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: 446
31
<< 443  444  445    447  448  449 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





In other words:
1) I don't know what the practical difference is between a human processing food and a bee, but as per your definition, I'll go with it
Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural. In essence they are saying that humans are NOT natural. Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages. They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.

Bees are not humans, so if bees process honey, its still considered natural. If our hand was required in that development, then it would no longer be natural.




2) A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things
Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.




3) A target food might not have an easy substitute for a species. But it might also have an easy substitute. If a substitution is made it will probably not be of as great a benefit to a species as the original food. But it might also be of equal or greater benefit. I pointed out an example of a wolf (a real wolf, not even a dog) fed pigs its whole life that had lived longer than wild wolves on their target food do, so clearly this is possible.
A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.




4) This doesn't have anything to do with the food itself, but rather seems to be a vague explanation of why a species might not be eating its target food.
As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.




So, strictly according to your definition of target food there is absolutely no reason to believe that the tribes of primitive humans living in the amazon basin today are not eating their target foods. Their foods are natural and unprocessed, and they rely on them. Those are the only two certainties in the definition.
No because you can be dependant on what food you have available but that doesn't mean it was your intended food. Natural yes, unprocessed yes, but its not food that was intended for them, basically we are all just getting by with the food we have. As a result we have to work harder to get what our bodies require from the variations of food content.

Imagine walking into a super suppliement store, and notice how they have about 1000 or more suppliements. Most are probably needed in everyones diet depending on what they eat or don't eat. The point is you can never manage your eating lifestyle here on earth and stay in a balance of everything. You will always be lacking several thing especially as you get older. It's such a big deal that today doctors will do a personal screening of your blood work and determine exactly what your dipping low in, and make a custom vitamin just for you. Of course this is a multi vitamin.




Why can a specie's target food not be dead things?
It's a good question like with maggots, I'm sure were suppose to eat dead rotting corpses. But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions. Its a tuff call, fish eat smaller fish, tigers eat everything. Whats odd in both cases is that I can't identify any one thing they are suppose to eat. So while its possible that extinction was at work, its to hard to disect. From a creationists perspective it makes little sense that such effort would go into each life and its creation to just be torn apart by another created life. At least thats that version.




Are dead things unnatural? Nothing in the definition of target food makes mention of it. What could the target food for maggots possibly be if not rotting meat? It is the only thing they eat, its natural, they rely on it, and it has no easy substitute. How can an ecosystem function without recycling dead matter? Can you name an ecosystem on earth that functions without scavengers?
As long as your not talking about humans, ya. And I agree with you on the scavangers as well but there is a twist here your not realizing. If things on this planet were on a correct balance, death would not be so abundant, not that it would never happen, but it would be way less. Earth is very screwed up and we are currently in our 6th largest extinction.




posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





Ok. So if there's an intelligence that makes species, including us, and makes sure they can eat food, but doesn't make a target food for them, where does the concept of target food fit into all this? If you freely accept that species can be made without target foods and survive just fine, why did you come up with the concept of target food in the first place? Is it just because ant eaters very specialized towards eating ants? (even though ant eaters also eat other things, and many other things eat ants?
No, a would be creator would HAVE to be empathetic. Making us without setting us up with proper food is a lost cause.

Here is some good insight to all of this for you. Take a look at the humans bodies needs for calcium by age. I always assumed as a baby we need most of the calcium but in fact our need for calcium actually just goes up with age. Now processed cheese has the highest value but thats processed and I'm sure our aleged creator didn't plan for us to make cheese. Anyhow, you start at the high end of the chart with sardines. Now you would have to eat them daily, or should eat them daily, how were we suppose to feed this supply when we probably had no boats to start? You go down the list and can see that our choices are very limited and cows milk is fair. No one is ever going to convince me that cows milk was intended for humans to drink its pasturized, fortified, homogenized, and sometimes lactose free processed too. With so many processes we are obviously bending over backwards to make milk work for us.

The question is why. The answer is simple, because we need it. That is really the only true answer. We need it because something is missing in our intended diet that isn't here on earth.




There are a few foods that require those two types of teeth for sure, meat and nuts. The very things primitive humans ate before they developed the ability process food, and frequently still do eat today. Most mammals that eat meat have sharp teeth like canines, most mammals that eat nuts and seeds have molars, and mammals that eat both generally have both. I really don't see anything wrong. Everything here works.

