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: 401
31
<< 398  399  400    402  403  404 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM
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.

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.
Your making claims in this that would require not only the backing of intelligence, but in a complex way that species would be able to surface to match food. In other words species that could predict the future. And your going to have a hard time proving that one.




THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Well I was trying to stick to facts, and like I have pointed out, theorys and hypothesis dont count as such.
If evolution were a fact, then it would no longer be called a theory.




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.
Well then I guess I'll just have to use the term intended food then.



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:
Well if it really bothers you Colin, I will brush up on my there / their / the're skills when you start using punctuation.




Tell me that the use of 'there' is correct

Seriousl you better nit pick my grammer as its all you have.




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.
Well obviously it had to adapt before it died.




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.
They aren't the ONLY things that eat rotting corpses. LIke I said I don't think you can grasp this its to complex and involves other life. I'm still on the fence about it. Again the ONLY reason it was discredited was because our planet is out of balance, but people havent figured out that there is a reason for that, its because things were brought to this planet that don't belong here.




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.
No I think the definition of coextinction is above your head.




I know your reading ability has been disabled but I see nowhere where I say
It's pretty funn that we started with this word that you had originally refused to believe in, now YOUR trying to teach me your own meaning of it.




I challenged your childish statement:
Then please give details dont just say you challenge.




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.
What I'm saying is they could have adapted into becoming predators.




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
True but it totally blows your idea of people being hunter gathers because I have never done any of the above.




posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You believe without proof that aliens created humans. That is a Diety
Sitchen and Pye believes that, I think its one of several possibilities.




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.
Your not the only person to tell me this. In a thread I started long ago, I had a few that had felt the same way. The problem is that your digging and looking for things that aren't there. If I'm starting my own religion, there are just a few things that are missing...
There is no reason behind my understanding, just study.
There is no benefit to my understanding aside from wanting the truth.
There is no belief, where as its obvious its just been missunderstood from the get go.
There is no worship.
There are no consequences for not understanding, you just wont follow the truth.




Again your self delusion is in full swing. As for feeling 'threatened' (that's the correct spelling BTW Your ignorance threatens no one.
That would be a good thing, as I'm not here to threaten.




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.
It was the idea that counted, I guess your still missing the point, which doesn't shock me. The sealed tank is a crude attempt at a balanced system, it was just suppose to be the idea that I was trying to make you understand. It still doesn't matter, they sell them as such so you are WRONG.

They also sell betas in tanks with a plant that work in the same manner.

The idea of a balanced system is not new by any means.




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.
Well I didn't learn balanced systems from you thats for sure. A balance is always pushed by the planet, and the other life that depends and it depends on.




Show evidence of that fact.
Thats simple, look up the definition of extinction, and what causes it.




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.
I seriously doubt that a human transplanting a snake is a form of evoltuioin.

If anything its intervention.




We have been here before. That means there is never a time of balance.
Yes things are in a constant change but the goal is balance.




Forgetting that your misuse of 'natural' is that of a 2 year old show the evidence that humans are not natural to this planet
Only because you failed to provide any resolution to ANY of my questions, including intended food. In addition you failed to provide proof on your end as well.




You write some of the silliest things I have ever read
It's true, we have learned that our impact on this plant is epic.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.
Again I have explained why they were unable to prove it. Everyone including scientists and even yourself assume this planet is pristine, when in fact its not.

It's the hardest thing to realize because most people don't even way in the possibilty of transpermia.




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'?
scientists.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/Noun: 1.A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
2.A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your making claims in this that would require not only the backing of intelligence, but in a complex way that species would be able to surface to match food. In other words species that could predict the future. And your going to have a hard time proving that one.
You got that wrong again. You used the ant eater as a diversion from the wolfdog. You made the stupid statement.


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.
Now back up your statement with evidence. YOU will have a hard time proving that one.



Well I was trying to stick to facts, and like I have pointed out, theorys and hypothesis dont count as such. If evolution were a fact, then it would no longer be called a theory.
Your question was 'how did I know that?' Evolution was my answer. I do however find it hard to find justification for your statement above when you offer a link talking about a discredited theory of the balance in nature when you maintain that balance is fact. The old tooth double standards look to be in play again.



Well then I guess I'll just have to use the term intended food then.
You can try.



