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: 491
31
<< 488  489  490    492  493  494 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
“He who does not see nature everywhere sees her nowhere.”
en.wikipedia.org...
FROM
wolfenmann.com...
In other words we call a nest natural and a car unnatural. Why?! One is bird made and the other man-made, that is all.

edit on 21-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Google searches are not scientific research and do not prove your fantasy concept. We know animal's diets because WE STUDY THEM, not because target food exists and shows who's from earth and who's not. Red herring.
True except the fact that their diets aren't always changing, which is why we are able to study them, therefore I'm correct.




Speciation has been witnessed in a lab. Already posted it.
No what you posted was slight variations that occured, but you always ended up with the same species.




Genetic mutations have been witnessed and linked to morphological changes. It doesn't matter if a disease can effect genes. Technically, that disease would be causing genetic mutations, which causes evolution, just like cosmic radiation can cause genetic mutations. It doesn't matter what causes the change in genes.
You might have changes, but they always remain the same species.




The change happens, and natural selection sorts it out. Nobody has ever claimed that evolution doesn't have causes. Evolution is just a word that describes these mutations and creatures adapting to them. It's not some external magical process.
Your never going to convince anyone that a process responsible for creating over a billion species did it all on accident. Imagine me slapping you in the face a billion times and then saying oops, it was just an accident. Would you buy it?




Intervention / creationism: Now THAT'S what's NEVER been witnessed and has no objective evidence behind. Evolution has and does.
Actually it has, not only has it been witnessed but it was also documented. You should read genesis.




You named a total of 3 species that have target food. It proves absolutely nothing since humans can eat naturally and healthily here on earth.
Humans cannont eat healty naturaly, which is why we have to process our own food and fortify and use supplements. Your wrong again.




That doesn't prove target food exists.
So from that statement I'm assuming your prepared to offer a complete explanation on why species eat the same diet as a whole, in addition to how this direction is shared amongst the species. This should be real good. I'm all ears (:.




Sorry. The fact that we study animals and observe their diets, proves that we study and observe their diets. Not that target food is real as it applies to almost none of them.
It's not the fact that we study animals and observe their diets, its the fact that there is an element of direction so that they all know what to eat and what not to eat, and eat the same things amongst the species.




Blatant lie. Most diets in the wild change monthly.
Give just one example, I'm all ears.




Third that diet is always a very nutritious one for that consumer, and has natural processes.

Also can apply to humans. Besides you are wrong. Most animals don't worry about eating nutrients, they eat what they can to survive. Creatures that eat one type of food exclusively are extremely rare. Point #1, still not proven.
Well I never said that target food is always singular. Your forgetting that if your correct, why do we have dieticians, why do we have so much sickness and disease related to the food we eat, why are we so desperate to geneticly modify our food to make it more nutritious, Why do we have super supplement stores? Obviously all prove you to be VERY WRONG. God gods sake we don't even have a natural supply for calcium that meets our needs. Can you be this blind?




I asked you to prove it, not repeat your original claim. If you have proof, post it. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth like I asked. Point #2, still not proven.
Because if you have ruled out extinctions, there is literally no other excuse. We are totally unaware of any highly nutritious food that has ever slipped from our grasp. Granted there seems to be millions of years where we never kept records, and you look at it like we were a different species, I look at it like we weren't here.




And the proof of that is where? Point #3, still unproven. Anteaters eat ants rather than trees because ants rather than trees, will sustain them, not because they are programmed. Plus they taste and smell good to the ant eaters.

My 3 points that I have asked you to prove, have still not been addressed. You are wrong. There's no way around it. If you have proof, post it. Stop beating around the bush and talking in circles.
Someone still had to program those taste buds, what tastes good to one species doesn't to another, there is still intelligent direction amongst all species. Even if you believe that somehow evolution is responsible for this pro



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
“True except the fact that their diets aren't always changing, which is why we are able to study them, therefore I'm correct.”
Itsthetooth
Actually, that proves that you are incorrect!



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Which part of that contains the scientific references? I'm expecting nothing less at this point. I counted at least 3 blatant lies along with the rest of the nonsense you have already repeated multiple times. Evidence or it didn't happen.
edit on 21-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





And the proof of that is where? Point #3, still unproven. Anteaters eat ants rather than trees because ants rather than trees, will sustain them, not because they are programmed. Plus they taste and smell good to the ant eaters.

