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: 447
31
<< 444  445  446    448  449  450 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Tut Tut. You failed to define that term and ran from a debate on its use. That makes your whole post null and void.
I allready told you colin that redundant adaptation is when our adapting is in to many steps just to achieve something.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.
We've actually known specific locations on a chromosome that relate to ADHD for about 15 years now, which is about the time such studies were only starting to become easy to do. Since ADHD was first diagnosed, it was obvious to every scientist that it had a genetic basis, because all traits have a genetic basis. Evolution doesn't need to be 'verified.'

When scientists 'look' for the 'DNA' that causes one to be diagnosed with ADHD, they assume there is a place to look, because they make the assumption that traits evolve (randomly or through selection) and people vary in nucleotide sequences. That assumption can be made because that's the way it works, that's the way it will always work, just like we can assume sound is simply waves of pressure, without having to study every single instance of sound.

ADHD isn't something that is in the air that people catch, even if it was, people would vary to the degree with which they are impacted if they caught it due to differences in nucleotides.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You failed to provide the source. Not acceptable. Try again
In other words, I can't be the source.




So my reply stands. You have no argument or supporting evidence. No need to respond.
Not at all, you see the definition of natural suits my understanding of how we aren't from here. Keeping in mind it wasn't the idea they had either, but its clear we don't belong here.


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".






Your opinion. Not supported with any evidence and not based on reality. No further comment needed
Nope, quoting a definition is not an opinion colin.




Go back and read my reply and stop playing the fool. No need to reply further.
Humans are clearly not indiginous to this planet based on the definition of the word natural.




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.
And like I said because a target food will prevail as a more important food offering more benefit.




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.
So now your saying food shouldn't have to be beneficial to us? I'm sorry man, your not making any sense.




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.
Because he wasn't eating his target food to begin with.

In addition to the fact that he is a different species by comparison. Your making an assumption that dogs and wolves should live the same lifespan because in your eyes they are the same, Your wrong, and this proves it, told you so.




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 never claimed to have the answers to everything.




Will you ever be found guilty of giving a real answer? Your opinion is again dismissed.
Target food is oh so important.




So you did not. My mistake. Now explain why the lion was never meant to hunt.
I never said that I know for a fact that they are not suppose to hunt. All I'm saying is that desperation to that degree in finding food could be a sign that ones target food is missing. Now if you think about it we are in the same boat. We are just as despeate to the point that we breed animals for slaughter.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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

What a silly argument...
It's only silly because now your claiming that if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and created ADHD in his genes as a result of it, your now calling that evolution.

Thats bat crazy for sure.

Evolution is NOT something that man creates, and even if it was, it sure in the hell isn't natural.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
yes and no



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
looking into it.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth

It's only silly because now your claiming that if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and created ADHD in his genes as a result of it, your now calling that evolution.

Thats bat crazy for sure.

Evolution is NOT something that man creates, and even if it was, it sure in the hell isn't natural.

You are the one claiming ADHD creates something in a person's genes, this is wrong and nonsensical on so many levels. The claim doesn't make any sense.

A mom smoking in the womb might lead to ADHD for that child given their genetic makeup. It will most likely increase the odds of anybody that was going to be prone to ADHD anyway. And because different kids will be impacted in different ways to environments in the womb, this is evolution. Its not bat crazy, its how life works



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





You state IMO. You have been told your opinion has no value. Now show the evidence that lions were not meant to be hunters.
I never said I knew for a fact that they aren't supposed to be hunters. All I was saying is with that type of desperation its possible that their target food is missing.




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.
Actually I was mocking you but ok.




Which means you agree that we are natives of this planet as you stated you would.
If it wasn't a parasite that most likely hitched a ride with us, I would be struggling right now.




No you just played ignorant and denied everything you were shown backed with evidence and links and quotes from those links. Dismissed
I didn't see anyone else coming up with your ill examples, and no one was even backing you on what you had.




You have a lot in common
I'm not interested in your opinion, and it just goes to show that you have no where else to turn because you feel cornered.




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:
It would help if you typed in english, instead of this slang gibberish. I don't come from Spokane either, I just so happen to be living here now. But then again you evolutionists are well known for assuming things, how else could evolution live on.




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?
In case your falling in the cracks, its clear that this planet was colonized.




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?
speak english.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





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

What a silly argument...
It's only silly because now your claiming that if my friends mom smoked while pregnant with him, and created ADHD in his genes as a result of it, your now calling that evolution.

Thats bat crazy for sure.

Evolution is NOT something that man creates, and even if it was, it sure in the hell isn't natural.



