Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

It requires action on our part, I might add a pretty laborious one at that, which requires preping and ferterlizing and watering of the earth to ready it for seed. The work is so tedious that usually machines are used to get all the work done. It's an involved process just so that we can fool mother nature into doing the rest of the work for us.

Again you have not addressed the point I made. You have just posted some random reply.

Address the point I made: You stated only one thing needs to benefit. So yep it’s a relationship. A poor and wasteful one but a relationship just the same.

Yes but it also has to be natural, and forced seeding is not natural. Now if those seeds planted themselves then yes it would be natural. The next problem of course is that it wont meet the the intended food criteria list for humans, but might for other life depending on what it is.

So then I go back once again to the field mouse. Leaving scraps at your doorstep for the field mouse does not automatically conver him into a door mouse. Of course your claiming its still a relationship so it actually does.

Your example is total nonsense. Why would I claim that nonsense as a relationship?

It's the same thing.

However without specialized training or experience those people would die in the jungle. So your example of the word simple is false. There is nothing simple about living in the jungle. I would guess you probably don't even have that training yourself. I suggest you give it ago minus the training and see how long you can live in the jungle.

Again. You described one of the factors of 'in the wild' as being an area that is NOT inhabited. You gave the jungle as an example. Man inhabits ALL the jungles of this world. Your example failed. Your post above has nothing to do with that. Address the point and my answer not some random unrelated reply

Well its not inhabited by man, but it could be by other species.

Well you must be the first person I have words with that still eats raw meat.

Never said I eat raw meat. You claimed we don’t eat meat off the bone. You were in error again. You never ate spare ribs? chops? to name a few. Don’t blame me if you cannot form a coherent question.

Oh well thats what I meant.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, because dogs are a SUBSPECIES of wolves!! The crocodile on the other hand is a completely different species than ducks.

So evolution is failing, as there is no speciation. It's only one of two types of situations where sub species can mix. Horse and donkey makes a mule, but mules are sterile.

I would guess to say that its probably something more obvious that people are totally missing, like wolves and dogs aren't even different sub species.

It just goes to show you how much we think we know, and we don't know jack, and base everything we know on jack.
It also proves that gametic isolation DOES NOT PROVE speciation. Scientists were wrong.

This all comes down to what I keep bringing up about us not properly identifying species to begin with. As the example I keep using that according to our own standards we claim that people should be between 5 and 6 feet tall, or at least very close to it. When people are out of bounds we begin to think there is soemthing wrong with them. So we are guessing based on experience of the past that we know what the proper height ranges are. Again the fact is, we are guessing, we honestly don't know. It's the same thing with the mule and the dog / wolf, we honestly don't know, we are just guessing.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, because dogs are a SUBSPECIES of wolves!! The crocodile on the other hand is a completely different species than ducks.

So evolution is failing, as there is no speciation. It's only one of two types of situations where sub species can mix. Horse and donkey makes a mule, but mules are sterile.

I would guess to say that its probably something more obvious that people are totally missing, like wolves and dogs aren't even different sub species.

It just goes to show you how much we think we know, and we don't know jack, and base everything we know on jack.
It also proves that gametic isolation DOES NOT PROVE speciation. Scientists were wrong.

You're wrong on every account

thid is nothing to do with me

reply to post by MrXYZ

You're wrong on every account

You can't possibly think that a mule is an example of speciation, he can't produce offspring.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think thats obviously wrong. Different species are equipped to work with specific things as an example, beaver is well equipped for working with wood and mud.

The beaver is not as well equiped as us. That is why our dams are massive.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is made for doing what he does. Looking at humans I see a different story.

You see a different story because you want to. If you didnt your whole fantasy falls apart.

I don't have teeth for shaping wood, and my hands don't appear to be specifically for working with wood.

Honestly here you go again. Let me see what is the most adaptable tool in the box. Teeth .......... Hands .......... Hands .......... Teeth. Who are you trying to kid a beaver piles up mud and sticks people make wonders like the Taj Mahal, countless cathedrals. Buildings of all shapes and sizes. Produce works of art that leave you breathless all in every material you can imagine.