Well if it really bothers you Colin, I will brush up on my there / their / the're skills when you start using punctuation.
Your the one that thought you could wind me up by nit picking. Sort of backfired on you didn’t it.
BTW it's 'they’re'



Seriousl you better nit pick my grammer as its all you have.
Like I said. You started it but it seems you have not got the firepower to see it through.



Well obviously it had to adapt before it died.
So it now adapted then went extinct and then became a scavenger. You look even more foolish than before



They aren't the ONLY things that eat rotting corpses. LIke I said I don't think you can grasp this its to complex and involves other life. I'm still on the fence about it.
Who said they were the only things? You maintain that predators are so because they had no other food and so became predators. Explain.


Again the ONLY reason it was discredited was because our planet is out of balance, but people havent figured out that there is a reason for that, its because things were brought to this planet that don't belong here
You did not read your own link then, or the snip from it I provided


During the later half of the twentieth century the theory was superseded by Catastrophe theory and Chaos theory.
No mention of anything being brought here. Still explain why you can use discredited theories but no one else can cite accepted and tested theories?


No I think the definition of coextinction is above your head.
If you believe animals that fall victim to it, become extinct and then go on to become scavengers I know it is above your head.



It's pretty funn that we started with this word that you had originally refused to believe in, now YOUR trying to teach me your own meaning of it.
Think you mean funny. What word? Am I meant to guess?


Then please give details dont just say you challenge.
I did. Disabled reading skills let you down again did they?



What I'm saying is they could have adapted into becoming predators.
Are you. Then then all you are doing is avoiding using the term evolved.


True but it totally blows your idea of people being hunter gathers because I have never done any of the above.
I told you already. You're lazy and willing to let others do the dirty work while not taking responsibility for it. But that aside. Explain the Bushman.
FYI it is not my idea it is accepted fact. What evidence have you got to dispute it?



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Reading tooth repeat the same nonsense over and over again after being proven wrong is like watching the Titanic sink in slow motion...over and over again



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
Sorry my bad I missed this reply


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.
Really, show me where it says in wiki 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.
Who said you wrote it? I asked what you based your assumption on that the author was a supporter of evolution and what difference that makes to the information.


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?
Well in fact they are

the domestic dog recently was taxonomically recategorized as a subspecies of the gray wolf.
Their viable young prove they are. It means man has a relationship with the wolf that goes back into ancient history and goes on today via the domesticated dog a sub species of the gray 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.
FYI Evolution is a process. It does not have eyes. You were told that the results of speciation was the two species could no longer breed and produce viable young. The fact that the wolfdog is the result of a wolf and dog breeding and it is viable means they are the same species. Go back and read the link I gave you three times.

The wolfdog is not a step change.



Trust me when your right, I'll be the first person to tell you, and right now there isn't much on your side.
Forgive me for not trusting you to do anything honest. You say I have not got much on my side when it seems I have solid evidence, scientific proof and the wolfdog as a living example. Where am I wrong?


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.
It was your example so you are the man. You should remember it because you thought it was real



I don't think that statement is any truer than humans are apes.
Shows how very wrong you are all of the time then.


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.
Really yet I understand them enough to show you they disprove what you are attempting to bluff. I'm no longer interested in 'target food'. You had more than enough chances to explain it and you refused. Thing of the past.


So food sources for all life is an exploitation. What kind of hokie crap is that. Do you seriously believe that?
Exploit To employ to the greatest possible advantage. Looks like I was right and you look a fool again.


What your saying in other words is that all life, as we know it are scavangers, and will eat what ever they can.
Oh dear. How many times do you need telling. Dont tell me what you think or wished I had wrote. Read what I write.


That is false. Not everything is a scavanger.
That is correct. So something is wrong with what you thought I wrote. Go do some research, come back when your wiser. I would explain it again but like last time it will go way over your head.


The other problem with your lame brained theory is well lets once again take a look at the ant eater.
Here we go again.


There is a reason why they call him an ant eater, he eats ants.
You have been told many times the ant eater eats more than just ants.


But he does a lot more than just that. He has special hearing to hear them in the ground,
Yes good isnt it. Many other animals such as birds have evolved the same attributes and better.


a special tounge to grab them out of places and special claws to tear up there homes.
Again the ant eater is not alone. The woodpecker has a simular tongue for that very reason.


