Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

That would be because that is the wiki that google takes you to when you search that word, moron!

Nope. You supplied a link to hoarding and not animals that harvest crops. So that clearly makes you the moron and a very dishonest moron at that.

Supply the list of species you say harvest. Back that list with proof or admit you are wrong.

You will have to google it yourself because if I try to post it, the link wont work.

How convienient for you. I prefer to stick by what I know of you and call another lie. You have no link but are too cowardly to admit you are wrong.

Since you like to assume so much, why don't you just assume I'm right.

I'll assume you are again lying. Never known to be the wrong assumption in your case

You can shadow me in your ignorance, I know how to use google, and apparently you don't.

If you know how to use google how come every link you give is either to a different topic or information that actually shows you to be wrong and now a link that does not work. Again I will assume you are lying

Ya but milk cows don't live on grass, they are grain fed, and the grain is man made you moron.

'Milk cows'? Is your whole vocabulary stuck at the age of a five year old? Are individuals moo cows in your world. Dairy cattle are fed in many ways and as grass is cheap that is the prefered option and why you see all those moo cows in fields you twonk.

I'm still shocked that you chose to be honest for once.

You would be as you choose a lie even if the truth is the simple answer.

Well you missed the point, no big shocker, which was that sometimes that answer is right in front of us and doesn't require a lot of work to find.

No smuck you wrote

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.

Clearly gathering evidence to you is tidius hard work. Being the lazy lump you are you choose to lie rather than work.

I think the dishonesty is in your being incredulous. You ignored every possibility I brought up, then in the attempt to try to disassemble things, tripped over your own work. Even if a house sparrow does have a relationship with our homes, that isn't to say that he has a relationship with us. But you stood firm on your flimsy tail and were so incredulous that it had to be a good answer.
Who is really being dishonest here?
Epic fail.

I told you already. You are the one being dishonest and no you want to discuss the house sparrow to attempt to hide from this topic that is the epic fail.

Supply the definitions to your made up terms. Supply the updated version of 'target food' and now supply the list of species you maintain harvest crops yet have not supplied any proof.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

You supply the definitions to the terms you use as you have been asked to for many pages now. Twonk

I already explained to you that the terms your asking for definition of, are obtainable through the standard definitions.

Comon' tooth, just admit you want to keep the definition as vague as possible to have a "way out" in case people quote you

reply to post by itsthetooth

How tragic it is to end one post pointing out your dishonest approach to this thread and have to open the next also highlighting your dishonesty.

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

your reply is

One thing is for sure, you sure have integrity in being incredulous.

This one is correct, the other was a typo.

Again I will point out that in no way do I accept that the other statement was a typo

Of course not, because someone as perfect as I am, never makes mistakes right? Thanks for standing up for me.

And you call my approach incredulous.

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.

You clearly justify the first part of this rubbish by refering to the bible as supporting evidence. So this is clearly not a typo but your dishonest tactic to avoid accepting you are wrong by continually changing the meanings of your made up terms, hence the reason for demanding they be defined which you have refused to do.

And your answer to all that is

Well they have already been defined and they aren't going to change if thats what your waiting for.

So you avoid answering my point that the statment you made was in no way a typo and that is your answer. A lie about something else and no you have never given the definitions for your made up terms that change to suit your current argument.

Well this is obviously where your train got derailed, your making an assumption (like you always do) that a lot means most, and it doesn't have to. I'm sure there were a lot of species brought here, but it may not add up to most, considering there was probably a plethora of life already here.

Explain what you mean by 'MOST' as you were asked which means I was not making an assumption but your non answers leave little other options.

Simple, I had never heard of anything unnatural that the ants partake in.

Really. That does not explain that ants harvesting chemicals would be unnatural as they do not do it. Again how did you reach the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?

Well I thought I was quoting you.

It does not matter what you thought. You was wrong and so was your conclusion and I want to know what you based your obvious assumption on?

I have clearly shown that there is ample reason that suggests intervention did in fact happen to us. There is more proof of this than there is of evolution.

