Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by idmonster
I see.

So farmers using sheep to maintain grassland of the moores in the UK means all grasslands are artificial yet when people get lost on the moores many die of exposure so they are dying but not dying on the wild moores? They actually die in civilisation

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

I see.

So farmers using sheep to maintain grassland of the moores in the UK means all grasslands are artificial yet when people get lost on the moores many die of exposure so they are dying but not dying on the wild moores? They actually die in civilisation

Seems obvious now doesnt it. LOL

If we stick strictly to the definition, there are probably very few "natural" places left.

What tooth fails to realise is that we have made a huge impact on the environment by doing what comes naturaly to us, but its still natural.

I am 100% behind you on this topic.

Tooths claims of natural vs un-natural seems to stem from his already preconcieved idea that man is from somewhere else, therefore regardless of whether other animals mimic us, or we mimic them, if they do it it is natural, whereas if we do it, it isnt.

Again, using the un-natural = artificial definition tooth provided, many, many animals would fall into the "doing un-natural things" basket, including most tellingly, his favourite...the ant. And again, bu his definition, if it aint being done naturaly, then the doer aint from here.

Its a riduculous argument that when brought down to the finer points of use of the english language, can be swayed either way(1) depending on the context.(2)

(1) Swayed as in is it natural or not, not swayed as in are they from here or not.
(2) I think you have already argued the point about using words in contex, and if you are going to continue the debate with tooth you are, to my mind, absolutley correct in attempting to get him to agree on a definition, otherwise what is about to happen will happen again and again. (tooth attempting to use the words above to prove his fallacy)

How do I prove that tooth is guilty of the above, well, he already said so himself on page 58:

“Actually I read books after deciding this. The books just happen to match”

Already made his decision, then found the corroborating evidence to back up his delusion.

reply to post by idmonster

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.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys are just being dishonest to yourselves or just being incredulous.

Beavers have teeth specifically made for working with wood. So the day you see humans using there teeth to work with wood is the say I will believe doing so is natural. Now thats just one example, but you can see its obvious that its NOT natural that we use wood in the way that we do. If it were, we would have had normal tools inbeded into our body to do so.

Another example is how the ants use pheromones to prevent fungi on food. There bodies are equiped to hold or carry this pheromone where as we would have to synthesize the pheromone, process it, and bottle it and probably wear rubber gloves durring the process. Just to eventually use that pheromone ourselves. There is nothing natural about that process.

reply to post by colin42

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."

Now see, here is a contradiction on your part. You claim that nature and civilization are one in the same and that technology is natural for us to use, yet you have seperetated them in this sentance as though they aren't. So which is it, is technology natural or not?

reply to post by colin42

I see.

So farmers using sheep to maintain grassland of the moores in the UK means all grasslands are artificial yet when people get lost on the moores many die of exposure so they are dying but not dying on the wild moores? They actually die in civilisation

Again its not just the area in that case looked at to determine whats natural, if they were fed man made food, you might be able to call them domesticated. On the other hand if they are in addition eating grass on top of that diet, then you might consider them some sort of mix of domestication and wild.

People don't usually suffer from extreme natural conditions in civilization. This is why we have heat, AC, running water, Fans, Blankets, clothing, sewer and electricty. All so that we can isolate ourselves from the wild.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Beavers have teeth specifically made for working with wood.

Beavers are closely related to Squirrels. Both have teeth that continually grow so they have teeth evolved to naw.

So the day you see humans using there teeth to work with wood is the say I will believe doing so is natural.

Yeah really? I would say they are idiots because that is why we invented tools with our natural inventiveness.

Now thats just one example, but you can see its obvious that its NOT natural that we use wood in the way that we do

No its only obvious to you. Show the evidence you base your belief on.

If it were, we would have had normal tools inbeded into our body to do so.

We have. We call one a brain and the other our hands.

Another example is how the ants use pheromones to prevent fungi on food.

Jeezus your dumb. Please show where ants use pheromones to prevent fungi on food. You did not bother to read the posts you have obviously decided to skip as they challenge your fantasy did you.

There bodies are equiped to hold or carry this pheromone

So they carry this pheromone around do they

where as we would have to synthesize the pheromone, process it, and bottle it and probably wear rubber gloves durring the process.

Would you like to explain this then Human pheromones

Just to eventually use that pheromone ourselves. There is nothing natural about that process.