My 3 points that I have asked you to prove, have still not been addressed. You are wrong. There's no way around it. If you have proof, post it. Stop beating around the bush and talking in circles.
Even if you believe that evolution is responsible for this programming, its still intelligent. There is no way evolution could think about what food attraction to program into a species without knowing whether or not its even available.




Yes it would be natural, technically, although probably silly.
Silly? So its silly to drink a cats milk but not a cows milk right?



But again, nothing is ever "meant" for anything.
If that were true we wouldn't have entire species eating the same healthy food, as though it were meant for them.



You don't understand the basics of survival in nature.
If your willing to drink milk from a cat, your probably right.




It's not about what creatures are "meant" to eat. It's about what they CAN eat.
If that were true, we would see a variation of different foods being eaten by the same species, and we don't, they eat the same things as though they are a group and know what they are suppose to eat.




If they survive from a certain food, even if its not the best nutrient-wise, the creature will eventually adapt to it.
If this were true, humans wouldn't have all of the sickness and disease, and super supplements, as well as all the fortifying we do to our food. So your obviously wrong again.

yahoo answers




Milk is natural, regardless of who eats or drinks it.
If this were true, we would see species everywhere nursing out of their own species.

We dont, so your obviously wrong again. And don't send me a picture of one domesticated animal sucking off someone elses teat, its because they are domesticated that it happens.




Eating a grasshopper = natural. Eating a turtle or fish (they don't produce milk btw LOL) IS NATURAL. Eating ANYTHING IN NATURE is natural.
But you never see one species drinking milk from another, as a normal thing.

Only humans do it, so its natural right?




I'll add this as point #4 that you can't prove. Prove that any given food was INTENDED for a species to eat. Claiming drinking milk is not natural is the same as claiming eating a banana is not natural. A banana was intended to spread banana tree seeds, not to be food for humans. You could say that for ANYTHING.
When a species has a propensity to eat certain things, its natural. Man has no instincts when it comes to food. Did you not have to learn that when food is left out of the fridge for a long time, it goes bad, its because its not the natural process for your food otherwise you woudln't have needed direction. Did no one ever explain to you that you need to cook pork, otherwise you could get parasites? Its obviously not a natural process. Animals don't need direction, why do humans? We are smarter then they are, so why do we need so much instruction? Its because we are out of our element, and they aren't.




Target food isn't attacking evolution. You are. You have been caught lying several times, and even made the thread called "target food proves evolution wrong" with no proof posted. You are clearly attacking evolution, but aren't giving any sources or credible evidence to support your ridiculous claims.

So to review here are the 4 points you must prove:

1. Prove that target food exists
2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth
3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of the theory of evolution rather than the scientific studies
4. Prove that any food was ever consciously intended to be consumed by something else.

Not a single one has been backed by evidence by Tooth, despite multiple requests. We know your personal opinion and your closet creationism. Please post evidence now.
The fact that species know what to eat, says it all. There is no way around the fact that there is intelligent direction either in the design of the species, or in the daily direction. Either way there is intelligent direction, and evolution makes no claim about this intelligence being part of its theory.
The reason why humans don't have any direction other than from each other is because we are out of our element.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 





evolution was created by the same thing that created everything else. look at it like a seed when the conditions are right it turns into something else sometime the seeds are bad and they dont change, or can't change resulting in extinction its survival of the fittest the world is always changing and so does all the species who occupie it so evolution is correct in a certian sence but its better off called adaption.

i dont want to believe i evolved from a monkey i want to believe i evolved from a T-rex
Well that is actually the claim that evolution makes about adaptation, in that it is part of evolution, but it's not.

Evolution means changes on a molecular level, adaptation is an ability like eye sight or hearing. The fact is they have nothing to do with each other. Adaptation is the only reason we have managed to exist on this planet, which only means that we failed to evolve.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Proof needs evidence. You have none evident by the fact you have never produced any.

Is your thread going so badly for you that you intend to take your revenge and plague this thread for your failure to prove evolution with a mythical 'target food'? Go back there and do that.

If you intend to post here then the topic to discuss is diversity without referring to evolution (see the OP) Do that.
The fact that we have a lot of species that appear to be directed by something that tells them what they are supposed to be eating, is proof enough. It's proof that either evoltuion has intelligence in it, or that evolution is a sham like I have been saying all along.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





So according to you ants are not natural

Proves my point that both ants and humans farm both crops and livestock so those actions are both either Natural on not Natural. Which is it?
Humans were not specifically designed with the idea of farming, unlike the ants, they have the ability because they were designed for that.