You have never come close to showing anything and that includes definitions for your made up terms. Answering your contradictions or explaining how you came to the wrong conclusion

The terms are the common usage of the words and target food is not going to change.

Fine then you should have no problem in supplying the definitions for them

1. Target food. You need to supply your final updated version
2. Unnatural food. Definition of the term not 'unnatural' or 'food' but 'unnatural food'
3. Redundant adaption. Not redundant or adaption.
4. In the wild: Explain/define what you mean by In the wild not 'wild' or 'wildlife'
5. What you mean by MOST when trying to explain your lie about who has the mythical target food.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

You supply the definitions to the terms you use as you have been asked to for many pages now. Twonk

I already explained to you that the terms your asking for definition of, are obtainable through the standard definitions.

Comon' tooth, just admit you want to keep the definition as vague as possible to have a "way out" in case people quote you

That is exactly his intention and what he has been allowed to do by us for too many pages.

reply to post by colin42

Comon' tooth, just admit you want to keep the definition as vague as possible to have a "way out" in case people quote you

That is exactly his intention and what he has been allowed to do by us for too many pages.

You have never come close to showing anything and that includes definitions for your made up terms. Answering your contradictions or explaining how you came to the wrong conclusion


The terms are the common usage of the words and target food is not going to change.

Fine then you should have no problem in supplying the definitions for them

Ok...

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.

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.

wild/wīld/Adjective: (of an animal or plant) Living or growing in the natural environment; not domesticated or cultivated.
Adverb: In an uncontrolled manner: "the bad guys shot wild".
Noun: A natural state or uncultivated or uninhabited region: "kiwis are virtually extinct in the wild".
Synonyms: adjective. savage - mad - feral
noun. wilderness - waste

un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected

food/fo͞od/Noun: Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth.
Synonyms: nourishment - fare - nutriment - aliment - pabulum

tar·get/ˈtärgit/Noun: A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
Verb: Select as an object of attention or attack.
Synonyms: aim - mark - goal - objective - object - purpose

reply to post by itsthetooth
You can only be doing this for one of two reasons.

(A) You are being purposely thick and avoiding providing the definitions for the terms you made up and constantly use/alter

or

(B) You are thick

So again

Fine then you should have no problem in supplying the definitions for them

1. Target food. You need to supply your final updated version
2. Unnatural food. Definition of the term not 'unnatural' or 'food' but 'unnatural food'
3. Redundant adaption. Not redundant or adaption.
4. In the wild: Explain/define what you mean by In the wild not 'wild' or 'wildlife'
5. What you mean by MOST when trying to explain your lie about who has the mythical target food.

reply to post by colin42

Again I will point out that in no way do I accept that the other statement was a typo

Thats ok, I'm not here to be accepted.

So you avoid answering my point that the statment you made was in no way a typo and that is your answer. A lie about something else and no you have never given the definitions for your made up terms that change to suit your current argument.

I dont know what to tell you, it was a typo, If you feel I'm wrong then prove it otherwise.

Explain what you mean by 'MOST' as you were asked which means I was not making an assumption but your non answers leave little other options. Let me give you an example of use of the word. "Most of the time, your an idiot."

most/mōst/
Adjective:
Greatest in amount or degree: "they've had the most success"; "they had the most to lose".
Adverb:
To the greatest extent: "the things he most enjoyed".
Synonyms:
very - greatly - extremely - passing - highly - much

Really. That does not explain that ants harvesting chemicals would be unnatural as they do not do it. Again how did you reach the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?

True, but I thought I was quoting you.

It does not matter what you thought. You was wrong and so was your conclusion and I want to know what you based your obvious assumption on?

Just false memory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats ok, I'm not here to be accepted.

Then that is all you have achieved, well done.

On the other hand your refusal to explain your two conflicting statements that as shown neither was a typo forces myself and others to make the assumption that you are dishonest and no lie is too stupid if it allows you to avoid facing the truth.