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.
Evolution tells you that the ant eater evolved to exploit the food source, over time and through natural selection it became what we see today. Just like the woodpecker.


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.
Evolution explains it. Backs it up. Now you show proof to the contrary



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's the definition of insanity. I can't believe you guys are still going at it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You got that wrong again. You used the ant eater as a diversion from the wolfdog. You made the stupid statement.
I wasn't specifically referring to either one of them.




Now back up your statement with evidence. YOU will have a hard time proving that one.
I don't see how an anteaters anatomy could evolve into what it is now, to accomodate eating ants. Where is the proof of this hair brained idea? Your asking me to prove something that can't happen, I have a better idea why don't you prove that it can happen.




Your question was 'how did I know that?' Evolution was my answer. I do however find it hard to find justification for your statement above when you offer a link talking about a discredited theory of the balance in nature when you maintain that balance is fact. The old tooth double standards look to be in play again
Not at all, but it shows me you werent paying attention and continue to not pay attention as I repeatedly keep telling you that things on our planet are out of balance because there are things that were brought here that don't belong.




So it now adapted then went extinct and then became a scavenger. You look even more foolish than before
I think you keep missing the point. It never had to go extinct, its food could have gone extinct causing it to venture out, adapt and eat other things.




Who said they were the only things? You maintain that predators are so because they had no other food and so became predators. Explain
I'm saying its a possibility. From a very technical point of view which I'm sure you won't understand. Assuming you believe in the positive force of either creation or evolution. Evolution is not positive as some species are made, and fail, where as in creation, the creator makes the species with everything else in mind, and it will work. Evolution is more of a crap shoot and with as many species as there are on this planet, I find it hard to believe that we are whats left out of zillions of crap shoots, along with no evidence to prove the crap shoots took place.




You did not read your own link then, or the snip from it I provided
I did, but my understanding comes from after the author and beyond the overall picture.




No mention of anything being brought here. Still explain why you can use discredited theories but no one else can cite accepted and tested theories?
Thats because people are trained to believe that we ARE living where we are suppose to, and that we DO belong here, and that we DID originate from here. This pristine view has kept peoples eyes closed to what has really happened.




If you believe animals that fall victim to it, become extinct and then go on to become scavengers I know it is above your head.
No their food source goes extinct.




Think you mean funny. What word? Am I meant to guess?
Balanced eco system.




What I'm saying is they could have adapted into becoming predators.

Are you. Then then all you are doing is avoiding using the term evolved.
Human forced actions don't constitute evolution, and if you honestly think that it does, then you are admitting that intelligence shapes evolution, therefore evolution is intelligence driven by humans.




I told you already. You're lazy and willing to let others do the dirty work while not taking responsibility for it. But that aside. Explain the Bushman. FYI it is not my idea it is accepted fact. What evidence have you got to dispute it?
Do a test, grab ask any five people that you know, if they are equipped and know how to hunt, all the way down to prepareing the food. I'm not going to define it, its your term, you define it, I don't believe in it.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Sitchen and Pye believes that, I think its one of several possibilities.
Ah your prophets.


Your not the only person to tell me this. In a thread I started long ago, I had a few that had felt the same way.
And the penny is still not dropping. Did they also mention you are deluded?


The problem is that your digging and looking for things that aren't there. If I'm starting my own religion, there are just a few things that are missing...
Go on



There is no reason behind my understanding, just study.
I agree you and reason are strangers. You have shown your ability to study is another disabled ability.


There is no benefit to my understanding aside from wanting the truth.
You will only find the truth if you listen to what others have to say. Consider what they have said. Discuss with them the information they have to offer and make a reasoned conclusion. You have a ready formed conclusion. Dismiss out of hand with no reasoned discussion anything that challenges your preformed conclusion, lie often and learn nothing. Your not looking for the truth. Your looking for agreement.


There is no belief, where as its obvious its just been missunderstood from the get go.
You base your whole fantasy on belief. It has no substance at all.


There is no worship.
You try to preach your nonsense here everyday. No worship indeed.



There are no consequences for not understanding, you just wont follow the truth.
You dont offer any truth. Just your silly faith based, homemade religion.


