Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

... eating in the wild.

Jeezus. Just answer the question

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.

or

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

Which one?

You can ask till your blue in the face, but until you ask nicely, your not getting an answer from you incredulous old fart.

What a very genius like answer. Grow and and answer the question.

Can you restate the question, and I think I already answered this one.

Avoidance again. Update and supply your defintion for target food.

I already gave you this from wiki, and you rejected it.

Nope. You gave WILD and then WILDLIFE I asked for the definition of IN THE WILD. very different.

Well obviously because those are my credentials, and you have none as far as I have seen, aside from repeatedly asking the same questions over and over and rejecting all of my answers.

They are personal information that have no bearing on this topic. I have to repeatedly ask the questions as you refuse to answer them. It will continue until you do.

One is usually prescribed by a doctor, now I'll let your genius mind figure out which one.

The one supplied to the doctor is from the drugs industry and again only you have calimed to be a borderline genius.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's called deductive reasoning, but I'm sure you know nothing about that detective repeat.

you have no concept of deductive reasoning

Nope, I was being an idiot and just took your word for it.

Yes you are an idiot. I never said anything about ants harvesting chemicals and that still does not explain how you concluded that ants harvesting chemicals is natural. So still waiting how did you reach that conclusion? What did you base you decision on?

It is if you use deductive reasoning, but I honestly don't expect you to understand, and I do expect you to drill me on the term, title, and definition for the next 20 pages.

Rest assured I will until you provide the explanation.

No what this teaches me colin is that you in fact have YOUR OWN definition of these words, and have taken a personal decision to not accept the mainstream versions. This is why your questioning me on them and trying to get them entered in a debate. You feel that by rejecting the authentic versions, and flogging people with your own versions, that you can change the truth. I'm sorry to say it doesn't work that way.

Just suppy the definitions and answer the questions I have been asking you.

This had already been established colin, which tells me that you obviously still don't understand my reply on it and probably still think I had just conjured up an excuse.

No it has not and yes, you just conjured up an excuse.

I'm glad to see after 7 unneeded pages that you finally decided to get to the bottom of this. So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. Your basically saying that because we have these common endeavors with ants, we both must be in the same boat. We are either both not from here, or are both from here. I think this leads us back to square one that we were at prior to all of this, which is that I obviously don't know enough about ants to make a comment about them.

But you in no uncertain terms have maintained throughout that ants do these things naturally and humans do not. Now you admit you do not know enough about ants to comment. That is the definition for incredulous.

The complicated thing that is eluding you in this, as it does with most, is the human element. What I mean by that is that if your going to assume that humans are not from here, and you are going to produce things to prove it so, you need to also test the theory by removing us from the element, which you had failed to do.

I am not the one trying to prove we are not from here. You are the one that assumes we are not from here and how do you remove the human element from the world in which we live. You really make no sense. Even if you did remove humanity from the equation it would still not change evolution being a reall and provable process.

It's also not an easy thing to do which is why I'm always saying I don't expect you to understand. I'm not being mean, I'm being honest and not everyone can do so.

No, you are lost in your deluded fantasy

Again, its entirely possible that we learned how to harvest, and that we also learned from some other species to use pesticide's, it doesn't even have to be the ant we learned it from. It lacks instinctive values, which proves your assumption to be false.

Again a meaningless rambling nonsense. Do you think any of that sounds profound? It is not it is the ranting of a madman. You now bring in another made up term. What the hell is instinctive values?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Aside from target food, which has been explained with a series of other definitions, they are all available through wiki and google. I see no point in opening up a can of worms for you so that you can debate the original meanings. I'm not using any odd versions or my own versions of the definitions, I'm using the english language.

I have already told you that your made up terms are not on any search engine. They are what you have constructed so you need to provide the definition.

Yes you giving the definitions will open a can of worms because finally you will have to work harder to dismiss information provided to you. You have changed what you say defines target food so you need to provide the updated version so it has not been explained.

Well if I was fabricating my own definitions of those words, I sure in the hell wouldn't be sending you to wiki as those are the known definitions.

How many times do you need to be told. These terms are of your construction. They do not exist anywhere else. So you provide the definition.

