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: 343
31
<< 340  341  342    344  345  346 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No you wrote that we could have one unnatural process but not two.
This all depends on what you consider unnatural, is why I said this. I have no examples where this is a borderline issues so it still applies.




Our machines and chemicals would not work if they did not follow the physics of nature. They do not work by magic and so are natural. Heat is natural whether it comes from the sun, as you said or from a fire so using heat to cook is natural. Again if the ants are doing what they do naturally then so do we.
Well true that heat is natural but the methods in this case to get to it are not.




Again a stupid, ignorant view of the real world. So a lion that stalks, chases, kills, fights over ownership of the corpse before it eats is unnatural because it took more than one action before it ate?
There was nothing redundant about those processes. They are all natural, and happen in the wild as well.




Nothing does. So whats your point. Still waiting for those definitions.
Ants can harvest chemicals though natural means, without the use of machines or redundant process to get it.




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well you will never find a loaf of bread growing on the ground, in a natural way, so maybe thats a better way to explain it. A long drawn out process is needed to make bread, including cooking.
Ants do not find the fungus it grows and eats growing on the ground in a 'natural way. It uses a long drawn out process. It is not natural then?


Bread is anything but natural and a perfect example of our attempts at manufacturing food for ourselves to fill a need with something that has been missing all along.
Nope. Its a perfect example of man making his food taste better.


I think what your trying to say is that you have sewn eyes. Lets see if you can get past the bread part. Bread does not magically appear in the wild, therefore its not a natural food.
No idea what sewn eyes means. No and bread does not magically appear in the oven and that is the only way it could be classed as unnatural.


I have explained them in there full definition. If you still don't understand then you are just being incredulous.
You have not given a definition of any. Like I said you have done exactly what I predicted and now you lie to try to escape.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 




Everytime you come out with this garbage you look more brain damaged than ever. If humans farm, harvest and that makes them unnatural then ants are unnatural.
If we each did it for ourselves and with our own hands, you might have an argument here.


Which I believe brings us full circle back to the bushmen.

LOL



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Ants do not find the fungus it grows and eats growing on the ground in a 'natural way. It uses a long drawn out process. It is not natural then?
So what overly redundant process is the ant doing to get this chemical?




Nope. Its a perfect example of man making his food taste better.
True, and he goes through a multituide of steps to get there. It's redundant.




No idea what sewn eyes means. No and bread does not magically appear in the oven and that is the only way it could be classed as unnatural.
So your trying to tell me that you believe that say an apple from a tree is unnatural and bread which is made by the hand of man is all natural? Maybe if your looking at this from the perspecitve of man being all natural, and everything else is unnatural.




You have not given a definition of any. Like I said you have done exactly what I predicted and now you lie to try to escape.
Nope I gave the answers several times, just because you choose not to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist. Your the liar.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Not at all, when its applied correctly it works well.
Oh so we can have one unnatural process. How does that fit in your target food definition?


True but you don't see aircraft being born on the ground without the unnatural intervention from man. Man is always the missing link if your arguments. You are never able to expalin anything withou the hand of man. Unlike ants using chemicals, so its natural.
I should have known you could not undestand with your limited capacity. It has nothing to do with being born. It has to do with flight mechanics but dont give yourself a headache. Another thing you cannot grasp.


It's not that they are exempt its just that they don't exibit any signs of unnatural redundant adaptation.
I know you think you are being clever but it just results in you being a clown. Define redundant adaption.


Thats dollars to donuts colin. Clothing itself is not natural, in case you havent figured that out.

If you believe that clothing is natural, than you have to also believe that sewing machines, laundry machines, as well as cleaning chemicals are all natural as well, and they aren't. It's just obviously wrong.
Why isnt clothing natural? Did someone produce it by magic?


If we each did it for ourselves and with our own hands, you might have an argument here.
I'll overlook that hands are what you say proof we arent not from here. Your response is as stupid as you are. Who grows the ants crops? Answer ants. Who grows humans crops? Humans. So I have an argument then.