That would be a good thing, as I'm not here to threaten.
So why say it?


It was the idea that counted, I guess your still missing the point, which doesn't shock me. The sealed tank is a crude attempt at a balanced system, it was just suppose to be the idea that I was trying to make you understand.
Hold on. You wrote:


Thats because you assumed that a PERFECT eco system could have been made with just a few life forms in a sealed tank.
Your idea was wrong as I proved. The globe was a torture chamber for the poor shrimp and nothing like a balanced eco system. Your two replies above again are in conflict. Which one is the truth and which the lie again.


It still doesn't matter, they sell them as such so you are WRONG.
People sell a lot of things they should not for greed. Gullible people like you reward them by buying it.


The idea of a balanced system is not new by any means.
And it has not been achieved by any means either.


Well I didn't learn balanced systems from you thats for sure.
Too right you didn't. I would never write something that stupid.


A balance is always pushed by the planet, and the other life that depends and it depends on.
Another incoherent sentence. It means?


Thats simple, look up the definition of extinction, and what causes it.
Another random answer. You made the statement:


Life can only live in a balance. It's a fact.
I asked you to show evidence of that fact. Your statement of a fact, the onus is on you to provide the evidence not me. You say it's simple so it should not take you long.


I seriously doubt that a human transplanting a snake is a form of evoltuioin. If anything its intervention.
I never said it was. Go back and read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote.


Yes things are in a constant change but the goal is balance.
That is a goal that has never been scored and never will be.


Only because you failed to provide any resolution to ANY of my questions, including intended food. In addition you failed to provide proof on your end as well.
Another unrelated, random answer. Answer the original question not one you made up.


It's true, we have learned that our impact on this plant is epic.
Nope you write some of the silliest things I have ever read but thanks for the laugh.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Again I have explained why they were unable to prove it. Everyone including scientists and even yourself assume this planet is pristine, when in fact its not.
Yet again you have not answered the question. I'll repeat it.

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.

So why can you use a discredited theory when you dismiss out of hand any theory that is backed with evidence, peer reviewed and widely accepted?


It's the hardest thing to realize because most people don't even way in the possibilty of transpermia.
More nonsense. Many people have considered transpermia but until there is proof one way or the other it is just an idea.


scientists.
Since when did you believe what scientist say? They are biased arent they? But where is the rest of the answer?

The question was: So 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 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 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





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.

Really, show me where it says in wiki humans are not included in speciation.

en.wikipedia.org...

You will find in the last section that humans are thought to have speciated 4.1 million years ago, but nothing has been proven. The rest of the definition gives the species that they have in fact witnessed speciation in, and humans are not one such species. So again, your ASSUMING.




Who said you wrote it? I asked what you based your assumption on that the author was a supporter of evolution and what difference that makes to the information.
Because your using baised material. Which is funny because I don't.




Their viable young prove they are. It means man has a relationship with the wolf that goes back into ancient history and goes on today via the domesticated dog a sub species of the gray wolf.
Where are you getting this from it doesn't say anything about man.




FYI Evolution is a process. It does not have eyes.
Thats what I'm told but in order for this process to do the things that your claiming it does, it has to not only have eyes, but a brain, and very special tools.
It also has to be stealth as we don't know what it looks like.




You were told that the results of speciation was the two species could no longer breed and produce viable young. The fact that the wolfdog is the result of a wolf and dog breeding and it is viable means they are the same species. Go back and read the link I gave you three times.
Either that or that evolution has failed from not causing speciation. But wait, its a contradiction. Your trying to say that if a species can mate, thats evolution, and if a species can't mate, that is also evolution. Whats next? Your just taking anything you can assuming and calling it evolution, while none of this has been witnessed.




The wolfdog is not a step change.
The wolf dog just has no gametic isolation. Your assuming that all the genes in both species are untampered with. Your failing to remember that it is possible that they have been tampered with causing gametic isolation to not work. Obviously its wrong to assume that just because a species can't mate, that it's evolving. Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other, If you want to believe in evolution anyhow, so why is it they can mate? Meanwhile we have times where the same species can't mate. Obvious tampering.




