It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 358
31
<< 355  356  357    359  360  361 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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

Please supply that and the definitions for your other made up terms.
Well I'm sticking by wikis explanation of it meaning not in civilization.




posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
The only reason your having difficulty in identifying wether or not one is from here, is your not using an honest list to figure it out. Some things are harder but it seems pretty east to me.

A good example is the cow. The bible tells us this animal was brought here. There is a conflicting feeling as this animal seems to be made to eat grass.

So the question becomes, did god also provide us with grass, which I don't believe, or is it just possible that cows eat grass because that is whats on the ground for them to eat. They aren't smart animals as you may not know, so much so that they have to shove large magnets down there throat to rest in there belly to attract metal fragments as they eat anything, including the metal food containers.

.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


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

So there is no comparison.


Hilarious...the squirel is not a water rodent, so you cant compare them. Squirels GNAW ( I know the "g" is silent, but we must still use it) wood constantly, They are resposible for the deaths of hundreds of trees by a process known as "ring barking". In effect, they do exactly as a beaver does, but being 1/10 the size, and not being indeginous to water, do not build dams.




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.


You really are..........He has no choice but to gnaw wood, if he (or she, lets not be sexist) didnt, its teeth would grow so large that it wouldnt be able to eat its(
:lol
target food of fish.


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.


And here the biggest fallacy in your entire delusion. You state that " we are not equipped to do it", and then talk about the ultimate equipment to do all the things the other animals do.

"We're not equiped to work wood, except for these hand things on the end of our arms". You fail to recognise the we have the ultimate tool, you tool.

You are an absolute fantasist, a walter mitty of the nth degree.


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.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAh....Ahem....I assume you have schematic diagrams of these "disabled sensors"



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





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

Please supply that and the definitions for your other made up terms.
Well I'm sticking by wikis explanation of it meaning not in civilization.


And you definition of civilisation is..................................?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
Lets see if I can make you a list of sorts that helps identify indigenous species.

And obvious one is target food. If they have what appears to be target food, most likely but not necessarly are they from here, you will have to look at more to determine it.

Do they have physical attributes that tie them in to other things on this planet. A good example is the beaver, he has the fin for swimming in the water and razor sharp teeth for processing wood. Now look at humans, we have hands. Do human hands tie us to this planet, no they don't. Now your probably just begining to realize after all this time exactly what I was talking about.

There is nothing specific about our hands that ties us here.

Are other species dependant on them being here, for example are they part of a food chain, not everything is but when its not, it raises other questions.

Would the disappearnce of the species have a negative impact on the planet. With humans it would be the exact oppostie, this planet would love to have us removed, taking all of our unnatural disasters with us.

If you removed out ability to adapt, not only would we have been dead a long time ago, but a lot of other species would probably still be here from the lack of our negligence.

Does the species adapt in unnatural ways. Humans are the only ones I have been able to spot doing this, but that doesn't mean any and all that aren't from here have to. They may not be smart enough to, so as a result suffer but are still making it..

Is there plentiful food for the species, is another good thing to look at. Not to be confused with target food. You have to realize that not everything will have target food because of several reasons. The domino effect from species dying off and the possibility they aren't from here. Just because something doesn't have a target food does not guarantee its not from here, but needs to be looked at closer.

Id was correct when he said that When I say "everything that man does is natural" I am not insisting that all of mans processes would occour without his input. Where he is dropping the ball here is that mans input as he so lightly puts it, is way over the edge technologically compared to other life. So its an unfair comparison.

Another way that you guys are totally missing what is going on here, is that when a species is in its natural element, there will be instinctive things that tie them to that enviroment. Which is not the case with the wilderness. Take an untrained person and dump them out in the middle of no where and tell them to fend for themselves or die. There is actually a very good chance that they will die. Remember they are untrained. Now you need to ask yourself why it is that a person would have to be trained to survive in what YOUR trying to tell me is there natural element. It's simple, its not there natural element. This is also why we colonize and sepearate ourselves from the wilderness and group in civilization.

