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: 369
31
<< 366  367  368    370  371  372 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You really do not have a clue do you. The WORD ******* WILD******* is not a TERM......... IN THE WILD IS. BTW its really not raelly and still waiting for your definitions. You lost until you do.
So your totally ignoring the fact that "in the wild" is used as an example for the definition of "wild."




Edit: Reading the posts made by others here looks like we have all come to the same verdict. Your dishonest approach and refusal to join in the debate has resulted in a universal concensus that you lost this debate.
Oh I highly dissagree. After all you wernt able to satisfy any one of the questions I asked, so I don't know where you get off saying you won a debate. Maybe a debate in your own mind.




You even refuse to supply definitions of your own made up nonsense terms. What a legendary failure your argument, (for what it was) has been.
Anyone can claim such nonesense. As an example I could tell you I reject your term "your argument" and since its not found in any dictionary your WRONG.

How lame is that?




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



So your totally ignoring the fact that "in the wild" is used as an example for the definition of "wild."
Yep. The reason is you have not put it in the context you used it. Of course you dont understand what that means despite having it explained many times.


Oh I highly dissagree. After all you wernt able to satisfy any one of the questions I asked, so I don't know where you get off saying you won a debate. Maybe a debate in your own mind.
Again your reading skills have let you down.

You were unable/refused to provide definitions of the terms you made up that were contained in those questions. This meant everytime you were given an answer you changed what you claimed your question was and then claim no one can aswer them as you are here. Very dishonest of you and is the reason no one bothers to debate with you and is why I asked for those definitions.

I never once claimed I had won the debate. I told you that YOU had lost the debate, very different. Read it again


Edit: Reading the posts made by others here looks like we have all come to the same verdict. Your dishonest approach and refusal to join in the debate has resulted in a universal concensus that you lost this debate.
So yet again you read what is not there but ignore what is.


Anyone can claim such nonesense. As an example I could tell you I reject your term "your argument" and since its not found in any dictionary your WRONG.

How lame is that?
Not the same at all and is what they call a straw man argument. You do it often. You made up many terms you claim describe functions or non functions of evolution. Because you made them up no one had a clear view of what you meant which you used to promote your dishonesty and I believe is why you continue to refuse to supply them.

Now that is LAME.

BTW I have never insisted they come from a dictionary or wiki or google. I have told you many times. You made them up, you provide the definition



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Hi guys,

This goes back to ants harvesting food and other food-related stuff. Researchers have found a species of bird that cultivates fruit for something other than food. They use it in their mating courtship to attract females.

Roses and chocolate, anyone?


Article here:

www.sci-news.com...

Abstract to paper here:

www.cell.com...


Cultivation may be described as a process of co-evolution and niche construction, with two species developing a mutualistic relationship through association, leading to coordinated change [1]. Cultivation is rare but taxonomically widespread, benefiting the cultivator, usually through increased access to food, and the cultivar, by improved growth and protection, driving co-evolutionary changes (Supplemental information). Humans cultivate more than food, producing clothing, construction materials, fuel, drugs, and ornaments. A population of male spotted bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus (Chlamydera) maculata uses fruits of Solanum ellipticum (Figure 1A), not as food but as important components of their sexual display [2,3]. Here, we show that males indirectly cultivate plants bearing these fruit — the first example of cultivation of a non-food item by a species other than humans. Plants appear at bowers following male occupation (Figure 1B). Males benefit, exhibiting more fruit at their bowers. Plants benefit because fruit are deposited in better germination sites. Fruits from plants near bowers differ visually from those far from bowers, and look more similar to fruits that are preferred by males in choice tests.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I do agree with alot of the basic principals associated with evolution, even though I am a Christian a God fearing man through and through I do believe science can prove alot of things but lets be honest for a second though science could prove a midget could balance a elephant with one hand use your common sense though. I do believe in God, but I believe alot of whats in the bible was either misinterpreted or whatever the case may be alot of scriptures weren't included in the bible that I do know. But even though I'm not as religious as I probably should be I highly respect the concept of evolution in theory it makes alot of sense certain key elements in the theory however I don't agree with but for the sake of it all I won't go into detail or over step my boundaries since I've merely just joined this message board. Somethings in this life we live no matter if you do believe in God, Buddah, Allah whoever or even if you don't believe in anything we all have to come to grips with the fact theres simply some things we just cannot explain certain things science may not ever be able to explain but thats just my opinion though.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Yep. The reason is you have not put it in the context you used it. Of course you dont understand what that means despite having it explained many times.
Yes I did, I even quoted one out of the dictionary.