The only reason there seems to be a problem here is you took an extreme example, the ant eater, and decided that all other animals must be just as specialized as it is. They don't and they aren't.
Well that was really the whole point right there, I don't think he is special by any means, in fact I think he is as normal as it gets, but most everything else is where the problem is. We are the oddballs. It only makes sense that he would be so fine tuned for hunting ants, its his job.

When you look at humans and try to disect them the way I disected the anteater, you come up empty handed. Speaking of hands, you should be able to know what your purpose in life is, but your not going to find out here because it isn't here. We are not from here, we were transplanted here. Now if the anteater were smart enough to ask himself what his purpose in life was, do you think he would have any problem figureing it out, heck no.

Somewhere, there is a lifestyle, suited for humans, somewhere there is ideal food meant for humans, somewhere there is a purpose, for humans, but its not here.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





You are wrong. While many species of parasites are not picky, many are. Example: en.wikipedia.org...


They feed exclusively on blood. Humans are the only known hosts of this parasite


So, they do prefer humans and they are picky. A natural relationship between man and animal.
I like the fact that you have a brain, its a nice change compared to some of the people on this thread.

Its a very good observation, and it has allready come up. The best that can be figured is that they were among us durring our arrival. Also keep in mind that if we were brought here, there could have been as many as thousands of people at a time that got moved. It is possible that humans don't trim or cut their hair on our home planet, so these little buggers would be rampant everywhere.

Excellent observation either way. Maybe you could rub some of your smarts off on the others here as they are getting a tad rusty and don't play fair.

The reason why its easy to believe that thousands of us got moved here is what you can find in the mitochondrial eve wiki. Its clear that our species never dipped below tens of thousands. However its gets complicated because you don't know if they are considering before our common ancestor 200,000 years ago, while I'm assuming that was actually a different species that could have been here on earth before us.




So, they do prefer humans and they are picky. A natural relationship between man and animal.
Yes it is, but the questions it opens up, makes it impossible to know if they are indigenous or if we brought them here. Which was the whole reason for determining this to beging with, to see if there was some proof we belong here.

Anyhow, to believe that this is the only species we have a relationship with, which I'm going to agree with at ths point, you would have to also agree that our whole purpose in life is to satisfy these litttle critters, and as you can see there seems to be more missing to our picture. I didn't need complicated brains and arms and eyesight to please these little guys.

Either way good job and good insight.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





They don't even know what's causing the defect

It might be the result of external factors...as the article clearly states, they haven't figured it out yet.

You on the other hand simply pretend they have because in your mind it "fits" your belief. That's incredibly ignorant
You have clearly not been paying attention. Fitting my belief had nothing to do with the articles. You see the mere fact that there was an event making a change in our DNA, which is not in question here, was the only thing I was standing on.

It still sticks. It doesn't matter if they have figured it out to be exact or not, they are clear that it is making changes in our DNA. Scientists would have been precieving this as evolution. Sorry but your still wrong. And a little bat crazy too.


Again how exactly???? Gene defects happen..they happen in animals and plants too for crying out loud. So yes, it's part of evolution.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Everything on this planet, without our interferance, balances so well on its own, natural checks and balances.. Its hard to honestly see us as a species this earth cultivated on its own. We dont have the finesse and connection to things around us like we would need to, at least in my opinion. I think everything on this planet has evolved to be here. I think we were a failed experiment. And that you need to let a species evolve and grow a bit, and thats what our creators have done, tried to give us an opportunity to prove them wrong, to show we are a higher or more enlightened species.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural.
Your ignorance and desperate need to justify your delusions need this to be the case. Until you provide a logic based argument, with supporting evidence links and quotes it is just your opinion. Meaningless trash at best.


In essence they are saying that humans are NOT natural.
Who are THEY? What do THEY base this nonsense on?


Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages.
Well for the first time in 400 pages you have brought in a new factor. 'THEY'?


They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.
Or maybe these 'THEY' beings don’t agree with your uneducated, crazy homespun religion based on ignorance of its founder. YOU!!


Bees are not humans, so if bees process honey, its still considered natural. If our hand was required in that development, then it would no longer be natural.
And as usual that is your opinion. Nothing more. No supporting argument. No evidence. No links or quotes from those links. So as usual just more of your La La land imaginings. Now show proof of any of your nonsense above.


Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.
Well done. You have used a real term, staple food that I taught you. That still does not answer the question


2) A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things
How do you know which is which?


A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.
Explain the example you were given of the wolf fed on pigs. Explain why our modern crops have a great nutritional value than their wild counterparts.


As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.
So how do you know humans 'target food' did not go extinct?