There is nothing about us aside from our mind, that gives us the ability to farm animals. The fact that we do it is just another form of adaptation, We either farm or we die, and this is a fact. Just because we were placed into this situation and as a result have to play ball, does not mean its what was meant for us.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Proof needs evidence. You have none evident by the fact you have never produced any.

Is your thread going so badly for you that you intend to take your revenge and plague this thread for your failure to prove evolution with a mythical 'target food'? Go back there and do that.

If you intend to post here then the topic to discuss is diversity without referring to evolution (see the OP) Do that.
The fact that we have a lot of species that appear to be directed by something that tells them what they are supposed to be eating, is proof enough. It's proof that either evoltuion has intelligence in it, or that evolution is a sham like I have been saying all along.
Learn how to use English. It is not a fact if it appears to do something it is your opinion.

Learn what proof is. What you have written is all just your opinion.

REJECTED




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Humans were not specifically designed with the idea of farming, unlike the ants, they have the ability because they were designed for that.
The Ant

The family Formicidae belongs to the order Hymenoptera, which also includes sawflies, bees, and wasps. Ants evolved from a lineage within the vespoid wasps. Fossil evidence indicates that ants were present in the Late Jurassic, 150 million years ago.[16] After the rise of flowering plants about 100 million years ago they diversified and assumed ecological dominance around 60 million years ago.[17][18][19] In 1966, E. O. Wilson and his colleagues identified the fossil remains of an ant (Sphecomyrma freyi) that lived in the Cretaceous period. The specimen, trapped in amber dating back to more than 80 million years ago, has features of both ants and wasps
I have the evidence that says your opinion is wrong.

Show the evidence that backs up your opinion. Show evidence for design.


There is nothing about us aside from our mind, that gives us the ability to farm animals.
You wrote about ANTS


I skimmed through it, its a lot of material. They are smart as hell for sure, and very innovative.
So what you just wrote applies to them as well. So you have not answered my question again.

'Proves my point that both ants and humans farm both crops and livestock so those actions are both either Natural on not Natural. Which is it?'


The fact that we do it is just another form of adaptation, We either farm or we die, and this is a fact.
And the same is true for ants. See above. In fact it applies more to ants as we can go back to the hunter gatherer life style all be it with a lower population. The ants that farm could not. Again your fact is not a fact it is your opinion.


Just because we were placed into this situation and as a result have to play ball, does not mean its what was meant for us.
More unsubstantiated waffle. I see you offer no proof we were placed here. So it did not happen.

As usual you reply with your opinion with nothing to back up that opinion whilst never answering the questions asked of you

REJECTED. NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR SUPPORT



edit on 21-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your never going to convince anyone that a process responsible for creating over a billion species did it all on accident.
He has never claimed it happens by accident. Neither has anyone else. That is your fake claim and is proof you do not have a clue what evolution describes even after almost 500 pages in this thread alone.

As you have been told a million times. The environment selects for advantage so there is nothing accidental about it.

As for the rest of your post, every part of it is your opinion and not one piece of evidence. I'll leave it to Barcs to dismiss it as more of the unsubstantiated rubbish you post.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Another blatant lie. Humans have more connections to this planet, than target food does. You have been given several things that links us to this planet, but you instantly dismiss them all.
I see, so in other words as far as your concearned, its just a giant coincidence that species always eat the same food.

I guess the fact that the anteater has specieal ears to hear the ants through the ground is just another coincidence, and fact that he has a special snout for being able to smell the ants is just yet another coincidence, and the fact that he has perfect claws for tearing up ant hills, is just yet another coincidence, and the fact that he has a special sticky tounge for reaching into far holes to grab ants, is all just another coincidence.
.

Come on man, if all species eat the same food, someone or something is guiding them to do so. If its evolution, then evolution is backed with intelligence because there is no way it could evolve a species and inform it of what it should at, without first knowing that the food is even available. It's totally backed with some type of intelligence.

If you want to believe a creator did all this, well thats a little easier to understand, but just adds to the complexity of how things work together.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have the evidence that says your opinion is wrong.

Show the evidence that backs up your opinion. Show evidence for design.
There are many things that can prove creation. The best perhaps, is flagellum. There is no way that you will ever convince anyone that gears and sprockets evolved. And your going to look pretty stupid trying at that. The start of life seems to only be possible from the perspective of a creator. The complex inner workings of species and food, can only be explained by a creator, having prior knowledge of the food thats available.

