Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

Trying to get to buddy buddy with mother nature because your so convinced that are all wild, and all belong together. After all we are all related right.
Just more ignorance based misinformation from you. Lets look at the article shall we.
Violet and Archibald D'Mello were posing with two cheetahs at the Kragga Kamma reserve in South Africa when one of the animals began attacking the woman, leaving her husband to photograph the event.

And I stand by my argument, they got to close so they got attacked.

These Cheeta's were on a reserve. Is this 'in the wild'? You can clearly see a path. Is this 'in civilisation?
Violet, Archibald and a family with children entered a petting area with two "completely tame" male cheetahs

You don't honestly think that because they are on a reserve, that they are automatically domesticated.

Yes when a cheeta plays with humans its the human that gets injured. Is that so hard to understand? Understandably but sadly the reactions of the humans increased the excitment so of course it got serious. Ever watched an animal hunt? It is very excited.

Now tell me. Are the Cheeta's wild animals or tame ones? Are they in the wild or civilisation? Did the family have enough knowledge of how to behave around these big cats or the risk they were taking? Were the keepers guilty of putting this family in danger for profit? What has this to do with evolution?

This isn't about proving intent, we all know the humans are going to be the ones that get hurt.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's actually a very good sentance, and you could learn from it.

Only you could believe that

What does any of that have to do with being a coward?

What comes across clearly is you are scared of the world you live in. Excuse your failings by blameing some fictional alien and refuse to see what is in front of your face. Too cowardly to face the real world so you make up your own. Then you come here to try to get reassurance that you are right. You are not.

What your trying to say is that you don't believe in words.

Here is your first major problem. I explained in the reply you are answering to why I dont have to believe in words but you read what you wanted to see. Your second major problem. How the hell can someone believe or not believe in words? This leads me to your 3rd problem. Your absolute minimum level of education

You have had this explained many times, excessively in fact. I have concluded you cannot provide the definitions which is why I consider you a bankrupt person on this thread.

Well here is where the problem is, your actually not learning anything, as I have copied and pasted many definitions and you simply reject them because they don't fit into Colins dictionary.

The problem is all yours. Not even intelligent enough to understand what you are being asked for and to cowardly to admit you cannot provide them.

Is that why you are unable to read the definitions I post, because they don't fit into your language?

I cant read what you refuse to supply.

No Colin, thats not how it works, thats how it could work. Just because you join two common words together does not necessarily mean they have to take on new meaning. For example cold rain just means rain that is cold.

Now I have warned you not to add to the list. Define COLD RAIN. Rain that is colder than what? Where can I go and witness COLD RAIN. What causes COLD RAIN. I have never heard of it.

The rest of your nonsense has been disregarded as nonsense many times. It has been again.

Quit playing dumb, you know I'm talking about your made up rules and not ATS rules.

The rules we all, except you abide by are prescribed by ATS. Go read them and then try to abide by them

reply to post by itsthetooth

You probably do think its funny to not use proper puncuation. All it does is show your true intellgence.

Not satisfied with doing it once you repeat it, my god thats dumb.

FYI when pulling someone up on their 'punctuation' it helps if you spell it correctly What a zombie.

No Colin it wasn't an open invitation to a spelling b. If you need more insight to the english language, I would first suggest you join the human race and get out of the wilderness.

Another point you are not going to address then. Another point you cannot answer because it threatens your fantasy and challenges your ignorance.

Then your ignorance must be out doing mine as your totally missing the fact that your using the same word as an adjetive instead of a noun. You seriously need to go back to school.

Again when pulling someone up for grammar it helps if you get your spelling correct. It looks like you need to go to school as it looks to me of not being the case of going back to school in your case.

A wild party is not using the word wild as a noun, in the wild does. If you don't get this, there is something serioulsy wrong with you.

Yet strangely you maintain putting two words together does not change the meaning of the seperate words? You need to explain that one.

Well this is obviously where you are wrong and probably why you talk funny. Putting words together does not have to change there meaning, and if you believe this to be fact, I want to see it in writting.

SWIMMING, COSTUME, COSTUME SWIMMING.

And why not?

Again you have had this explained excessively.

But Colin why on earth would there be the need for anything more comfortable than our natural enviroment that was meant for us ????? Perhaps because its not our enviroment.

Because nothing is perfect. Something that obviously scares you. It is why life continually evolves and why you are so scared of what evolution describes. Not my fault you cannot man up.

Man: Male of the human species. Up: Oposite direction to gravitational downwards pull. Man Up: Grow a pair. there you go two answers for the price of one.

