Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish

Has nothing to do with the discussion.

Of course it does, yours is all based on assumptions.

Clear misunderstanding of theory vs hypothesis. You can say black is blue till you bleed from the eyes it does not make it so.
I you want to debate properly you must bring objective evidence to the table otherwise your just trolling.

Thats what I'm saying, and I have yet to see any solid proof.

Yes by now we know your committed or should be committed.

The only thing I'm commited to is seeking out the truth. There is not much to see on this thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And I still feel its from a person that believes in evolution.

Forget you base that assumption on nothing. How would the information in this wiki be invalidated because it came from a person that supports evolution?

The fact that dogs have cross bred with wolves is not a selling point to me. If anything it goes against the idea of evolution as this type of activity from what I understand is not included in the workings of evolution.

Its not meant to be a selling point. The fact that wolves and dogs can breed and produce viable young means they are the same animals i.e.

the domestic dog recently was taxonomically recategorized as a subspecies of the gray wolf.

You have many times stated that a dog is a dog and no matter how we alter them they will always be a dog. I have shown you many times a dog is a wolf. they can breed and produce viable young is proof. Prevoiusly you have accepted that but now because you can see you are wrong you dive into denial. The only reason you do not accept this now is because it shows you to be very wrong but you are not man enough or honest enough to admit it.

This discussion was a long time ago when I suggested that it would have just been easier if all evolution happened in the breeding and I was told that none of it does.

Wolfdogs do not change that fact. You were wrong then and you still are now. Genes are passed by breeding. Evolution is not confined to breeding, its part of the process described. You cited the croyduck as I recall.

Relationships are still being assumed.

Domesticated dogs are gray wolves. The relationship is clear to see, everywhere without making one assumption so you fail again.

I did warn you that it's not easy to see and understand these things.

And I did offer you a chance to explain the meaning of target food and you turned it down.

Do you not agree all things need something to eat?

Yes tooth all things need energy. Eating is one way to do that.

Through the eyes of evolution, ALL species would simply be scavangers and eat what ever is available, but you can obviously see that isn't always the case.

You cocked it up again.Showed how ignorant of what evolution explains you are. An organism finds a food source/niche it can exploit and evolves to make full use of it over time. The food source also evolves over time. Things do not evolve one step at a time and in isolation. The enviroment is in constant flux.

Most species in fact are very selective, and even dividing things into food groups are still picky beyond that.

Here you go with your loose terminology. Most is your assumption, and is incorrect. Species evolve along specialist lines or jack of all trades. So specialists evolve to exploit a limited variety others evolve to exploit a wider food source. Nothing was intended, given.

It's proof that target food or the idea of it does exist and its also proof that not everything here is from here.

Define target food as it means nothing in this thread.

I only make these suggestion as a lot of what you trowel out is not correct.

Thanks but coming from a guy that repeatedly uses there instead of their I feel you should concentrate on you grammar before you pull others.

Your insight is failing you again. Normally you would be right, but in this case they do have the ability to adapt and become scavengers. As a result they are surviving.

Knew you would chicken out and not be man enough to admit you are wrong. If the wolf and the dog were victims of coextinction they would be extinct. They would not be around to become scavengers, they would be extinct.
While we are on the subject. You refer to scavengers as if it were some low life existance. This world and its eco systems would suffer greatly if we had no animals in that role. It is a niche, a source of energy and enables successful individuals to pass on their genes.

It's ok though, I honesly don't expect you to understand it as it is pretty in depth and complex.

Really Pinnochio. Forgive me while I LMAO

So your missing the obvious point that if they have no food to eat they certainly wont be passing any genes on soon.

Like I wrote before 'You were told that your ignorance of the subject you think you can prove wrong is astounding and matched by your total ignorance of the world you live in'.

it's all understandable, I'm seriously on the fence about claiming that savage hunters have adapted from not having food.

You said before you know what a predator is? Your statement here shows like with everything else you believe. You dont have a clue. It also shows you have no clue what is or how an eco system works.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't believe in religion, I don't know how many times I have to say this.

You dont believe in religion You base your whole world on belief. You appointed aliens as your deity and close your mind to anything that goes against it. To top it off you use the bible as a reference book and snake oil salesmen as your prophets. Please dont tell me you are not religous Your a one man cult.

And eco system only works if it is in balance you idiot.

You was badly beaten the last time you recycled this argument. I suggest you go back, read those posts and relive the pain in your own time.

Please read the overview and notice where it says interacting as a system.

Please quote me in the wiki where it talks about the balanced eco system.

This so called system, works together, and when it works correctly, it is said to be balanced.
OMG.

This is your assumption again based on ignorance. An ecosystem provides sustainability It cannot reach balance.