I dont know what to tell you, it was a typo, If you feel I'm wrong then prove it otherwise.

How about the TRUTH? And I did prove it. Read my answer you are replying too

You clearly justify the first part of this rubbish by refering to the bible as supporting evidence. So this is clearly not a typo but your dishonest tactic to avoid accepting you are wrong by continually changing the meanings of your made up terms, hence the reason for demanding they be defined which you have refused to do.

most/mōst/
Adjective:
Greatest in amount or degree: "they've had the most success"; "they had the most to lose".
Adverb:
To the greatest extent: "the things he most enjoyed".
Synonyms:
very - greatly - extremely - passing - highly - much

That is the definition of most but does not explain what YOU meant when you used it in 'target food'. 51%, 90%, 99% what do YOU mean by most.

My question: Really. That does not explain that ants harvesting chemicals would be unnatural as they do not do it. Again how did you reach the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?

Your feeble answer:

True, but I thought I was quoting you.

That for the umpteenth time does not explain what you based your incorrect assumption on and how you came to the incorrect conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural when it is anything but natural as they dont harvest chemicals.

Again you refuse to answer.

My question: It does not matter what you thought. You was wrong and so was your conclusion and I want to know what you based your obvious assumption on?

your reply:

Just false memory.

And you believe that is an acceptable answer

You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????

reply to post by colin42

Thats ok, I'm not here to be accepted.

Then that is all you have achieved, well done.

On the other hand your refusal to explain your two conflicting statements that as shown neither was a typo forces myself and others to make the assumption that you are dishonest and no lie is too stupid if it allows you to avoid facing the truth.

Man your so wrapped up in spotting lies, that your missing the truth. Your blind.

You clearly justify the first part of this rubbish by refering to the bible as supporting evidence. So this is clearly not a typo but your dishonest tactic to avoid accepting you are wrong by continually changing the meanings of your made up terms, hence the reason for demanding they be defined which you have refused to do.

Again thats because your taking the word most out of context.

That is the definition of most but does not explain what YOU meant when you used it in 'target food'. 51%, 90%, 99% what do YOU mean by most.

I'm going with the adjective.

My question: Really. That does not explain that ants harvesting chemicals would be unnatural as they do not do it. Again how did you reach the conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural?

I made an educated guess based on how I wasn't able to find anything unnatural they do.

That for the umpteenth time does not explain what you based your incorrect assumption on and how you came to the incorrect conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals was natural when it is antything but natural as they dont harvest chemicals.

I'm going to say your wrong anyhow, seeing that they used pesticide's, they have to harvest it somehow.

Just false memory.

And you believe that is an acceptable answer

Doesn't matter what I think, thats whats going on.

You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????

I honestly don't understand how you can complain that ants use pesticides, then turn around and claim they don't harvest chemicals.

I think your a few screws short.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Man your so wrapped up in spotting lies, that your missing the truth. Your blind.

The problem is, all you offer is lies. I am not blind enough to be unable to see through your tissue of lies.

Again thats because your taking the word most out of context.

Not so. Your are the one focusing on one word where I quote the whole paragraph in full.

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.

That shows exactly what I am telling you that in no way was this a typo. Here is my justifaction for that.

You clearly justify the first part of this rubbish by refering to the bible as supporting evidence. So this is clearly not a typo but your dishonest tactic to avoid accepting you are wrong by continually changing the meanings of your made up terms, hence the reason for demanding they be defined which you have refused to do.

your weak answer

Again thats because your taking the word most out of context.

I have laid out the argument in full context. You are again just a failed liar.

So are you telling me your use of most in the other contradicting statment is also a typo?

Aside from humans, most things here have target food.

I'm going with the adjective.

So you cannot even explain in what context you used MOST in when descibing 'target food'. You acuse me of just looking for lies yet that is all you offer.

I made an educated guess based on how I wasn't able to find anything unnatural they do.

Really? you made an assumption that you constantly acuse others of doing and claim you will not accept from others.

