Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

1. Abundant everywhere or
2. cannot be processed in any way or
3. must be essential/necessary or
4. Not unnatural food (still to be defined)

Well it looks like you got a good start. #2 however would allow natural processes. #4 means any food that isn't redundantly processed.

Shame that #4 no longer can be accepted as like Pye you have not supplied any supporting evidence for it.

Apples are not naturaly a target food for humans is way different.

Where I live apples are abundant everywhere. Seeing as though you chose the OR option for your definiton that is all apples need to be to be classed as target food.

But hey I'm generous lets keep going. Apples are not processed in any way. It now satisfies two catergories.

Easy one here. If you are starving and you find an apple tree it is essential. Even more because an apple will store for a long time providing sustenance for months.

So take your pick from the options clearly showing apples are target food.

It seems to me the only redundant thing here is your other brain cell which you do not seem able to use.

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.

You have repeated yourself until blue in the face the trouble is everything you have repeated is nonsense.

I mean you believe clothes are made by magic so I suppose Rumplesilkskin is an historical document

reply to post by SplitInfinity

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

But why is there no proof that single cells turn into multi cells.

reply to post by colin42

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.

Sorry to embarrass you, and the reason I chose wild life over wild is because the definition was not in depth enough to offer understanding, and we all know your having a problem in that department. As far as why I chose wild life over others, is because it is what we are talking about in general.

So you really believe someone produces clothes by magic? You really believe that? Jeeze your thick.

Well I was exaggerating but I didn't expect you to realize this.

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

It has been explained to you multiple times now. I don't know if your doing drugs, or what the problem is but I have explained it over three times now. Are you sure your not confusing your not accepting it with not seeing it.

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?

Oh quit being a smuck, you know as well as I do that man made heat is not natural. Notice how no one is coming to your aid to defend you on this idiotic deal.

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.

There is nothing redundant in his attack you moron.

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.

All I remember is you writing something about ants working with chemicals.

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.

Just because I have had to make up some terms, does not mean they are lies, you incredulous dumb dumb.

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.

Well I don't see clothing being born in the wild, so there you go.

reply to post by colin42

Shame that #4 no longer can be accepted as like Pye you have not supplied any supporting evidence for it.

Ya processed and man made foods don't apply. Sorry I don't know how much simpler I can spell it out for you. Your just being so ignorant that your pretending to not understand what processed or man made food is.

Where I live apples are abundant everywhere. Seeing as though you chose the OR option for your definiton that is all apples need to be to be classed as target food.

Well a target food only applies when the food is a main source of diet and depended on.

But hey I'm generous lets keep going. Apples are not processed in any way. It now satisfies two catergories

Yes you are correct, apples meet like all but one. They just aren't depended on.

Easy one here. If you are starving and you find an apple tree it is essential. Even more because an apple will store for a long time providing sustenance for months.

Well like I have mentioned many times on here, a desperate person could eat toilet paper and toothpaste, that doesn't mean they were meant for us to eat.

So take your pick from the options clearly showing apples are target food.

It seems to me the only redundant thing here is your other brain cell which you do not seem able to use.

Nope, apples are not a necessary food anywhere that I'm aware of.

You have repeated yourself until blue in the face the trouble is everything you have repeated is nonsense.

I mean you believe clothes are made by magic so I suppose Rumplesilkskin is an historical document

Of course I was exaggerating and your never able to catch that. You must have a learning disability with as many times as I have repeated this.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well like I have mentioned many times on here, a desperate person could eat toilet paper and toothpaste, that doesn't mean they were meant for us to eat.

No food is "meant" for any animal to eat. Animals have evolved to eat different things. We for example evolved to be omnivores. It's as simple as that. It's a question of what was available, how easily, and to what degree it could be utilized. Sometimes such leads to extreme specialization between what is being eaten and what is eating it, as is the case with some bird beaks that fit some flowers almost perfectly, co-evolution it's called..

edit. I don't know why I bothered to write the above. Talking with you is pointless and utter waste of time, this much became evident many pages ago. I'm not going to be sucked into this madness again, so if you bother to reply, don't expect a follow-up from me. If you have questions, just google them. I'm sure the answers are out there.

reply to post by rhinoceros

No food is "meant" for any animal to eat. Animals have evolved to eat different things. We for example evolved to be omnivores. It's as simple as that. It's a question of what was available, how easily, and to what degree it could be utilized. Sometimes such leads to extreme specialization between what is being eaten and what is eating it, as is the case with some bird beaks that fit some flowers almost perfectly, co-evolution it's called..

edit. I don't know why I bothered to write the above. Talking with you is pointless and utter waste of time, this much became evident many pages ago. I'm not going to be sucked into this madness again, so if you bother to reply, don't expect a follow-up from me. If you have questions, just google them. I'm sure the answers are out there.