The only one that doesn't exist is Target food, and I have explained its comprised of these other definitions.

You have not given the revised definiton for target food. You changed it, you supply it. What other definitions? you mean the other terms you made up? You have not supplied them.

I have already provided you with links to wiki going directly to them. If your computer doesn't display links thats not my fault.

Go back and read my response to the links you provided. One linked to a film 'unnatural' one had no information. They all had no bearing on the terms you use. So you have not provided the definitions.

The only one you wont find is Target food. I don't make up my own language sorry.

You lie again. You made up target food. Also the terms redundant adaption, unnatural food to name a few. None exist so none can be found with a search. You tried it and failed as well which is why you cannot supply the defintions and you do not have the wit or intelligence to explain them yourself.

I believe that Domesticated animals will NOT have target food.

It is just to easy to knock your ignorance for six. Domesticated cattle eat grass. Non domestic cattle eat grass. If any animal had a target food it would be them. Do you still believe domesticated animals will not have target food???
You still need to answer the original question

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.

or

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

Which one is wrong?

And this is where you have made a mistake as you have taken the word most to mean all. Sorry it doesn't.

Nope. I have taken the two statments as they are and as you wrote them

reply to post by itsthetooth

Really ! Then what do you think it does, turn it into fact ?

YES, finally you get it

Here's why!

The link you posted conflicts date with the wiki link on speciation.

What date conflicts with what???

This was a much better link but the problem here is when they say biological evolution is a fact, they aren't saying that each and every step has been proven, they also aren't admitting to which parts that includes. Again, and I stand my ground on this, if they are referring to speciation, no progress has been made. And from the lack of information, they could be talking about anything.

Wow...just wow! That's what you get from reading it??? So you're blatantly ignoring everything that goes against your belief? Really? That ignorant? We know for a FACT that humans share a common ancestor with today's chimps...that fellow lived around 4.1m years ago.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Wow...just wow! That's what you get from reading it??? So you're blatantly ignoring everything that goes against your belief? Really? That ignorant? We know for a FACT that humans share a common ancestor with today's chimps...that fellow lived around 4.1m years ago.

This is why I am trying to get him to give the definitions of the made up terms he uses because he will continue to dismsiss any information given to him just as he has done since page 60.

I ask for a definiton of unnatural food and he provides a link to unnatural that only points to a film. I ask for a defintion of what he means by IN THE WILD and he gives links to WILD and WILDLIFE. Is he just a troll or does he not understand that a single word takes on a different meaning when combined with another?

I am aware that I swamp other posts here by asking for these from him but until he is pinned down he will continue with his dishonest approach to this subject. So sorry guys.

reply to post by itsthetooth


As you're probably aware, I like to chip in every now and then.

"Ants harvesting chemicals" I find quite interesting. You need to read all of this to understand the question I wil ask.

Colin posted something about ants and chemicals and pesticides etc. Its irrellevant what the content was or whether it was interpreted correctly or not, what is relevant is the following.

At no point did colin actually state that ants harvested chemicals, however as tooth "speed" read the post this was the conclusion that was drawn, i.e. that colin had made that statement.

Tooths reply was that ants "do it naturally"

Now, considering that this process doesnt actually occur, on what does tooth base the statement that "ants do it naturally" on?

There is no wiki to research.

There are no papers outlining the processes that ants apply to harvesting chemicals, because they dont, so how does one draw that conclusion?

Is it an automatic response that everything man does is "unnatural" regardless of whether it is reflected elsewhere in the natural world?

I dont know why tooth is such a sapiensaphobe. (I was going to use homophobe but think that already has an unrelated definition)

reply to post by idmonster
Thanks for that ID. I was begining to wonder if I was not making the point clear.

To show an even handed approach can you show tooth how it is done and supply a definition for sapiensaphobe.

Edit for tooth

Here is an example of how words change when combined.

1. Swimming: The action of moving through water.
2. Costumes: A set of clothing or single garment that makes up an outfit.
3. Swimming costume. Clothes that you swim in so you dont get arrested for skinny dipping.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition.

I also think the question of defining "most" needs addressing.

Tooth states that he uses word in a context that "most highschool kids" could understand.