Forgive me for not trusting you to do anything honest. You say I have not got much on my side when it seems I have solid evidence, scientific proof and the wolfdog as a living example. Where am I wrong?
Ok lets give you the benefit of the doubt, the wolf dog is the smoking gun that you were wrong about assuming not being able to mate is evolution. If you want to believe in one, you can't possibly believe in the other, its like your saying no matter what happens, its a decision of evolution. Isn't it possible that wolves are and have always been just another breed of dogs?




Exploit To employ to the greatest possible advantage. Looks like I was right and you look a fool again.
If your theory was correct we would see everything trying to eat everything, and we don't see that.




You have been told many times the ant eater eats more than just ants.
True, he eats termites as well which is in the same family

The bottom line is ants are for sure an intended food.




Evolution tells you that the ant eater evolved to exploit the food source, over time and through natural selection it became what we see today. Just like the woodpecker.
You honeslty believe that crap.
Ok smarty pants, if you honeslty believe this is how evolution works, then what did we evolve into eating? And if we evolved so well then why did we need to seek out additional food sources?




Evolution explains it. Backs it up. Now you show proof to the contrary
He didn't evolve into eating ants, he was designed to eat ants, there is a big difference. What did he evolve from and what was his food source before, and why would ants be chosen over an existing food he had? Simple it never happened.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Do you realize how incredibly dumb you look pretending anteaters need a designer after having been provided with a scientific article that explains its evolution. By continuing your nonsense you show that you are either to ignorant to accept facts, too removed from reality (aka living in your own fantasy world), or simply too dumb to understand science.

My guess is, it's a mix of those 3. That's the only explanation for you ignoring facts like that. I'd seek help if I were you


Also, dogs and wolves can mate because domestic dogs are a subspecies of wolves. Now of course you could have looked that up yourself, but we all know that wouldn't matter because you'd simply ignore it with all the other facts that go against your bat# crazy religion

edit on 29-5-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I wasn't specifically referring to either one of them.
What? You better go back and read what YOU wrote. The answer to above does not relate to it or my point that the onus is on you to provide the evidence which you have failed to do. Again.


I don't see how an anteaters anatomy could evolve into what it is now, to accomodate eating ants.
That's your proof? You dont see how? You have been shown how in great detail but you refused to look.


Where is the proof of this hair brained idea?
Look for it. When it was offered for free you shuned it. No go work for it.


Your asking me to prove something that can't happen, I have a better idea why don't you prove that it can happen.
Explain that idea?


Not at all, but it shows me you werent paying attention and continue to not pay attention as I repeatedly keep telling you that things on our planet are out of balance because there are things that were brought here that don't belong.
Again that is not the answer to my question. Again I'll repeat it.

I do however find it hard to find justification for your statement above when you offer a link talking about a discredited theory of the balance in nature when you maintain that balance is fact. The old tooth double standards look to be in play again.


I think you keep missing the point. It never had to go extinct, its food could have gone extinct causing it to venture out, adapt and eat other things.
Let's recap. You wrote that dogs and wolves may have been victims of coextinction. I asked you to explain what you meant by that to ensure you would not change it later. You added their food could have gone extinct as well. Not their food went extinct as you are now saying.

So dogs, wolves and their food fell victim to coextinction. after becoming extinct dogs and wolves sprang back to life and because their food did not they became scavengers.

news for you wolves are not scavengers. They hunt in packs, so do wild or more correctly ferral dogs. Now what silly excuse are you going to make to cover your ignorance.


I'm saying its a possibility.
So you dont know what a predator is then.


From a very technical point of view which I'm sure you won't understand.
Why you keep using this ploy I dont know because you have made yourself look silly everytime you use it but hey ho.


Assuming you believe in the positive force of either creation or evolution.
You believe in creation. There is a massive amount of evidence that means you dont have to believe in evolution. It is a fully explained process that describes how life evolves. Big difference.


Evolution is not positive as some species are made, and fail, where as in creation, the creator makes the species with everything else in mind, and it will work.
Funny. You keep banging on about how there are more animals extinct than there is alive today. If the creator only makes animals that work you should deduce that evolution is the force at work.


Evolution is more of a crap shoot and with as many species as there are on this planet, I find it hard to believe that we are whats left out of zillions of crap shoots, along with no evidence to prove the crap shoots took place.
My only response to that is. that's a lot of crap.