Now we have adapted by making tools that we can work with wood, but its only working because we are very smart. Being very smart is not proof that we were made and put here for building homes, I'm sorry but your wrong.

Those tools would not exist without our hands to make them. You have obviously never built anything in your life. We are clever. Being clever is why we survive. It is natural for us to be clever.

Oh I lost, wow, you must be the judge and jury. No I didn't lose Colin, its your mind trying to play tricks on you.

Just as in a boxing ring if only one fighter turns up he is awarded the win. You never turned up. You talked a big fight. Asked me to explain how I came to my conclusion and I gave you it in detail. I asked you to provide a reasoned logical argument in opposition. You didn’t even try. YOU LOST. end of. Get over it

Seriously all I have gotten is a bunch of hot air, with no substance.

Even if that were true it is more than you have contributed.

WTH, the title was noisy? Did you even read the question?

You asked me what I thought. I thought the cat was noisy

Actually you brought it up again, but I wont press that, what I will say is that you lost on the whale for not producing any evidence of it being disproven.

You asked

Please tell all of us how you confirmed that living in a whale is not possible. Be honest now, you said you base your opinions on reality, so I would like to know how you proved this

I provided that answer. I gave you a full logic based description of how I came to my conclusion. If you had problems with that then you should have taken up my request at the end of my post.

Now reply with your evidence to show it is possible.

That is how a debate works. As I wrote earlier you were a no show. YOU LOST. Get over it. There is no point in the rest of your post. You had your chance and chose to pass. Job done except to say. You really believe a man can live in a whale. Classic

I'm not talking to xyz in this reply, I'm talking to you. I'm asking what you think about ADHD being induced durring pregnancy and if that can be claimed as part of evolution.

You’re not talking at all, your writing. I told you to refer back to where that question had already been answered. My answer will be no different. It still isn’t.

This is really confusing me as one thing that was made very clear to me, and I'm not blaming you specifically as I know you can't speak for everyone, nor can everyone speak for you, is that it was clear that evolution had nothing to do with regular procreation.

No wonder you’re confused. Your question is meaningless.

Oh I see, so if the bible was about our relationships with other life, then you would be all over it. Well its exactly about our relationship with other life, alien life.

The lengths you will go to in avoiding things you have no answer too. The question you was asked was to comment on the Heading 'Relationship with Humans' contained in the link The Gray Wolf First it says 'Relationships with Humans' Address that as you maintain there are none. Next read ALL the information under that heading and comment on that not one out of context line you cherry picked.
The issue is the relationship between man and wolf. Stick to that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Let me explain what your over looking. It was made very clear to me that Crocoduck is NOT an example of evolution. Now your mixing a dog and wolf and saying that it is.

The crocoduck is an example of photoshop manipulation to be correct.

You had explained at great length the lineage from wolf to dog. The Dog Again

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris),[2][3] is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order Carnivora

You seem unable to grasp the meaning of Subspecies Follow the link provided. Note:

A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.)

So which is it, am I right, or am I right?

Neither. You are just wrong as I demonstrated above.

It was clear that mixed breeding is not an avenue of evolution. Or do the rules change as you go along?

The rules governing evolution have not changed. The same cannot be made about your stance as you have already stated:

Dogs and wolves have to many differences to be the same species.

And

Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

So how or more to the point why have you changed your stance and again tried to troll this thread using the crocoduck?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yes but it also has to be natural, and forced seeding is not natural.

Again another comment based on ignorance. There is no such thing as 'forced seeding'. I would ask you to define it but I know how that will go.

Now if those seeds planted themselves then yes it would be natural.

So are you saying that the seeds dispersed by animals or the wind is not natural?

The next problem of course is that it wont meet the the intended food criteria list for humans, but might for other life depending on what it is.

More garbled nonsense. None of which addresses the point made by me. The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point.