Then sleep outside in your PJ's tonight and see how that goes for you.

Slept outside on many occassions. Have seen what happens. I eat breakfast. What do you think will happen?

You will have to read and understand the definition to know why that wont work.

Supply those definitions and then apply it to what you wrote to me.

People were not suppose to be hunter gatherers, it just happened that way because they needed to survive.

Like I said, gibberish. Provide the evidence that man was not supposed to be a hunter gatherer. Lets face it, man is better suited to being a hunter gatherer than he is a gold miner yet you accept that without question.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I stand by my argument, they got to close so they got attacked.

You're not standing by your argument. You are maintaining your ignorance, as usual.

You don't honestly think that because they are on a reserve, that they are automatically domesticated.

Oh dear, your poor reading skills come into play again. I wrote

These Cheeta's were on a reserve. Is this 'in the wild'? You can clearly see a path. Is this 'in civilisation?

Did not mention domesticated. Read my answer again. What has your reply to do with that? NOTHING

This isn't about proving intent, we all know the humans are going to be the ones that get hurt.

Really. Bushmen hunt the Cheeta so thats wrong for a start. But this whole reply from you is yet another example of you not entering a dialog of a topic you posted. I replied and you skip past most of the points and reply to points I never made to boot. Did not even say what this had to do with evolution.

reply to post by colin42

What does any of that have to do with being a coward?

What comes across clearly is you are scared of the world you live in. Excuse your failings by blameing some fictional alien and refuse to see what is in front of your face. Too cowardly to face the real world so you make up your own. Then you come here to try to get reassurance that you are right. You are not.

Is that your prognosis DR Colin. Let me remind you that you have given zero reasons to believe otherwise.

Here is your first major problem. I explained in the reply you are answering to why I dont have to believe in words but you read what you wanted to see. Your second major problem. How the hell can someone believe or not believe in words? This leads me to your 3rd problem. Your absolute minimum level of education

You have had this explained many times, excessively in fact. I have concluded you cannot provide the definitions which is why I consider you a bankrupt person on this thread.

And you still haven't provided me with any written rules that explain whats allowed or not allowed in making up terms. I on the other hand have shared the information that proves a term can be a word or a phrase.

Well here is where the problem is, your actually not learning anything, as I have copied and pasted many definitions and you simply reject them because they don't fit into Colins dictionary.

The problem is all yours. Not even intelligent enough to understand what you are being asked for and to cowardly to admit you cannot provide them.

I'm not the coward, you are by ignoring my terms. It wasn't good enough to ignore them without a reason so you claimed that they are not single words so they can't be terms, so I proved that wrong by providing you with with the definition for Terms. So you weren't happy with that, now you claim that they are made up. Where is your proof that they are made up. How do you not know that I actually got them from somewhere.

Is that why you are unable to read the definitions I post, because they don't fit into your language?

I cant read what you refuse to supply.

How is it that you know they are made up, if I havent supplied them ??? Because your a liar !

No Colin, thats not how it works, thats how it could work. Just because you join two common words together does not necessarily mean they have to take on new meaning. For example cold rain just means rain that is cold.

Now I have warned you not to add to the list. Define COLD RAIN. Rain that is colder than what? Where can I go and witness COLD RAIN. What causes COLD RAIN. I have never heard of it.

The rest of your nonsense has been disregarded as nonsense many times. It has been again.


Quit playing dumb, you know I'm talking about your made up rules and not ATS rules.

The rules we all, except you abide by are prescribed by ATS. Go read them and then try to abide by them

It's a good thing they don't mind improper puncuation otherwise you would have been out long ago.

reply to post by colin42

A wild party is not using the word wild as a noun, in the wild does. If you don't get this, there is something serioulsy wrong with you.

Yet strangely you maintain putting two words together does not change the meaning of the seperate words? You need to explain that one.

For example... Hot water. Does hot still mean hot, does water still mean water? Yes they do.

Well this is obviously where you are wrong and probably why you talk funny. Putting words together does not have to change there meaning, and if you believe this to be fact, I want to see it in writting.

SWIMMING, COSTUME, COSTUME SWIMMING.

You pick the pettiest sides for your arguments. Semantics will not win your argument. I could careless about swimming costume. The fact that I have never heard of it before proves to me that it could have an odd meaning. There are no rules that claim that it has to. Your simply a moron.

And why not?

Again you have had this explained excessively.

This is also why you and I differ. You find it easy to believe in things that are explained to you, and I want more facts.

But Colin why on earth would there be the need for anything more comfortable than our natural enviroment that was meant for us ????? Perhaps because its not our enviroment.