I did, but my understanding comes from after the author and beyond the overall picture.
And what did you understand by the words

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



Thats because people are trained to believe that we ARE living where we are suppose to, and that we DO belong here, and that we DID originate from here. This pristine view has kept peoples eyes closed to what has really happened.
That does not explain why you can use discredited theories when you refuse to accept tested, peer reviewed theories.


No their food source goes extinct.
The old change of story ploy. Do you see why no one has any respect for you?


Balanced eco system.
You got that from


It's pretty funn that we started with this word that you had originally refused to believe in, now YOUR trying to teach me your own meaning of it.
Wow you really do believe in telepathy. I am not trying to teach you the meaning of a meaningless term such as a balanced eco system. So what was the point you were trying to make?
edit on 29-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Human forced actions don't constitute evolution, and if you honestly think that it does, then you are admitting that intelligence shapes evolution, therefore evolution is intelligence driven by humans.
Are you ever going to reply to the points and questions asked? The point made was


What I'm saying is they could have adapted into becoming predators.

Are you. Then then all you are doing is avoiding using the term evolved.
What has your answer above to do with the original point?


Do a test, grab ask any five people that you know, if they are equipped and know how to hunt, all the way down to prepareing the food. I'm not going to define it, its your term, you define it, I don't believe in it.
And again you offer some random answer to a question never asked. Is this how you intend to go forward? The post you are meant to be responding to is: You wrote


True but it totally blows your idea of people being hunter gathers because I have never done any of the above.
I replied


I told you already. You're lazy and willing to let others do the dirty work while not taking responsibility for it. But that aside. Explain the Bushman. FYI it is not my idea it is accepted fact. What evidence have you got to dispute it?
Answer the question. This is not a gameshow where you guess the question from the answer.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Insanity on this level requires alcohol. If everyone comes to Philadelphia, I'll buy the first round.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Well done XYZ...
....but i will be top of page 500



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



You will find in the last section that humans are thought to have speciated 4.1 million years ago, but nothing has been proven. The rest of the definition gives the species that they have in fact witnessed speciation in, and humans are not one such species. So again, your ASSUMING.
I think it's you that is assuming. You have maintained that speciation is not possible and has not been observed. Yet your link shows Larus gull, The Ensatina salamanders, The Greenish Warbler, the grass Anthoxanthum, Domestic sheep. The hawthorn fly is being watched which appears to be undergoing sympatric speciation. I doubt this list is extensive.

Add to this what we see in the fossil records and the gene maps and without a doubt it shows evolution and what it describes is spot on. You are a borderline genius, take a guess why you dont see speciation in humans today even though the fossil records show it is a continual process.


Because your using baised material. Which is funny because I don't.
Really. The bible, sitchin, pye, daniken are not biased? Really. You posted a link by an environmentalist. Was that not biased? The scientific method was put in place to negate bias among other things. The very process pye refuses to submit too. But you would know this as you claim to be a science major.


Where are you getting this from it doesn't say anything about man.
Wolves and dogs are both wolves. We bred dogs from wolves. We must have had a relationship with the wolf and we still do via dogs. Jeeze you are slow on the uptake.


Thats what I'm told but in order for this process to do the things that your claiming it does, it has to not only have eyes, but a brain, and very special tools.
It also has to be stealth as we don't know what it looks like.
Showing your ignorance again. You have had the forces that drive evolution explained many times. You dont and wont see them because you refuse to look. So dont tell me you strive to find the truth. You cant handle the truth.


Either that or that evolution has failed from not causing speciation. But wait, its a contradiction. Your trying to say that if a species can mate, thats evolution, and if a species can't mate, that is also evolution. Whats next? Your just taking anything you can assuming and calling it evolution, while none of this has been witnessed.
Here you go again telling me what I am saying instead of reading what I write.

Of course an organism can mate within its species, how daft are you. That is how it passes on its genes and any differences that may or may not be an advantage selected for by the environment.

When enough change occurs then the two groups can no longer produce viable young Thats speciation. Dont worry about it as it is probably to technical for your level of understanding. Way over your head.


Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other, If you want to believe in evolution anyhow, so why is it they can mate?
The domesticated dog is a sub species of the gray wolf. I have shown you the link and snips many times. It just all seems to much for your borderline genius brain to absorb. Get a good nights rest and everything will feel better in the morning.