Again, your response would only make sense if they had 100% proven that smoking is the cause, and only cause...clearly they haven't


They believe smoking can trigger it...but smoking causes a whole array of other issues. And there's people with ADHD who's parents weren't smokers. In short, drawing conclusions (like you are) before actually knowing everything about it is silly...

All they know is that either ADHD has an effect on genes, or it's caused by a gene defect.

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



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Tut Tut. You failed to define that term and ran from a debate on its use. That makes your whole post null and void.
I allready told you colin that redundant adaptation is when our adapting is in to many steps just to achieve something.
The problem is you telling me is not enough. I gave you the chance to define it, you refused. I offered to debate it. Set out why 'redundant adaption' is meaningless and you gave a one line dismissal which means you lost. Too late. You are dismissed.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





Again, your response would only make sense if they had 100% proven that smoking is the cause, and only cause...clearly they haven't

They believe smoking can trigger it...but smoking causes a whole array of other issues. And there's people with ADHD who's parents weren't smokers. In short, drawing conclusions (like you are) before actually knowing everything about it is silly...

All they know is that either ADHD has an effect on genes, or it's caused by a gene defect.
Well I thought the site that was claiming that lead seemed to be the link to all of this explained it all.

You see lead is also a common ingredient in smoking, so there you go.

www.quitsmokingsupport.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





The problem is you telling me is not enough. I gave you the chance to define it, you refused. I offered to debate it. Set out why 'redundant adaption' is meaningless and you gave a one line dismissal which means you lost. Too late. You are dismissed
It's no skin off my nose, you would have dismissed it either way, so no problem either way.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

In other words, I can't be the source
Who said you was?


Not at all, you see the definition of natural suits my understanding of how we aren't from here. Keeping in mind it wasn't the idea they had either, but its clear we don't belong here.
All you have done is demonstrate your dishonesty. You admit to cherry picking what suits you yet you supposedly quoted from an external source that for the third time of asking you are refusing to supply. I say refusing because you have shown you know how and why but now you don’t. Your dishonest reply is dismissed


Nope, quoting a definition is not an opinion colin.
Only when you supply the source and you have not three times.


Humans are clearly not indiginous to this planet based on the definition of the word natural.
Just your very unreliable opinion. No need to comment further.


And like I said because a target food will prevail as a more important food offering more benefit.
Funny. No logical argument
No supporting evidence. Looks like your opinion again. No comment


So now your saying food shouldn't have to be beneficial to us? I'm sorry man, your not making any sense.
Lived down to my expectations again. You did not answer the point again. Pathetic. Dismissed


Because he wasn't eating his target food to begin with.
WHAT!


In addition to the fact that he is a different species by comparison. Your making an assumption that dogs and wolves should live the same lifespan because in your eyes they are the same, Your wrong, and this proves it, told you so.
So the guy you like because he has a brain who explained how a wolf in a rescue centre live a far longer and healthier life than his wild counterparts when fed on pork and you go on about dogs that were never mentioned. You just cannot answer a straight question can you? You are even too dishonest to be a politician.


I never claimed to have the answers to everything.
Really? You claim to know more about the bible than religious scholars. More about evolution than scientists, so much more in fact that just your opinion overrules all the hard work, evidence and observations for over 150 years. The truth is you have no answers at all. Dismissed.


I never said that I know for a fact that they are not suppose to hunt. All I'm saying is that desperation to that degree in finding food could be a sign that ones target food is missing. Now if you think about it we are in the same boat. We are just as despeate to the point that we breed animals for slaughter.
Explain why you think lions whether they have been created or evolved are not 'meant' to be predators.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Actually I was mocking you but ok.
Told you many times. You don’t have the intelligence to mock.


If it wasn't a parasite that most likely hitched a ride with us, I would be struggling right now.
Show any evidence?
Nope. You struggle with the truth in every reply and this one is no different unfortunately with you, your dishonesty always wins the day.


I didn't see anyone else coming up with your ill examples, and no one was even backing you on what you had.
For gods sake get a spell checker. Everyone agreed with me not that it makes any difference. You never had any opposing argument and just dismissed. You lost. In fact you were thrashed. Get over it.


I'm not interested in your opinion, and it just goes to show that you have no where else to turn because you feel cornered.
So why would I be interested in your opinion? as for feeling cornered. What by you? Dont be so insulting.


It would help if you typed in english, instead of this slang gibberish. I don't come from Spokane either, I just so happen to be living here now. But then again you evolutionists are well known for assuming things, how else could evolution live on.
Hit a nerve did I? If you cant take it pal you had best not dish it out.



