Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish


He's just gonna ignore it like all the other proof that debunked his laughable mini-religion

Tooth is turning from being simply ignorant and seemingly uneducated to being a blatant liar...

reply to post by itsthetooth


dis·hon·est /disˈänist/

1. Behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way.
2. Intended to mislead or cheat.

reply to post by MrXYZ

OMG tooth, I don't think you realize what a fool you make yourself in this thread

Yes, both sharks and humans have more than one food source, and that's 100% NATURAL. Believe it or not, beings will often have a choice of more than one food source

Which is fine, but your missing some of the criteria.

reply to post by flyingfish

YES YOU HAVE...WHY ARE YOU BEING SO DISHONEST?

This will be the forth time posting this information! Good gawd how many times do I need to post this? This data is freely available without passwords.

ENTIRE GENOME OF EXTINCT HUMAN DECODED FROM FOSSIL

Also...

DNA EVIDENCE OF ANCIENT INTERBREEDING

I would seriously look at and question the criteria that determins this. And I'll retract that fossils can't determine relationship, they could, and thats really a dead on answer. DNA can be extracted from the fossils. The problem is what are considering to prove relation. If they are using the same idea that rats share 70% of the same DNA with humans, so that must prove relation, I'm going to say no. If they are looking at DNA like in comparison to apes and realize we share 97%, again its all speculation based on that.

What I'm saying is just becaue we share DNA with other things doesn't prove we are related.

reply to post by MrXYZ

He's just gonna ignore it like all the other proof that debunked his laughable mini-religion

Tooth is turning from being simply ignorant and seemingly uneducated to being a blatant liar...

I haven't lied about anything, and I like how you totally ignored my reply about the prodigious savant. That to me is dishonesty

reply to post by flyingfish


in·cred·u·lous/inˈkrejələs/Adjective: (of a person or their manner) Unwilling or unable to believe something: "an incredulous gasp".


Synonyms: mistrustful - unbelieving - sceptical - distrustful

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

PLEASE read the basic Wiki article about evolution, because you STILL don't understand the theory

New species don't just evolve from one generation to the next and require a completely different food source! It's a GRADUAL change during which the continue to eat whatever food they eat. Evolution takes a long time in most species. So there is no such thing as "target food" as you define it....like I said, YOU MADE IT UP

Different species don't eat the same food as another, thats a crock, that would mean they are the same species.

Really? I mean Really?

So a cat that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight is the same species as an owl that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight according to you.

I have got a bit of information for you. One is a bird the other is a cat. Can you guess which is which?

reply to post by itsthetooth

So a prodigious savant has no disability, so your understanding is incorrect. Again, savants DONT have to have a disibility. So again, I am correct, the brain is capable of working better, and a prodigious savant proves it.

No bull here, just stomping out illiteracy. The sad part is that I allready explained this. Prodigious Savants prove that our brains are NOT working to their best capacity.

While you are stomping out illiteracy it would help if you spelt ‘disability’ and ‘already’ correctly.

Spell Checker Sp - ell Ch -ecker

reply to post by itsthetooth

Of course it does, not that the food decides, but that each species requires a different diet. You are what you eat.

Ah I see now. So an ant eater is an ant. A spider is a fly. Cows are grass. This is a whole new science. Absurdism.

And I pretty much agree with that except the part where failure of being able to breed may not prove to be a different species. So its false.

Very interesting. Can you supply any examples?

Well the food source doesn't determine the species, and the species doesn't determine the food source, its pre-determined which is why your wrong when you say that an evolving species will just eat the same food.

Well I never did . What predetermines the species and the food?

This would indicate that ALL species shall eat the same food which is false, at least if your going by evolution anyhow.

So which is not from here? The cat or the owl? The Pike, the Seal, the Penguin or the Fish Eagle? According to Absurdism one of these is eating the others predetermined food.

If an evolving species found himself having to eat the same food he ate as a prior species then he is surley headed for extinction.

Let me see. Evolution explains that evolution is small change over time, selected for by the environment. That if the change offers an advantage that gives an organism the edge. I would have thought those without that advantage would be, well at a disadvantage. So it would be those that would surely be headed for extinction as the ones with the advantage would out compete those that lack it.

So let us look at our closest ancestors. Oops they are extinct. Something is wrong here tooth, I assume it is you.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by flyingfish

 

He's just gonna ignore it like all the other proof that debunked his laughable mini-religion

Tooth is turning from being simply ignorant and seemingly uneducated to being a blatant liar...

edit on 11-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Nope. As we strip away the trolling tools he used to hide behind the underlying trait comes to the fore.

