Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by colin42

Looked and found no reasoned argument, no supporting evidence and no links with quotes from those links.

All that was on offer was the same festering corpse of a dead argument and worthless opinions that have been heard before. Many times. Boring.

Certainly no reason to respond further.

You have been dismissed.

Dismissed meh, you can't even win a debate without lying or cheating, what makes you think you can dismiss?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Again...you can't just make up words and then claim they're a prerequisite for evolution without providing any sort of objective evidence and proof to support that claim.

Here's a handy list of fallacies you keep on using over and over and over and over again

My made up term had nothing to do with evolution. Just goes to show how much you werent paying attention.

reply to post by idmonster

So using the "tooth" method I can claim anything to be true or false simply by adding my own conditions.

If it has merrit and proves to be true, why not.

Interesting concept, and I also see that the pre-condition I add doesn't really have to related to the subject matter at hand. In fact it would seem to be a bonus if I choose an area I know little about.

Why not, it makes it easier to win in a debate when no one can challenge it, and you know very little about it. Besides who ever said I know little to nothing about the balance of life on earth.

I'm afraid I don't understand the concept of target food. A target food must be natural. We have identified a number of species of bacteria and other microbes which rely on artificial substances such as plastic and nylon for food. If creatures exist which do not have a target food, then why must any animal? If it is possible for any species to exist without a target food, how can you prove that the food of any animal is its target food?

The target food(s) of wolves are (presumably) the large mammalian herbivores they usually consume. Wolves don't eat pigs, and never see wild pigs. But a wolf can survive quite well on a diet of pig. While visiting a friend in South Carolina we visited a local animal shelter that had a number of exotic animals, including two grey wolves. The manager of the shelter fed the wolves wild pigs that local farmers shot on their property as pests.
The pigs themselves are not made or caused by man, so they can be considered a natural food. Can deer and moose be considered target foods if they can be so easily substitued by pig? If an animal can survived just as easily on non target foods as target foods, what is the difference? If wolves can survive on pigs just as easily as on deer, and the only reason they don't is because they live in different areas, then what happens when natural occurences like climate changes, or rivers changing course etc. make it possible for wolves to expand into areas where there are wild pigs?

These are just a few questions raised by the concept of target food.

Also, please stop arguing about house sparrows. It is pointless and irrelevant. As I pointed out before, there are hundreds of species of organisms which depend solely on humans for (variously) food, shelter, transportation, protection, and reproduction. People have relationships with lots of animals, just like all other animals do.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Again...you can't just make up words and then claim they're a prerequisite for evolution without providing any sort of objective evidence and proof to support that claim.

Here's a handy list of fallacies you keep on using over and over and over and over again

My made up term had nothing to do with evolution. Just goes to show how much you werent paying attention.

Except...you claim target food is a prerequisite...and since (according to your bat# crazy belief) humans don't have target food, evolution's wrong.

Again, you are using a MADE UP WORD to argue against evolution, which is something I'd only expect from either someone really really uneducated or a crazy person. You pick

reply to post by itsthetooth
No reasoned argument. No evidence just the buzzing of maggot flies around the decaying corpse of your failed argument.

I already dismissed you. shoo!

reply to post by mastermindkar
This conversation has been had many times. tooth maintains anything humans do is unnatural later termed not natural and that this shows we are not native of this planet. (dont ask about our unnatural hands)

I offered the ant. Ants farm and cultivate fungus. Providing the fertiliser (leaves) and antibiotics to control bacterial attacks on their crops. Other species farm and herd aphids and milk them for honey dew as we do dairy cattle for milk. Moving them to better 'pastures' and some are suggesting the ants actually selectively breed aphids. This was supported with evidence, links and quotes.

tooth dismissed all he was shown with a one line unsupported dismissal. According to him ants farming is natural, humans farming is not natural. When asked to explain, why his answer is: ‘because we are not from here’. So as you can see he bases his arguments on fantasy that he makes up to fit his version of intervention and does not consider or debate anything that challenges it.

I have asked many times for him to provide a definition of 'target food' (amongst others), even offered to help him if he was unable. We nearly established a definition only for him to change it after just one post when challenged so that definition failed. Obviously he refuses to be tied down to a common understanding because it closes his escape route when his argument fails which it always does.

I offered a chance to debate the use of target food which was met with his normal one line dismissal. This has resulted in his terms/claims are not supported and therefore not accepted until he does. They are his terms and the onus is on him to define them.

His efforts to steer the topic away from his recent pounding loss back to this silly 'target food' is also a normal tactic. As he has demonstrated yet again. He refuses to define his made up term despite admitting he made it up and insists on playing his dishonest moving goal post game.