I don't know why either, it totally doesn't make any sense.

For example if you honestly believe that things evolve in diet, then you are saying that all species have an underlying intelligence that is able to identify with what food is available and adapt for it. Which is totally impossible.

Now on the other hand, the lamest excuse I heard of on here is that we just eat the same things we used to. So now being a different species, we eat the same thing we did as a prior species. In other words we are stealing food from another species. Which also makes no sense as we don't eat the same things as our common ancestors. So its all lies. This goes back to my earlier argument about things are suppose to be in balance, and in a balanced system. Of course we see some of it today but we also see a lot of chaos. This could stem from the plethora of things that were supposedly brought to earth from elsewhere that don't belong here, knocking off that balance.

I'm certain of all this, and in fact it matches with a program I watched, that was teaching about how planets are created. There is simply no other options in how planets could be constructed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
For example if you honestly believe that things evolve in diet, then you are saying that all species have an underlying intelligence that is able to identify with what food is available and adapt for it. Which is totally impossible.

Nobody said that things evolve in diet or that species have an underlying intelligence that is able to identify what food is available and adapt for it. Jesus Christ. What I was saying is that species eat whatever is available, and can be utilized, and at the same time NATURE SELECTS the ones that make the most of it, thus the species as a whole adapts, but NOT because of a freaking underlying intelligence, BUT BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION.

I know I said no more replies, but this time I mean it. Over 300 pages and you can't even grasp what natural selection is and what it leads to. This level of logical reasoning is expected even from elementary school pupils. Not so with you. There is no point to continue this any further.

reply to post by rhinoceros

Nobody said that things evolve in diet or that species have an underlying intelligence that is able to identify what food is available and adapt for it. Jesus Christ. What I was saying is that species eat whatever is available, and can be utilized, and at the same time NATURE SELECTS the ones that make the most of it, thus the species as a whole adapts, but NOT because of a freaking underlying intelligence, BUT BECAUSE OF NATURAL SELECTION.

But if that were true, we would see large menus for most of the species, and its not adding up. With the exception of humans anyhow. Try to compare how and what we eat with anything else here on this planet, and it wont add up.

I know I said no more replies, but this time I mean it. Over 300 pages and you can't even grasp what natural selection is and what it leads to. This level of logical reasoning is expected even from elementary school pupils. Not so with you. There is no point to continue this any further.

Natural selection obviously fails at explaining how we or any other species determines what there is to eat.

There is no way that natural selection can determine this unless natural selection is intelligent enough to make sure the choice is there before hand.

There is something else of great importance that your natural selection is not ringing true on as well. If you honestly believe that species simply eat what ever is available, then how is it that every species aside from man anyhow, is able to pick a diet suited to there needs, while we have to read labels and follow advice. Why do all the other species have an internal instinct and we don't? They don't have to read labels and follow eating directions. How did we ever lose that natural connection?

I think tooth has it the wrong way around. Our ability to eat almost anything on this palnet, absolutly points to us as being from here, it the rest of the animals that have the problem.

Some animals can only survive in the wild in certain areas because thats where their food is. If tooths imaginings had even come from the trashiest sci-fi novel, it would be the animals with the limited diet and habitat that would not be from here.

The entity that placed them here, if it wanted them to survive, would have to have placed a food source in the same area for them, and probably only given them one or two choices.

Us, we roam the planet at will, making our homes where we see fit and utilising whatever food source is available.

Man is the ultimate on our planet, we rule.....!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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?

[quote Oh quit being a smuck, you know as well as I do that man made heat is not natural. Notice how no one is coming to your aid to defend you on this idiotic deal.

As opposed to the multitude that come rushing to back up your every statement. And colin is quite correct, something is either natural or not (supernatural if you will). As man is a part of nature (except in your world) what we do is natural.

The problem is, and I think what colin is trying to do, is to get you to actualy offer your understanding of the terms you use, because when you have used terms and people have responded, you have then gone right ahead and made up a definition for the term you used.

So, what is your understanding of natural? Mine is as stated above and can be surmised as "not outside of nature".

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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.

Just because I have had to make up some terms, does not mean they are lies, you incredulous dumb dumb.

