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: 400
31
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
My postulated hypothetical theory is that you can't reach 400 pages without breaking ATS. Also, most posters would run out of target food participating in such a thread, and their alien masters would have to pick them up.

PS: the bible is correct

EDIT: Clearly I just won ATS

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




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Just to add to the understand of there being NO WAY IN HELL that an ant eater evolved into eating ants, you would have a better chance of hitting Lotto ten times in a row before that would ever evolve like 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.
And you know this how?




Define target food as it means nothing in this thread.
You will have to reflect back in the thread because I allready told you I will no longer give you the definition over and over and over.




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.
You would incorrect, as their is a contraction of they are, and thats not what I was trying to use. But speaking of grammar, maybe you could brush up on yours, or is it gramma?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
I don't have nor do I believe in a deity but evolutionism is ranking pretty high on the cult list right now. Your just trying to catagorize me into a religion so that you can more easily disregard everything I write. Only problem is I don't fit into those sectors so your feeling threatned and the only way you can deal with it is to try to force me into a religion.




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.
Thats because you assumed that a PERFECT eco system could have been made with just a few life forms in a sealed tank. Again you don't have the ability to see or understand the large picture. We live on a PLANET where all living things depend on other things.

Did you not read the balance of nature link I sent you?




This is your assumption again based on ignorance. An ecosystem provides sustainability It cannot reach balance
Dude you were seriously dropped on your head. When there is no balance, there is no life, its just that simple. Life can only live in a balance. It's a fact. Take for example how the burmese python has been released into the wild in Florida. Now its killing all of the local inhabitants. Causing extinctions which will cause coextinctions with it. But don't take my word for it, nothing works together according to colin.




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.
Thats true but other things will change with that balance as it changes, to offset the change. Providing its NATURAL. Humans as an example are not NATURAL to this planet. This is why we have to be careful and are warned and at certain times can get tickets when we do some things to this planet.

Our presence here is threatning to this planet, and people are wise enough to know this. You don't hear about apes getting tickets for taking a dump in the woods, because its natural for them, its not natural for us.




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.
Again a mindless reply from you not backed up by anything. Thats always your best come back, nothing with nothing so I must be wrong. Seriously man, you make this to easy for me.




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 reason why its an unproven theory colin is because at times we do see things out of balance. I have allready gone over this with you and explained that some things were brought to this planet knocking off the balance, including humans, its so complicated they havent figured it out.




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
Nope it actually fits perfectly with what I have been saying all along, our planet is not in a good balance because of the things that have been done to this planet. It's dead on, they just havnet figured out why, and I'm telling you and have been telling you why.
edit on 28-5-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


400 pages, and tooth is still clueless...the ignorance towards facts is astounding!

Since you claim that evolution of anteaters is impossible, and since you're apparently too lazy/stupid to do just 5min of research...here's the link proving you wrong: LINK

Not that it matters, after 400 pages it's pretty clear you're too ignorant to accept facts if they go against your bat# crazy personal religion

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



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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.
Well sure but only if your the type of person that believes in things without any proof.




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
I think the bible is excellent proof of what has happened to us.




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 was going to ask you the same thing.




I know you have glossed over this link.
I suggest you read and understand it before you bring anymore nonsense to this thread.
I have given more answers about our existence here on eart much better than any evolution fantasy could conjur up.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





400 pages, and tooth is still clueless...the ignorance towards facts is astounding!

Since you claim that evolution of anteaters is impossible, and since you're apparently too lazy/stupid to do just 5min of research...here's the link proving you wrong: LINK

Not that it matters, after 400 pages it's pretty clear you're too ignorant to accept facts if they go against your bat# crazy personal religion
You mean YOUR still clueless. I read that page which didn't fancy anything being it was from the eyes of evolution. You guys just don't get it. A creator or several creators could still have caused all of this to happen the way we are finding it. I can see its seriously toying with everyone and making them believe there is relation among species.

The funny part is that there is relation, recycled parts of DNA were used for the next species, and you guys just miss it.



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





400 pages, and tooth is still clueless...the ignorance towards facts is astounding!

Since you claim that evolution of anteaters is impossible, and since you're apparently too lazy/stupid to do just 5min of research...here's the link proving you wrong: LINK

Not that it matters, after 400 pages it's pretty clear you're too ignorant to accept facts if they go against your bat# crazy personal religion
You mean YOUR still clueless. I read that page which didn't fancy anything being it was from the eyes of evolution. You guys just don't get it. A creator or several creators could still have caused all of this to happen the way we are finding it. I can see its seriously toying with everyone and making them believe there is relation among species.

