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: 341
31
<< 338  339  340    342  343  344 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



When redundant adaptation is used in the process its not nautral.
When you use words and phrases I know you do not understand or have made up I want from you a definition and or explanation of what you think it means. DEFINE 'redundant adaption' and its use in context.


Well I don't have any reason that points they aren't from here, but I haven't researched them
I have and have supplied you with information and links. You maintain you read all posts and links supplied to you but in this case you obviously lied, again.

No. I have pointed out to you on many occasions reasons for you to consider and discuss the ant but you run as you are here. You say you have done no research so how can you dismiss then out of hand. (as you always do)


Is there a particular reason you have ants in your pants. I don't know what it is but you want ants to dominate the conversation and I have no idea why.
There is a reason. Until you discuss what the ant has in common with humans, which by your damaged thinking would mean they too are not from here I will continue to face you with it.

Like I said a few posts up you had two choices to avoid facing the truth when confronted by the ant and that was to lie or run. Looks like you are running. I intend to chase you.


Were you an exterminator in your past life
No. A dentist and I intend to remove another rotten tooth


An unnatural food would be like milk, because of all the processes it goes through. Or meat, because we process it and cook it. Anything that used redundant forms of processing is unnatural.
For a start. You will find no where on this planet other than in you closed petty mind that cooking food makes it unnatural.

If you think your reply above is a defintion of unnatural food you are yet again mistaken. If you cannot come up with a definition of unnatural food soon maybe we should consider taking it off the list




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





What about most higher plants including the trees the beaver uses? They process their food using sunlight via photosynthesis. Very unnatural.
When did you start feeling that the sun is not natural?
When you pointed out any processes were unnatural. Are you backing down?



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Natural foods would be anything that grows wild in the wild, unnatural foods are any that dont.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only is that NOT a definition it gives you another job to do to give your reply any meaning at all.

Define 'In the wild'



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 
Fish that has to be one of the most funny vids I have seen in ages thanks.

Now please stop profiling tooth and tooth stop la la'ing



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Hey. I may have posted my thoughts in the wrong bloody place, but that was a result of misunderstanding. I'm not advocating that some old dude in the sky created us all in 6 days lol. Meh. As far as scientific method goes, it has been so tainted by the peer review portion, as a result of status-quo perpetuators and people that cannot think for themselves. I'll put it this way, it may make me look idiotic, but I ask the questions I do so that you do not have to. You could call me a philosopher of sorts, but that is too much credit where it is not due lol. It is what I aspire to though.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by flyingfish
 
Fish that has to be one of the most funny vids I have seen in ages thanks.

Now please stop profiling tooth and tooth stop la la'ing


Yea
sorry about that, it was getting late tooth was lala la'ing (again) and I just couldn't take him seriously.

This is what it's like debating with him.


Any way I give you guys props for trying.
edit on 1-4-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What is wrong with you tooth?

This is meant to be to define what target food is and now you want to add more nonsense to suit you failed argument. #2 is either cannot be processed in anyway or it is removed. You have been banging on about processed foods for 300 pages plus and till now any processing at all and you reject it. That either stands or it goes. Your choice, and only choice.
Sure but there is a big difference between process and redundanct process. Like that of milk, fortified, pasturized, homogenized, is redundant process.




USDA has set some general rules for natural meats (no artificial ingredients or added color, only “minimally" processed). Guild notes that minimal processing would include smoking, roasting, freezing, drying and fermenting
Just because my definition of redundant processing doens't match with the USDA's term for processing does not mean I'm wrong. This is why I'm not just simply using there terms. Also lazy has nothing to do with any of this.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





When you use words and phrases I know you do not understand or have made up I want from you a definition and or explanation of what you think it means. DEFINE 'redundant adaption' and its use in context.
If your having a problem understanding the word redundant, you can alway replace it with the word extreme to get an idea.




I have and have supplied you with information and links. You maintain you read all posts and links supplied to you but in this case you obviously lied, again.
Ants are missing redundant adaptation.




No. I have pointed out to you on many occasions reasons for you to consider and discuss the ant but you run as you are here. You say you have done no research so how can you dismiss then out of hand. (as you always do)
From what I read today, they are missing redundant adaptation.




There is a reason. Until you discuss what the ant has in common with humans, which by your damaged thinking would mean they too are not from here I will continue to face you with it.
The ant does in fact score high on the suspicious list but fails at redundant adaptation.




Like I said a few posts up you had two choices to avoid facing the truth when confronted by the ant and that was to lie or run. Looks like you are running. I intend to chase you.
Maybe you have ants in your pants.