The link above shows you are wrong again.

So you have decided to ignore the previous posts just as you did around 300 pages ago. Just to let you know until you address the ant the question will be continually posted until you do as it has been. You can hide but you cant run, not this time.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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."

Now see, here is a contradiction on your part. You claim that nature and civilization are one in the same and that technology is natural for us to use, yet you have seperetated them in this sentance as though they aren't. So which is it, is technology natural or not?

Your very poor reading skills have let you down again. I never wrote that passage. It was pasted from the article supplied which you obviously did not read. 'OFF SITE TEXT' IS THE HINT HERE

If you had read the article I linked too you would understand the context the author wrote that passage in. Context is everything.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I see.

So farmers using sheep to maintain grassland of the moores in the UK means all grasslands are artificial yet when people get lost on the moores many die of exposure so they are dying but not dying on the wild moores? They actually die in civilisation

Again its not just the area in that case looked at to determine whats natural, if they were fed man made food, you might be able to call them domesticated. On the other hand if they are in addition eating grass on top of that diet, then you might consider them some sort of mix of domestication and wild.

People don't usually suffer from extreme natural conditions in civilization. This is why we have heat, AC, running water, Fans, Blankets, clothing, sewer and electricty. All so that we can isolate ourselves from the wild.

This is why I asked for your definiton of 'IN THE WILD'.

Please supply that and the definitions for your other made up terms.

Not just beavers and squirrels, All rodents, one of the defining features of a rodent is: (wiki quotes)

Rodentia is an order of mammals also known as rodents, characterised by two continuously growing incisors in the upper and lower jaws which must be kept short by gnawing.

Source

So one could say that beavers dont have teeth for cuuting wood, they have an abnormal growth that needs to be contained by gnawing wood.

In fact the beavers dam is a phenotype of the beavers genetic need to gnaw wood in order to keeps its teeth from growing to an excessive ammount.

Some might refer to this excesive growth as "redundant adaptation" (rodentant )




Phenotype:
The observable physical and/or biochemical characteristics of the expression of a gene

reply to post by idmonster
Come on now. The list of animals that are not from here looks to be growing out of control.

Something must be wrong with this idea because we could end up showing nothing on this planet came from here.

We really need tooths definitions to make any sense of this at all. Where are they tooth?

Also tooth what did you make of the posts you ignored? Is your only response too ignore them? Seems a little cowardly to say the least.

reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Again its not just the area in that case looked at to determine whats natural, if they were fed man made food, you might be able to call them domesticated. On the other hand if they are in addition eating grass on top of that diet, then you might consider them some sort of mix of domestication and wild.

People don't usually suffer from extreme natural conditions in civilization. This is why we have heat, AC, running water, Fans, Blankets, clothing, sewer and electricty. All so that we can isolate ourselves from the wild.

Soooooooooo, if a man keeps sheep in one field, and grows grass in another, but then harvests the grass to feed to the sheep, that means they're not from here, because they're not eating their target food, naturally.

HAHaaaaa

Your argument has been on shakey foundations since page 48, every utterance has been an earthquake reducing your credabilty to ruins. For many pages now you have been surrounded by the rubble of your delusion. You are nothing more than sport, gracing these pages for my amusement. I relish your, no doubt self agrandising reply.

reply to post by idmonster

So one could say that beavers dont have teeth for cuuting wood, they have an abnormal growth that needs to be contained by gnawing wood.

In fact the beavers dam is a phenotype of the beavers genetic need to gnaw wood in order to keeps its teeth from growing to an excessive ammount.

Some might refer to this excesive growth as "redundant adaptation" (rodentant

Right dude, and I guess building dams was just an accidental benefit, OMG give me a break.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

So one could say that beavers dont have teeth for cuuting wood, they have an abnormal growth that needs to be contained by gnawing wood.

In fact the beavers dam is a phenotype of the beavers genetic need to gnaw wood in order to keeps its teeth from growing to an excessive ammount.

Some might refer to this excesive growth as "redundant adaptation" (rodentant

Right dude, and I guess building dams was just an accidental benefit, OMG give me a break.

A lot of times, that exactly how phenotypes become to be!

welcome to the reality that is EVOLUTION

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

So one could say that beavers dont have teeth for cuuting wood, they have an abnormal growth that needs to be contained by gnawing wood.