Until this guy approaches this topic honestly and is prepared to address the points made with more than an unsupported dismissal and back up his claims with a logical argument based on evidence, links and quotes from those links I see no reason to continue to play his silly game. He has had more than enough chances given to enter honest debate so I see no signs of him even recognising what an honest debate is despite having it defined and explained many times.

reply to post by mastermindkar



FYI, my definition was posted recently in an external text probably about 2 pages ago.

I'm afraid I don't understand the concept of target food. A target food must be natural. We have identified a number of species of bacteria and other microbes which rely on artificial substances such as plastic and nylon for food. If creatures exist which do not have a target food, then why must any animal? If it is possible for any species to exist without a target food, how can you prove that the food of any animal is its target food?

Ok first, the reason why some things dont have target food is because of transpermia. Many things that are here, are not from here. It was a very bad thing for someone to do, but it knocked off the balance of this planet. So much so that we are now in our sixth largest extinction. But you have to also consider that when you have a single extinction, you also will have many co-extinctions that follow.

Yes a target food must be natural. Natural is anything that is not made or caused by human kind. Here is a quick google definition.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

A target food must also not be redundantly processed, even though processed food is out from the start, I'm referring to many processes to obtain it. Humans are highly guilty of redundant process, to the extreme of breeding animals to keep up stock.

Heres the definition I recently posted...

Target food

Target food is a concept stemming from the idea that all planets are supposed to be in a balance, and within that balance, food is part of the cycle for all living things. Everything will have something to eat provided balance is in order. While it might be natural in some cases for one species to eat another, doing so to the point of extinction proves that something is wrong.

Target food must meet certain criteria to qualify as such.

First a food will be natural, natural is anything organic that is not made or caused by humankind, per its definition.

Second a target food will be a main supplement to a species, and could be observed as the only food, but might just be a larger part of a larger menu.

Third a target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. While this could prove more about extinction, adaptation and intervention, substitutes have to be considered. If a substitution has been made it will probably not be as great of a benefit to the species as the original food. A clue that might help identify a substitute is redundant adaptation to utilize that food source.

Fourth, extinction must be considered when considering target food. It is possible that extinction could cause a species to be out of food, as well as co-extinction. Which is not an automatic excuse for claiming intervention.. If a species looks elsewhere for food because of a collapse, that could knock off the food balance of several other species as well. This is why extinctions are not normal or natural.

It is very difficult to prove if a food is a target food for any species. Especially since its going on all around us. Species have collapsed and some species have resorted to eating food that doesn't belong to them, and we are just as guilty.

The target food(s) of wolves are (presumably) the large mammalian herbivores they usually consume. Wolves don't eat pigs, and never see wild pigs. But a wolf can survive quite well on a diet of pig.

This was one of the key points on target food. If target food were named intended food, it would make quicker sense. The problem is still the same, identifying what that intended food is. I always think about this woman that likes to eat toilet paper, unused of course. She can eat a whole roll sometimes. The point is that there is a lot of things we can eat, but narrowing it down to what we are suppose to eat. Obviously we are suppose to be eating things that we benefit greatly from. It gets more confusing because there was a lot of things brought here in the purpose of food that aren't from here or aren't our food as well. We can however eat them, and we do, but its not OUR food.

reply to post by mastermindkar

While visiting a friend in South Carolina we visited a local animal shelter that had a number of exotic animals, including two grey wolves. The manager of the shelter fed the wolves wild pigs that local farmers shot on their property as pests.
The pigs themselves are not made or caused by man, so they can be considered a natural food. Can deer and moose be considered target foods if they can be so easily substitued by pig?

Well yes of course they are all natural, but being natural alone doesn't make it OUR target food. If an animal can survived just as easily on non target foods as target foods, what is the difference? No a target food is going to be better for a species than a substituite.

If wolves can survive on pigs just as easily as on deer, and the only reason they don't is because they live in different areas, then what happens when natural occurences like climate changes, or rivers changing course etc. make it possible for wolves to expand into areas where there are wild pigs?

Well what your explaining sounds like its more related to the effects of an extinction or collapse. Anytime something resorts to eating food that doesn't belong to them, its usually because several complicated things have happened and are coming back around full circle to cause change.

These are just a few questions raised by the concept of target food.

Also, please stop arguing about house sparrows. It is pointless and irrelevant. As I pointed out before, there are hundreds of species of organisms which depend solely on humans for (variously) food, shelter, transportation, protection, and reproduction. People have relationships with lots of animals, just like all other animals do

Well of course we do but those are either forced by feeding them or domesticating them. I was looking for a NATURAL relationship that wasn't offset by cupboard love.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Except...you claim target food is a prerequisite...and since (according to your bat# crazy belief) humans don't have target food, evolution's wrong.

Again, you are using a MADE UP WORD to argue against evolution, which is something I'd only expect from either someone really really uneducated or a crazy person. You pick

I see, so uneducated people form new terms, not educated people.

I think you seriously have it backwards.