No because you can be dependant on what food you have available but that doesn't mean it was your intended food. Natural yes, unprocessed yes, but its not food that was intended for them, basically we are all just getting by with the food we have.
You are again missing one little thing. Proof and all you have is your bias opinion which due to your dishonest nature is absolutely worthless.


As a result we have to work harder to get what our bodies require from the variations of food content.
Ah your laziness comes to the fore and even in this you are profoundly wrong. We feed billions by farming so the effort put in is way less than the food out.

There is no way the population of any country can be fed on what can be hunted and gathered alone. Agriculture

Agriculture was the key development in the rise of sedentary human civilization, whereby farming of domesticated species created food surpluses that nurtured the development of civilization



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's a good question like with maggots, I'm sure were suppose to eat dead rotting corpses. But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions.
What utter garbage. How do you think man is supposed to eating 'rotting corpses'? You spend all your time saying we cannot know what our target food is and then you make that unfounded easily refuted claim.


But when it comes to animals killing other animals, like lions hunting, maybe, and just maybe, I'm on the fence about it, but it could be his options have changed because of extinctions.
Your on the fence? If there is any more need for proof of how deep your denial goes. How poor your understanding is of the world around you. How blind to life you are. The above statement shows it clearly. The lion has evolved to hunt. Only an uneducated, ignorant, feeble minded clown could claim otherwise. (looks at your statement above)
Nuff said.


Its a tuff call, fish eat smaller fish, tigers eat everything. Whats odd in both cases is that I can't identify any one thing they are suppose to eat.
There is nothing odd about it. You cannot identify what they are supposed to eat for two reasons. You have never done any meaningful research and more importantly your stupidly based 'target food' is a nonsense.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
I was waiting for your nonsense around milk to be raised and here it is. You have been smashed worse than the battle between the Titanic and the iceberg and the hole in your opinions bigger. Everything you have written is purely your opinion with no basis in reality at all.

You offer no supporting evidence. No links and quotes from those links. No need for further comment.

Still at least Mastermindkar has a great example from your replies to him that trying to enter into a real debate with you is a complete waste of time. You have dismissed ALL of his very well presented points with your usual ignorant dismissals, hardly even considering the points he made. Spewing out your preformed nonsense based garbage.

The reason why everyone should insist on from you. A logic based argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. So where is it?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I like the fact that you have a brain, its a nice change compared to some of the people on this thread.
Nope. You like the fact that Mindkar is not aware of your dishonest approach to this thread which enables you to once again start your cycle of madness.


Its a very good observation, and it has allready come up. The best that can be figured is that they were among us durring our arrival.
Oh so we 'brainless' posters that have put up with your insanity have already used this as an example. Shown how it destroys your nonsense. The best YOU could come up with was the parasites came with us. Where is your evidence?


Also keep in mind that if we were brought here, there could have been as many as thousands of people at a time that got moved.
What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?


It is possible that humans don't trim or cut their hair on our home planet, so these little buggers would be rampant everywhere.
Evidence? Where is it?


Excellent observation either way. Maybe you could rub some of your smarts off on the others here as they are getting a tad rusty and don't play fair.
Your reading inability has let you down again. He is trying to rub some of his smarts off on YOU but alas is finding out what we already know. You do not have any capacity for it.


The reason why its easy to believe that thousands of us got moved here is what you can find in the mitochondrial eve wiki. Its clear that our species never dipped below tens of thousands. However its gets complicated because you don't know if they are considering before our common ancestor 200,000 years ago, while I'm assuming that was actually a different species that could have been here on earth before us.
Another example that you have no idea of the subject you are talking about. Classic



Yes it is, but the questions it opens up, makes it impossible to know if they are indigenous or if we brought them here. Which was the whole reason for determining this to beging with, to see if there was some proof we belong here.
If that were true then the same can be said about humans but your only problem here is the fossil record supported by DNA, observation and repeatable, verifiable evidence. In short. Evolution.


Anyhow, to believe that this is the only species we have a relationship with, which I'm going to agree with at ths point, you would have to also agree that our whole purpose in life is to satisfy these litttle critters, and as you can see there seems to be more missing to our picture. I didn't need complicated brains and arms and eyesight to please these little guys.
You claimed way back that if you were shown one relationship between humans and any other creature on this planet then you would drop your claim that we are not from here. So here is another example.