It's the same thing.

It’s the same thing as what? You made up a nonsense example and claimed I would call it a relationship. I asked you why I would claim that nonsense as a relationship, it’s nonsense. 'It's the same thing' is not an answer.

Well its not inhabited by man, but it could be by other species.

Denial again I see. Man lives in ALL the jungles on this planet. That means your example fails as ALL the jungles on this planet are inhabited by man. Try again.

Oh well thats what I meant.

Oh well you didn’t make it clear. I did show however that telepathy did not work.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So evolution is failing, as there is no speciation. It's only one of two types of situations where sub species can mix. Horse and donkey makes a mule, but mules are sterile.

Sorry Xyz I can't not respond to the point above.

tooth, you have let yourself down again. Do you not remember The Wolfdog?

The subspecies of the Gray Wolf the dog and the Wolf can breed and produce viable young, the wolfdog(they are not sterile). You said in reply to this:

Dogs and wolves have to many differences to be the same species.

Clearly you are describing a Subspecies.

Organisms that belong to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring,

The Mule is another example of your poor understanding of the subject you claim you can prove false.

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes.

So as XYZ stated

You're wrong on every account

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

I think thats obviously wrong. Different species are equipped to work with specific things as an example, beaver is well equipped for working with wood and mud.

The beaver is not as well equipped as us. That is why our dams are massive.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is made for doing what he does. Looking at humans I see a different story.

You see a different story because you want to. If you didn’t your whole fantasy falls apart.

I don't have teeth for shaping wood, and my hands don't appear to be specifically for working with wood.

Honestly here you go again. Let me see what is the most adaptable tool in the box. Teeth .....

..... Hands .....

..... Hands .....

..... Teeth. Who are you trying to kid a beaver piles up mud and sticks people make wonders like the Taj Mahal, countless cathedrals. Buildings of all shapes and sizes. Produce works of art that leave you breathless all in every material you can imagine.

Now we have adapted by making tools that we can work with wood, but its only working because we are very smart. Being very smart is not proof that we were made and put here for building homes, I'm sorry but your wrong.

Those tools would not exist without our hands to make them. You have obviously never built anything in your life. We are clever. Being clever is why we survive. It is natural for us to be clever.

It seems you missed something that shines a little more light on The Beaver It states

Beavers are aquatic mammals with large webbed hind feet ideal for swimming, and hand-like front paws that allow them to manipulate objects with great dexterity

It says HERE

The two front paws are similar to human hands

And HERE it say's

A beaver's front feet have 5 fingers and are very skilled at manipulating objects. They can take a twig no bigger than a pencil and twirl it around like corn on the cob as they nibble off the bark.

So much for your useless hands Vs Beaver teeth idea

reply to post by colin42

I think thats obviously wrong. Different species are equipped to work with specific things as an example, beaver is well equipped for working with wood and mud.

The beaver is not as well equiped as us. That is why our dams are massive.

We aren't equipped at all, in fact we have to first make tools in order for us to work with those materials. Fact.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that he is made for doing what he does. Looking at humans I see a different story.

You see a different story because you want to. If you didnt your whole fantasy falls apart.

Even so, I have even asked you what our purpose is, if you honestly believe we are well equipped for something, and can't seem to get you to answer. What are we equipped for?

I don't have teeth for shaping wood, and my hands don't appear to be specifically for working with wood.

Honestly here you go again. Let me see what is the most adaptable tool in the box. Teeth .......... Hands .......... Hands .......... Teeth. Who are you trying to kid a beaver piles up mud and sticks people make wonders like the Taj Mahal, countless cathedrals. Buildings of all shapes and sizes. Produce works of art that leave you breathless all in every material you can imagine

But my hands and teeth don't obviously seem to be for working with wood.

Now we have adapted by making tools that we can work with wood, but its only working because we are very smart. Being very smart is not proof that we were made and put here for building homes, I'm sorry but your wrong.