Ok lets give you the benefit of the doubt, the wolf dog is the smoking gun that you were wrong about assuming not being able to mate is evolution.
What a dishonest little thing you are. you mean the product of an extinct wolf and extinct dog that came back to life as scavengers. There is no point to this as you are deep in denial. You have been crushed again and now throwing a hissy making up fantasy and lies to cover your shame. How pathetic you are showing yourself to be.
edit on 29-5-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by HappyBunny
 

Insanity on this level requires alcohol. If everyone comes to Philadelphia, I'll buy the first round.
Everybody, are you sure as I would hate to be in the company of a drunken tooth.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Do you realize how incredibly dumb you look pretending anteaters need a designer after having been provided with a scientific article that explains its evolution. By continuing your nonsense you show that you are either to ignorant to accept facts, too removed from reality (aka living in your own fantasy world), or simply too dumb to understand science.

My guess is, it's a mix of those 3. That's the only explanation for you ignoring facts like that. I'd seek help if I were you

Also, dogs and wolves can mate because domestic dogs are a subspecies of wolves. Now of course you could have looked that up yourself, but we all know that wouldn't matter because you'd simply ignore it with all the other facts that go against your bat# crazy religion
Well then you must have missed my comment about how that article is clearly written on assumptions, and they even indicate so.




Also, dogs and wolves can mate because domestic dogs are a subspecies of wolves. Now of course you could have looked that up yourself, but we all know that wouldn't matter because you'd simply ignore it with all the other facts that go against your bat# crazy religion
They could or they could not be, it makes no difference and proves nothing for evolution again. Only in assumption does it prove anything.




I wasn't specifically referring to either one of them.

What? You better go back and read what YOU wrote. The answer to above does not relate to it or my point that the onus is on you to provide the evidence which you have failed to do. Again.
Colin I have provided more than enough to prove my side, I have even gone to the extent of making a new baby language just for you as you refuse to accept many terms.




I don't see how an anteaters anatomy could evolve into what it is now, to accomodate eating ants.

That's your proof? You dont see how? You have been shown how in great detail but you refused to look.
The link you had me look at clearly states that is is speculation.




Where is the proof of this hair brained idea?

Look for it. When it was offered for free you shuned it. No go work for it.
I'm not going to back up your arguments.




Your asking me to prove something that can't happen, I have a better idea why don't you prove that it can happen.

Explain that idea?
I just did.




Not at all, but it shows me you werent paying attention and continue to not pay attention as I repeatedly keep telling you that things on our planet are out of balance because there are things that were brought here that don't belong.

Again that is not the answer to my question. Again I'll repeat it.

I do however find it hard to find justification for your statement above when you offer a link talking about a discredited theory of the balance in nature when you maintain that balance is fact. The old tooth double standards look to be in play again.
Well write back something with a quesiton mark and maybe it will be harder for me to miss it, cause I'm not seeing any questions here.




Let's recap. You wrote that dogs and wolves may have been victims of coextinction. I asked you to explain what you meant by that to ensure you would not change it later. You added their food could have gone extinct as well. Not their food went extinct as you are now saying.

So dogs, wolves and their food fell victim to coextinction. after becoming extinct dogs and wolves sprang back to life and because their food did not they became scavengers.

news for you wolves are not scavengers. They hunt in packs, so do wild or more correctly ferral dogs. Now what silly excuse are you going to make to cover your ignorance.
Hunters ??? What kind of meat do they eat?




I'm saying its a possibility.

So you dont know what a predator is then.
I'm sure I know more about their biology than you do.




Assuming you believe in the positive force of either creation or evolution.

You believe in creation. There is a massive amount of evidence that means you dont have to believe in evolution. It is a fully explained process that describes how life evolves. Big difference.
True but neither one completly disproves the other.




Evolution is not positive as some species are made, and fail, where as in creation, the creator makes the species with everything else in mind, and it will work.

Funny. You keep banging on about how there are more animals extinct than there is alive today. If the creator only makes animals that work you should deduce that evolution is the force at work.
Ah HA, but the creator doesn't take into consideration the possibility of transpermia.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 398  399  400    402  403  404 >>

log in

join