If I state that Most of something has a paticular state/function/manerism etc, most "high school kids" would read that as meaning the majority. In the case of a 50/50 argument, "most" would mean greater than 51%.

(any high schoolers on here can tell me if I am way out on this)

So making the statements that most animals "would" have a target food, and that most "wouldnt" have a target food is absolutly contradictory, both statements cannot be correct.

In fact, regardless of how many options are available, most would always indicate the higher percentage and therefore when presented as contradictory argument, can never both be correct.

e.g with four food choices (a,b,c,d) by percentage "most" could mean anything from 26%, to 97% but only one choice could represent "most.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

Thanks for that ID. I was begining to wonder if I was not making the point clear.

To show an even handed approach can you show tooth how it is done and supply a definition for sapiensaphobe.

Roger that!

Sapiensaphobe is clearly a made up term by me, I would define a sapiensaphobe as a person who has an irrational fear or dislike of (strictly speaking, I should say intelligence but due to homophobe already being widly understood as the irrational fear of homosexuals) homosapiens.

reply to post by idmonster

So making the statements that most animals "would" have a target food, and that most "wouldnt" have a target food is absolutly contradictory, both statements cannot be correct.

We already established that was a typo where I was conflicted in considering domesticated animals or not. Just to bring you up to speed

reply to post by colin42

Jeezus. Just answer the question

That is the answer, Eating in the wild. Unless I lost track of the question.

Which one?

The correct answer is that some things do have target food.

What a very genius like answer. Grow and and answer the question.

I would say if you include domesticated animals, then only some of the species have target food. If you omitt them, then more dont.

Avoidance again. Update and supply your defintion for target food.

As I recall the list you came up with was pretty accurate.

Not a quote but...
*Eating natural not man made food.
As in your last example, bread is not natural food. It doesn't grow on its own in the wild.
*A type of food that is highly depended on, or a main food.
There would be no question.
*No unnatural processes.
Unnatural processes only come from mans intervention in the process, things like adding chemicals and cooking.
*No redundant processes in the food.
If the ant for example had to re harvest the same food 5 times before he ate it, thats redundant, of course it never happens.
*One that there is a good supply of.
If for some reason there used to be a good supply of it but there is no longer, that is still a good example.

Not sure, but I think thats it...

reply to post by colin42

It is just to easy to knock your ignorance for six. Domesticated cattle eat grass. Non domestic cattle eat grass. If any animal had a target food it would be them. Do you still believe domesticated animals will not have target food???
You still need to answer the original question

Nope, domesticated cattle would eat domesticated grass.

reply to post by idmonster
Add to that that one of tooths statments refers to evidence in his historical document, the bible

Well I never said that all or even most others have target food, especially since it even tells us in the bible that a lot of species were brought here, means they probably won't have target food.

And the other one contradicts the first

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

Unless tooth gives the answer then the only one that can be accepted is the one backed by his evidence in the bible.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

So making the statements that most animals "would" have a target food, and that most "wouldnt" have a target food is absolutly contradictory, both statements cannot be correct.

We already established that was a typo where I was conflicted in considering domesticated animals or not. Just to bring you up to speed

We have established no such thing and including domestic animals does not change anything. So now your up to speed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

So making the statements that most animals "would" have a target food, and that most "wouldnt" have a target food is absolutly contradictory, both statements cannot be correct.

We already established that was a typo where I was conflicted in considering domesticated animals or not. Just to bring you up to speed

Not where I'm form, htis sentense cotnains typos and peling misteaks, gramma to. but the content is absuloot.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That is the answer, Eating in the wild. Unless I lost track of the question.

You have lost track of reality sunshine. Define IN THE WILD and what eating in the wild has to do with your two contradicting statements?

The correct answer is that some things do have target food.

Shall we forget you even wrote that because you are digging a deeper hole because you would have to answer which of the three statments is the correct one.

I would say if you include domesticated animals, then only some of the species have target food. If you omitt them, then more dont.

Just answer the question. Your avoidance is becoming legendary in how pathetic you are showing yourself to be.

As I recall the list you came up with was pretty accurate.