Again your reading skills have let you down.
I think its more your inability to understand as I have issued definitions multiple times.




You were unable/refused to provide definitions of the terms you made up that were contained in those questions. This meant everytime you were given an answer you changed what you claimed your question was and then claim no one can aswer them as you are here. Very dishonest of you and is the reason no one bothers to debate with you and is why I asked for those definitions.
Then what exactly are you doing with my replies to definitions.




Edit: Reading the posts made by others here looks like we have all come to the same verdict. Your dishonest approach and refusal to join in the debate has resulted in a universal concensus that you lost this debate.

So yet again you read what is not there but ignore what is.
The only thing that seems to get lost in this thread is your attention.




Not the same at all and is what they call a straw man argument. You do it often. You made up many terms you claim describe functions or non functions of evolution. Because you made them up no one had a clear view of what you meant which you used to promote your dishonesty and I believe is why you continue to refuse to supply them.

Now that is LAME.

BTW I have never insisted they come from a dictionary or wiki or google. I have told you many times. You made them up, you provide the definition
Now your lying because you had made it clear that there were no definitions to the terms I had made up. How could you expect there to be some and now say its not relavent.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
The dictionary knew what context you used the term 'In the wild' in? A dictionary that good should contain all your other missing definitions.


I think its more your inability to understand as I have issued definitions multiple times.
Nope. Definitely your reading skills. You read what was not there and that is a plain fact for all to see.


Then what exactly are you doing with my replies to definitions.
The only definitions you gave were to the WORDS contained in YOUR MADE UP TERMS. That is not defining your made up terms. You have had it explained many times, you obviously read what wasnt there in those as well.


The only thing that seems to get lost in this thread is your attention.
Really. This time you totally ignored what was written down and answered with a totally disconnected comment. You prove my point again


Now your lying because you had made it clear that there were no definitions to the terms I had made up. How could you expect there to be some and now say its not relavent.
Because if YOU made the terms up then YOU should be able to provide the definitions.

How can you call me a liar for telling you defintions of your made up terms dont dont exist on any search engine or in any dictionary because you made them up and is exactly why you dont provide them.

You could however provide them yourself. YOUR description of their meaning but you also refuse to do that and that can only be for one of two reasons:

1. You dont know yourself
2. You refuse so that you can continue to change their meaning everytime your argument fails

BTW You now admit you made up those terms after many replies saying you did not. Your stories change constantly to suit your current argument just as I have been saying all along. I expect to recieve your claim of 'sarcasm' as your usual last ditch, get out of jail card for this one.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is one thing I will say for sure colin. I started talking about target food back on page 189. No one including yourself challenged its meaning untill page 244, which was also you. Now why it took you 54 pages to suddenly realize that you don't agree with its meaning is beyond me. I will say this however, it looks like your trolling. The only reason you waited 54 pages to dispute its meaning was because I had recently questioned some meanings of words you used. It's obviously just a trolling technique for you.

This proves that you either don't care to read what others are posting or are just here to troll. Either way your a troll.
edit on 26-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You could however provide them yourself. YOUR description of their meaning but you also refuse to do that and that can only be for one of two reasons:

1. You dont know yourself
2. You refuse so that you can continue to change their meaning everytime your argument fails

BTW You now admit you made up those terms after many replies saying you did not. Your stories change constantly to suit your current argument just as I have been saying all along. I expect to recieve your claim of 'sarcasm' as your usual last ditch, get out of jail card for this one.
Based on all the definition posts I have made about this, I will no longer post them. However if you want to reply with what you think they mean I would be happy to tell you if your correct or wrong.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
So if your not going to supply the definitions. You lost the debate.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
So if your not going to supply the definitions. You lost the debate.