I doesnt have to mean they're lies, its probably just a coincidence that they are.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

There is something else of great importance that your natural selection is not ringing true on as well. If you honestly believe that species simply eat what ever is available, then how is it that every species aside from man anyhow, is able to pick a diet suited to there needs, while we have to read labels and follow advice. Why do all the other species have an internal instinct and we don't? They don't have to read labels and follow eating directions. How did we ever lose that natural connection?

edit on 2-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Because if we didnt put lables clearly stating "THIS IS FOOD", people like you would be living off toilet paper and toothpaste.

If the lable didnt say "microwave for 5 minutes" people like you would be living off roastbeef popscicles.

Now be honest...when did you realise that the "contents might be hot" in your last McD's apple pie....was it when you burnt the roof of youer mouth.

reply to post by idmonster

I think tooth has it the wrong way around. Our ability to eat almost anything on this palnet, absolutly points to us as being from here, it the rest of the animals that have the problem.

If eating anything and everything was a sign of us ruling on this planet, then we wouldn't be stricken with so dam many eating diseases. In addition, we would have some internal instinct telling us what we should eat, provided it was here, rather then turning to medical help for diet advice.

Some animals can only survive in the wild in certain areas because thats where their food is. If tooths imaginings had even come from the trashiest sci-fi novel, it would be the animals with the limited diet and habitat that would not be from here.

Thats true but your also failing to consider the fact that we travel, and they don't, otherwise your basically saying we weren't meant to live in most places on this planet. I don't know why but I just don't buy that.

The entity that placed them here, if it wanted them to survive, would have to have placed a food source in the same area for them, and probably only given them one or two choices.

And I agree, I feel that one or two or even half a dozen choices is realistic, yet look at how much humans have in choices and also notice that we can't fulfill our needs on just six choices. Something is very wrong. It's because our food isn't here.

The entity that placed them here, if it wanted them to survive, would have to have placed a food source in the same area for them, and probably only given them one or two choices.

It's totally redundant adaptation.

reply to post by idmonster

As opposed to the multitude that come rushing to back up your every statement. And colin is quite correct, something is either natural or not (supernatural if you will). As man is a part of nature (except in your world) what we do is natural.

Then why don't we present ourselves in a natural way in the wild.

Lets go camping for a minute.
Get loaded up with everything necessary, and notice whats happening here.

First of all you have to get ready to go camping, which includes basic necessitates. Those would not be needed if we truly were in our natural habitat. Your prop a tent, why, to separate yourself from the wild. You brought water and food, but why, when your suppose to be in your natural habitat that would normally supply you with all of that. You also brought a sleeping back and a jacket, but why when your suppose to be able to sleep with no accommodations as you are in your element. Why the jacket when your suppose to have evolved and fit well with the harsh climate.

It's simple, its not our environment.

The problem is, and I think what colin is trying to do, is to get you to actualy offer your understanding of the terms you use, because when you have used terms and people have responded, you have then gone right ahead and made up a definition for the term you used.

So, what is your understanding of natural? Mine is as stated above and can be surmised as "not outside of nature".

And I can agree with your definition.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

I think tooth has it the wrong way around. Our ability to eat almost anything on this palnet, absolutly points to us as being from here, it the rest of the animals that have the problem.

If eating anything and everything was a sign of us ruling on this planet, then we wouldn't be stricken with so dam many eating diseases. In addition, we would have some internal instinct telling us what we should eat, provided it was here, rather then turning to medical help for diet advice.

Then you need to learn to eat. I dont think I have ever had food poisoning, I dont use a "dietician" or "nutritionist", I dont use all the suppliments you seem to think we cant live without. i can only assume from what you have told me that you live in a particularly sickly community.

Some animals can only survive in the wild in certain areas because thats where their food is. If tooths imaginings had even come from the trashiest sci-fi novel, it would be the animals with the limited diet and habitat that would not be from here.

Thats true but your also failing to consider the fact that we travel, and they don't, otherwise your basically saying we weren't meant to live in most places on this planet. I don't know why but I just don't buy that.

No, I am saying the we are meant to live all over our planet. We have no boundaries. The planet is ours.

The entity that placed them here, if it wanted them to survive, would have to have placed a food source in the same area for them, and probably only given them one or two choices.

And I agree, I feel that one or two or even half a dozen choices is realistic, yet look at how much humans have in choices and also notice that we can't fulfill our needs on just six choices. Something is very wrong. It's because our food isn't here.