In fact the beavers dam is a phenotype of the beavers genetic need to gnaw wood in order to keeps its teeth from growing to an excessive ammount.

Some might refer to this excesive growth as "redundant adaptation" (rodentant

Right dude, and I guess building dams was just an accidental benefit, OMG give me a break.

Or you need to explain the "redundant adaptation"

gwaaaan!
gwaaaaaaaaaan!
gwan gwan gwan gwan gwan!





gwan!

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

So one could say that beavers dont have teeth for cuuting wood, they have an abnormal growth that needs to be contained by gnawing wood.

In fact the beavers dam is a phenotype of the beavers genetic need to gnaw wood in order to keeps its teeth from growing to an excessive ammount.

Some might refer to this excesive growth as "redundant adaptation" (rodentant

Right dude, and I guess building dams was just an accidental benefit, OMG give me a break.

Wouldnt building dams be unnatural? I mean wood or more correctly trees were never designed to block waterways so the beaver using them this way is not natural for the tree.

Does this mean that the fish that live in the artificial pools that the beaver creates are domesticated as they do not live in what use to be a fast flowing stream or river? does the area the beaver lives and builds in become civilisation because it is artificial?

We really need those definitions tooth.

PS Tooth. Still no views on my post about ants using the info from the link you provided. Did you miss it? Do I need to repost it?

have no idea how that happened !

was just a repeat of the above so deleted it.

reply to post by idmonster
Now thats unnatural

reply to post by colin42

Beavers are closely related to Squirrels. Both have teeth that continually grow so they have teeth evolved to naw.

Only squirrels don't build dams with the wood they naw.

So there is no comparison.

Yeah really? I would say they are idiots because that is why we invented tools with our natural inventiveness.

I see, so your saying we rely and depend on pre-meditated inventions and adaptation. I'm sorry but this evolution deal is really sounding more and more like there is intelligence behind it.

No its only obvious to you. Show the evidence you base your belief on.

Ok look at it this way, a beaver is well equiped specifically for building water dams. He is able to swim about in the water with ease. He has special teeth specifically for taking out trees and wood. He also has the special tail for better swimming. They grab clumps of mud in there paws and use there tail to swim about as to transport this mud, which is combined with the processed wood for building dams. Ideal claws for diggin up mud and wood processing teeth, make him an execellent rodent for building dams. You might say this is his job. Just like there was no argument about ant eaters being made to harvest and eat ants.

Now here is the difference between us and beavers, ants and any other species you care to compare us to. It's true that we can usually do the same things they can do, except we are not equipped to do it. We have to make tools and prepare to carry out the work. It's redundant by comparison to how they do it. They are simply equipped for the task. The problem is that from lamens terms, we can do anything. And I pretty much agree that we do just about anything that we want to do. All we have is hands to do it. Is it possible that hands were meant to be able to do so many things? That is the question, and one that deserves carfull looking into.

These types of questions would have different avenues of getting answered if we did in fact come from elsewhere. Some of these questions would have obvious answer without even asking. For example, our purpose in life. As you can see with the ant eater and the beaver, there is no question, they are home. Humans on the other hand appear to raise more questions in this field. Don't confuse this with what you want to be when you grow up or what type of a degree you want to get, the instinctive answers are simply not here. Because of this there is yet more reason to understand that we aren't from here, again, we dont fit in.

We have. We call one a brain and the other our hands.

Thats to generic of an answer considering what we can accomplish.

So they carry this pheromone around do they

As you can see I have taken a disinterest in the details as there was nothing over the top about them.

Would you like to explain this then Human pheromones

Humans do actually do have pheromones and we also have disabled sensors in the temples of our skulls. They are part of the vestigal list. Is that what you wanted to know.

The link above shows you are wrong again.

So you have decided to ignore the previous posts just as you did around 300 pages ago. Just to let you know until you address the ant the question will be continually posted until you do as it has been. You can hide but you cant run, not this time.

And what exactly am I suppose to be running from this time.

reply to post by colin42

Your very poor reading skills have let you down again. I never wrote that passage. It was pasted from the article supplied which you obviously did not read. 'OFF SITE TEXT' IS THE HINT HERE

If you had read the article I linked too you would understand the context the author wrote that passage in. Context is everything

It doesn't matter that you didn't write it, there is a contradiction with your understanding.