The funny part is that there is relation, recycled parts of DNA were used for the next species, and you guys just miss it.


Great display of ignorance tooth, as always. The scientific article I linked is based on FACTS, while your argument is "a creator could have done it all". What a joke! Thanks for making me laugh and once again prove you are merely trolling (or simply too stupid to understand basic science...but I give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed your merely a troll).



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 





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.
Well sure but only if your the type of person that believes in things without any proof.




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
I think the bible is excellent proof of what has happened to us.




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 was going to ask you the same thing.




I know you have glossed over this link.
I suggest you read and understand it before you bring anymore nonsense to this thread.
I have given more answers about our existence here on eart much better than any evolution fantasy could conjur up.


Epic fail.
Now go back and read the link S.L.O.W.L.Y this time I'll need your proof, start with one point you think is being assumed and go from there and NO the bible is not objective evidence.
Thanks
edit on 28-5-2012 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Great display of ignorance tooth, as always. The scientific article I linked is based on FACTS, while your argument is "a creator could have done it all". What a joke! Thanks for making me laugh and once again prove you are merely trolling (or simply too stupid to understand basic science...but I give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed your merely a troll).
Ya but those facts don't prove evolution they only prove a perceived relation.

It's pretty technical I'm not sure you could understand it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 





Epic fail.
Now go back and read the link S.L.O.W.L.Y this time I'll need your proof, start with one point you think is being assumed and go from there and NO the bible is not objective evidence.
Thanks
Your subjective input is not going to help me believe in evolution.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I read it again, and did get more out of it this time.

It looks like they are unsure on some things, but they are able to hone down the periods.

Aside from that it looks like the rest is speculation. Of course if you believe in evolution you could have a hay day with this doing some assuming, but I don't get that out of it.

What I get out of it is that the time origin varys, yet we once again are missing the same thing that would prove this with a common ancestor with humans.

PROOF.

That pesky little problem.

NIce try, but I can see how you would get stuck on it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Great display of ignorance tooth, as always. The scientific article I linked is based on FACTS, while your argument is "a creator could have done it all". What a joke! Thanks for making me laugh and once again prove you are merely trolling (or simply too stupid to understand basic science...but I give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed your merely a troll).
Ya but those facts don't prove evolution they only prove a perceived relation.

It's pretty technical I'm not sure you could understand it.



Clearly you haven't even read the article as the entire article concerns the EVOLUTION (!!!) OF ANTEATERS.


As for not understanding things, don't you think that's ironic coming from someone like you who never presents any evidence, doesn't even know the difference between a theory and hypothesis, and generally shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to evolution?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just to add to the understand of there being NO WAY IN HELL that an ant eater evolved into eating ants, you would have a better chance of hitting Lotto ten times in a row before that would ever evolve like that.
All you have to do now is prove it. I'll start you off. The ant has been around much longer than the ant eater.


And you know this how?
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION



You will have to reflect back in the thread because I allready told you I will no longer give you the definition over and over and over.
I wont have to do anything matey. You never supplied the definition. You refused to explain the meaning of target food and lost the right to use it in this thread. It has no meaning.


You would incorrect, as their is a contraction of they are, and thats not what I was trying to use. But speaking of grammar, maybe you could brush up on yours, or is it gramma?
You mean 'you would BE incorrect'. Here is an example of your use of there:


Whats odd is that there food also went extinct. Unless you want to believe that there whole purpose in life is to attack other animals and eat them.
Tell me that the use of 'there' is correct



Again, normally you would be correct but this species had the ability to adapt, not that all do, or can.
An extinct species cannot adapt, it can only rot or fossilize. I know you are not honest enough to man up and admit error so run away from the issue as usual.


The idea is in conflict with the balance of nature, or eco balance. Not that all scavangers are out of there element, but that I'm on the fence about it.
Did you not read your link saying the THEORY of balance in nature has been discredited? How can you be on the fence (A new ploy I see). No scavenger is out of its element what ever that is meant to mean. It is as valid as any other niche. How can scavengers that clear away rotting corpses be in conflict with nature. You really need to learn about some of the things you claim.


Which still doesn't excuse the fact that a dead species doesn't pass on any genes, unless I missed something in evolution.
You seem a little confused. At the top of this post you claim dogs and wolves were victims of coextinction, i.e. became extinct but somehow carried on to become scavengers, after extinction. Now you ask a question like this one? To paraphrase you. I think the subject of evolution is way above your head.