An ecosystem is a biological system consisting of all the living organisms or biotic components in a particular area and the nonliving or abiotic components with which the organisms interact, such as air, mineral soil, water, and sunlight

None of the components mentioned in the above are a constant and so you will never reach balance. And stop with the 'oh my god' your religion is showing.

True, but it would be all positive. This planet would be happy if we were gone.

Again a baseless assumption by you from a point of ignorance and an incorrect one. When trying to conserve the Amazon rain forest by asigning parks the native bushmen were excluded and it was found the forest degraded. The bushmans activities enriched the forest and encouraged diversity. Just one example.

There would certainly be positives and there would also be negatives. Read your own link on ecosystems and look up biodiversity.

Here you go Colin, a MUST read for you.
Sometimes referred to as an eco balance, but here as balance of nature.

Oh dear it says:

The balance of nature is a theory that says that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium

Forgeting it says balance of nature it unfortunately says it is a theory and You dont accept theories. Remember
If you did not have disabled reading abilities you would have gone on to read:

The theory that nature is permanently in balance has been largely discredited, as it has been found that chaotic changes in population levels are common, but nevertheless the idea continues to be popular.[1] During the later half of the twentieth century the theory was superseded by Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory.

Which crushes your ignorance again. Hint, you can use your theory ploy cos it says theory a few times

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Has nothing to do with the discussion.

Of course it does, yours is all based on assumptions.

Clear misunderstanding of theory vs hypothesis. You can say black is blue till you bleed from the eyes it does not make it so.
I you want to debate properly you must bring objective evidence to the table otherwise your just trolling.

Thats what I'm saying, and I have yet to see any solid proof.

Yes by now we know your committed or should be committed.

The only thing I'm commited to is seeking out the truth. There is not much to see on this thread.

Then you need to explain what is being assumed and back it up with proof. You can say all day " I have yet to see any solid proof " that is not an answer.

If you seek truth then why are you denying demonstrable evidence with blanket statements that prove nothing? Show us your truth and back it up.

Furthermore if there is not much to see on this thread then why have you made it your mission to look like such a tool here?

I know you have glossed over this link.
I suggest you read and understand it before you bring anymore nonsense to this thread.

I really need to be first in page 400

is this it?

dayuuuuuuum

need to try harder

reply to post by SproutKY

But this post isnt about creationism, No one on here who believes in evolution has even pretended that evolution is creation, merly that creation doesnt explain evolution so what ids your best guess.

The evidence clearly points to the evolution of species, however, many cretionist deny it!

So, if evolution doesnt, and doesnt atempt to adress lifes initial begining, and creation doesnt explain the diversity of life, what does?

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by SproutKY

 

But this post isnt about creationism, No one on here who believes in evolution has even pretended that evolution is creation, merly that creation doesnt explain evolution so what ids your best guess.

The evidence clearly points to the evolution of species, however, many cretionist deny it!

So, if evolution doesnt, and doesnt atempt to adress lifes initial begining, and creation doesnt explain the diversity of life, what does?

You are just posting this reply to top page 400. I find this a dispicable and childish effort. Fingers crossed and presses the reply button

Dam it

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by SproutKY

 

But this post isnt about creationism, No one on here who believes in evolution has even pretended that evolution is creation, merly that creation doesnt explain evolution so what ids your best guess.

The evidence clearly points to the evolution of species, however, many cretionist deny it!

So, if evolution doesnt, and doesnt atempt to adress lifes initial begining, and creation doesnt explain the diversity of life, what does?

You are just posting this reply to top page 400. I find this a dispicable and childish effort. Fingers crossed and presses the reply button

Dam it

edit on 28-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by colin42 because: Trying for top slot

It was a serious and considered respose to a query.

As if I would stoop to such tactics


ETA DOH!

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by idmonster
reply to post by SproutKY

 

But this post isnt about creationism, No one on here who believes in evolution has even pretended that evolution is creation, merly that creation doesnt explain evolution so what ids your best guess.

The evidence clearly points to the evolution of species, however, many cretionist deny it!

So, if evolution doesnt, and doesnt atempt to adress lifes initial begining, and creation doesnt explain the diversity of life, what does?

You are just posting this reply to top page 400. I find this a dispicable and childish effort. Fingers crossed and presses the reply button

Dam it

edit on 28-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2012 by colin42 because: Trying for top slot

It was a serious and considered respose to a query.

As if I would stoop to such tactics


ETA DOH!

edit on 28-5-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

Fair enough I apologise for my hasty comment.

Here goes
Double dam

Ha! 400!
Doh!

reply to post by flyingfish

The depths to which some people will stoop to get to the top of a milestone page in a thread is just disgusting.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by flyingfish

 

The depths to which some people will stoop to get to the top of a milestone page in a thread is just disgusting.