He has always been dishonest but at first we gave him the benefit of the doubt. That was our mistake.

reply to post by colin42

Really? I mean Really?

So a cat that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight is the same species as an owl that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight according to you.

I have got a bit of information for you. One is a bird the other is a cat. Can you guess which is which?

They don't have the exact same diet, its simular but not identical.

The other problem is that I'm referring to the consideration of target food, not just what they happend to find laying around or now have limited access to.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I would seriously look at and question the criteria that determins this.

The criteria to get this data published in The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology is beyond any criteria you have dreamed up for your pseudoscience fantasy world.

The problem is what are considering to prove relation.

Not a problem..
The Neanderthals contributed up to 4% of modern Eurasian genomes, while the Denisovans contributed roughly 4-6% of modern Melanesian genomes. That doesn't happen by holding hands.

If they are using the same idea that rats share 70% of the same DNA with humans, so that must prove relation, I'm going to say no.

You first need to know what DNA is..
Your statement proves your just pulling this out of your a##.

If they are looking at DNA like in comparison to apes and realize we share 97%, again its all speculation based on that.

It's more like 98% but the paper is not about apes it's about 'us' modern primates.
Your speculation is wrong, the DNA is shared with modern humans. Did you not read the paper?

reply to post by colin42

Ah I see now. So an ant eater is an ant. A spider is a fly. Cows are grass. This is a whole new science. Absurdism.

Absurdism no its called literalism.

And I pretty much agree with that except the part where failure of being able to breed may not prove to be a different species. So its false.

Very interesting. Can you supply any examples?

Ya sure, my next door neighbor and wife have been trying to have kids for over 15 years. He was concearned that they may never be able to produce, and come to find out he has a low sperm count. This turned out good as everyone was concearned that he evolved.

Well the food source doesn't determine the species, and the species doesn't determine the food source, its pre-determined which is why your wrong when you say that an evolving species will just eat the same food.

Well I never did . What predetermines the species and the food?

That is the one billion dollar question that we all would like to have an answer to. Evolution would have to have prior intelligence to make sure this all happend the way its suppose to. Creationists would be putting a heavy load on the idea as well. There is no easier or better answer, everything that we know at this point is wrong. There must be another option we don't know about, and may not have the smarts to comprehend.

So which is not from here? The cat or the owl? The Pike, the Seal, the Penguin or the Fish Eagle? According to Absurdism one of these is eating the others predetermined food.

I wouldn't be so quick to look at it like that, I never meant that each food source has a dedicated consumer, it is however something to look at. It could be a clue that someone has stepped off their menu and probably for extinction reasons.

Let me see. Evolution explains that evolution is small change over time, selected for by the environment. That if the change offers an advantage that gives an organism the edge. I would have thought those without that advantage would be, well at a disadvantage. So it would be those that would surely be headed for extinction as the ones with the advantage would out compete those that lack it.

So let us look at our closest ancestors. Oops they are extinct. Something is wrong here tooth, I assume it is you.

You need to look at this from a much simpler point of view.
First of all consider all life as we know it on planet earth, including all the life we don't know or understand. It's a hell of a lot of life. In fact when you take a breath there is even life in the air that your breathing in. I'm probably not exaggerating when I say that every square inch of this planet has hundreds of different life. Now consider both avenues of creation and evolution. If you think god is that big creator of everything, one thing is for sure, he sure in the hell loved life, this guy must have been a fanatic of life. If you want to believe there is more than one creator, then bringing all of us together is obviously to display a love of life. There is no question the creator(s) love life.
Now if you want to believe that evolution is our creator, thats ok too, the bottom line is, there is way to much life on this planet to ignore the fact that there is a driving force that is very strong, has managed to program a process that sets the stage for evolution and unlimited life. There is just to much of it here to ignore it.

Either way you look at this, no matter what your belief is, we do agree on one thing, life is held in the upmost importance and is of the highest priority to what ever is causing all of this.

Now you canT believe that its an evolution crapshoot because your basically saying the process isn't sure of what its doing, and we were all made by accident. Looking at humans alone thats a pretty harsh statement to believe. I don't think there is any way in hell that life can be created by accident. If you want to believe in creation you have another problem, how in the hell did all this life get made, were they made one by one. If so, one thing is for sure, there is enough time in the cosmos history to allow for this to be possible.