You called it an educated guess yet it was based on ignorance. No of course you cannot find anything unnatural they do except your belief that they harvest chemicals.

Still. An educated guess is made by looking at the evidence so what did you base your incorrect conclusion on?

I'm going to say your wrong anyhow, seeing that they used pesticide's, they have to harvest it somehow.

You really know how to dig holes for yourself dont you. Show me, with links where ants harvest somehow the pesticide they use on their crops. I did supply the information in the links you dismissed and obviously never read.

Doesn't matter what I think, thats whats going on.

Even by your low standards that is pathetic

I honestly don't understand how you can complain that ants use pesticides, then turn around and claim they don't harvest chemicals.

I think your a few screws short.

With the biggest library at your finger tips in the history of mankind and that is your best answer. You are the lazy, completely ignorant lying, wooden headed fool that describes Pinocchio, your namesake

You never answered: It does not matter if you were confused or not. YOU CLAIMED ANTS HARVESTING CHEMICALS WAS NATURAL WHEN ANTS DO NOT HARVEST CHEMICALS. AGAIN I ASK

HOW DID YOU REACH THAT CONCLUSION???????

Edit: BTW you have not explained why you supplied a link to hoarding to support your list of species you say harvest their crops. Am I to take it this is another question you intend not answering

Pg83

“Notice how I don't shun anything out in my belief. Evolution is possible.”

“Actually I pulled it out of my @$$, but ok. It just seems like common sense to me.“


Pg84

“I'm not ignoring evidence, I'm ignoring theory.”

“Well science has only been blind to this because there are still a vast majority that refuses to believe in the supernatural”

reply to post by colin42

The problem is, all you offer is lies. I am not blind enough to be unable to see through your tissue of lies.

I see the words your typing but they never go further than that. What exactly am I always lying about? EVERYTHING?

Not so. Your are the one focusing on one word where I quote the whole paragraph in full.

Well we have already established that target food is not going to be anywhere, but that everything else will. Now you can sit there and argue all you want that the terms aren't listed anywhere, but the fact of the matter is that most aren't from what I'm able to see, so your just blowing smoke to try to make yourself look better. If you have a problem with sentance assembly or for that matter disection, then your speaking the wrong language. I'm not your teacher and aside from target food have not summoned up any new meanings. You have google just like I do. If you don't understand what the word "most" means, then look it up.

You clearly justify the first part of this rubbish by refering to the bible as supporting evidence. So this is clearly not a typo but your dishonest tactic to avoid accepting you are wrong by continually changing the meanings of your made up terms, hence the reason for demanding they be defined which you have refused to do.

No its not, its you taking the word most out of context.

Aside from humans, most things here have target food

Thats right moron, if got provided us with 2000 species that aren't from earth, then that just leaves the other 5 million plus that appear to be from here. Do the math you moron.

So you cannot even explain in what context you used MOST in when descibing 'target food'. You acuse me of just looking for lies yet that is all you offer.

I gave you the definition and the context it was used in which tells you exactly which part of the definition applies to it, are you mental or what?

Really? you made an assumption that you constantly acuse others of doing and claim you will not accept from others.

Sure, only difference is that mine is accurate.

You called it an educated guess yet it was based on ignorance. No of course you cannot find anything unnatural they do except your belief that they harvest chemicals.

Well the only ignorance was not remembering correctly what I was trying to quote.

Still. An educated guess is made by looking at the evidence so what did you base your incorrect conclusion on?

For the fifth time, I based it on not being able to find anything unnatural that the ant is labled with.

I'm going to say your wrong anyhow, seeing that they used pesticide's, they have to harvest it somehow.

You really know how to dig holes for yourself dont you. Show me, with links where ants harvest somehow the pesticide they use on their crops. I did supply the information in the links you dismissed and obviously never read.

No I'm not going to provide links from quoting you.

Even by your low standards that is pathetic

No its not, its logical to be honest.

I honestly don't understand how you can complain that ants use pesticides, then turn around and claim they don't harvest chemicals.