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



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



This all depends on what you consider unnatural, is why I said this. I have no examples where this is a borderline issues so it still applies.
No it depends on what you define as 'Unnatural'. Still waiting for your definition


Well true that heat is natural but the methods in this case to get to it are not.
Explain


There was nothing redundant about those processes. They are all natural, and happen in the wild as well.
It took more than one action and took place in a game park.


Natural would mean we simply do one thing, and would have the chemical. Sorry if I confused you on the on unnatural event, but it still explains the point either way you look at it.
so the lion did more than one thing. Your criteria says it is unnatural or are you saying you lied?


Ants can harvest chemicals though natural means, without the use of machines or redundant process to get it.
Who ever said ants harvest chemicals????? I thought you looked into ants earlier???

You are a very bad liar as you always get caught out

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



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So what overly redundant process is the ant doing to get this chemical?
Dont understand your use of redundant process. Please define and then remake your question.


True, and he goes through a multituide of steps to get there. It's redundant.
If any part of making the bread was left out it would not result in bread. So nothing is redundant.


So your trying to tell me that you believe that say an apple from a tree is unnatural and bread which is made by the hand of man is all natural?
Dont know how many times I need to tell you to stop telling me what I say and read what I wrote. But are you telling me now that apples are natural food? You denied this previously?


Maybe if your looking at this from the perspecitve of man being all natural, and everything else is unnatural.
No I am looking at this as everything is natural and you are stupid


Nope I gave the answers several times, just because you choose not to accept them doesn't mean they don't exist. Your the liar.
Not one definition. You even gave me a definiton of wildlife when I asked you to define 'In the wild' which you used to dismiss a point made. Being called a liar by you, a pathological liar means absolutely nothing.


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



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Buy a cheap $75 Microscope...a $15 Biology Book...$1 Face Masks...5 for a Buck...and a few house hold toxic cleaners to bacteria.

Read the book on how to properly prepare Microscope Glass observation slides. Read the book on how to grow a few forms of innocuous bacteria...and prepare both food sources and a toxin that will both allow the bacteria to multiply as well as a toxin to kill the bacteria. USE A CONTROL GROUP! It is good Science and allows you to make sure there was nothing tainting the results.

The whole process after growing the first batch of Bacteria will take 30 to 40 minutes of observation under a microscope to PROVE WITH 100% certainty...EVOLUTION.

Prepare a Slide for the Microscope with a certain number approx. of Bacteria...the book will show you how to do this. Read the book and introduce a toxin in a certain quantity that will be liquid and make contact by process of all the bacteria on that slide...read the book...don't over do it as like a person....if you are bitten by a poisonous snake....you will die no matter what without anti-venome...in a certain time....but if you live....your body and you as a person can reproduce and have childen that you have passed on the gene to that allowed you to live...one person out of a thousand or more.

Anyways...introduce the proper amount of toxin to the bactria making certain to follow the books guidelines to make sure ALL bacteria are effected. You will find the vast majority will die but there will be a few bacteria that survive...read the book how to seperate them out of that slide and placed in a slide with a food source were they will reproduce....and you will repeate the experiment again in the same way with approx the same numbers....this time...EVEN MORE WILL LIVE...do this a few mor times...40 minutes tops...as you watch through the scope and you see that EVOLUTION, survival of the fittest, natural selection and reproduction and transfer of Genes that have made following generations almost immune to the toxin....enough times this experiment is done...they will become totally immune. The only surviving Bacterium will carry the DNA that allows them to endure the toxin. THIS IS EVOLUTION....right infront of your eyes! Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Oh so we can have one unnatural process. How does that fit in your target food definition?
It doesn't make a difference because there is a big difference between that and redundancy.




I should have known you could not undestand with your limited capacity. It has nothing to do with being born. It has to do with flight mechanics but dont give yourself a headache. Another thing you cannot grasp.
True but man doesn't usually make natural products.