Those tools would not exist without our hands to make them. You have obviously never built anything in your life. We are clever. Being clever is why we survive. It is natural for us to be clever.

So you are claiming that our hands, which are tools within themselve are made to make other tools. Right, tools to make tools. Isn't that a little redundant?

Oh I lost, wow, you must be the judge and jury. No I didn't lose Colin, its your mind trying to play tricks on you.

Just as in a boxing ring if only one fighter turns up he is awarded the win. You never turned up. You talked a big fight. Asked me to explain how I came to my conclusion and I gave you it in detail. I asked you to provide a reasoned logical argument in opposition. You didn’t even try. YOU LOST. end of. Get over it

That isn't possible Colin, you never presented anything credible.

So now your contradicting yourself on what the goal is of a debate. Pages back you told me it was so the other side could present thngs and teach others about what they know, now your in a ring fighting.

Please tell all of us how you confirmed that living in a whale is not possible. Be honest now, you said you base your opinions on reality, so I would like to know how you proved this

I provided that answer. I gave you a full logic based description of how I came to my conclusion. If you had problems with that then you should have taken up my request at the end of my post.

I wasn't looking for your theory, I was looking for proof, after all you are very sure about it.

Oh I see, so if the bible was about our relationships with other life, then you would be all over it. Well its exactly about our relationship with other life, alien life.

The lengths you will go to in avoiding things you have no answer too. The question you was asked was to comment on the Heading 'Relationship with Humans' contained in the link The Gray Wolf First it says 'Relationships with Humans' Address that as you maintain there are none. Next read ALL the information under that heading and comment on that not one out of context line you cherry picked.
The issue is the relationship between man and wolf. Stick to that

There is no natural relationship between man and wolf, that was my comment, nothing, because there is nothing.

reply to post by colin42

Let me explain what your over looking. It was made very clear to me that Crocoduck is NOT an example of evolution. Now your mixing a dog and wolf and saying that it is.

The crocoduck is an example of photoshop manipulation to be correct.

True but I was taking it as an example of if this could happen, it would not be evolution.

You seem unable to grasp the meaning of Subspecies Follow the link provided. Note:
A subspecies cannot be recognized in isolation: a species will either be recognized as having no subspecies at all or two or more, never just one. (However, all but one subspecies may be extinct, as in Homo sapiens sapiens.)

Well I guess that ruled your idea out as there can't be such a thing as isolation if there is no such thing as in the wild.

Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

So how or more to the point why have you changed your stance and again tried to troll this thread using the crocoduck?

How can they evolve when they are the same species?

Yes but it also has to be natural, and forced seeding is not natural.

Again another comment based on ignorance. There is no such thing as 'forced seeding'. I would ask you to define it but I know how that will go

Forced seeding is when mother nature isn't the one that planeted the seeds. In the event you don't know what mother nature is, here is a wiki.

en.wikipedia.org...
Humans are NOT part of mother nature in case you don't realize that.

Now if those seeds planted themselves then yes it would be natural.

So are you saying that the seeds dispersed by animals or the wind is not natural?

No those are natural.

The next problem of course is that it wont meet the the intended food criteria list for humans, but might for other life depending on what it is.

More garbled nonsense. None of which addresses the point made by me. The bee and the farmer benefit from each others endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that. Address this point

Just because we are able and smart enough to manipulate mother nature does not mean its natural.

So evolution is failing, as there is no speciation. It's only one of two types of situations where sub species can mix. Horse and donkey makes a mule, but mules are sterile.

Sorry Xyz I can't not respond to the point above.

I'll bet you can't, in fact if I were you I would be afraid to touch that one.

The subspecies of the Gray Wolf the dog and the Wolf can breed and produce viable young, the wolfdog(they are not sterile). You said in reply to this:

My point is, or question rather, is how do we know that they are actually a different species to begin with, and what is our decision based on.

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes.
So as XYZ stated


You're wrong on every account

But I was right that they aren't evolving. How can a mule evolve?