On or two choices,sounds like the words of a zookeeper to me. Nope, again your wrong, we can eat lots of different things in a multiple of locations because this is our planet. I am sure that we probably could pick 6 items and get by just fine on them, but whay should we. We are the lords of or planet and nothing shall be denied to us...I'm having dolphin flippers and panda ears for tea.

The entity that placed them here, if it wanted them to survive, would have to have placed a food source in the same area for them, and probably only given them one or two choices.

It's totally redundant adaptation.

Redundant as in excessive, again wrong. Our extreme evolution just shows that we have been supplied with all the tools required to dominate our plant.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Seriously, You DO NOT want to go camping with me.

All animals protect themselves from harsh environments, some like the big cats in africa, make sure they stay out of the mid-day sun. At the other end of the spectrum, even penguins shelter from the blizzards.

But you know what, this is our planet, so if we want to go live in the cold we will, and we will bend nature to our will to do it. We can do this because this is our planet and we know how.

This is definately our planet. Its the rest of the animals that appear to be living in some giant zoo. Limited food choices, limited habitats.

(as an aside, to prove mans ultimate dominance, I'll fight any animal you like as long as I can choose the time and location)

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sorry to embarrass you, and the reason I chose wild life over wild is because the definition was not in depth enough to offer understanding, and we all know your having a problem in that department. As far as why I chose wild life over others, is because it is what we are talking about in general.

Dont say sorry to me because all you have done is shown you have no grasp of what you are speaking about and a very low level of inteligence.

IN THE WILD was a term you used. I asked for a definiton of what you meant by that. I did not ask for WILDLIFE which you supplied a link for and I did not ask for WILD.

You chose wildlife because if you tried to argue around 'in the wild you knew you would fail.

Well I was exaggerating but I didn't expect you to realize this.

Your lies are tragic. You obviously believe clothes are made by magic.

It has been explained to you multiple times now. I don't know if your doing drugs, or what the problem is but I have explained it over three times now. Are you sure your not confusing your not accepting it with not seeing it.

Still waiting for definition of redundant adaptation.

Oh quit being a smuck, you know as well as I do that man made heat is not natural. Notice how no one is coming to your aid to defend you on this idiotic deal.

I dont need anyone to come to my aid. And you need to explain how man makes 'heat' by any other means than natural. That means he has to break the laws of physics to generate unnatural heat

There is nothing redundant in his attack you moron.

There is no step that is redundant when making bread either imbecile.

All I remember is you writing something about ants working with chemicals.

So why did you say they harvested chemicals? You pea brain. You claim you know enough about ants to decided if they fit your moronic view of the world and you still dont know information that has been spoon fed you.

Just because I have had to make up some terms, does not mean they are lies, you incredulous dumb dumb.

Your the incredulous one, throughout this thread.

Your made up terms are a complete and utter construct by an imbecile that have no meaning. The fact you had to make up terms to suit your made up fantasy tells everything about you. A sick delude moron that cannot move without forming a lie built on an untruth. So scared of the world you live in you surround yoursel in a fantasy. You coward.

Well I don't see clothing being born in the wild, so there you go.

And that has precisely what to do with the struggle all animals have to go through to live?

reply to post by idmonster

Then you need to learn to eat. I dont think I have ever had food poisoning, I dont use a "dietician" or "nutritionist", I dont use all the suppliments you seem to think we cant live without. i can only assume from what you have told me that you live in a particularly sickly community.

Well I think we are getting to the heart of the problem here, and hopefully you realize what is going on here. Did you notice how your response to me on this was that I need to learn how to eat. In other words knowing how to eat or even not to eat is a learned ability. Can you please justify this with any other species on the planet suffering from the same problems? No you can't, because they are not taught how to eat, they just instinctively know how. Isn't it odd that we don't. Actually no, when we are not in our natural environment, its not odd at all.

No, I am saying the we are meant to live all over our planet. We have no boundaries. The planet is ours.

Well I got that as well, but I think you also missed my point as well. Did you not ever think it to be odd that our basic needs are scattered over varying areas?

On or two choices,sounds like the words of a zookeeper to me. Nope, again your wrong, we can eat lots of different things in a multiple of locations because this is our planet. I am sure that we probably could pick 6 items and get by just fine on them, but whay should we. We are the lords of or planet and nothing shall be denied to us...I'm having dolphin flippers and panda ears for tea.