Because nothing is perfect. Something that obviously scares you. It is why life continually evolves and why you are so scared of what evolution describes. Not my fault you cannot man up.

Man: Male of the human species. Up: Oposite direction to gravitational downwards pull. Man Up: Grow a pair. there you go two answers for the price of one.

Here is where your insight lacking. This planet not being perfect is one angle, but the other angle is that the planet is actually not accomodating at all for us. Now there are three eye epeners for you.

Like I said, gibberish. Provide the evidence that man was not supposed to be a hunter gatherer. Lets face it, man is better suited to being a hunter gatherer than he is a gold miner.

If that was true then our monetary system would be based on hunting and gathering rather than on gold, Ignit.

You will have to read and understand the definition to know why that wont work.

Supply those definitions and then apply it to what you wrote to me.

I allready did ignit, you said they were made up.

reply to post by colin42

And I stand by my argument, they got to close so they got attacked.

You're not standing by your argument. You are maintaining your ignorance, as usual.

It's funny how my ignorance is correct and your intelligence is wrong.

This isn't about proving intent, we all know the humans are going to be the ones that get hurt.

Really. Bushmen hunt the Cheeta so thats wrong for a start. But this whole reply from you is yet another example of you not entering a dialog of a topic you posted. I replied and you skip past most of the points and reply to points I never made to boot. Did not even say what this had to do with evolution.

If humans were meant to be bushmen, and these people were stupid enough to get to close to get mauled, you are dead wrong. Your so blind and you don't even see it. Look at how good they did, they walked into a mess and almost got killed, but we are all instinctivly bushmen right? You lose again Colin. Nothing has changed. The cheeta is naturally equiped to kill us, we ARE NOT, so grow a brain and smell the coffee.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Where is the lie? I don't recall a scientist ever claiming that speciation has been observed in humans. That doesn't even make sense. You don't even understand what speciation is, and I know I've explained it multiple times. Your lack of understanding about slow change over time doesn't prove anything.

Please prove me wrong and demonstrate an instance of a lie perpetrated by a biologist in regards to evolution. Show me that you actually know what a lie is.

www.youtube.com...

You searched youtube for evolution lie biologist. Bad Troll, no donut. This clown didn't show ANY science experiment that supports evolution as wrong or a lie. He was nitpicking Darwin's original theory from a hundred and fifty years ago. That is not modern evolution. FAIL. Link me to the faulty experiments and their research papers, not some schlep on youtube talking out of his backside.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Is that your prognosis DR Colin. Let me remind you that you have given zero reasons to believe otherwise.

No its my observation. There are no reasons from my observations of you that makes me believe otherwise, so you are correct for a change.

And you still haven't provided me with any written rules that explain whats allowed or not allowed in making up terms.

Wrong again. (Knew it wouldnt last). I have given you loads of explanations, with examples. You chose to ignore or blow them off to remain in ignorance. You acheived your goal.

I on the other hand have shared the information that proves a term can be a word or a phrase.

And I have agreed but your terms contain more than one word. You made them up so you supply those definitons.

I'm not the coward, you are by ignoring my terms.

Quite the reverse. I have focused on your made up terms. You have refused to define them.

It wasn't good enough to ignore them without a reason so you claimed that they are not single words so they can't be terms, so I proved that wrong by providing you with with the definition for Terms.

Nope. Your reading skills or lack of have let you down again. I pointed out your terms are not single words. You made up your nonsense terms, you supply the definitions to those terms, not the words contained within those terms. A simple request that you appear unable to do. I can only conclude you cannot or will not.

So you weren't happy with that, now you claim that they are made up.

I have always told you that you made them up. I explained in detail why redundant adaption was a nonsense based on total ignorance of what evolution describes. You ignored it. Supply those definitions.

Where is your proof that they are made up.

Read my reply above. Add to that they do not exist anywhere other than when you type them and your inability to provide them.

How do you not know that I actually got them from somewhere.

Er, I have shown that or is this another case of a poorly constructed sentance. If you were trying to say 'how do I know that you never got these terms from another source?' Simple. You cannot supply the source.

How is it that you know they are made up, if I havent supplied them ??? Because your a liar !

Because you cannot supply them. Because when you look at them they make no sense. I refer you to my detailed explanation showing that redundant adaption is a term made up by you based on ignorance of evolution.

It's a good thing they don't mind improper puncuation otherwise you would have been out long ago.

Three times and you still make the same mistake. Please define puncuation.