This also means that somewhere out there is an enviroment where things are natural to us, and we don't have to worry about fending for each other like we do here. This isn't an issue of boo hoo hoo life is hard, its opening your eyes to the reality of what we are faced with and identifying that its actually not our enviroment. In our true enviroment there woud be things that we natrually interact with and probably have a kinship with. But it would be nothing like it is here. There would also be some accomidations for us. This planet DOES not accomodate for us, we manipulate our surroundings to make things work for us. It's redundant adaptation and you may not realize it, but its a lot of work that we normally wouldn't have to be doing.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





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

Please supply that and the definitions for your other made up terms.
Well I'm sticking by wikis explanation of it meaning not in civilization.
Supply the definition you have decided to stick by



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The only reason your having difficulty in identifying wether or not one is from here, is your not using an honest list to figure it out. Some things are harder but it seems pretty east to me.
Well if you supplied the definitions asked for it would be pretty 'east' too me as well.


A good example is the cow. The bible tells us this animal was brought here. There is a conflicting feeling as this animal seems to be made to eat grass.
What the hell are you? 'there is a conflicting feeling' that cows may or may not be from here? It is only you that believes in this trash and I cannot believe someone with a personality so small as yours could afford to have a split one as well.


So the question becomes, did god also provide us with grass, which I don't believe, or is it just possible that cows eat grass because that is whats on the ground for them to eat.
You go on to say how stupid cows are. The above shows they are a long way in front of you sonny boy. So grass also may or not be from here. Do you realise how many types of grass there is on this planet?


edit on 11-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



And what exactly am I suppose to be running from this time.
You know full well coward. But here it is.

Originally posted by colin42
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



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Just to make thing worse for yourself your next post was this tripe


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.
Clearly showing you had not read or taken time to understand the points made. You ignored it and chose to remain ignorant as your text above shows
edit on 11-4-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Lets see if I can make you a list of sorts that helps identify indigenous species.
Oh goody. Finally your definitions for the terms you made up


And obvious one is target food.
Sorry target food is not an acceptable term until you supply the definition, rest of your comment ignored


Do they have physical attributes that tie them in to other things on this planet. A good example is the beaver, he has the fin for swimming in the water and razor sharp teeth for processing wood. Now look at humans, we have hands. Do human hands tie us to this planet, no they don't. Now your probably just begining to realize after all this time exactly what I was talking about.
Ignoring the fact that beavers do not have 'FINS' That is the typical crap that flows constantly out of your empty head.

You have already had explained that beavers have the same teeth as any of their family many of which do not cut trees. Many species of rodent have webbed feet and live a semi equatic life. They have the same teeth but dont build dams or cut wood.


Do human hands tie us to this planet, no they don't.
That is all you have as proof we are not from here. That old ignorance you have been using since page 48 and backed up by the same evidence you used for ants gathering chemicals. Nothing.

This whole post is yet again a troll trap to change the subject isnt it. Again you fail

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.
6. Civilisation

Links showing your original species you still claim farm and harvest

Beavers harvest.
Hamsters harvest.
Rats have been known to harvest.
Squirrels do.
Chipmunks.
Bees.



Actually its so big, there is a wiki on it, you moron.
Which when you linked to it was defining 'HOADING' so your the moron and a commited one at that.

I no longer have to ask what you based your conclusion that ants harvesting chemicals being natural on


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.
The answer you gave of 'NOTHING' would seem to be the true answer.

It is obvious you refuse to explain truthly the reason for your conflicting statments


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.
But seeing as though you have chosen the one that suits your argument now.

Please explain why the other statement where you supported it with evidence from the bible was wrong. This asks another question. Is the bible wrong or is the bible right on this point?

Problem you have is if the bible is correct then so is the statement and we are back to square one. Good luck

As always. These questions will not stop until you answer them


edit on 11-4-2012 by colin42 because: Civilisation added to list



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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

You know full well coward. But here it is.

Originally posted by colin42
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.
What is the point behind this, are you trying to say that the damselfish isn't from here either as they farm as well?




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
It's not our nature, it was forced, I think this is where your not understanding. When you take someone that has no prior knowledge of the woods or the wild, and dump them out in the middle of no where, your forcing them to make decisions that couldn't possibly be natural.




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
Now are you saying that we took the same path in learning or that we do the same events.




They have built complex societal structures with task specialization.
As with humans
And you think these commonalitys tie us and them to this planet?




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.
Wrong, every species has the primal instinct to breed. Even humans.




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 real question here is that these different strains could be due to enviroment conditions.




So we even derive many of our own antibiotics from the same bacteria as the ants
Which couldn't possibly be from it being the best or only source of it.




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.
Sharring paralele processes has nothing to do with determining whats natural or not. This is throwing you off by far.