Your statement offers no merit with the idea that just because something is a hunter that it was meant to be or will always be.
My statement? what statement? This one: '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 an eco system is or how an eco system works.

I know your reading ability has been disabled but I see nowhere where I say


a hunter that it was meant to be or will always be.
I challenged your childish statement:


it's all understandable, I'm seriously on the fence about claiming that savage hunters have adapted from not having food.
No one has ever wrote animals become predators because they have no food. That proves you have no idea what a predator is. As for your use of savage again ignorance at its best. Hippo's (vegetarians) kill more people than lions in Africa. In fact a lion will walk away or ignore prey when not hungry where as a hippo attacks on sight day or night.


Humans used to be, now very few of us are. I have never killed an animal for meat but I have had more than my share of hamburgers.
Like I have wrote before. The fact that you take no responsibility for the meat you eat shows how cowardly you are. The fact that you let others do the killing and that it is mainly farmed stock just means by farming we cut out the stalking and ensure a constant supply. Things still die for you to live. How savage



edit on 29-5-2012 by colin42 because: Colour as this topic is getting drab



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't have nor do I believe in a deity but evolutionism is ranking pretty high on the cult list right now. Your just trying to catagorize me into a religion so that you can more easily disregard everything I write.
You believe without proof that aliens created humans. That is a Diety.
The reason I started this thread was to hear others views to explain diversity and have treated any that approached the subject honestly with respect. You on the otherhand have disregarded without logic or argument all of the points raised from the get go. You have no credability and as such recieve no respect. Whether you like it or not you have constructed your own little religion based on a lot less than any others to boot.


Only problem is I don't fit into those sectors so your feeling threatned and the only way you can deal with it is to try to force me into a religion.
Again your self delusion is in full swing. As for feeling 'threatened' (that's the correct spelling BTW
Your ignorance threatens no one.


Thats because you assumed that a PERFECT eco system could have been made with just a few life forms in a sealed tank.
This is why you recieve no respect. Another barefaced lie. YOU maintained the sealed globe was a balanced system, offered it as an example and I proved you wrong.



Again you don't have the ability to see or understand the large picture. We live on a PLANET where all living things depend on other things.
It is nice to see you have learned something from me but you still dont quite grasp the concept. We live in a UNIVERSE and everything affects everything else. The energy for this planet comes from the Sun, that energy is not a constant and therefore balance is never reached.


Did you not read the balance of nature link I sent you?
Of course but it appears you have not read my replies.



Dude you were seriously dropped on your head. When there is no balance, there is no life, its just that simple.
Dude. You need to read your own links



Life can only live in a balance. It's a fact.
Show evidence of that fact.


Take for example how the burmese python has been released into the wild in Florida. Now its killing all of the local inhabitants. Causing extinctions which will cause coextinctions with it. But don't take my word for it, nothing works together according to colin.
Whenever a major predator is released into an environment that the other animals have not got a defence for chaos reigns. Its backs up evolution more than it does a balanced eco system.



Thats true but other things will change with that balance as it changes, to offset the change.
We have been here before. That means there is never a time of balance.


Providing its NATURAL. Humans as an example are not NATURAL to this planet.
Forgetting that your misuse of 'natural' is that of a 2 year old show the evidence that humans are not natural to this planet.



This is why we have to be careful and are warned and at certain times can get tickets when we do some things to this planet.
You write some of the silliest things I have ever read



Our presence here is threatning to this planet, and people are wise enough to know this. You don't hear about apes getting tickets for taking a dump in the woods, because its natural for them, its not natural for us.
Please stop, your giving me a stitch.



Again a mindless reply from you not backed up by anything.
Really, not backed up by anything? You had best read my reply again: 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. I would say the only mindless reply is yours.


Thats always your best come back, nothing with nothing so I must be wrong. Seriously man, you make this to easy for me.
Your correct in that you must be wrong. I just proved you wrong again



edit on 29-5-2012 by colin42 because: Colour as this topic is getting drab



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The reason why its an unproven theory colin is because at times we do see things out of balance. I have allready gone over this with you and explained that some things were brought to this planet knocking off the balance, including humans, its so complicated they havent figured it out.
Sorry Pinocchio you made the rule about theory not being acceptable and now you state unproven theory even though your link says discredited theory which rules it out completely. I would also add that the piece looks to have been written by an environmentalist. Please provide a link to a less biased point of view.