In case your falling in the cracks, its clear that this planet was colonized.
Oh so if it is clear then you must have the evidence. Cannot see any. Dismissed


speak english.
Yeah right. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.


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



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   


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.

Ok, I am starting to see why everyone has been confused here. Yes, things made by humans are not natural, they are artificial. That has nothing to do with the actions or processes performed by humans, it is merely because the words natural and artificial exist to define things as man made, or not man made. However it is illogical to believe that those definitions have any bearing on your concept of extra-planar humans. "They" (by which I assume you mean the good scholars at Merriam-Webster) defined those words long before you developed your idea and it is impossible for them to ascribe those definitions to your idea, knowingly or not.



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.

Here I agree, again, because that is what the words natural and artificial mean. However, you are saying that although the process and product may be identical, there is an inherent difference difference because the word used to describe them is different. This is not so.
To illustrate, you are saying that because the things humans do are artifical they are not from around here. However, you also say that many animals are not from around here either, even though the things they do are natural. Therefore, natural and artifical have no bearing on a species' suitability on for this planet.




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.

I provided an example of a wolf surviving better on non-target food than on target food. This leaves two options:
1) You are mistaken, and it is possible for non target foods to be have value equal to or greater than target foods.
2) I am mistaken, and deer/moose are not a wolf's target food. In this case, it means that wolves have been reproducing, migrating, and surviving handily on non target foods for tens of thousands of years. If a species can function fully on non target foods, it effectively invalidates the concept.



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.

The crux of the issue here is that you are introducing a new concept, target food, and must show us why this is necessary. Then you say "we are doing just fine now, but this would make it better in some way I don't know." There is no evidence that suggests that all animals have one food that provides all their nutritional needs. Some animals do. The problem is that the ones that don't survive just as well as the ones that do. This renders the concept redundant. Try to imagine what the world would be like if everything is just as it is now, except that nothing is eating its target food and is just getting by on food that wasn't orginially intended for them. Then explain to me how that world is different from the world as we know it.



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.

You are saying that the earth is screwed up now, ostensibly because of the unnatural effect of humans. In the next sentence, you point out that the planet has been screwed up worse five times before, without any humans. Death and extinction are completely natural. listverse.com... I particularly like this quote:


There are about 8 million species alive today, meaning that even according to the most pessimistic estimates, we have obliterated 0.01% of all animal life. Although this is nothing to be proud of, it is infinitesimal when compared to the gargantuan extinctions nature herself casually puts forward.

Have things on this planet ever been in a "correct balance?" If so, when? If we wipe out all life on the planet, we would still have inflicted a fraction of the extinctions that have occured naturally.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Who said you was?
I don't understand your actions in this. It's as though your saying that ANYONE on ATS couldn't possibly be smart enough to create their own definitions.




All you have done is demonstrate your dishonesty. You admit to cherry picking what suits you yet you supposedly quoted from an external source that for the third time of asking you are refusing to supply. I say refusing because you have shown you know how and why but now you don’t. Your dishonest reply is dismissed
I quoted the link for natural, and as far as target food or redundant adaptation its like your saying because I wrote them, there is no way they can ever become definitions. What a sad day it is to see us deevolving with this attituide.




Only when you supply the source and you have not three times.
I have, but you ignore it in an attempt to void it.

Here is the link AGAIN.

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=_3X3T-PbKIKdqQGzg4GLCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=3ddc6ee 7f452a242&biw=1115&bih=541




Funny. No logical argument No supporting evidence. Looks like your opinion again. No comment
Ya because there is nothing logical about a species eating correctly is there.

Your just mad because it obviously slams evolution because it proves we must have intended food, and it makes total sense.




So the guy you like because he has a brain who explained how a wolf in a rescue centre live a far longer and healthier life than his wild counterparts when fed on pork and you go on about dogs that were never mentioned. You just cannot answer a straight question can you? You are even too dishonest to be a politician.
No you missed his whole point. He was asking how it is possible that both are not suppose to be scavengers, when the wolf was able to live longer on pig food. It's because neither are target food.




Really? You claim to know more about the bible than religious scholars. More about evolution than scientists, so much more in fact that just your opinion overrules all the hard work, evidence and observations for over 150 years. The truth is you have no answers at all. Dismissed
But there hasn't been any work that conclusivly proven evolution to exist as your clamining it to.




Explain why you think lions whether they have been created or evolved are not 'meant' to be predators
I never said I knew for a fact that they aren't suppose to be predators. What I said was anytime that a species displays such despteration to get food, its suspicious enough to warrent a closer look.




