standards is not natural. So they must not be from here also. Even your own made up rules show you are wrong.


Well you have taught me one thing colin, that people can be so incredulous that not only do they appear dim witted but they also contradict themselves and talk in circles.
See the lesson I gave you as a gift. So are you going to change your ways and attempt to appear less dim witted? Will you try to not contradict yourself constantly? Will you stop being so incredulous?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by HappyBunny
 
Hi Happy

I searched the other day for Dogs see smells and this book review came up on the list.

“flicker fusion” rate of a dogs eye is faster than ours. It takes more snapshots of the world if you like so it see more information than we do.

It also describes how we are only aware of the visible sights, sounds and certain smells whereas a dog with it vastly superior sense of smell is not only more aware of its immediate surounds but aslo smells the recent history of the area and smells the contents of the area it approaches, see's the future in a way so even a dogs sense here and now is significantly superior to ours.

What the piece says about how a dog looks closely at our expressions is also of interest in this current topic as its 'flicker rate allows it to take in every minute facial change and funnily when I smile at my dog he wags his tail. He in no way confuses it for aggression which he naturally would if tooth was anywhere near correct.

edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


What an interesting article!

It seems that while dogs live in a world dominated by their sense of smell, they don't see very well in comparison. Does anyone know if their sense of smell evolved because their sight is relatively poor (like a blind person's hearing becomes the dominant sense) or for some other reason? And for us, it's the other way around: is our world more visual because our sense of smell is (relatively) poor?

Dogs can be a little unnerving when they look at you. It's like they're trying to look into you. Cats just ignore you.



Your post implies that looking, or visuals are "better" or more advantagoues than smelling or any of the other senses. Now obviously for us, visuals are the strongest, and most saturated resource for gathering information. But that changes with species, as different species, specialize if you will in differing senses. Throughout the universe I would expect to see, species with an overly dominant sense, hearing, seeing, smelling, touching, that is the main sense used for gathering information. That is how evolution works is it not. We always move straight for the eyes, because we are biased, we base everything off our own experience, and forget to explore those outside our view. To the dog, smelling is the dominant sense, and who knows how they really process smells, and really how much they can sense the world around them.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


So if living in a home is not natural what is? What would be a natural environment for us to live in? What would be the natural temperature, and climate? What would be the natural foods we would be eating? If we're not from here, where are we from? How did we get here? Why did we get here? If you can answer some of these questions with "evidence" and verifiable facts, that would be great.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 
You can judge how a dog precieves his world by studying the way he reacts to it. As we were talking about communication I believe the “flicker fusion” rate of a dogs and how they notice our expressions even more than we do would open up the discussion to communication is inter species as well as within species. This also would point to language being universal although the means of comunication may vary.

Even within the human I have been told and read that communication by speech alone only contains around 20% of the information in a conversation.


edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Language is inter species

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 
Thanks for that. Just the sort of thing I need to start a weekend.

But I agree the differences between us and pretty much all other life is minimal. The only thing I found sadder than the heart broken gorilla was the fact that such an animal was not experiencing life where it belongs.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm
 
You can judge how a dog precieves his world by studying the way he reacts to it. As we were talking about communication I believe the “flicker fusion” rate of a dogs and how they notice our expressions even more than we do would open up the discussion to communication is inter species as well as within species. This also would point to language being universal although the means of comunication may vary.

Even within the human I have been told and read that communication by speech alone only contains around 20% of the information in a conversation.


edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


Yea but I guess what I'm saying, is basing everything off reaction, we don't fully know what they are experiencing, in terms of how they process smells. We may have an Idea, but we don't know if they are "seeing" the smells in their mind, or whatever. I may have lost you. Anyways, the flicker fusion rate was interesting. Seeing as how they essentially take more "snapshots" of the world around them. I remember reading this thing on time and how we percieve it as we age. The person writing the article analogized our perception of time, to a videocamera. Our brain and eyes are like the video camera, which has a standard rate of 24fps. Now when we are young, we are learning, exploring, and observing, so we are constantly taking snapshot after snapshot. Its like running on 100 fps, which in turn slows everything down, which is why when we are younger things seem to take "forever". As we age, things become more and more familiar, so we lose the need to take so many snapshots, and the rate slows down to like 15 fps. Which is why everything seems to be speeding up as we age. Back to my point, if dogs are essentially taking more snapshots per second, (flicker fusion rate) doesn't this mean that they are essentially seeing everything slowed down? Which is why they are able to pick out so easily each of our little expressions?

Another thought. How do we learn facial expressions? Aren't they intuitive? I mean if you smile at a baby, they smile back. If body/facial language is universal, doesn't that say something about our origins?



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Your post implies that looking, or visuals are "better" or more advantagoues than smelling or any of the other senses.


No, no, you're misunderstanding me. One isn't necessarily better than the other--one just becomes dominant due to the loss of another for whatever reason. Or maybe as one sense becomes dominant, the need for the other decreases. Whichever, the organism adapts in order to process information more efficiently. Compared to dogs, our sense of smell is pathetic--but dogs are predators, we aren't. We have tools like guns to help us, although even a sharpened sense of smell wouldn't really help us in the wild considering how vulnerable we are. Now, our close up vision is much better than theirs, but their peripheral vision is better. That, too, makes us more vulnerable.


Now obviously for us, visuals are the strongest, and most saturated resource for gathering information. But that changes with species, as different species, specialize if you will in differing senses. Throughout the universe I would expect to see, species with an overly dominant sense, hearing, seeing, smelling, touching, that is the main sense used for gathering information. That is how evolution works is it not. We always move straight for the eyes, because we are biased, we base everything off our own experience, and forget to explore those outside our view. To the dog, smelling is the dominant sense, and who knows how they really process smells, and really how much they can sense the world around them.


That's what I was trying to get at. And what happens when a person loses his sight and can no longer take in information visually? They compensate for it by a sharpened sense of hearing or touch.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm
 
You can judge how a dog precieves his world by studying the way he reacts to it. As we were talking about communication I believe the “flicker fusion” rate of a dogs and how they notice our expressions even more than we do would open up the discussion to communication is inter species as well as within species. This also would point to language being universal although the means of comunication may vary.

Even within the human I have been told and read that communication by speech alone only contains around 20% of the information in a conversation.


edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


And it's amazing how much we suck at reading body language. Men in particular, no offense guys.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm
 
You can judge how a dog precieves his world by studying the way he reacts to it. As we were talking about communication I believe the “flicker fusion” rate of a dogs and how they notice our expressions even more than we do would open up the discussion to communication is inter species as well as within species. This also would point to language being universal although the means of comunication may vary.

Even within the human I have been told and read that communication by speech alone only contains around 20% of the information in a conversation.


edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


And it's amazing how much we suck at reading body language. Men in particular, no offense guys.


Do we suck on reading it, or acting on it? Honestly I don't think we can stop reading body language. We get the information whether we want to or not, its whether or not we choose to listen to it, or ignore it, and whether to act or not to act on it.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by andersensrm
 

Even within the human I have been told and read that communication by speech alone only contains around 20% of the information in a conversation.


edit on 16-3-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)


And then we lose about 60% of what we hear, so in reality you only get 12% of communication by speech alone, unless they already accounted for that, in the 20%



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 298  299  300    302  303  304 >>

log in

join