I know you think you are being clever but it just results in you being a clown. Define redundant adaption.
Youll have to back up to read what I already gave you. Your not going to win by asking me the same question over and over, even though I have given the answer more than three times.




Why isnt clothing natural? Did someone produce it by magic?
Close, someone used magic to produce it, is closer to the problem. Our redundant adaptation is as unnatural as it comes, and whats funny is your the ONLY person that I have run into that isn't agreeing.




I'll overlook that hands are what you say proof we arent not from here. Your response is as stupid as you are. Who grows the ants crops? Answer ants. Who grows humans crops? Humans. So I have an argument then.
Exactly but they do it in a step and we don't, now your getting it.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





No it depends on what you define as 'Unnatural'. Still waiting for your definition
Youll have to back up and read the other three times I explained it.




Explain
Heat from the sun is natural, heat from a heating element is not. I think you would benefit from reading up on the definition of the word natural, just to see how far off you are.




It took more than one action and took place in a game park.
I don't believe you, what are they.




so the lion did more than one thing. Your criteria says it is unnatural or are you saying you lied?
There wasn't anything in his attack that was self enhanced or self made to better his attack aside from exercising. Sorry man your wrong.




Who ever said ants harvest chemicals????? I thought you looked into ants earlier???
Thats what YOU were saying.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Dont understand your use of redundant process. Please define and then remake your question.
Well maybe we can rename it just so colin can understand it....

What mass steps does the ant use to get to this chemical?




If any part of making the bread was left out it would not result in bread. So nothing is redundant.
By comparing it to what other life here does for food, yes it is excessive.




Dont know how many times I need to tell you to stop telling me what I say and read what I wrote. But are you telling me now that apples are natural food? You denied this previously?
Apples are not naturaly a target food for humans is way different.




No I am looking at this as everything is natural and you are stupid
It does require mentality to understand this.




Not one definition. You even gave me a definiton of wildlife when I asked you to define 'In the wild' which you used to dismiss a point made. Being called a liar by you, a pathological liar means absolutely nothing.
I can repeat myself till I'm blue in the face but if you don't have the marbles to understand it, that isn't my fault.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 



I'm not denying that evolution occurs in bacteria, in fact I have stated many times that it has. There is no point in me wasting the money and time on this experiement when a quick search to Wiki confirms what your telling me to experience for my self. What wiki is NOT saying is that these things occur in humans, only in bacteria, viruse, some aquatic life, and some insects.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 



I'm not denying that evolution occurs in bacteria, in fact I have stated many times that it has. There is no point in me wasting the money and time on this experiement when a quick search to Wiki confirms what your telling me to experience for my self. What wiki is NOT saying is that these things occur in humans, only in bacteria, viruse, some aquatic life, and some insects.


OK...then I will tell you how to prove that Single Celled Organisms....can by experiment....EVOLVE into MULTICELLED ORGANISMS....using a similar technique involving multiple conditions...those being...exposure to different enviromental conditions. It takes longer...but EVOLTIONARY processes that turned a Single Celled Organism into Animals, Plants and Human Beings....took Millions of Years.

But you can run an experiment that will take days that will change a single celled organism into a Multi-cellular ANIMAL. You can run the experiment or research WIKI....like you just did to prove this. Knowing this is a fact myself and knowing YOU can run the experiment...shows that given specific enviromental conditions, chemistry and exposure to other single celled organisms....again....EVOLUTION can be seen with your own eyes as a Single Celled animal will evolve into a Multicelled animal and continue to evolve to a larger and more complex Multicellular animal.