And HERE it say's
A beaver's front feet have 5 fingers and are very skilled at manipulating objects. They can take a twig no bigger than a pencil and twirl it around like corn on the cob as they nibble off the bark.
So much for your useless hands Vs Beaver teeth idea

But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Humans are NOT part of mother nature in case you don't realize that.

Except, all the objective evidence clearly proves that we evolved as part of this ecosystem...while your claim on the other hand has ZERO evidence as backup.

Oh, and regarding our teeth not working...eat an apple you muppet

Every time you post I have to think about that one Family Guy episode btw:

reply to post by itsthetooth

We aren't equipped at all, in fact we have to first make tools in order for us to work with those materials. Fact.

The beaver with his tools. His teeth and hand like paws makes one thing. With our tools, our brain and hands we make untold thousands of things.

Even so, I have even asked you what our purpose is, if you honestly believe we are well equipped for something, and can't seem to get you to answer. What are we equipped for?

What do you think I am your guru? 'What is our purpose' has been asked by man since he knew how to ask the question.
What we are equipped for is easy. We have evolved into the MOST adaptable creature on this planet. We are equipped to do anything we can imagine. Our only limit is when we defer responsibility for our future and our past to some made up deity as you have done.

But my hands and teeth don't obviously seem to be for working with wood.

Those of us that use our intelligence make tools sharper and more versatile than teeth. As for your view on our hands it just highlights how much you refuse to see what is in front of you.

So you are claiming that our hands, which are tools within themselve are made to make other tools. Right, tools to make tools. Isn't that a little redundant?

Here is the logic path. With our intelligence we visualise a goal, be it a home, prey or a rocket to the moon. We work out the best way to achieve it and then make the tools to bring it into reality if we need too.

That isn't possible Colin, you never presented anything credible.

You had your chance to prove it, you chose not too. In fact you can still go back to that post and make an argument against the points I made but this is not the place. Until you do you lost. Get over it. Move on.

So now your contradicting yourself on what the goal is of a debate. Pages back you told me it was so the other side could present thngs and teach others about what they know, now your in a ring fighting.

Please quote where I wrote it is to teach others. I remember linking you to what a DEBATE is:

a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

You never took part in the formal contest. You were a no show so you lost. Get over it.

I wasn't looking for your theory, I was looking for proof, after all you are very sure about it

Well unless you find a volunteer willing to die to show you how wrong you are, a logic based argument is all you are going to get. You could always do as I invited you to do and find a seal that survived inside a whale. I found no examples but at least I looked as I stated. You are happy to sit in the darkest corner of ignorance and shout the bible says it’s so. Something most religious people would laugh at as well. Only a fundamentalist like you would make such a claim as ‘it is possible to live inside a whale’. :

Warning: I will not respond to anymore on the subject of a man living in a whale unless you reply directly to my post and argument you dismissed in your usual fashion.

There is no natural relationship between man and wolf, that was my comment, nothing, because there is nothing.

All your answers are just comments. Backed up by nothing. You just backed it up with nothing again.

Here is another link you will not read: Man and Wolf

Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.

Read that then respond to the Heading from the original link 'Relationship with Humans'.

reply to post by itsthetooth

True but I was taking it as an example of if this could happen, it would not be evolution.

But it cannot happen so your example again is a complete nonsense. It's like saying if rain was dry where rivers do and oceans come from. Meaningless.

Well I guess that ruled your idea out as there can't be such a thing as isolation if there is no such thing as in the wild.

You claimed it would be easy to give an example from your silly restrictions of a place that would qualify for 'in the wild'. I am still waiting.

How can they evolve when they are the same species?

How many times do you need to be told this The dog is a subspecies of a Gray Wolf. The words:

Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

Came from you. These words as well:

Dogs and wolves have to many differences to be the same species.

Explain the U turn?

Forced seeding is when mother nature isn't the one that planeted the seeds. In the event you don't know what mother nature is, here is a wiki.

Show me a link to 'forced seeding' not mother nature.