As for the rest of your ridiculous postulation. You are full of more rubbish than a municipal infill site



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Again how exactly???? Gene defects happen..they happen in animals and plants too for crying out loud. So yes, it's part of evolution.
But they could be from other things, like ADHD.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SamLuv
 





Everything on this planet, without our interferance, balances so well on its own, natural checks and balances.. Its hard to honestly see us as a species this earth cultivated on its own. We dont have the finesse and connection to things around us like we would need to, at least in my opinion. I think everything on this planet has evolved to be here. I think we were a failed experiment. And that you need to let a species evolve and grow a bit, and thats what our creators have done, tried to give us an opportunity to prove them wrong, to show we are a higher or more enlightened species.
There seems to be more evidence that we de-evolved if anything. Notice how we share not a single communication or language trait with our ancestors the apes. Notice how we share nothing. It's because we didn't evovle. The other thing is that we are struggeling on this planet. Almost every thing we do, is only accomplished through redundant adaptation. If we evolved, we sure sucked at it. Evolutionists claim adaptation as being a part of evolution, but the fact is that if something has the ability to adapt very well, then there is no need for evolution.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Well its because of the definition that is clear in saying that if its caused or made by humans its not natural.

Your ignorance and desperate need to justify your delusions need this to be the case. Until you provide a logic based argument, with supporting evidence links and quotes it is just your opinion. Meaningless trash at best
Are you playing the peek a boo game again colin, pretending to not see the definitions I post?


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".





Who are THEY? What do THEY base this nonsense on?


Now they may not know or care why that is, but this is what I have been laying down on this thread for over 400 pages.

Well for the first time in 400 pages you have brought in a new factor. 'THEY'?
Scientists and people that write definitions.




They are admitting we are not natural to this planet without even realizing it.

Or maybe these 'THEY' beings don’t agree with your uneducated, crazy homespun religion based on ignorance of its founder. YOU!!
Actually they do, which is why they were brought up, did you get lost colin?




Bees are not humans, so if bees process honey, its still considered natural. If our hand was required in that development, then it would no longer be natural.

And as usual that is your opinion. Nothing more. No supporting argument. No evidence. No links or quotes from those links. So as usual just more of your La La land imaginings. Now show proof of any of your nonsense above
What, are you going to argue with me now that bees are humans?




Yes but a target food will be a main staple, if I wasn't clear on that.

Well done. You have used a real term, staple food that I taught you. That still does not answer the question
Oh colin I leaned of staple food long before you were around.




How do you know which is which?
Excellent question, because the target food will be utilized more than other foods and the also has a higher benefit to the species.




A target food will always be of greater value than other foods as it was made for that species is the ideal way to understand this.

Explain the example you were given of the wolf fed on pigs. Explain why our modern crops have a great nutritional value than their wild counterparts.
There is no way a non target food can be better than an existing food unless they are both none target foods.




As an example extinctions can cause this to happen, so a species ventures away from its intended food as it doesn't want to starve. But keep in mind it will never give them what the target food did.

So how do you know humans 'target food' did not go extinct?
A very good question. If we were here in the early ages, there is always that chance that something went extinct. Of course I'm relying on history that we would know that way, but there is always the off chance that failed, but there is always the off chance we aren't from here either.

I think if there was target food that went extinct we would have tried our damn hardest to preserve it, and keep it in order, long before we had smarts to start making food for our selves.




You are again missing one little thing. Proof and all you have is your bias opinion which due to your dishonest nature is absolutely worthless.
I don't know colin I'm going to argue with you and belive that everything is suppose to have something to eat.




Ah your laziness comes to the fore and even in this you are profoundly wrong. We feed billions by farming so the effort put in is way less than the food out.

There is no way the population of any country can be fed on what can be hunted and gathered alone. Agriculture
but agriculture was just an alternative to us not having food ready to begin with. You see if this were our planet, we would have food made for us and read to eat, in abundance. Almost like being served. Probably with little effort to get too.




What utter garbage. How do you think man is supposed to eating 'rotting corpses'? You spend all your time saying we cannot know what our target food is and then you make that unfounded easily refuted claim.
I nevfe said man, he was talking about maggots.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
An organisms' ability to adapt doesn't translate into nucleotide changes.

And it has been said time and time again humans, as does every other animal, have millions of parasites having sex inside them right now. And those parasites are specific to their host at some stage in their life cycle.