Your confusing instinct with learned abilitys. You see the ant does these things instinctivly, we had to learn how to do them which is different. Do you understand why the ant has these instincts and we don't? Because the ant is home and we aren't. Now it would be the other way around if we were home. There would be things that we would just instinctivly know. For example have you ever heard that if you throw a baby human in the water that has never been taught to swim, he will start paddeling his way to the top to breath air. This is a good example of instinct. A rare one since we don't seem to have to many here. You can assume that there is large bodys of water on our home planet from this.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.

Clearly showing you had not read or taken time to understand the points made. You ignored it and chose to remain ignorant as your text above shows
Which part, what we do or what the ants do.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Ignoring the fact that beavers do not have 'FINS' That is the typical crap that flows constantly out of your empty head.

You have already had explained that beavers have the same teeth as any of their family many of which do not cut trees. Many species of rodent have webbed feet and live a semi equatic life. They have the same teeth but dont build dams or cut wood.
Which goes to prove to you that you can't do paralell connections the way your expecting to.




That is all you have as proof we are not from here. That old ignorance you have been using since page 48 and backed up by the same evidence you used for ants gathering chemicals. Nothing.
What do you mean is that all I have. I can sit here and ask you what a beavers teeth are made for and you would answer wood processing. I can then ask you what a beavers tail is made for and you would say getting around in the water. But when I ask you what humans hands are made for you have no answer. And they are YOUR hands.




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

1. Target food. You need to supply your final updated version
And as I said, I'm sticking to what I have issued.




2. Unnatural food. Definition of the term not 'unnatural' or 'food' but 'unnatural food'
As I have already stated, its food that is NOT manufactured by man, and it would be found growing on its own in the wild.




3. Redundant adaption. Not redundant or adaption.
Its two words working together with normal definition. The definitions of each appies as normal. If your still lost, like I have said about a dozen times think of excessive adaptation.




4. In the wild: Explain/define what you mean by In the wild not 'wild' or 'wildlife'
As I have stated many times before, it means not in civilisation.




5. What you mean by MOST when trying to explain your lie about who has the mythical target food.
I mean most as in the common understanding you find in a dictionary but to narrow it down, considering all life on this planet, to come up with a percentage of them meaning most.




6. Civilisation
Spelled incorrectly should be Civilization. You will have to read the wiki on it. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you on dismissing facts.
en.wikipedia.org...
There is obviously a difference between civilization and the wild life on this planet. As wiki states, there is an astronomical understanding.




Links showing your original species you still claim farm and harvest

Beavers harvest.
Hamsters harvest.
Rats have been known to harvest.
Squirrels do.
Chipmunks.
Bees.
Which again is not a vehicle to determine if a species is indigenous.




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.

The answer you gave of 'NOTHING' would seem to be the true answer.

It is obvious you refuse to explain truthly the reason for your conflicting statments
I just did but apparently it was over your head.




Please explain why the other statement where you supported it with evidence from the bible was wrong. This asks another question. Is the bible wrong or is the bible right on this point?
A lot can be missleading, and by no means was it meant to even be close to the word most. It looks fine to me.




Problem you have is if the bible is correct then so is the statement and we are back to square one. Good luck

As always. These questions will not stop until you answer them
And I keep answering them, and they arent changing. The bible did claim to give us a lot of animals, is there something your missing here?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's not our nature, it was forced, I think this is where your not understanding.
You know. You have never shown anything like near genius levels on this thread. You are answering a point of view from the link you provided. Yes I quoted it in the wrong format but if you had read the information in the link YOU supplied a near genius would have realised that.

To say it is not our nature it was forced you need to provide supporting evidence for such a statement.


When you take someone that has no prior knowledge of the woods or the wild, and dump them out in the middle of no where, your forcing them to make decisions that couldn't possibly be natural.
This random piece of nonsense is seriously no where near what your statement needs to give it credability. What the hell that had to do with the topic beats me.


Now are you saying that we took the same path in learning or that we do the same events.
How many times do you need to be told. Dont tell me what I am saying address the point I am making


All three of the insect farmers have very well organized societal structures that in all likelihood developed before they learned fungiculture.
Above is the information from YOUR link. My comment was just like humans. Address that point.


And you think these commonalitys tie us and them to this planet?
Did I write that? No. They do show that ants and humans have parallel process to achieve the same end. You are the one contending things are or are not from here


Wrong, every species has the primal instinct to breed. Even humans.
You were warned not to just give a random answer without backing it up. Remember this is from the information from the link YOU supplied.