This is how all animal life...including Humans and Plant Life evolved. If you want me to describe the experiment I will or you can check WIKI....but it is EVOLUTION BABY! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
"Single Celled animal will evolve into a Multicelled animal and continue to evolve to a larger and more complex Multicellular animal."

to Split Infinity -

This is a good example of why I believe in a Judeo/Christian Intelligent Designer. It's all about life. How does that single-celled organism know to evolve into a BETTER and more complex organism, instead of DE-volving itself into oblivion? Unless that single cell is actually a brain cell, it wouldn't know that it was improving itself.
edit on 1-4-2012 by simplybill because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by simplybill
"Single Celled animal will evolve into a Multicelled animal and continue to evolve to a larger and more complex Multicellular animal."

to Split Infinity -

This is a good example of why I believe in a Judeo/Christian Intelligent Designer. It's all about life. How does that single-celled organism know to evolve into a BETTER and more complex organism, instead of DE-volving itself into oblivion? Unless that single cell is actually a brain cell, it wouldn't know that it was improving itself.
edit on 1-4-2012 by simplybill because: (no reason given)


The FACT of EVOLUTION does not interfere with ones belief in GOD or even GOD being a creator. EVOLUTION is simply the process of creation of all things. It should not be a religious debate as evolutionary processes do not conflict with belief or faith. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by simplybill
"Single Celled animal will evolve into a Multicelled animal and continue to evolve to a larger and more complex Multicellular animal."

to Split Infinity -

This is a good example of why I believe in a Judeo/Christian Intelligent Designer. It's all about life. How does that single-celled organism know to evolve into a BETTER and more complex organism, instead of DE-volving itself into oblivion? Unless that single cell is actually a brain cell, it wouldn't know that it was improving itself.
edit on 1-4-2012 by simplybill because: (no reason given)



Do yourself a favor and watch this video.


OR

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



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 

LOL! I am not a person who believes in Intelligent Design....I was just pointing out that for those who believe in GOD....that if there is one....this GOD used the process of EVOLUTION to create the Multiverse.

You are Preaching to the Choir! LOL! Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by flyingfish
 

LOL! I am not a person who believes in Intelligent Design....I was just pointing out that for those who believe in GOD....that if there is one....this GOD used the process of EVOLUTION to create the Multiverse.

You are Preaching to the Choir! LOL! Split Infinity



Not preaching, was replying to simplybill.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 

Ah.....My mistake. Split Infinity



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Seeing as though most of your replies were down at their usual level of ignorance and low to missing intelligence I'll choose what stupid reply you made needs answering


Youll have to back up to read what I already gave you. Your not going to win by asking me the same question over and over, even though I have given the answer more than three times.
You obviously have no idea what an definition of a term is because your attempts to provide any at all have been so poor it would embarass a moron. You still have not commented on why you gave me a definition for WILDLIFE when you was asked for your definition of 'IN THE WILD'. A sign of your total ignorance of the language you are using.


Close, someone used magic to produce it, is closer to the problem. Our redundant adaptation is as unnatural as it comes, and whats funny is your the ONLY person that I have run into that isn't agreeing.
So you really believe someone produces clothes by magic?
You really believe that? Jeeze your thick.

redundant adaptation has not been defined and so any point made containing it means nothing.


Heat from the sun is natural, heat from a heating element is not. I think you would benefit from reading up on the definition of the word natural, just to see how far off you are.
Heat is heat you fool and however it is produced it is by natural means. No Magic is involved or do you believe this is alchemy as well?


There wasn't anything in his attack that was self enhanced or self made to better his attack aside from exercising. Sorry man your wrong.
you answer are just more constructs from the mind of a moron and a total fail.


Thats what YOU were saying.
I have never wrote once that ants harvest chemicals you complete and utter pea brain. I doubted you read any links provided to you but it is also clear you do not even read any responses to you either.


What mass steps does the ant use to get to this chemical?
You see what happens when you make up phrases tha have no meaning, you then have to make up more. This is just what you have found with lies. You told one and then you have had to tell more to cover the first lie.


By comparing it to what other life here does for food, yes it is excessive.
You have no idea what other life does for food. You believe clothes and heat are produced by magic so looking out of your asylums window and observing the struggle for life all other animals take part in is beyond your very limited capacity.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 340  341  342    344  345  346 >>

log in

join