Humans are NOT part of mother nature in case you don't realize that.

Mother Nature is:

Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother.

And nowhere does it say humans are not part of nature in case you didn’t realise it.

No those are natural.

Sowing seeds is natural in that case as we are animals and we disperse the seeds. Massive fail for you again

Just because we are able and smart enough to manipulate mother nature does not mean its natural.

Address the point made. The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that.

I'll bet you can't, in fact if I were you I would be afraid to touch that one.

Another random response that makes no sense at all.

My point is, or question rather, is how do we know that they are actually a different species to begin with, and what is our decision based on.

Another link you failed to read then.

But I was right that they aren't evolving. How can a mule evolve?

Another link you never read then.

But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.

If it is a FACT they were designed to work with wood then you can show the supporting evidence. Please supply that evidence.

FACT

Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Except, all the objective evidence clearly proves that we evolved as part of this ecosystem...while your claim on the other hand has ZERO evidence as backup.

Oh, and regarding our teeth not working...eat an apple you muppet

Every time you post I have to think about that one Family Guy episode btw

Ya you totally missed the teeth thing. And no there is nothing in our ecosystem that tells us we evolved. We had to look at our DNA and guess that its the avenue that will tell us, and its not.

reply to post by colin42

We aren't equipped at all, in fact we have to first make tools in order for us to work with those materials. Fact.

The beaver with his tools. His teeth and hand like paws makes one thing. With our tools, our brain and hands we make untold thousands of things

So then you are agreeing that we actually don't posses a purpose in life, ours is to make tools to do anything.

Very odd.

Even so, I have even asked you what our purpose is, if you honestly believe we are well equipped for something, and can't seem to get you to answer. What are we equipped for?

What do you think I am your guru? 'What is our purpose' has been asked by man since he knew how to ask the question.
What we are equipped for is easy. We have evolved into the MOST adaptable creature on this planet. We are equipped to do anything we can imagine. Our only limit is when we defer responsibility for our future and our past to some made up deity as you have done

Well I'm all for I can imagine therefore I am, but don't you think your take on it is a little to far?

But my hands and teeth don't obviously seem to be for working with wood.

Those of us that use our intelligence make tools sharper and more versatile than teeth. As for your view on our hands it just highlights how much you refuse to see what is in front of you.

Your wrong, if our hands were specifically made for making tools, we would be better equipped to do so, and not need a plethora of other tools to make some tools. It's a little redundant if you ask me.

So you are claiming that our hands, which are tools within themselve are made to make other tools. Right, tools to make tools. Isn't that a little redundant?

Here is the logic path. With our intelligence we visualise a goal, be it a home, prey or a rocket to the moon. We work out the best way to achieve it and then make the tools to bring it into reality if we need too

Then evolution has failed us because we aren't able to just make the tools we need, often times we need tools to make tools, epic fail.

Well unless you find a volunteer willing to die to show you how wrong you are, a logic based argument is all you are going to get. You could always do as I invited you to do and find a seal that survived inside a whale. I found no examples but at least I looked as I stated. You are happy to sit in the darkest corner of ignorance and shout the bible says it’s so. Something most religious people would laugh at as well. Only a fundamentalist like you would make such a claim as ‘it is possible to live inside a whale’

So because we can't find a volunteer, it means you must be right. This is why I seriously question your judgment and what you consider to be fact. It's a documented historical event that your challenging because we can't find a volunteer. Very smart colin excellent detective work, your ready to take on the world.

Warning: I will not respond to anymore on the subject of a man living in a whale unless you reply directly to my post and argument you dismissed in your usual fashion.

Which is probably better as it looks like you lost this one through lazieness.

Here is another link you will not read: Man and Wolf
Wolves and man have had the longest harmonious, mutually beneficial relationship of any two species in the history of the Earth.
Read that then respond to the Heading from the original link 'Relationship with Humans'

Thats obviously wrong, care to quote your source on that one. It's probably about as good as your being lazy.