We even have documentation of creation. But I guess that doesn't count either right?




So what you just wrote applies to them as well. So you have not answered my question again.

'Proves my point that both ants and humans farm both crops and livestock so those actions are both either Natural on not Natural. Which is it?'
Perhaps this is a better way of explaining this so you understand. There are abilitys then there are instincts. An instinct would guide something when it is its natural element. An ability can do many things. Seeing is an ability, hearing is an ability, and being able to adapt is an ability as well.

Your confusing our ability to adapt with what other species do naturaly. Our ability to adapt wasn't specifically made so that we could farm cattle, it wasn't specifically made so that we could mimic what other species here on earth do, we just so happen to use it for that.

Now if I were wrong, our bodys would be equipped with SPECIFIC tools that would make farming very easy for us.
The fact is its not easy for humans to farm.
We have to first build an enclosure to house the animal.
We then have to set up the enviroment so that it is somwhat suited to his taste, including the terrain.
We have to feed, water, and exercise the animal to make sure he stays healthy.
We have to breed the animal to make sure that our stock doesn't dissapear.
We have to protect the animal from any local predators that might be around.
If it were a cow, it would have to be milked frequently.

Now compare this to what ants do with the aphid. The use their existing quarters, and basically kidnapp and protect the aphid from harm, and milk him. The fact that they are able to use the same quarters is an obvious sign that its natural.
There is no comparison by all of the things we have to go through.




The fact that we do it is just another form of adaptation, We either farm or we die, and this is a fact.

And the same is true for ants. See above. In fact it applies more to ants as we can go back to the hunter gatherer life style all be it with a lower population. The ants that farm could not. Again your fact is not a fact it is your opinion.
If we raised dairy cows in the same homes we sleep in I would agree with you, but your wrong. We have to totally build the farm. Ants use thier existing quarters.




More unsubstantiated waffle. I see you offer no proof we were placed here. So it did not happen.

As usual you reply with your opinion with nothing to back up that opinion whilst never answering the questions asked of you

REJECTED. NO EVIDENCE IN YOUR SUPPORT
Well Pye claims evidence that we were placed here based on tampering with our genetics. Von daniken claims we are not from here understanding his views pulled out of the bible. Sitchen believes we were placed here according to summerian tablets, and when I read the bible, its obvious we were placed here.
Now honeslty, do you believe that all the people can be wrong, people that don't even know each other but all agree on the same thing?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Your never going to convince anyone that a process responsible for creating over a billion species did it all on accident.

He has never claimed it happens by accident. Neither has anyone else.
I'm glad your finally admitting that evolution is a creator.




That is your fake claim and is proof you do not have a clue what evolution describes even after almost 500 pages in this thread alone.
Oh come on, I was the one that had to teach you that evolution is obviously a creator.


cre·a·tor/krēˈātər/Noun: 1.A person or thing that brings something into existence.
2.Used as a name for God.



Synonyms: maker - originator - author - founder

creator

So as you can see, a creator can be a thing, like evolution, it doesn't have to be god as you know it, or it can also be a replacement for god wihich is the other part, that I believe you are also using.




As you have been told a million times. The environment selects for advantage so there is nothing accidental about it.
Evolution is not predictable. If you were correct, they would have identified the motivation a long time ago. If your going to claim that everything is enviroment selected, then I want to know how a process like evolution could pre program food choices into a species, without knowing what choices are available. There is just no way. There has to be thought, in this transaction, and there has to be intelligence that has prior knowledge of the menu.




As for the rest of your post, every part of it is your opinion and not one piece of evidence. I'll leave it to Barcs to dismiss it as more of the unsubstantiated rubbish you post.
Your waddeling in your pity because you know I'm right. There is no way a species could know what its suppose to eat, unless there was intelligence behind it. Your silence about the subject and simply claiming that its not true, tells it all.
Are you silent because you know I'm right, or are you silent just because you don't have the answer, either way, I'm right and you know it.
Even if you were god, you couldn't tell a species what its supposed to eat, without knowing whats available. Now it doens't sound so far fetched that we have target food does it?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 
So what is the silly game you are playing now? I did not post this reply Barcs did THIS POST

But seeing as though you invited my comments by your action. Barcs is correct and you are wrong and is yet another poster obviously aware of your dishonest approach to this thread.