This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations.
Is correct and has been supported by the evidence above it in the original post. You wish to say its wrong provide the argument. Breeding is NOT the same as sustaining a very large population.


The real question here is that these different strains could be due to enviroment conditions.
You could just as easy say that is the reason why humans have such a varied diet. The point is another parallel. The real question here is. How do you maintain one is natural and one is not.


Which couldn't possibly be from it being the best or only source of it.
Where is your proof? As you are so eager to point out. Go tell the drugs industry that. I am sure they will be pleased of the information


Sharring paralele processes has nothing to do with determining whats natural or not. This is throwing you off by far.
So enlighten me.


Your confusing instinct with learned abilitys. You see the ant does these things instinctivly, we had to learn how to do them which is different
Is that so. Show your evidence of that.


Do you understand why the ant has these instincts and we don't? Because the ant is home and we aren't. Now it would be the other way around if we were home. There would be things that we would just instinctivly know.
Now didnt I warn you. Idiot statements from you need to be backed up with supporting evidence. WHERE IS IT?


For example have you ever heard that if you throw a baby human in the water that has never been taught to swim, he will start paddeling his way to the top to breath air.
That is not supporting evidence. That is the offering of a mindless donk. Have you ever heard that infants can drown in a puddle of water. Do you know why garden ponds and children dont mix. You really are full of $hit.


This is a good example of instinct. A rare one since we don't seem to have to many here. You can assume that there is large bodys of water on our home planet from this.
Are you implying that 7/10ths of the surface of the world being water makes it rare? Boy you should not be allowed out on your own. You probably are not thinking about it.

So that is it? You have nothing better than that to offer?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





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.

Clearly showing you had not read or taken time to understand the points made. You ignored it and chose to remain ignorant as your text above shows
Which part, what we do or what the ants do.

What! What!


Another example is how the ants use pheromones to prevent fungi on food.
You still do not understand after the idiot you made of yourself saying ants harvest chemicals you now manitain they use pheromones even though I have provided you with what they actually use and repeated it several times. You have got to be the most stupid ignorant fool on the planet.


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
You show here you know nothing at all about pheromones. NOTHING. I see no evidence for your claim of being a science major at all, not even a glimmer.

Ants use pheromones to COMMUNICATE you dunce. Communication you know. Exchange of information. It is vital to the ant society just as it is to ours you empty headed numpty.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You know. You have never shown anything like near genius levels on this thread. You are answering a point of view from the link you provided.
Of course, I never claimed to be doing otherwise.




To say it is not our nature it was forced you need to provide supporting evidence for such a statement.
Redundant adaptation proves that. We are the only ones guilty of this as well.




When you take someone that has no prior knowledge of the woods or the wild, and dump them out in the middle of no where, your forcing them to make decisions that couldn't possibly be natural.

This random piece of nonsense is seriously no where near what your statement needs to give it credability. What the hell that had to do with the topic beats me.
It's simple, when something is removed from its natural element, this is what is going to happen.




Now are you saying that we took the same path in learning or that we do the same events.

How many times do you need to be told. Dont tell me what I am saying address the point I am making
Actually that was a question, I wasn't telling you, I pulled a Colin and forgot the question mark.




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

Above is the information from YOUR link. My comment was just like humans. Address that point.
My point is "alone" it doesn't prove anything.




And you think these commonalitys tie us and them to this planet?

Did I write that? No. They do show that ants and humans have parallel process to achieve the same end. You are the one contending things are or are not from here
These common things don't prove anything.




Wrong, every species has the primal instinct to breed. Even humans.

You were warned not to just give a random answer without backing it up. Remember this is from the information from the link YOU supplied.
This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations.
Its a pretty vague statement, and they aren't saying what the reason is for it, so its useless.




This has also allowed these insects to sustain very large populations.
Is correct and has been supported by the evidence above it in the original post. You wish to say its wrong provide the argument. Breeding is NOT the same as sustaining a very large population
Agreed so I'm not seeing the point here.




The real question here is that these different strains could be due to enviroment conditions.

You could just as easy say that is the reason why humans have such a varied diet. The point is another parallel. The real question here is. How do you maintain one is natural and one is not.
Yes, but not because of any of the things your listing.




Which couldn't possibly be from it being the best or only source of it.

Where is your proof? As you are so eager to point out. Go tell the drugs industry that. I am sure they will be pleased of the information
All I'm trying to say is that it looks like fact is trying to be made out of speculation, and a shotty one at that.