For a start. You will find no where on this planet other than in you closed petty mind that cooking food makes it unnatural.
Then here is one I will chase you on, list one other species that does it.




If you think your reply above is a defintion of unnatural food you are yet again mistaken. If you cannot come up with a definition of unnatural food soon maybe we should consider taking it off the list
Cooking is an invasive process, its also redundant, and it only exists as a form of adaptation to not having our correct food. This process allows us to eat food that we otherwise wouldn't be able to eat, and also cures problems with bacteria, which is mother naturs own way of making us sick for eating food that wasn't intended for us to begin with.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





When you pointed out any processes were unnatural. Are you backing down?
Well any unnatural process, the sun is very natural.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only is that NOT a definition it gives you another job to do to give your reply any meaning at all.

Define 'In the wild'
Non domesticated living by comparison to humans. They will also be lacking redundant adaptation.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Make sure to correct your definition list from any process to redundant process. It's just common sense but some species could apperar to use process. They do so however in a natural way. The only ones we are interested in identifying is redundant processes.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only is that NOT a definition it gives you another job to do to give your reply any meaning at all.

Define 'In the wild'
Non domesticated living by comparison to humans. They will also be lacking redundant adaptation.

I get it now, like these people.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I get it now, like these people.
There is still redundant adaptation present in there lives, it is harder to spot and it is closer to being natural. When multiple steps have to be taken to get one thing done, is where you look at it closely. They are still out of there intended element.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Something just occured to me, and I might know why your having such a problem with this.

Lets say for the sake of argument that redundant adaptation was present in other species, its not but lets pretend it is. The difference here is that we depend on it, while no other species does.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because my definition of redundant processing doens't match with the USDA's term for processing does not mean I'm wrong. This is why I'm not just simply using there terms. Also lazy has nothing to do with any of this.
Why dont you provide your definition of 'redundant processing'? You offer a few mights and maybe's but I asked for a definition. Still am.


If your having a problem understanding the word redundant, you can alway replace it with the word extreme to get an idea.
Not having any problems understanding redundant just want a definition from you of 'Redundant adaption' and again I am still waiting.


Ants are missing redundant adaptation.
Means nothing until you define it and explain the part it plays with ants.


From what I read today, they are missing redundant adaptation.
Still waiting


The ant does in fact score high on the suspicious list but fails at redundant adaptation.
You are going to have to answer the questions sooner or later. Still waiting for definition


Maybe you have ants in your pants.
So your going to try to run.


Then here is one I will chase you on, list one other species that does it.
Beavers were posted a page or so back so you even have links provided. Prime example of a creature cooking. Soaking wood in water for several days is the same as cooking. Named one other animal. Job done.


Cooking is an invasive process, its also redundant, and it only exists as a form of adaptation to not having our correct food. This process allows us to eat food that we otherwise wouldn't be able to eat, and also cures problems with bacteria, which is mother naturs own way of making us sick for eating food that wasn't intended for us to begin with.
Cooking is not an invassive process, it is also not redundant. The rest of your tripe is leading me to the conclusion that you cannot come up with a definition for unnatural food and if you are not careful it gets removed from the list

edit on 1-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Not only is that NOT a definition it gives you another job to do to give your reply any meaning at all.

Define 'In the wild'
Non domesticated living by comparison to humans. They will also be lacking redundant adaptation.
Not a definition of 'in the wild'



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Make sure to correct your definition list from any process to redundant process. It's just common sense but some species could apperar to use process. They do so however in a natural way. The only ones we are interested in identifying is redundant processes.
You have to define redundant process first.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Something just occured to me, and I might know why your having such a problem with this.

Lets say for the sake of argument that redundant adaptation was present in other species, its not but lets pretend it is. The difference here is that we depend on it, while no other species does.
Stop giving me your silly excuses and give the definition for 'redundant adaption'

edit

In fact, thinking about it. Unnatural food, whatever that is should not be included in YOUR definition of target food for this reason.

You cannot supply a definition.
edit on 1-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





I get it now, like these people.
There is still redundant adaptation present in there lives, it is harder to spot and it is closer to being natural. When multiple steps have to be taken to get one thing done, is where you look at it closely. They are still out of there intended element.


Your right! it was hard to spot!
I slowed down the video zoomed in and captured this!
WOW! JUST WOW!



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 






Not a definition of 'in the wild'
Well then perhaps you would understand the one from wiki better.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice how they mention that humans sepeartate civilization and wildlife.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 338  339  340    342  343  344 >>

log in

join