True but I was taking it as an example of if this could happen, it would not be evolution.

But it cannot happen so your example again is a complete nonsense. It's like saying if rain was dry where rivers do and oceans come from. Meaningless.

Well your opinion doesn't make it a fact.

Well I guess that ruled your idea out as there can't be such a thing as isolation if there is no such thing as in the wild.

You claimed it would be easy to give an example from your silly restrictions of a place that would qualify for 'in the wild'. I am still waiting

No I asked first, what does isolation mean to you?

Clearly dogs and wolves have evolved from one or the other

Came from you. These words as well:

This is why I said way back when that your assesment of anything to start with is obviously wrong. Judging changes is impossible, and there is no way we can know if they are allowable changes within a species to begin with.

Humans are NOT part of mother nature in case you don't realize that.

Mother Nature is:
Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life

reply to post by colin42

Humans are NOT part of mother nature in case you don't realize that.

Mother Nature is:
Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother.
And nowhere does it say humans are not part of nature in case you didn’t realise it

True but we do isolate ourselves from nature and choose to not mingle with it on a regular basis. There are a few that try and prefer it, but the most of us live in city dwelings.

So we seperate ourselves from mother nature.

No those are natural.

Sowing seeds is natural in that case as we are animals and we disperse the seeds. Massive fail for you again

And what are the natural steps of that process? It's not a natural process where we don't have to be taught first how to sow.

Just because we are able and smart enough to manipulate mother nature does not mean its natural.

Address the point made. The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that.

Well sure, after much redundant adaptation, we can make mother nature work for us. In a matter of speaking.

But the fact still remains that they are designed to work with wood.

If it is a FACT they were designed to work with wood then you can show the supporting evidence. Please supply that evidence.

FACT
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.


signature:

Well the proof is simple, they do it, continue to do, and will always do it, thats the proof.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So then you are agreeing that we actually don't posses a purpose in life, ours is to make tools to do anything.

Do you even read what you are meant to be replying too? Address what I wrote.

Well I'm all for I can imagine therefore I am, but don't you think your take on it is a little to far?

Again. Answer the point made as I did yours not some random poorly constructed sentence.

Your wrong, if our hands were specifically made for making tools, we would be better equipped to do so, and not need a plethora of other tools to make some tools. It's a little redundant if you ask me.

Our hands evolved. They were not designed. We do amazing things with our hands. We can even communicate with them.

Then evolution has failed us because we aren't able to just make the tools we need, often times we need tools to make tools, epic fail.

The reason we make so many tools is we make so many things. You are devoid of any logic at all.

Which is probably better as it looks like you lost this one through lazieness.

That reply could not be more childish if it were followed by ner ner na ner ner.

Thats obviously wrong, care to quote your source on that one. It's probably about as good as your being lazy.

You really don’t read anything you reply to do you? See that bright green bold linky thing that when you mouse over it a hand appears and the letters go white. Well that is a link A link to the source of that box with a black background and blue letters which is external text.

If when that hand appears you left mouse click even more magic happens and you are taken to the source of the external text. Classic. How long have you been posting here? Look more magic. ------> Man and Wolf

reply to post by itsthetooth

True but we do isolate ourselves from nature and choose to not mingle with it on a regular basis. There are a few that try and prefer it, but the most of us live in city dwelings.

So we seperate ourselves from mother nature.

Some like you do avoid nature some don’t. That is very different to 'Everything man does is not natural.'

And what are the natural steps of that process? It's not a natural process where we don't have to be taught first how to sow.

Planting the seeds is the natural step : puz: Where is the link to 'forced seeding' ?

Well sure, after much redundant adaptation, we can make mother nature work for us. In a matter of speaking.

Above is another avoidance tactic. It didn’t work. Address the point made. The bee and the farmer benefit from each other’s endeavours. That is a relationship; it is as simple as that.

Well the proof is simple, they do it, continue to do, and will always do it, thats the proof.

And that is your proof? That shows the beaver is designed is a fact. Another epic fail.