Sharring paralele processes has nothing to do with determining whats natural or not. This is throwing you off by far.

So enlighten me.
There are to many other factors you have to consider, which I made you a list already. This is just like saying because a woman missed her period she is guaranteed to be pregnant, its a possibility not a fact, other things have to be considered.




Your confusing instinct with learned abilitys. You see the ant does these things instinctivly, we had to learn how to do them which is different

Is that so. Show your evidence of that.
Thats simple, we were taught how to do these things and they weren't, its instinct for them.




Do you understand why the ant has these instincts and we don't? Because the ant is home and we aren't. Now it would be the other way around if we were home. There would be things that we would just instinctivly know.

Now didnt I warn you. Idiot statements from you need to be backed up with supporting evidence. WHERE IS IT?
Then prove me wrong, show me where the ants go to school to teach each other how to do these things.




For example have you ever heard that if you throw a baby human in the water that has never been taught to swim, he will start paddeling his way to the top to breath air.

That is not supporting evidence. That is the offering of a mindless donk. Have you ever heard that infants can drown in a puddle of water. Do you know why garden ponds and children dont mix. You really are full of $hit.
You say that but y



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Which goes to prove to you that you can't do paralell connections the way your expecting to.
Another random statement from you with nothing at all to back it up. My points had nothing to do with parallel connections.

You based beavers cutting wood and building dams as natural due to their teeth. I showed that others with the same teeth in the same family do not do the same thing. You dont mention your error saying that beavers have FINS which excludes you from being even close to knowledgeable enough to comment on the beavers way of life.


And as I said, I'm sticking to what I have issued.
And I told you you are lying when you say you have. You have not and your avoidance confirms that fact. Still if that means you stop using 'target food' its fine by me.


As I have already stated, its food that is NOT manufactured by man, and it would be found growing on its own in the wild.
If you had of supplied the definition/what you mean by in the wild that may have been enough. You have not, it is not. It is also missing other items that you included lastime. So your definition has changed again.


Its two words working together with normal definition. The definitions of each appies as normal. If your still lost, like I have said about a dozen times think of excessive adaptation.
I see thicko. You show again you have no understanding of the english language. I will supply this again. Read it this time


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.
4. Costume Swimming. Means nothing at all. I would have to define meaning If I wished to use it.

The meaning of words change when you combine them. Combine the wrong ones and you get a meaningless term that requires definition as in #4
You cannot put two words together without changing what they mean. Only an idiot would think that.


As I have stated many times before, it means not in civilisation.
IN THE WILD is just as open ended as NOT IN CIVILISATION. Now you have one more definition to provide


I mean most as in the common understanding you find in a dictionary but to narrow it down, considering all life on this planet, to come up with a percentage of them meaning most.
There is no common understanding as it has been pointed out to you many times now. Supply what you meant by it in the context you used it.


Spelled incorrectly should be Civilization.
I see another spelling B from you. Well that would mean you spelled it wrongly above but the fact is dunce in the UK that is the correct spelling. Another thing you are ignorant on


Spelled incorrectly should be Civilization. You will have to read the wiki on it. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you on dismissing facts.
en.wikipedia.org...
There is obviously a difference between civilization and the wild life on this planet. As wiki states, there is an astronomical understanding.
Your pig ignorance and inability to read is showcased yet again

Civilization (or civilisation) is a sometimes controversial term that has been used in several related ways. Primarily, the term has been used to refer to the material and instrumental side of human cultures that are complex in terms of technology, science, and division of labor. Such civilizations are generally hierarchical and urbanized. In a classical context, people were called "civilized" to set them apart from Barbarians, while in a modern-day context, "civilized peoples" have been contrasted with primitive peoples.
No where does it say in the wild


Which again is not a vehicle to determine if a species is indigenous.
So you write that rather than admit your list of animals you said farm and harvest their crops was wrong and you cannot link to any information.


I just did but apparently it was over your head.
Another pathetic random reply


A lot can be missleading, and by no means was it meant to even be close to the word most. It looks fine to me.
The question will be asked again as that is not an answer to it.


Please explain why the other statement where you supported it with evidence from the bible was wrong. This asks another question. Is the bible wrong or is the bible right on this point?



And I keep answering them, and they arent changing. The bible did claim to give us a lot of animals, is there something your missing here?
Yes whether most is 99.9% or 51% or in between



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





For example have you ever heard that if you throw a baby human in the water that has never been taught to swim, he will start paddeling his way to the top to breath air.