You also can't just believe that a creator is going around making random species, there seems to be some patterns and fluidity with life in general. I'm not going to go into details as we are missing some of that here from extinctions. The patterns break up the idea of evolution...

reply to post by colin42

Let me see. Evolution explains that evolution is small change over time, selected for by the environment. That if the change offers an advantage that gives an organism the edge. I would have thought those without that advantage would be, well at a disadvantage. So it would be those that would surely be headed for extinction as the ones with the advantage would out compete those that lack it.

So let us look at our closest ancestors. Oops they are extinct. Something is wrong here tooth, I assume it is you.

The patterns which are consistant break up the idea of evolution. We never see species, at least not groups of them, with three or four heads, which would be something that evolution would offer, should offer. There is to much conformity and the patterns suggest intelligence is behind the work. Even if you want to believe in evolution, and lets say for the sake of arguement that it is real, who made the process? It looks more and more like intelligence is behind both possibilities that we are able to see at this time.

If I'm correct about target food, which I'm sure I am, as everything must have food to eat, who insured that every species has food? Keeping in mind some species here doesn't have target food because the planet is out of balance, but assuming it were in balance, and things were on track, someone had to make all this. If it was just a process, like evolution its a tad to smart to dismiss as a crap shoot, who made the process.

You can't believe that speices are meant to die in extinction. You have to remember that there is just a little (understatement) to much emphasis on the idea of life, your are wrong for sure. To think that life has no bearing on a planet that wont allow you to sneeze without hitting a hundered of them, your seriously missing the mark. There is so much importance placed on life here that we are tripping over it, literaly. There is nothing that proves that is a reason to waste it.

The patterns which are consistant break up the idea of evolution. We never see species, at least not groups of them, with three or four heads, which would be something that evolution would offer, should offer.

Do you know how ignorant this statement is? of course not, otherwise you would not have written it.
Try putting on your big boy pants we are talking about real science, not comic book characters.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

in·cred·u·lous/inˈkrejələs/Adjective: (of a person or their manner) Unwilling or unable to believe something: "an incredulous gasp".


Synonyms: mistrustful - unbelieving - sceptical - distrustful

mythomaniac mytho·mani·ac (-k) n.

Psychiatry. an abnormal propensity to lie, exaggerate, or twist the truth.
A person deluded, believing in a world which they created, where anything no matter how idiotic or absurd, ...

In fact when you take a breath there is even life in the air that your breathing in. I'm probably not exaggerating when I say that every square inch of this planet has hundreds of different life.

This is pure gold right here. It might just be signature worthy.

Originally posted by itsthetooth

Now you canT believe that its an evolution crapshoot because your basically saying the process isn't sure of what its doing, and we were all made by accident. Looking at humans alone thats a pretty harsh statement to believe. I don't think there is any way in hell that life can be created by accident.

I love the "but things are so pretty" view. I'm sure itsthetooth is a nice person, but in terms of being convinced of how things actually work (obviously evolution, and gravity), he/she is a lost cause.

And Poe's Law appears to apply here, too. (Which is just delicious irony to the few in the abiogenesis thread who wish to invoke "Borel's Law" to strengthen their arguments)

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Really? I mean Really?

So a cat that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight is the same species as an owl that eats birds, small mammals, is a nocturnal hunter and has acute hearing and keen night sight according to you.

I have got a bit of information for you. One is a bird the other is a cat. Can you guess which is which?

They don't have the exact same diet, its simular but not identical.

The other problem is that I'm referring to the consideration of target food, not just what they happend to find laying around or now have limited access to.

Let me see what part of this you don’t understand. YOU ....... NEED ........ TO ........ SUPPLY ........... MORE ............ THAN ........... YOUR ............ OPINION.

Ants are the staple of may animals. Fish the diet of many others and grass to other large and diverse groups. Based on your utter brain dead nonsense this means that the 'intended food' is being eaten by more than just one organism.

Explain your claim with evidence that you base this on.

1. The Sea Lion eats fish and has obviously evolved to be very good predator of fish and is a mammal.
2. To Penguin eats fish and has obviously evolved to be a very good hunter of fish and is a bird
3. A Bull Shark is a top predator of fish and is evolved to be very good at it.

There are countless thousands of animals that are more than suited to eat the food that constitutes their staple food source. So now your absurdity based nonsense needs to be able to explain this with more than just your ignorance from which it sprang.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Absurdism no its called literalism.

Literalism So you are a religious fundamentalist.

That aside. You base your absurd fantasy purely on your ignorance of what you guess the world around you is without the need for evidence, in fact in most cases despite the evidence.

Calling your ignorance based fantasy Absurdism is a very polite way of describing your homemade religion. More reading Absurdist fiction