I think your a few screws short

Edit: BTW you have not explained why you supplied a link to hoarding to support your list of species you say harvest their crops. Am I to take it this is another question you intend not answering

Actually this will be the third time I have explained it, but I know your missing some screws, so I will explain a third time. Here are others that farm... itotd.com...

The hoarding link came about because I had typed in something along the lines of "name species that harvest" and I got redirected to hoarding. I'm not able to recreate it. Oddly enough it doesn't come up in the disambiguation.




I found it, type in rodents that harvest food / wiki into google and it comes up second.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I see the words your typing but they never go further than that. What exactly am I always lying about? EVERYTHING?

Look back at your last three posts and tell me where you told the truth. Pick any of your past posts and show me where you told the truth. Yeah pretty much everything that threatens your fantasy you defend with lies.

Well we have already established that target food is not going to be anywhere, but that everything else will.

I have asked for your updated definition of target food, you have failed to supply it. Why?

Now you can sit there and argue all you want that the terms aren't listed anywhere, but the fact of the matter is that most aren't from what I'm able to see, so your just blowing smoke to try to make yourself look better

Your poor grasp on English has let you down again. I tell you your terms are not on any search program and you agree by saying 'but the fact of the matter is that most aren't from what I'm able to see,' so you agree but still say I am blowing smoke. Maybe you are just thick. It does not stop you from giving your own definition of the terms you made up and use

If you have a problem with sentance assembly or for that matter disection, then your speaking the wrong language. I'm not your teacher and aside from target food have not summoned up any new meanings. You have google just like I do. If you don't understand what the word "most" means, then look it up.

Explain the context you used MOST in. Address the fact that you claim typo when it plainly was not.

No its not, its you taking the word most out of context.

I already showed you I took nothing out of context. You are just putting up a poor defence after being pulled up for your dishonest approch to this thread.

Thats right moron, if got provided us with 2000 species that aren't from earth, then that just leaves the other 5 million plus that appear to be from here. Do the math you moron.

All you have to do now is prove it and no you explain the context you used most in.

I gave you the definition and the context it was used in which tells you exactly which part of the definition applies to it, are you mental or what?

You have not supplied that information. I asked 51%, 90% 99% what do you mean by most?

Sure, only difference is that mine is accurate.

It plainly was not accurate because you claimed ants harvesting chemicals was natural when they do not harvest chemicals and so that cannot be a natural process with ants. Do I see another lie to protect your fantasy? I think so.

Well the only ignorance was not remembering correctly what I was trying to quote. Well the only ignorance was not remembering correctly what I was trying to quote.

Which is ignorance. You still have not explained what you based your so called educated guess on or are you admitting you were wrong?

For the fifth time, I based it on not being able to find anything unnatural that the ant is labled with.

Show me the natural things you found ants do

No I'm not going to provide links from quoting you.

Yet you claimed it was so easy. Whats wrong? Truth is you cannot supply any links showing other species that harvest their crops which is why you gave me one for hoarding. Again you are lying by ommision.

No its not, its logical to be honest.

So why dont you try it?

Actually this will be the third time I have explained it, but I know your missing some screws, so I will explain a third time. Here are others that farm... itotd.com...

Well done, you finally did a bit of research. Did you notice how none of those animals you originally provided are included? It also says if you bothered to read it

This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations

Just as you have been told many times with humans. Here is more information

the leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the garden

So strangely ants do not harvest chemicals. Ready to admitt you were wrong yet. Also nowhere does it say insects, the fish, humans or the snail farming is unnatural

The hoarding link came about because I had typed in something along the lines of "name species that harvest" and I got redirected to hoarding. I'm not able to recreate it. Oddly enough it doesn't come up in the disambiguation.

Yet knowing it to be wrong you posted it anyway or is this another case of you not reading further than the title of your own links?

reply to post by colin42

Look back at your last three posts and tell me where you told the truth. Pick any of your past posts and show me where you told the truth. Yeah pretty much everything that threatens your fantasy you defend with lies.