Good. Can we get back to our regularly scheduled programming now? Er, I mean the thread topic?




posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So if your not going to supply the definitions. You lost the debate.
So I have a question for you Colin. I have supplied my terms and definitions, and you reject them. Since you argue that they aren't listed anywhere, how do you know them to be wrong?



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Good. Can we get back to our regularly scheduled programming now? Er, I mean the thread topic?
We already are on this topic, of how its false and not even possible.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





You really do not have a clue do you. The WORD ******* WILD******* is not a TERM......... IN THE WILD IS. BTW its really not raelly and still waiting for your definitions. You lost until you do.

So your totally ignoring the fact that "in the wild" is used as an example for the definition of "wild."
BTW you are wrong again...

term/tərm/Noun: A word or phrase used to describe a thing or to express a concept, esp. in a particular kind of language or branch of study

As you can see both a single word or a phrase can be used as a term.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


There is no conceptual idea on how a new species would possibly have target food, therefore new species through evolution, at least as we understand it, is not possible.

There is no arguemnt that every species would need food to survive. Target food IMO is the ideal choice, meaning that species is eating food intended for itself. There seems to be some confusion and understanding to what this could mean. You see if a species does NOT have target food, it could be from extinction of other species, but it could also be that species is not from here.

Humans have no target food, and as far as we know, we never did here on earth. That is the big picture, it adds to the fact that we aren't from here. Apes and monkeys do have target food, as they are from here, it also adds to the fact that we actually didn't evolve from there.

The arguement that our species was only able to survive because of adaptation is true, however there is no proof that adaptation itself is a form of evolution and I consider the claim to be false. An ability or trait is not a part of evolution. The claim thats made on wiki's adaptatio definition is actually written by an evolutionists and seperated from the other understanding thats not. It was allowed to be published as a belief, not a fact. If you honestly believe that adaptation is a form of evolution that you have also agree that there is some serious intelligence behind the workings of evolution. So vast that you could almost say evolution would have to be a bug of sorts. A bug smart enough to not only know how to change our DNA but smart enough to know what changes would have to take place in order for us to survive, like that of adaptation.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. It's Harry Potter all over again.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





So if your not going to supply the definitions. You lost the debate.
So I have a question for you Colin. I have supplied my terms and definitions, and you reject them. Since you argue that they aren't listed anywhere, how do you know them to be wrong?
1. you have never once supplied them, any of them.
2. I rejected the words you defined that were contained within your made up terms as they do not define the meaning of those terms.
3. I know they are wrong because you refuse to supply them. You cannot link to them. You cannot even define them using your own words.
4. They are meaningless, just like your argument.

They have become the symbol of your defeat and your failure. You have never been able to back up your arguments and now not even the terms you made up to hide from the truth. Face it. You lost, big time.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Until you define 'target food' everything you wrote was meaningless which means. Yep you lost.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   


reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Here is one thing I will say for sure colin. I started talking about target food back on page 189. No one including yourself challenged its meaning untill page 244, which was also you. Now why it took you 54 pages to suddenly realize that you don't agree with its meaning is beyond me. I will say this however, it looks like your trolling. The only reason you waited 54 pages to dispute its meaning was because I had recently questioned some meanings of words you used. It's obviously just a trolling technique for you.

This proves that you either don't care to read what others are posting or are just here to troll. Either way your a troll.
edit on 26-4-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



Not in the slightest bit correct, just two posts later excalibur chalenged your use of "target food"




Things aren't evolving into "targets." The ancestors of the anteater were already eating such things as ants and termites. However, due to environmental pressures it became more advantageous to have the long nose and thus the anteater grew out of these ancestors. If it didn't have its tongue it would most likely still be eating ants. We know this because its closest relatives, the sloth and the armadillo, have similar diets. The anteater's tongue is no different than the human's prefrontal cortex. They both were selected for by environmental pressures and they allowed the species to be more adept at survival. Text


Target food was again challenged, or at least refuted by colin on page 191 and connector on the same page.