Show any evidence? Nope. You struggle with the truth in every reply and this one is no different unfortunately with you, your dishonesty always wins the day.
Nope I don't think there is any struggle proving that lice hitch rides on people and spread from person to person. I think thats pretty clear.




For gods sake get a spell checker. Everyone agreed with me not that it makes any difference. You never had any opposing argument and just dismissed. You lost. In fact you were thrashed. Get over it.
No one is able to still come up with target food for humans, but I'm trashed, OK.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   


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 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?

That's a good question. I have a better question: How did we? Humans have been on this planet for tens of thousands of years. How did they survive here before milk, and cheese, and boats? How do those primitve tribes living to this day in the amazon get by without a dairy farm? Old age is largely irrelevant in nature, because the vast majority of animals don't live to old age and the ones that do do not significantly contribute to the species. Even ant eaters. www.sandiegozoo.org... Giant Ant Eaters live longer in captivity than in nature eating unnatural processed food that still provides them with nutrients they need. Even if anteaters were provided with a target food, we made a better one.




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.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are assuming without evidence that just because an anteater is extremely specialized, all animals including humans must also be extreme specialists. Given how well nature's many generalists survive there is no reason to believe this. Our hands are meant to flexible, that is their point. With our hands we can pick fruit, dig, swim, climb, hunt, farm, and make food for ant eaters thats just as good if not better than ants. The purpose of humans (philosphical musings not withstandig), as with other animals, is to survive and propogate lest we would cease to exist. We are already wildly good at this. You say that somewhere there is a lifestyle that suits us (but you don't know what it would be) when our hunter/gatherer lifestyle suited us just fine. You are failing to provide an alternative to an already functional lifestyle, and that is why people don't believe you.




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.

Populations evolve. There is no reason our population would have had to drop below ten thousand individuals, and the fact that it does not appear to have presents no problem in evolution. I don't see the issue here. It is theoretically possible we were moved here, but there is no physical evidence to support it.

You said:


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.

In response to me saying: "You are wrong. While many species of parasites are not picky, many are. Example:"
Crab lice are not the only human specific parasite, I did not say they were. There are over 1000 species that prey on humans, (humaworm.com...) and well over 100 of those are specific only to humans. Of those human specific parasites, many are obligate parasites of mulitple creatures, which is to say that during their life cycle they must pass through multiple organisms.
As an example, there is a liver fluke which live southeast asia which as an adult preys on humans. It lays its eggs in the our intestines and they pass out of us in our feces. The eggs in the feces are consumed by a particular species of snail, and hatch inside the snail becoming larvae. The larvae waits in snail until the snail is eaten by a grazing mammal, such as a cow or pig. When the cow or pig is eaten by a human the larvae makes its way to human's liver and forms its adult stage, whereupon it begins to reproduce. If we were brought here, the fluke, snail, and mammals were too, because the fluke can't survive without each stage in its life cycle being completed. At the same time, those snails are host to parasites which in turn prey on other animals later. There are more parasitic organisms on earth than there are straight herbivores or carnivores, and they form a vast web of interdependencies which humans are as much a part of as any other animal. I strongly recommend you research parasitology (try this book for starters: www.amazon.com...) and consider its implications in nature.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





Ok, I am starting to see why everyone has been confused here. Yes, things made by humans are not natural, they are artificial. That has nothing to do with the actions or processes performed by humans, it is merely because the words natural and artificial exist to define things as man made, or not man made. However it is illogical to believe that those definitions have any bearing on your concept of extra-planar humans. "They" (by which I assume you mean the good scholars at Merriam-Webster) defined those words long before you developed your idea and it is impossible for them to ascribe those definitions to your idea, knowingly or not
All the more reason that I'm correct. There is no way I could have predicted the future. Anyhow, there is an underlying message here, where we have seperated ourselves from the rest of the life on this planet. And we do it everyday as well.

We live in buildings which isolate us from the enviroment. We do everything we can to survive in an enviroment that wasn't meant for us is the point. But we have been to blind to whats obvious. No there is no way they could have had this in mind when they wrote the definition but then I ask WHY would they ever choose to sepearate us to begin with? It is because our presence on this planet has had a very damaging effect on this planet, and we know this. We are currently in our 6th largest extinction. This planet is way out of balance, and our presence is a major contributor to that.




Here I agree, again, because that is what the words natural and artificial mean. However, you are saying that although the process and product may be identical, there is an inherent difference difference because the word used to describe them is different. This is not so.
To illustrate, you are saying that because the things humans do are artifical they are not from around here. However, you also say that many animals are not from around here either, even though the things they do are natural. Therefore, natural and artifical have no bearing on a species' suitability on for this planet.
That is becasue we blindly accept whats on this planet as being correct and pristine. The fact is that its not. The planet is out of balance and many extinctions are going on. Extinctions are NOT natural, and not normal. However because we don't know any better we teach ourselves that they are natural and normal. They aren't.