Yes target food does raise some interesting questions about the existance of evolution. Don't you think its a little odd we dont have any intended food, yet we supposedly evolved. Looks more like we deevolved.

reply to post by colin42


I never lost on the topic of target food with you colin, you lost by failing to provide any. There is no pounding.

If you are refering to THIS RUBBUSH that is nothing but your ignorant opinion put into an Ex-Text box to give the appearance of being pasted from an external source.

Now you are trying to pass it off as you giving a definition If so you demonstrate you do not know what a definition is. You also demonstrate you don’t know honesty either. Very poor form tooth.

The rest that followed is just your low level ignorant opinion. Does not require further comment. No supported argument from you as usual.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Yes target food does raise some interesting questions about the existance of evolution. Don't you think its a little odd we dont have any intended food, yet we supposedly evolved. Looks more like we deevolved.

You have not defined your made up term' target food' it is not accepted on this thread until you do.

Now you introduce a new term. 'intended food' Please define 'intended food' failure to do so results in another term that will not be accepted and remember this is stage three. You only get one chance and no more.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never lost on the topic of target food with you colin, you lost by failing to provide any. There is no pounding.

Blar Blar Blar. You have never defined your ignorant made up term.

Of course I have not provided any as it does not exist anywhere else than your delusion.

You have been thrashed since around page 50, you’re always being pounded because all you have is your deluded opinion and dishonesty. You continue to refuse to provide a definition for your made up terms and now try to add more.

You have again only posted your opinion. No reasoned argument with supporting evidence. Nothing to answer to here. Dismissed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Except...you claim target food is a prerequisite...and since (according to your bat# crazy belief) humans don't have target food, evolution's wrong.

Again, you are using a MADE UP WORD to argue against evolution, which is something I'd only expect from either someone really really uneducated or a crazy person. You pick

I see, so uneducated people form new terms, not educated people.

I think you seriously have it backwards.

Yes target food does raise some interesting questions about the existance of evolution. Don't you think its a little odd we dont have any intended food, yet we supposedly evolved. Looks more like we deevolved.

edit on 2-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

No..."target food" doesn't raise any questions regarding evolution!! Mostly because it's a MADE-UP word that consists of a random definition you came up with. There's ZERO basis in reality for it!

Homo sapiens has survived just fine for 200k+ years on food that's indigenous to this planet...so your entire argument is complete and utter nonsense

A better thread would be "Can you prove evolution ever happened?" And the answer is no. The only 'proof' people have is that monekys look and act like us. The silly reasoning of fish killing themselves for millions of years until they somehow grew legs and fur is ridiculous, and I'm ashamed my children are taught such complete nonsense. Evolution is a nice fairy tale, but it has no proof outside of insane logic and made up facts.

/thread

Originally posted by lolwuttermelons
A better thread would be "Can you prove evolution ever happened?" And the answer is no. The only 'proof' people have is that monekys look and act like us. The silly reasoning of fish killing themselves for millions of years until they somehow grew legs and fur is ridiculous, and I'm ashamed my children are taught such complete nonsense. Evolution is a nice fairy tale, but it has no proof outside of insane logic and made up facts.

/thread

You did not read the OP then. Will respond when you have.

Originally posted by lolwuttermelons
A better thread would be "Can you prove evolution ever happened?" And the answer is no. The only 'proof' people have is that monekys look and act like us. The silly reasoning of fish killing themselves for millions of years until they somehow grew legs and fur is ridiculous, and I'm ashamed my children are taught such complete nonsense. Evolution is a nice fairy tale, but it has no proof outside of insane logic and made up facts.

/thread

I'd be more ashamed at attacking a theory I so obviously don't understand if I were you

LINK

We have tons of objective evidence supporting the theory (fossil record, DNA, migratory trends, etc.) and are even ACTIVELY APPLYING the theory in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't use it to accurately predict future outcomes...

Nice display of ignorance though

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by idmonster

 

Assuming all stars are smaller than planets, I contend a geocentric model of the universe is a better explanation for planetary motion, by satisfying what I call "reference of sight."

Works for me guru....where do I send the money....lol

enuva line

Originally posted by lolwuttermelons
A better thread would be "Can you prove evolution ever happened?" And the answer is no. The only 'proof' people have is that monekys look and act like us. The silly reasoning of fish killing themselves for millions of years until they somehow grew legs and fur is ridiculous, and I'm ashamed my children are taught such complete nonsense. Evolution is a nice fairy tale, but it has no proof outside of insane logic and made up facts.

/thread

Two points:

1. If that is what is being taught, remove your children from that school imediatley.
2. If thats what you think is being taught because of your own misunderstanding of evolution, you need an education.

In the case of number 2 being the right guess, I suggest you start at around page 50 of this thread. The guys on here have pandered to tooth for so long now that you will probably find some explanation that even a five year old coud grasp (although tooth is still struggling)