What does it even mean when you say "ADHD can cause changes, so its not evolution." ADHD is a behavioral trait that corresponds to how individuals vary in nucleotides at a given locus. Evolution describes the statistical reproductive fitnesses of nucleotide sequences. If there is variation in a trait, there is evolution. Are people diagnosed with different degrees of ADHD? If yes, then it is evolution. The answer will be yes to every trait ever in the history of life.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your on the fence? If there is any more need for proof of how deep your denial goes. How poor your understanding is of the world around you. How blind to life you are. The above statement shows it clearly. The lion has evolved to hunt. Only an uneducated, ignorant, feeble minded clown could claim otherwise. (looks at your statement above) Nuff said.
Signs of desperation and struggeling IMO are not signs of evolving, then again evolution makes no sense. There should be no reason why a species should have to resort to such tactics unless they are on the brink of being extinct from not having food.




There is nothing odd about it. You cannot identify what they are supposed to eat for two reasons. You have never done any meaningful research and more importantly your stupidly based 'target food' is a nonsense.
Target food? Whats that, what does it mean? Finally admitt to it huh?




I was waiting for your nonsense around milk to be raised and here it is. You have been smashed worse than the battle between the Titanic and the iceberg and the hole in your opinions bigger. Everything you have written is purely your opinion with no basis in reality at all.

You offer no supporting evidence. No links and quotes from those links. No need for further comment.

Still at least Mastermindkar has a great example from your replies to him that trying to enter into a real debate with you is a complete waste of time. You have dismissed ALL of his very well presented points with your usual ignorant dismissals, hardly even considering the points he made. Spewing out your preformed nonsense based garbage.

The reason why everyone should insist on from you. A logic based argument supported by evidence, links and quotes from those links. So where is it?
No I'm going to disagree with you again colin, I think drinking another species milk is just sick and wrong, but call me silly.




Nope. You like the fact that Mindkar is not aware of your dishonest approach to this thread which enables you to once again start your cycle of madness.
No I honestly like how he was in fact able to come up with a species that we have a relationship with.

Unlike you, and trying to cheat to find one.




Oh so we 'brainless' posters that have put up with your insanity have already used this as an example. Shown how it destroys your nonsense. The best YOU could come up with was the parasites came with us. Where is your evidence?
Well thats what they do silly, they are parasites.




What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?
Would you sleep with your sister? Don't answer that.




Evidence? Where is it?
What is wrong with you man, all I said is that its possible, do you have something that says its not possible?




Your reading inability has let you down again. He is trying to rub some of his smarts off on YOU but alas is finding out what we already know. You do not have any capacity for it.
You mean I'm full?




If that were true then the same can be said about humans but your only problem here is the fossil record supported by DNA, observation and repeatable, verifiable evidence. In short. Evolution.
They live on us, there is nothing hard to believe about that.




You claimed way back that if you were shown one relationship between humans and any other creature on this planet then you would drop your claim that we are not from here. So here is another example.

As for the rest of your ridiculous postulation. You are full of more rubbish than a municipal infill site
Sorry man, I don't know what to tell you, they could have hitched a ride with us, thats what they do.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 





An organisms' ability to adapt doesn't translate into nucleotide changes.

And it has been said time and time again humans, as does every other animal, have millions of parasites having sex inside them right now. And those parasites are specific to their host at some stage in their life cycle.

What does it even mean when you say "ADHD can cause changes, so its not evolution." ADHD is a behavioral trait that corresponds to how individuals vary in nucleotides at a given locus. Evolution describes the statistical reproductive fitnesses of nucleotide sequences. If there is variation in a trait, there is evolution. Are people diagnosed with different degrees of ADHD? If yes, then it is evolution. The answer will be yes to every trait ever in the history of life.
this is what I'm trying to say.

Scientists have discovered that people that have ADHD show a corrosponding indication in their dna, in other words people that have ADHD will show it in their DNA. Now they just found this out. Which means that prior to this, when scientists were looking at DNA for changes to verify evolution they were probably seeing ADHD and calling it evolution.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



redundant adaptation
Tut Tut. You failed to define that term and ran from a debate on its use. That makes your whole post null and void.





edit on 6-7-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Are you playing the peek a boo game again colin, pretending to not see the definitions I post?
You failed to provide the source. Not acceptable. Try again


Scientists and people that write definitions.
So my reply stands. You have no argument or supporting evidence. No need to respond.


Actually they do, which is why they were brought up, did you get lost colin?
Your opinion. Not supported with any evidence and not based on reality. No further comment needed


What, are you going to argue with me now that bees are humans?
Go back and read my reply and stop playing the fool. No need to reply further.


Oh colin I leaned of staple food long before you were around.
Oh Pinocchio you still have not learnt to answer the questions that challenge you. Try again:
A target food could be the only thing they eat, but they could also eat many things, How do you know which is which.