Also I see you are not going to provide the definition for cold rain. Whats up? Is this another made up term you cannot define. Cannot explain, and cannot provide examples of. Shamefull on all counts.

reply to post by itsthetooth

For example... Hot water. Does hot still mean hot, does water still mean water? Yes they do.

By using hot water you describe a loose condition, in this case the waters temperature in common parlence.

Water describes the substance otherwise known as H2O. Water is a coverall term.

Hot is pretty meaningless until you associate it with something. So hot water gives meaning to hot and narrows the definition down of water. The words meanings have therefore changed.

You pick the pettiest sides for your arguments. Semantics will not win your argument. I could careless about swimming costume.

Tut tut. Reading skills again. Never mentioned swimming costume. In my example I wrote SWIMMING, COSTUME, COSTUME SWIMMING. So not only have you dismissed the example I gave, you show you did not understand it either despite me purposely writing it with a person of low intelligence in mind. YOU. Shamefull.

The fact that I have never heard of it before proves to me that it could have an odd meaning. There are no rules that claim that it has to. Your simply a moron.

Well at least you have admitted you dont know what costume swimming means. I feel the same way with all your made up terms.

If you asked me to provide the definition for costume swimming I would admit I had no idea. If I asked you, which I have with your made up terms you would in this case provide me with the definition of swimming and costume and spend many pages avoiding the fact that you really dont know. Which you have. It is precisely what you have done regarding your made up terms.

This is also why you and I differ. You find it easy to believe in things that are explained to you, and I want more facts.

Not only are you wrong as I have shown here I want evidence before I accept anything I'll mis-quote a movie. 'You want facts? You cant handle the facts.'

Here is where your insight lacking. This planet not being perfect is one angle, but the other angle is that the planet is actually not accomodating at all for us. Now there are three eye epeners for you.

This is why I regard you as a coward. Why do you think this planet or any other should be any more accommodating than what it is? Why does this planet owe you and easy life? Does challenge scare you that much?

The earth is constantly changing as are all other known planets. The environments we live in are constantly changing. If we did not respond to those changes (evolve) we would not be here. (extinction).

If that was true then our monetary system would be based on hunting and gathering rather than on gold, Ignit.

Where have you been? Our monetary system is built on debt. Seems you have swallowed another lie without doing any research at all.

I allready did ignit, you said they were made up.

Shameful avoidance again. You supplied the definitons of civilisation and wild. Now go back and apply them to what you wrote and then give me your conclusions.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It's funny how my ignorance is correct and your intelligence is wrong.

Well at least you have provided me with a definition of your ignorance

If humans were meant to be bushmen, and these people were stupid enough to get to close to get mauled, you are dead wrong.

Please show the evidence showing people were not meant to be bushmen. Just a few posts back you were saying it was a mistake to move away from that life. Now you deny it.

My original post to you about how these people, tourists and owners alike did not give these animals the respect they should have. Of course I doubt you read it which results in your silly reply.

Your so blind and you don't even see it. Look at how good they did, they walked into a mess and almost got killed, but we are all instinctivly bushmen right?

Ignorant assumption by you again. Have I ever said the Bushman knows everything by instinct? I have in fact praised his knowledge and stated we could not live in his environment. BTW. The women said 'she instinctively played dead which she says saved her life.

You lose again Colin. Nothing has changed. The cheeta is naturally equiped to kill us, we ARE NOT, so grow a brain and smell the coffee.

Nope. The Cheeta has evolved to hunt the game on the plains of Africa. You are correct that we are not physically equiped to do the same so we grew a brain. Its all explained by evolution actually. You should do some research on it sometime.

So it looks to me like I won again and maybe you may smell the coffee. I doubt that though.

reply to post by Barcs

You searched youtube for evolution lie biologist. Bad Troll, no donut. This clown didn't show ANY science experiment that supports evolution as wrong or a lie. He was nitpicking Darwin's original theory from a hundred and fifty years ago. That is not modern evolution. FAIL. Link me to the faulty experiments and their research papers, not some schlep on youtube talking out of his backside.

Are you contesting his claims?

reply to post by colin42


You know Colin since you like to make so many assumptions, why don't you just assume that I'm correct and your wrong?

And since your on such a big roll of assumptions why don't you also assume that my terms are correct in there meaning.

And I have agreed but your terms contain more than one word. You made them up so you supply those definitons.

Ok but this is the last time.

Redundant adaptation simply means to adapt in excess.

Most is an existing term and you can look it up..

In the wild is a location referring to the wilderness or not in civilization, not to be confused with things that can be civilized that don't have to be in civilization.

Natural food is any food that is not tainted by mans processes or chemicals or additives.

Natural is an existing term and you can look it up.