Nope it actually fits perfectly with what I have been saying all along, our planet is not in a good balance because of the things that have been done to this planet.
You do realise that you are arguing with the information YOU provided in your link dont you?



It's dead on, they just havnet figured out why, and I'm telling you and have been telling you why.
It's spelt Haven’t. So they (Who are they?) have not figured it out yet. How can YOU be telling me anything? You dont accept theory or postulation or anything not backed up with evidence.

They (who are they?) have not proved anything so how can you accept it given your criteria let alone make an unfounded claim that it is 'dead on'?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Just noticed you skipped these points and chose to deflect the discussion by bringing up the ant eater. Why is that?



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 evidence I recall.



Relationships are still being assumed.
Domesticated dogs are gray wolves. The relationship of wolves, dogs and man and 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 from its environment. The enviroment is in constant flux. Evolution is an ongoing dynamic process. BTW processes do not have eyes.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
 


I read it again, and did get more out of it this time.

It looks like they are unsure on some things, but they are able to hone down the periods.

Aside from that it looks like the rest is speculation. Of course if you believe in evolution you could have a hay day with this doing some assuming, but I don't get that out of it.

What I get out of it is that the time origin varys, yet we once again are missing the same thing that would prove this with a common ancestor with humans.

PROOF.

That pesky little problem.

NIce try, but I can see how you would get stuck on it.


Big F for you.
You can't even keep your fallacies straight.
THIS is the link I posted twice.
Try again start at the top.



What is a logical fallacy? All arguments have the same basic structure: A therefore B. They begin with one or more premises (A), which is a fact or assumption upon which the argument is based. They then apply a logical principle (therefore) to arrive at a conclusion (B). An example of a logical principle is that of equivalence. For example, if you begin with the premises that A=B and B=C, you can apply the logical principle of equivalence to conclude that A=C. A logical fallacy is a false or incorrect logical principle. An argument that is based upon a logical fallacy is therefore not valid. It is important to note that if the logic of an argument is valid then the conclusion must also be valid, which means that if the premises are all true then the conclusion must also be true. Valid logic applied to one or more false premises, however, leads to an invalid argument. Also, if an argument is not valid the conclusion may, by chance, still be true.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 


Here is a perfectly good example of how bad you can lie and believe your own lies.

Wolves are NOT friendly to humans. Please note the plethora of links that indicate so...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.aws.vcn.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.dailymotion.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.wildsentry.org...

articles.latimes.com...

www.kxly.com...

www.treehugger.com...

wilderness-urban-survival.blogspot.com...

www.spiegel.de...

blogs.denverpost.com...

www.theblaze.com...

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2006/01/14/HOGCRGL75U1.DTL

articles.ktuu.com...

wallowa.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm going to stop with the links for now.
I allready posted these before.
I can't believe you can be such a knucklehead to think that wolves are our friends. I will say one thing Colin, if you honestly believe the garbage you try to convince me of on this thread, I do know how your going to die. You will be to trusting with wild life and get eaten. These links are ALL real I looked at all of them, and except for one which is about a movie. They are all about attacks on humans. Now try to tell me that man has a relationship with these. I guess your still right, we do in fact have a relationship with them, a bloody one.


And dogs never attack humans? Watch and see what happens when there is more than one dog on the loose. They will form a pack.

Just a few weeks ago there was a case here in which a Siberian husky killed a 2 day old baby.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




Clearly you haven't even read the article as the entire article concerns the EVOLUTION (!!!) OF ANTEATERS.

As for not understanding things, don't you think that's ironic coming from someone like you who never presents any evidence, doesn't even know the difference between a theory and hypothesis, and generally shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to evolution?
Here is a good example of where I would ask where the fact is "Afrotheria might be the first lineage to branch off."

It's such a guessing game that they can't even tell which one came first.



and our results strongly support the grouping of hairy xenarthrans (anteaters and sloths) into Pilosa.
Looks like another guessing game. They cant just come out say there is verification of grouping because that would be lying.

So at least they didn't lie, but the truth set us free on this one. This research means little to nothing.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





As for not understanding things, don't you think that's ironic coming from someone like you who never presents any evidence, doesn't even know the difference between a theory and hypothesis, and generally shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge when it comes to evolution?
Your idea of not accepting the bible as any proof or documentation is subjective.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 397  398  399    401  402  403 >>

log in

join