Blah blah blah, you keep saying that, and thats all your doing. There is no credibility without proof. If your so certain I'm lying, prove it.

I have asked for your updated definition of target food, you have failed to supply it. Why?

I'm sticking with what I have issued at this point.

Your poor grasp on English has let you down again. I tell you your terms are not on any search program and you agree by saying 'but the fact of the matter is that most aren't from what I'm able to see,' so you agree but still say I am blowing smoke. Maybe you are just thick. It does not stop you from giving your own definition of the terms you made up and use

I agree that you are a nut, if you can't make sense out of words put together, there is something seriously wrong with you. But we already knew that right.

Explain the context you used MOST in. Address the fact that you claim typo when it plainly was not.

Most things here have a target food. Probably the ones that god brought over, more than likely don't. How ever it might be hard to guage them eating what appears to be a target food and it actually just being a suppliement since that target food might not be here.

I already showed you I took nothing out of context. You are just putting up a poor defence after being pulled up for your dishonest approch to this thread.

I being completly honest when I say you need help understanding what the word "most" means. Here is a clue, your wrong most of the time.

All you have to do now is prove it and no you explain the context you used most in.

Most life here has target food, is that really so hard to understand? Six words that DR colin cant wrap his pea brain around because they are just to hard to figure out.

Page 356, and its the 7th posting. Go back and read it again.

It plainly was not accurate because you claimed ants harvesting chemicals was natural when they do not harvest chemicals and so that cannot be a natural process with ants. Do I see another lie to protect your fantasy? I think so.

We have already established this DR Colin, but your not explaining how it is that ants use pesticides yet they don't harvest chemicals.

Which is ignorance. You still have not explained what you based your so called educated guess on or are you admitting you were wrong?

Like I said for the umteenth time, I was confused and actually thought I was quoting you. In a way I still am. You still haven't fessed up to how it is that the ant uses pesticides, but doesn't harvest chemicals.

Phermones are chemicals genius.

Show me the natural things you found ants do

I wasn't looking for natural things that ants do, I was looking for unnatural things they do, and guess what, I came up with nothing, which is what I based my conclusion on.

Yet you claimed it was so easy. Whats wrong? Truth is you cannot supply any links showing other species that harvest their crops which is why you gave me one for hoarding. Again you are lying by ommision

I was directed to hoarding after searching for "rodents that harvest food" so up yours buddy.

So why dont you try it?

You really are a bugger.

Well done, you finally did a bit of research. Did you notice how none of those animals you originally provided are included? It also says if you bothered to read it

Which means I'm even more correct because the list is larger than expected.

This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations
Just as you have been told many times with humans. Here is more information

Only difference is that humans don't do it naturally.

the leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the garden
So strangely ants do not harvest chemicals. Ready to admitt you were wrong yet. Also nowhere does it say insects, the fish, humans or the snail farming is unnatural

You still haven't proven how it is he utilizes this chemical. Is he producing it on the spot, or does he manufacture it to use it later, what?

Yet knowing it to be wrong you posted it anyway or is this another case of you not reading further than the title of your own links?

Nope, actually it is correct, and I got to hoarding by googling "rodents that harvest food."

Just goes to show you how your once again assuming. Your definatly the ass of me.

reply to post by itsthetooth

colin42:
Yet knowing it to be wrong you posted it anyway or is this another case of you not reading further than the title of your own links?

itsthetooth:
Nope, actually it is correct, and I got to hoarding by googling "rodents that harvest food."

Google is a search engine, computer algorithms. It is not infallible, nor does the #1 result mean it the correct answer. It ranks it's results using SEO( google it), location, user history, search punctuation ( + " - ? , etc) and of course, words and phrasing. Meaning results vary for every user and every search.

It is up to the user to determine if the results they receive, are answering their intended inquiry.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Blah blah blah, you keep saying that, and thats all your doing. There is no credibility without proof. If your so certain I'm lying, prove it.

You asked the question. I gave you my answer. You did not like the answer. Tough

I'm sticking with what I have issued at this point.