Let me correct you. I put together your terms because you would not.
1. Eating natural not man made food.
2. A type of food that is highly depended on, or a main food.
3. No unnatural processes.(you need to define unnatural processes for this to be included)
4. No redundant processes in the food. ( you really need to define redundant processes for this to be included)
5. One that there is a good supply of. (you may regret not defining this one)

Not sure, but I think thats it...

Oh dear. You need to be sure because you are defining the term.

As in your last example, bread is not natural food. It doesn't grow on its own in the wild.

You need to define IN THE WILD

Unnatural processes only come from mans intervention in the process, things like adding chemicals and cooking.

Hogwash. explain why you think anything humans do is unnatural

If the ant for example had to re harvest the same food 5 times before he ate it, thats redundant, of course it never happens.

And of course humans dont have to reharvest anything 5 times before he eats it.

reply to post by colin42

I have already told you that your made up terms are not on any search engine. They are what you have constructed so you need to provide the definition.

Target food is not but the definitions that support it is.

Yes you giving the definitions will open a can of worms because finally you will have to work harder to dismiss information provided to you. You have changed what you say defines target food so you need to provide the updated version so it has not been explained.

Worst case I might have omitted some definitions, but the definitions themselves are what they are and they don't change.

How many times do you need to be told. These terms are of your construction. They do not exist anywhere else. So you provide the definition.

I did, I gave you the wiki links and you rejected them.

You have not given the revised definiton for target food. You changed it, you supply it. What other definitions? you mean the other terms you made up? You have not supplied them.

There are no made up terms only the term target food.

Go back and read my response to the links you provided. One linked to a film 'unnatural' one had no information. They all had no bearing on the terms you use. So you have not provided the definitions.

Well what do you expect colin, your a blundering idiot that believes that bread is not man made and an all natural food. I don't know what to tell you. Your head isn't on straight man.

wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.

Maybe that one will help for wild.

You lie again. You made up target food. Also the terms redundant adaption, unnatural food to name a few. None exist so none can be found with a search. You tried it and failed as well which is why you cannot supply the defintions and you do not have the wit or intelligence to explain them yourself.

Well again colin this is because you believe that everything on this planet is natural, and your wrong. Hate to break it to you but this is why your having a problem with definitions, and its coming around full circle to you.

If you don't understand redundant adaptation, you will have to break it down into two parts and look it up that way.


re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.



Synonyms: superfluous - unnecessary - needless - excessive - spare

ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.

Now I see how you thought it was a movie, you couldn't possibly connect the fact that its excessive. OMG.

It is just to easy to knock your ignorance for six. Domesticated cattle eat grass. Non domestic cattle eat grass. If any animal had a target food it would be them. Do you still believe domesticated animals will not have target food???
You still need to answer the original question

They could be eating domesticated grass.

Which one is wrong?

If your not considering domesticated animals I would say the first one was a typo, Most things do have target food.

Nope. I have taken the two statments as they are and as you wrote them

Then the first one is a typo.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Nope, domesticated cattle would eat domesticated grass.

You are not serious here are you? Come on this is beyond stupid.

Domesticated grass I have heard it all now. What is the difference between domesticated grass and any other type of grass?

reply to post by MrXYZ

YES, finally you get it

No man, hypothesis mixed with fact does not make facts, it makes postulate theories.

What date conflicts with what???

Not date, data.

Wow...just wow! That's what you get from reading it??? So you're blatantly ignoring everything that goes against your belief? Really? That ignorant? We know for a FACT that humans share a common ancestor with today's chimps...that fellow lived around 4.1m years ago.

And do you know exactly what mechanisim was used to come to the conclusion? Do you have anything on it?

reply to post by idmonster



Well if I'm a sapiensaphobe about this, then you must be new to whats going on. I didn't have to research the goof, I had never heard of anything that ants do that is unnatural. Now I understand that you guys might rely on the straight forward approach and find it pretty time consuming and tidius, but I on the other hand just realized some common sense facts. As a result a lot of unnecessary work was avoided.

And was I wrong, NO, I was right, Ants aren't guilty of any unnatural activity.

Now I'm sure this approach might sound shocking to somone with your mentality, but over time you will catch on.