Wild is also an existing term and you can look it up.

e·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 know Colin since you like to make so many assumptions, why don't you just assume that I'm correct and your wrong?

Well apart from the fact that you are the one that makes unfounded assumptions and refuse to provide the definitions to your made up terms, expecting others to make assumptions of their meaning. There is one overiding factor why I dont assume you are correct. YOU ARE WRONG. I have provided evidence that shows it or rather you have.

Ok but this is the last time.

Whoopee!

Redundant adaptation simply means to adapt in excess.

All you have done is made up another phrase founded on ignorance of the subject, evolution. I have clearly explained why no adaptions are redundant and the same applies to adaptions in excess. You have not defined redundant adaption by offering excessive adaption. They remain meaningless terms when applied to evolution. Unless of course you can clearly define them.

Most is an existing term and you can look it up..

You were asked to make a rough estimate of percentages of animals with 'target food' to put your use of most into context. How can I look that up?

In the wild is a location referring to the wilderness or not in civilization, not to be confused with things that can be civilized that don't have to be in civilization.

Meaningless tripe. Sorry I assume you have tried but thats a fact. You have had this explained many times, excessively in fact. Go back to the cheeta's. Are they in the wild or in civilisation?

Wilderness: Untouched by man. Civilisation: Requires mans structures and society.

How can something be in civlisation? Show me where in the world that is untouched by man. Where do you put the wild animals (not controlled, not domesticated, free ranging) that live in our most advanced cities? Where do you place the Bushman? Jeeze for a science major you are very undisciplined in how you use words.

Natural food is any food that is not tainted by mans processes or chemicals or additives.

Wrong. Bread contains natural ingredients. Water, flour, yeast, salt. The processes are natural. Mixing, standing and baking. There are many other examples. Mans processes do not make food artificial and more to the point unnatural.

Natural is an existing term and you can look it up.

Natural has never been a sticking point until you say anything man does is by default not natural and worse unnatural.

Wild is also an existing term and you can look it up.

Again wild has never been a point of contention. IN THE WILD is.

reply to post by itsthetooth
You just copied and pasted the same garbage you posted before. You get the same answer. I dont want the definitions of the words contained in your made up terms. I want the definitions of your made up terms.

If you asked me to provide the definition for costume swimming I would admit I had no idea. If I asked you, which I have with your made up terms you would in this case provide me with the definition of swimming and costume and spend many pages avoiding the fact that you really dont know. Which you have. It is precisely what you have done regarding your made up terms.

You just did it again.

reply to post by colin42


I allready gave them, Are you blind.

reply to post by colin42


Do you have a list at this point of what all words you want definitions for?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Do you have a list at this point of what all words you want definitions for?

I have another idea. You agree not to use any of your made up terms until we have agreed they are valid.

We decide their validity by entering into a dialog putting a reasoned and logical argument for and against. I'll start, please don’t let me down.

Redundant Adaption/Excessive Adaption

The only possible meaning I can see for the term ‘Redundant Adaption’ or 'Excessive Adaptions' are adaptions that are not needed.

This from an evolutionary perspective is total nonsense. It also assumes there is some sort of plan. There is not. The reason why we see such a diversity of life is because life works like a shot gun. Some pellets hit the target, some don’t the only important thing is that some do and allows advantages to be passed on and another shot. It’s a continuous cycle. We see fine tuning and investment for the future.

Evolution is random change selected for by the environment over time.

These come in three flavours:

1. Beneficial change. Change that gives the organism an advantage that allows it a better chance to breed and pass on that advantage. This is then spread throughout the group. The smaller the group the quicker it is established. That is why isolation is cited as a factor in the process described by evolution.

2. Disadvantage. Change that means the chance to breed and pass on that change is reduced. This safeguards the group from harmful change that reduces its chance to survive and breed.

3. Neutral change. Has no effect but may become a disadvantage/advantage if and when the environment changes. The reason why some changes to the environment causes extinction or population explosions. Neutral change is like an investment. You can win or lose and it is the chance all life takes. This is why we see diversity within species.

Conclusion: You should be able to see from the above there is no such thing as redundant adaption. All adaption’s fit into the above 3 flavours. Nothing is redundant. Nothing is excessive.

Redundant Adaption and Excessive Adaption are, as I have shown above, nonsense.

I move to have these two terms removed from this discussion.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Are you contesting his claims?

Let's just say he's a bit misinformed and clearly has an agenda against evolution. I have doubts he's even a biologist, but it's not really worth analyzing at this point. As soon as I hear 1 lie or misunderstanding I turn off the video. There are no scientific lies.