With reference to the "illogic loop" you appear to be in regarding defining terms, its also quite amusing that on page 192 the statement and question was asked by me:



Throughout this thread I've asked you many times to clearly define certain statements you have made. You have ignored them, which is fine, I guess if you refuse to define them nobody can supply an answer that would satisfy you, cos an i'll defined statement can be easily altered.


I never recieved a reply.

The conversation around the human diet actualy started on page63 where steveknows explained why we, as a species we started to eat the kind of foods we do now.

On page 68 you said:




What this means is the food we eat was not INTENDED for us by our REAL creator. God was not our real creator. So this is why we struggle with diet and so forth. Had we evolved, we would be in perfect fitting with these choices.


To which colin replied:



We struggle with our diet because our food is manufactured and our life styles today do not burn off the calories we take in. This is where the problem lays because we have moved away from the hunter/gatherer life style we evolved into.


I could continue but I think the above examples show that to suggest that nobody has been challenging you poorly concieved ideas about diets and "target foods" is demostrably incorrect.
edit on 26-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





1. you have never once supplied them, any of them.
2. I rejected the words you defined that were contained within your made up terms as they do not define the meaning of those terms.
So which one are you lying about? Did I not supply them or did you reject them?




3. I know they are wrong because you refuse to supply them. You cannot link to them. You cannot even define them using your own words.
The only problem is that you claim my definitions to be wrong yet your also saying they don't exist in any dictionary, so which one did you lie about?




4. They are meaningless, just like your argument.
If I'm stumping you (which I obviously am) I seriously doubt that they are meaningless, and there is no way I could have lost any debate.




They have become the symbol of your defeat and your failure. You have never been able to back up your arguments and now not even the terms you made up to hide from the truth. Face it. You lost, big time.
Just because you reject them without reason or proof of why doesn't mean I lost any debate. Maybe in your mind but thats it.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Until you define 'target food' everything you wrote was meaningless which means. Yep you lost.
I have already explained it. Like I said I'm not going to keep repeating it. If you think I have lost any part of this debate (which it isn't even a debate because you have not participated) then explain how it is I have lost, and ignoring my posts doens't qualify as failure.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





Not in the slightest bit correct, just two posts later excalibur chalenged your use of "target food"
And that would be false as he was referring to targets evolving, which has nothing to do with target food.

This tells me you either are not understanding the concept of target food, or didn't understand that there was a seperate idea that was created that could explain how everything must evolve together.




Target food was again challenged, or at least refuted by colin on page 191 and connector on the same page.
If your referring to....
Basically everything you have surmized, adds up to this being the truth. We no longer have any target food. I once heard that man can live alone on milk and bread. Bread is man made, Milk is processed. So either way you look at it, its a large process to live that way.

Basically you are again being dishonest. You are showing your ignorance and your total disconnect with the world you live in. Your win seems further away than ever.

I fail to even see a challenge in this, anyone can call anyone dishonest, where is the results?

Connector wrote...



And everytime you claim this, I know I'm winning the debate, because just like all of the other times in the past, you once again avoided the question. This goes back to you producing target food for humans. You wont do it, and you can't do it, because it doesn't exist. Thanks for admitting I'm correct, at least in your own way.



Trust me......anyone who has read your post here, does not consider you to be......
Wow, I guess they both put me in my place. Did I miss something here?




I could continue but I think the above examples show that to suggest that nobody has been challenging you poorly concieved ideas about diets and "target foods" is demostrably incorrect.
Oh I see what happened here. You see I agree with the findings but not with the reasons behind them, probably why I didn't say much but should have. The reasons are because this is not our home and not our food.




top topics



 
31
<< 366  367  368    370  371  372 >>

log in

join