I provided an example of a wolf surviving better on non-target food than on target food. This leaves two options:
1) You are mistaken, and it is possible for non target foods to be have value equal to or greater than target foods.
2) I am mistaken, and deer/moose are not a wolf's target food. In this case, it means that wolves have been reproducing, migrating, and surviving handily on non target foods for tens of thousands of years. If a species can function fully on non target foods, it effectively invalidates the concept.
A target food would be easier for a wolf to obtain, and still much better for him. It's just simply possible that its not here. Which is the case for dogs as well, notice how we actually make food for them.

You can function without target food, but your not going to function as well, and its going to be more of an effort to get what your trying to get. All in all, just more work and less benefit. In essence we are suffering.




The crux of the issue here is that you are introducing a new concept, target food, and must show us why this is necessary. Then you say "we are doing just fine now, but this would make it better in some way I don't know." There is no evidence that suggests that all animals have one food that provides all their nutritional needs. Some animals do. The problem is that the ones that don't survive just as well as the ones that do. This renders the concept redundant. Try to imagine what the world would be like if everything is just as it is now, except that nothing is eating its target food and is just getting by on food that wasn't orginially intended for them. Then explain to me how that world is different from the world as we know it.
Wll we are doing fine in a sense, but we are still struggeling in dealing with the limitations that we have.

Walk into a super suppliement store and see whats available then tell yourself that they offer them all for no reason. They are filling a void, and every person has many voids as what we need is not here.




Have things on this planet ever been in a "correct balance?" If so, when? If we wipe out all life on the planet, we would still have inflicted a fraction of the extinctions that have occured naturally.
Thats a good questio and the answer would be yes. At one time this planet was in balance. All planets are suppose to be in balance...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mastermindkar
 





Have things on this planet ever been in a "correct balance?" If so, when? If we wipe out all life on the planet, we would still have inflicted a fraction of the extinctions that have occured naturally.


Every planet is suppose to be in a good balance. When you see extinctions, its a real good indication that things are really screwed up. At one time long ago, earth was in balance, and it was probably way back when the diansours roamed the earth. It's open for debate I guess but it would appear that someone has eraticated a lot of life on this planet for unknown reasons, just to colonize this planet. Thats what it looks like.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't understand your actions in this. It's as though your saying that ANYONE on ATS couldn't possibly be smart enough to create their own definitions.
So you ignored the post from mindkar.
You cannot give a definition for a word already defined such as natural. To think that you can means you are more foolish and poorly educated than you appear.


I quoted the link for natural,
Don’t play that game with me. You never supplied the link you supposedly quoted from. You have demonstrated that you know full well how to do it and why.


and as far as target food or redundant adaptation its like your saying because I wrote them, there is no way they can ever become definitions.
More dishonesty from old wooden headed Pinocchio. You were asked many times to supply the definitions. You refused. You were invited to debate their use. You refused. You had your chances, in fact excessive chances but you chose to be dishonest even pretending you did not make them up. Your terms are not accepted on this thread.



What a sad day it is to see us deevolving with this attituide.
Sadder still to see how deceitful you are prepared to be to defend your homemade religion to people who don’t give a hoot about it. Never will.


I have, but you ignore it in an attempt to void it.
Ah so you have forgotten how to link again. Supplied a link to google again. So you lied about quoting from the link. You cherry picked from it at best. So supplying a link to google is failing 4 times. Pathetic Pinocchio.


No you missed his whole point. He was asking how it is possible that both are not suppose to be scavengers, when the wolf was able to live longer on pig food. It's because neither are target food.
You just cannot read. You need help pal, there is something seriously wrong.


I never said I knew for a fact that they aren't suppose to be predators. What I said was anytime that a species displays such despteration to get food, its suspicious enough to warrent a closer look.
You never answered again. You must have more than just your opinion on why you think a lion whether created or evolved are 'not' meant to be predators.


Nope I don't think there is any struggle proving that lice hitch rides on people and spread from person to person. I think thats pretty clear.
No one mentioned lice. We were talking about the tape worm not you.


No one is able to still come up with target food for humans, but I'm trashed, OK.
No one has come up with a unicorn either because its a nonsense just like your term. Telling me to show you a target food to prove you wrong is like asking me to provide a unicorn to show they do not exist.

You are completely gone mate. You need to go get some help and you will not get it here




top topics



 
31
<< 444  445  446    448  449  450 >>

log in

join