Now see I disagree. I think things we need in our diet is scattered over large areas, that would be impossible to maintain if it weren't for shipping and harvesting. In addition I think we might need about 50 things in the food menu to keep a well rounded healthy lifestyle. The key thing that you might not see from this is that if our intended food was available, we might need say only 6 things.

Redundant as in excessive, again wrong. Our extreme evolution just shows that we have been supplied with all the tools required to dominate our plant.

Here is where you missing the big picture, we don't dominate the planet because we want to, its because its either that or we suffer, its that simple. This planet wasn't made for us. Where in our intended planet it would be the other way around, and we wouldn't have to dedicate so much time to simply staying alive.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Ya processed and man made foods don't apply. Sorry I don't know how much simpler I can spell it out for you. Your just being so ignorant that your pretending to not understand what processed or man made food is.

The trouble is you accept all the processes that other animals do as natural. So you need to explain more than I tooth rule it out.

Well a target food only applies when the food is a main source of diet and depended on.

Then any animal with out a main source and there are many, have not got a target food. You are very dense.

Yes you are correct, apples meet like all but one. They just aren't depended on.

But you chose the definiton for target food that contained the 'OR' option. Or means it only has to fulfill one item on that list. So you fail again even though you agreed to the definition.

Well like I have mentioned many times on here, a desperate person could eat toilet paper and toothpaste, that doesn't mean they were meant for us to eat.

Ok dip stick you eat toilet paper and toothpaste. I'll eat apples thanks

Nope, apples are not a necessary food anywhere that I'm aware of.

You have proved yourself to be the most unaware person on the planet so your statement means nothing.

Of course I was exaggerating and your never able to catch that. You must have a learning disability with as many times as I have repeated this.

When you need a new shirt do you get your wand out. Clothesyartus. You could be the new Harry Potty

reply to post by colin42

Dont say sorry to me because all you have done is shown you have no grasp about what you are speaking about and a very low level of inteligence.

IN THE WILD was a term you used. I asked of a definiton of what you meant by that. I did not ask for WILDLIFE which you supplied a link for and I did not ask for WILD.

You chose wildlife because if you tried to argue around 'in the wild you knew you would fail.

Well colin if your such a mind reader why do you need me to define things.

Your lies are tragic. You obviously believe clothes are made by magic.

So you agree that clothing doesn't grow in the wild.

Still waiting for definition of redundant adaptation.

Redundant adaptation means an excessive amount of steps are used just in allowing us to adapt. In other words we failed to evolve.

I dont need anyone to come to my aid. And you need to explain how man makes 'heat' by any other means than natural. That means he has to break the laws of physics to generate unnatural heat

Quit being a stoop, anyone knows that a heating element in a dryer is not natural heat. My god how is it you understand evolution but not the simplest of things.

There is no step that is redundant when making bread either imbecile.

If its anything more than one step, then its redundant.

All I remember is you writing something about ants working with chemicals.

So why did you say they harvested chemicals? You pea brain. You claim you know enough about ants to decided if they fit your moronic view of the world and you still dont know information that has been spoon fed you.

If your trying to be an incredulous horses ass, your succeeding.

Your the incredulous one, throughout this thread.

Not at all, I learned about speciation, microevolution and macroevolution, and after so came to the decision that the facts speak for them self. Evolution is not real. It doesn't apply to humans and its never been witnessed outside of some aquatic life, bacteria, viruses, and some insects.

Your made up terms are a complete and utter construct by an imbecile that have no meaning. The fact you had to make up terms to suit your made up fantasy tells everything about you. A sick delude moron that cannot move without forming a lie built on an untruth. So scared of the world you live in you surround yoursel in a fantasy. You coward.

Just because your pretending to play stupid, and your not fooling me LOL, doesn't mean your right. You can ask the same pathetic questions over and over, they don't change. You can also pretend to not understand definitions when I have sent you direct links to wiki definitions. Just the most incredulous coward I have ever seen in my life.

It's what you have resorted to since you couldn't win a debate with me, so you resorted to profiling me, and when that didn't work you decided to try to ignore the definitions. When is your pea brain going to learn that the only way you can win a debate is by winning the debate. Don't feel bad, I know you can't win it. But it doesn't make you any less of a person so don't take it personal. One thing you should however take personally is how incredulous you are and resorting to lame and unfair tactics just because you are losing a debate. Even worse is lying along the way, like saying we all live in the wild when the definition on wiki clearly says differently.

And that has precisely what to do with the struggle all animals have to go through to live?

The day that monkeys knit sweaters, I'll apologize to you ok!