That is not supporting evidence. That is the offering of a mindless donk. Have you ever heard that infants can drown in a puddle of water. Do you know why garden ponds and children dont mix. You really are full of $hit.
You claim, but you are unable to provide reason that would otherwise explain how it is that we automatically know this.

Your also unable to provide the learning channel in which ants use to teach there offspring how to use pheromones.




This is a good example of instinct. A rare one since we don't seem to have to many here. You can assume that there is large bodys of water on our home planet from this.

Are you implying that 7/10ths of the surface of the world being water makes it rare? Boy you should not be allowed out on your own. You probably are not thinking about it.

So that is it? You have nothing better than that to offer?
Where did you pull that out of? No I said that locating any instinctive abilitys is rare, like automatically knowing how to swim.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What! What!
I had included your prior reply with that, so that you woudln't say what.




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

You still do not understand after the idiot you made of yourself saying ants harvest chemicals you now manitain they use pheromones even though I have provided you with what they actually use and repeated it several times. You have got to be the most stupid ignorant fool on the planet.
They do use pheromones, are you saying that is false?




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

You show here you know nothing at all about pheromones. NOTHING. I see no evidence for your claim of being a science major at all, not even a glimmer.
Apparently, your making it appear as though they pull it out of there ass, but even then they have to either be harvesting it, manufacturing it, and eventually carrying it at some point.




Ants use pheromones to COMMUNICATE you dunce. Communication you know. Exchange of information. It is vital to the ant society just as it is to ours you empty headed numpty.
Well I thought they did a lot more than that, and yest I knew that. So how is it that its so hard for me to grasp what they do, when your trying to tell me that we are just like them in so many ways? I think your wrong.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Redundant adaptation proves that. We are the only ones guilty of this as well.
Alas, redundant adaption has not been defined and so is not an acceptable answer. Try again


To say it is not our nature it was forced you need to provide supporting evidence for such a statement.
and this second answer


It's simple, when something is removed from its natural element, this is what is going to happen.
has what to do with?

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.



Actually that was a question, I wasn't telling you, I pulled a Colin and forgot the question mark.
Which does not change my answer at all 'How many times do you need to be told. Dont tell me what I am saying address the point I am making' or the question you should be answering

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



My point is "alone" it doesn't prove anything.
Which is why I supplied you with a long list of supporting evidence. So answer it.


These common things don't prove anything.
Proves your assumption based on nothing (which is what you admitted you do) is wrong


Its a pretty vague statement, and they aren't saying what the reason is for it, so its useless.
There are three paragraphs above it giving the reasons for it. You really cannot read can you? So it is not vague but you refuse to answer using the same old avoidance trick. Noted

From me: Breeding is NOT the same as sustaining a very large population.

From you:


Agreed so I'm not seeing the point here.
yet your wrote in sanwer to the above


Wrong, every species has the primal instinct to breed. Even humans.
And you are right a primal instinct to breed has nothing to do with sustaining a very large population. So again you write conflicting statements. Again avoiding the question. Again Noted.


Yes, but not because of any of the things your listing.
Ants have many variations of crops, humans have many variations of crops. You avoid the question again. Noted


All I'm trying to say is that it looks like fact is trying to be made out of speculation, and a shotty one at that.
So it should be easy for you to prove it otherwise, do it. I must remind you that this is from a link YOU provided and now you call the information YOU supplied shotty. The only person giving shotty information here is you. The only reason you now think it shotty is it kills your fantasy.


There are to many other factors you have to consider, which I made you a list already. This is just like saying because a woman missed her period she is guaranteed to be pregnant, its a possibility not a fact, other things have to be considered.
Another random avoidance tactic. The process and systems we parallel with ants show one of two things we are both unnatural or both natural. You have not provide one piece of evidence in two tries to adress the points made. You was asked too and did not. That means you cannot. Your case fails.


Thats simple, we were taught how to do these things and they weren't, its instinct for them.
That is not evidence it is heresay and from a non credible source, you. So again avoidance. Again noted.


Then prove me wrong, show me where the ants go to school to teach each other how to do these things.
Here you go. Better still lots more information and a video, all of which I expect you to ignore but hey, you might surprise me. Are Ants Intelligent Here is the part answering your question. Under the heading Ants teach and communicate.

A recent study has demonstrated that ants can pass on knowledge from one ant to another and teach other ants how to find food.




top topics



 
31
<< 355  356  357    359  360  361 >>

log in

join