Then if you have your finished version supply it so we all know what you mean when you use it. Failure to do so is lying by ommission.

I agree that you are a nut, if you can't make sense out of words put together, there is something seriously wrong with you. But we already knew that right.

You expect anyone to make sense out of that garbled nonsense? even you cannot defend it hence your insult. Dont forget to supply the definitions for your made up terms.

Most things here have a target food. Probably the ones that god brought over, more than likely don't. How ever it might be hard to guage them eating what appears to be a target food and it actually just being a suppliement since that target food might not be here.

Most things=percentages not more drivel that also cannot be accepted as you are using your made up term 'target food' but have not supplied the definition.

I being completly honest when I say you need help understanding what the word "most" means. Here is a clue, your wrong most of the time.

And you show that you are so backward you do not understand a simple question. Please explain what you mean by most in the context you used it. Otherwise you will be free to change what you claimed you meant later down the line

Most life here has target food, is that really so hard to understand?

How dense are you, really? Most can mean the majority, 51% or it can mean very few are not included 99.9% or anything in between. What did you mean when you wrote the very loose word MOST in the context you used it. Too simple for you? I expect so. If you make that clear you would be unable to change it to suit you current argument.

We have already established this DR Colin, but your not explaining how it is that ants use pesticides yet they don't harvest chemicals.

Are you a complete dunce. Did you not read my reply to your last post again? Did you not understand the information you linked too?

the leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the gardenthe leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the garden

Like I said for the umteenth time, I was confused and actually thought I was quoting you. In a way I still am. You still haven't fessed up to how it is that the ant uses pesticides, but doesn't harvest chemicals.

That does not explain how you reached your conclusion

Phermones are chemicals genius.

Well done for that piece of unrelated information unless of course you are trying to say now that ants harvest pheromones?

I wasn't looking for natural things that ants do, I was looking for unnatural things they do, and guess what, I came up with nothing, which is what I based my conclusion on.

Do you know how dense, how completely ignorant that is? You looked for what the unnatural thing ants did and you expected to find anything. You really are an unintelligent cretin.

At least you have finally admitted you based you conclusion on nothing. Sums you up nicely

I was directed to hoarding after searching for "rodents that harvest food" so up yours buddy.

But hoarding and harvesting are not the same. Like I said your understanding of the language you abuse if next to zero.

You really are a bugger.

Thankyou

Which means I'm even more correct because the list is larger than expected.

Oh goody. So you still owe me the links that show the original list you supplied contains animals that harvest their crops. I am still waiting

Only difference is that humans don't do it naturally.

And of course you have to show that with evidence and an explanation that is more informative than that ignorance you replied with.

You still haven't proven how it is he utilizes this chemical. Is he producing it on the spot, or does he manufacture it to use it later, what?

You actually cannot understand the written word can you?

the leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the garden

This is from the link you supplied.

As it appears you have again not read or understood the information to another link YOU provided I think we should look a little closer at it.

Information compiled from your link: Non Human Farmers

Damselfish (family Pomacentridae) farm algae on their own

The Damselfish farms, is aggressively protective of their farms.

Two things it shares in common with humans but it stops there.

We humans capitalized on the invention of agriculture to place ourselves on the path to achieve a dominating position in our ecosystem. It is our gregarious nature, societal structure, communication skills, and a measure of engineering skills that were key. Let’s examine how non-human farmers stack up in these areas.

Not one mention of unnatural

All three of the insect farmers have very well organized societal structures that in all likelihood developed before they learned fungiculture.

Just as with humans

They have built complex societal structures with task specialization.

As with humans

This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations.

Just as with humans and you have had explained many times but chose to reject.

Ants have developed at least 553 strains of farmable fungi belonging to seven different genera.

They also like variety just as humans do it appears

The insect farmers use specialized chemicals called pheromones to communicate amongst themselves; this communication is essential to forming complex societal structures.