Excellent question, because the target food will be utilized more than other foods and the also has a higher benefit to the species.
That is your opinion and has been challenged many times and you have never backed it up with supporting evidence. I expect you to fail to do so again. Your opinion has no value. Dismissed.


There is no way a non target food can be better than an existing food unless they are both none target foods.
Then explain why in the example you were given a wolf lived far longer and healthier than its wild counterparts when fed on pigs and don’t just offer your ignorant opinion.


A very good question. If we were here in the early ages, there is always that chance that something went extinct. Of course I'm relying on history that we would know that way, but there is always the off chance that failed, but there is always the off chance we aren't from here either.
I could care less if you think it was a good question. What I require from you is an answer and the evidence to back up your claim. All I got is your ignorance based opinion. Dismissed.


I think if there was target food that went extinct we would have tried our damn hardest to preserve it, and keep it in order, long before we had smarts to start making food for our selves.
Will you ever be found guilty of giving a real answer? Your opinion is again dismissed.


I don't know colin I'm going to argue with you and belive that everything is suppose to have something to eat.
Dismissed


but agriculture was just an alternative to us not having food ready to begin with.
You ignored the quote and did not read the link. Typically you reply with ignorance based on nothing more than your opinion. Dismissed.


You see if this were our planet, we would have food made for us and read to eat, in abundance. Almost like being served. Probably with little effort to get too.
Like I said a lazy fantasist. Your opinion has no value. Dismissed.


I nevfe said man, he was talking about maggots.
So you did not. My mistake. Now explain why the lion was never meant to hunt.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by uva3021
 





An organisms' ability to adapt doesn't translate into nucleotide changes.

And it has been said time and time again humans, as does every other animal, have millions of parasites having sex inside them right now. And those parasites are specific to their host at some stage in their life cycle.

What does it even mean when you say "ADHD can cause changes, so its not evolution." ADHD is a behavioral trait that corresponds to how individuals vary in nucleotides at a given locus. Evolution describes the statistical reproductive fitnesses of nucleotide sequences. If there is variation in a trait, there is evolution. Are people diagnosed with different degrees of ADHD? If yes, then it is evolution. The answer will be yes to every trait ever in the history of life.
this is what I'm trying to say.

Scientists have discovered that people that have ADHD show a corrosponding indication in their dna, in other words people that have ADHD will show it in their DNA. Now they just found this out. Which means that prior to this, when scientists were looking at DNA for changes to verify evolution they were probably seeing ADHD and calling it evolution.


You do realize genetic defects ARE PART OF EVOLUTION, right? It's not as if that disease is somehow separate


What a silly argument...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Signs of desperation and struggeling IMO are not signs of evolving, then again evolution makes no sense. There should be no reason why a species should have to resort to such tactics unless they are on the brink of being extinct from not having food.
You state IMO. You have been told your opinion has no value. Now show the evidence that lions were not meant to be hunters.


Target food? Whats that, what does it mean? Finally admitt to it huh?
The answer of the forum clown. How do you get that from? below

There is nothing odd about it. You cannot identify what they are supposed to eat for two reasons. You have never done any meaningful research and more importantly your stupidly based 'target food' is nonsense.

Your pathetic reply is dismissed.


No I'm going to disagree with you again colin, I think drinking another species milk is just sick and wrong, but call me silly.
Dismissed


No I honestly like how he was in fact able to come up with a species that we have a relationship with.
Which means you agree that we are natives of this planet as you stated you would.


Unlike you, and trying to cheat to find one.
No you just played ignorant and denied everything you were shown backed with evidence and links and quotes from those links. Dismissed


Well thats what they do silly, they are parasites.
You have a lot in common


Would you sleep with your sister? Don't answer that.
I don’t come from Spokane it appears it may be common there. But what has that to do with you answering the point? YOU:


Also keep in mind that if we were brought here, there could have been as many as thousands of people at a time that got moved.
Me: What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?


What is wrong with you man, all I said is that its possible, do you have something that says its not possible?
Your claim, you provide the evidence not your opinion. Dismissed


You mean I'm full?
I could tell you what you are full of but how does that answer the fact he is trying to rub his smarts off onto you not us?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Me: What do you base that unfounded claim on? Why not one at a time or all at once? Why your nominal figure? Where is your evidence?


F*** evidence I guess


Every time he posts this pic pops into my mind:





top topics



 
31
<< 443  444  445    447  448  449 >>

log in

join