I agree posters need more content.
Shameful I tell you.

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by flyingfish

 

The depths to which some people will stoop to get to the top of a milestone page in a thread is just disgusting.

I agree

posters need more content.
Shameful I tell you.

edit on 28-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

I just hope that whe someone clicks on page 400....tooth is not the first thing they see.

I hope its colin or barcs...no offense fish.

ETA - dayuum waht a guy gotta do?

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by flyingfish

 

The depths to which some people will stoop to get to the top of a milestone page in a thread is just disgusting.

I agree

posters need more content.
Shameful I tell you.

edit on 28-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

Changed my mind...hope its fish.

Double doh!

reply to post by idmonster

I just hope that whe someone clicks on page 400....tooth is not the first thing they see.

Actually I hope it is tooth. It would mean at least he would win just once in this thread

Originally posted by idmonster

Originally posted by flyingfish

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by flyingfish

 

The depths to which some people will stoop to get to the top of a milestone page in a thread is just disgusting.

I agree

posters need more content.
Shameful I tell you.

edit on 28-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

I just hope that whe someone clicks on page 400....tooth is not the first thing they see.

I hope its colin or barcs...no offense fish.

ETA - dayuum waht a guy gotta do?

edit on 28-5-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)

No offense at all. Colin and barcs have put forth great effort into denying ignorance putting tooth in it's place.

I think this is the longest page on the thread!
Edit- DOH!

cant be long now though.

What amazes me most, is 400 pages and certaian people have learned nothing.

Did I win?

eta- doooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOh!

reply to post by colin42

Forget you base that assumption on nothing. How would the information in this wiki be invalidated because it came from a person that supports evolution?

It's not that, but that its obvious to me that people are taking some of the steps of evolution out of context. Wiki clearly shows that humans are NOT included in speciation.

Now I didn't write the wiki, so how are you going to argue that? I'm sorry but I don't buy the ole, oh virus, bacteria, human, same thing.

Its not meant to be a selling point. The fact that wolves and dogs can breed and produce viable young means they are the same animals i.e.

Well they are in fact not, which is why the offspring come out to be hybrids. But lets entertain your fantasy for a moment and say you are correct. So what, what does it mean?

You have many times stated that a dog is a dog and no matter how we alter them they will always be a dog. I have shown you many times a dog is a wolf.

Your also failing to realize that this was all in the eyes of evolution, not breeding, and I was specifically told that breeding is not a step of change.

they can breed and produce viable young is proof. Prevoiusly you have accepted that but now because you can see you are wrong you dive into denial. The only reason you do not accept this now is because it shows you to be very wrong but you are not man enough or honest enough to admit it.

Trust me when your right, I'll be the first person to tell you, and right now there isn't much on your side.

Wolfdogs do not change that fact. You were wrong then and you still are now. Genes are passed by breeding. Evolution is not confined to breeding, its part of the process described. You cited the croyduck as I recall.

You mean crockoduck,, or wait I'm not suppose to tell you what you meant, you want me to just read it the way it is. Oh well sorry but I don't know why a croyduck is.

Domesticated dogs are gray wolves. The relationship is clear to see, everywhere without making one assumption so you fail again.

I don't think that statement is any truer than humans are apes.

And I did offer you a chance to explain the meaning of target food and you turned it down.

Well colin I would try to explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand it, hell you don't understand any of the links I send you to on wiki.

You cocked it up again.Showed how ignorant of what evolution explains you are. An organism finds a food source/niche it can exploit and evolves to make full use of it over time. The food source also evolves over time. Things do not evolve one step at a time and in isolation. The enviroment is in constant flux.

So food sources for all life is an exploitation. What kind of hokie crap is that. Do you seriously believe that?

What your saying in other words is that all life, as we know it are scavangers, and will eat what ever they can. That is false. Not everything is a scavanger. The other problem with your lame brained theory is well lets once again take a look at the ant eater.

There is a reason why they call him an ant eater, he eats ants. But he does a lot more than just that. He has special hearing to hear them in the ground, a special tounge to grab them out of places and special claws to tear up there homes. He is an ant killing machine, and your trying to tell me he just eats ants not because he was made to but because he chooses to. Dude you were seriously dropped on your head as a baby. Its obvious he was DESIGNED to complete all of the tasks, so there is no way you can believe he evolved, unless he did so with ants in mind.

Again, all living things on any planet, are suppose to be in a balance of nature. The ant eater is a prime example of something that is in his element. Of course ants are one of his target foods. Can you find any examples of what I just explained for humans ???? Your silence is golden.