Just as communication is vital for humans

The insect farmers also use a variety of techniques to weed out unwanted fungus from their farms. Interestingly, the leaf cutters use antibiotic-secreting bacteria of the group actinomycetes to weed out other unwanted fungus growing in the garden. What is amazing is that we derive many of our own antibiotics, such as streptomycin and tetramycin, from actinomycetes

So we even derive many of our own antibiotics from the same bacteria as the ants

The parallels with human farmers do not end with agriculture. There are species of ants that herd aphids in much the same way humans herd cattle and live on the sugary excretions of the aphids

As I told you and another parallel with humans

So ants and humans farm both crops and livestock. Build cities. Maintain a social structure from garbage collectors, builders, nursery nurses, soldiers right up to and including the queen. Fight wars to take land, take prisoners as slave labour.

Now nowhere was it stated that these processes were anything but natural, humans included. If you wish to maintain that even though we share so many paralell processes ants are natural and humans are not you need to explain why to each simularity listed above.

'They are natural humans are not' will not be accepted as proof. Neither will any explanation that contains a term made up by you that has not been defined.

reply to post by idmonster
Hi ID

Here is one for your list, hot off the press

I wasn't looking for natural things that ants do, I was looking for unnatural things they do, and guess what, I came up with nothing, which is what I based my conclusion on.

So he looks for thing that do not exist, finds nothing and bases his findings on that. NOTHING. Just about sums him up

Here is another piece of information for tooth to ponder over.

Tribute to terrmites

Termites build mounds, Tower blocks to live in.

The Eastgate building in central Harare uses the same heating and cooling principles as the termite mound (see the diagram). Inside the termite mound, insects farm fungus for consumption. This fungus must be kept at an optimum temperature. By carefully adjusted convection currents air is sucked in at the lower part of the mound, down into enclosures with muddy walls and up through a channel to the peak of the termite mound. The termites constantly dig new vents and plug old ones to regulate the temperature. So, if the air from outside the termite mound is warmer it should warm up the inside of the termite mound. On the other hand if the air is cooler it cools the termite mound. That way, the fungus in the mound should be kept at an optimum temperature and the insects in the mound will not starve

Here is the conclusion from that link.

Engineers and architects who designed and built the building, lawyers, sales people, and everyone else working in the Eastgate complex, owe it to Mother Nature. Eastgate is a classic example of ``putting nature into technology."

Where does unnatural fit here?

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

Hi ID

Here is one for your list, hot off the press

I wasn't looking for natural things that ants do, I was looking for unnatural things they do, and guess what, I came up with nothing, which is what I based my conclusion on.

So he looks for thing that do not exist, finds nothing and bases his findings on that. NOTHING. Just about sums him up

Yup, I picked up on that one as well.

Funnily enough, I went looking for unnatural things ants do using the definition supplied and found loads. I also went looking for the supernatural (outside of nature) things human do and found none.

My definition.

When I say "everything that man does is natural" I am not insisting that all of mans processes would occour without his input. Flour, salt, yeast and water, to my knowledge has never been observed to sponteaniously mix itself together and bake itself into bread. In fact if it did this without mans input, I would suggest some sort of supernatural influence.

By the same reckoning, no "football pitch size nest" has ever been observed manufacturing itself without the input of the leaf cutter ant and the same applies to termites and termite mounds, bees an honey.

Ants nest, termite mounds and honey all fail to exist without the input from the appropriate insect, and yet there appears to be no argument as to the "naturalness" of these end products.

Definition supplied by our resident genius.
un·nat·u·ral/ˌənˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: 1.Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
2.Not existing in nature; artificial.
Synonyms: abnormal - artificial - factitious - affected


As per the definition supplied above, each of these items, being artificial would have to be defined as unnatural. (not using the synonim, but the second definition)

Beaver dams = Artificial
Aphid farms = Artificial
Ant nests = Artificial
Algea farms = Artificial

So when searching for the unnatural things ants do, it actualy quite easy to match the definition above to show that ants, as well as a plethora of other animals are "unnatural", or at least as unnatural as man i.e not at all.