I see, so in other words as far as your concearned, its just a giant coincidence that species always eat the same food.
Barcs also did not mention anything about it is a giant coincidence; those are your words and again a big pointer to your ignorance of this subject and dishonesty on this thread.


I guess the fact that the anteater has specieal ears to hear the ants through ....... blar .... blar
You don’t have to guess if something is a FACT. The anteater is not alone in having those senses or abilities and as you have been shown many times many species have evolved specialist skills.

Now explain why nearly all animals can see, hear, smell, dig and have tongues. I assure you it is not coincidence and before you ask for proof I refer you back to all these pages where that proof has been spoon fed to you which you ignored.


Come on man, if all species eat the same food, someone or something is guiding them to do so.
Show your evidence not your ignorance.


If its evolution, then evolution is backed with intelligence because there is no way it could evolve a species and inform it of what it should at, without first knowing that the food is even available.
Again you have had this evidence spoon fed to you so often it must be your target food. Show your evidence not your ignorance.


It's totally backed with some type of intelligence.
Now all you have to do is prove it. Do that.


If you want to believe a creator did all this, well thats a little easier to understand, but just adds to the complexity of how things work together.
You are the only one that makes claims for a creator despite being shown many times evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life in the beginning and does not create anything after that event

So all in all. You offer nothing but your ignorance based opinion as showcased by your comments above

YOUR OPINIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



There are many things that can prove creation. The best perhaps, is flagellum.
That nonsense has been debunked many times including just a couple of pages ago. That is not proof of anything more than your desire to remain ignorant to enable you to troll this thread.


The start of life seems to only be possible from the perspective of a creator.
This again shows clearly it is just your opinion. How long will it take to sink in I do not accept your opinion.

REJECTED


The complex inner workings of species and food, can only be explained by a creator, having prior knowledge of the food thats available.
It can be explained and examples given using evolution to do so. You again only offer your opinion.

REJECTED


We even have documentation of creation. But I guess that doesn't count either right?
Correct


Perhaps this is a better way of explaining this so you understand
I bet this is going to be just more of your opinion.


There are abilitys then there are instincts.
Instinct

Instinct or innate behaviour is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behaviour.


Ability

A natural or acquired skill or talent.
so a natural skill would be that of farming. An instinct to grow things would lead to farming. Humans display an innate need to grow and nurture and has nothing to do with your ignorant opinion displayed below


An instinct would guide something when it is its natural element. An ability can do many things. Seeing is an ability, hearing is an ability, and being able to adapt is an ability as well.


REJECTED


Your confusing our ability to adapt with what other species do naturaly.
Nope. You are displaying your lack of education


Now if I were wrong, our bodys would be equipped with SPECIFIC tools that would make farming very easy for us.
Then you are wrong. We have a brain that solves problems remembers failures and successes. Most of us learn from experience. We have intelligence that allowed us to design a calendar to enable us to time when we plant and harvest. We have hands that enable us to make tools to make the job easier.

We are fully equipped to farm which is why only ants and humans do so.


The fact is its not easy for humans to farm.
It is not easy for lions to hunt. For ants to farm. Your lazy outlook on life does not prove anything more than that.


We have to first build an enclosure to house the animal.
Do you ever look outside your door? The USA is famous for its open ranches. We build enclosures because we are not stupid and that is the most efficient way to feed, protect and locate our animals. We don’t have to. Ants move their herds to fresh and richer pastures just as we do. No difference


We then have to set up the enviroment so that it is somwhat suited to his taste, including the terrain.
Bunk. We farm where farming is possible that is why you see no farms in the deserts. Ants move their livestock to the tips of growing plants not to outcrops of rock. No difference


We have to breed the animal to make sure that our stock doesn't dissapear.
Nope we breed our livestock to ensure a continued supply. To improve the herd and for profit at market. The ant selects eggs from the aphids and stores them overwinter to ensure the same. It is thought and reported that the ants may as we do even be selecting those they breed from to improve the stock . So again no difference.


We have to protect the animal from any local predators that might be around
And so do ants. We also both protect our herds from adverse weather. No difference.


If it were a cow, it would have to be milked frequently.
Aphids are milked frequently. What’s your point?


Now compare this to what ants do with the aphid. The use their existing quarters, and basically kidnapp and protect the aphid from harm, and milk him. The fact that they are able to use the same quarters is an obvious sign that its natural.
I did just compare them above. What on earth are you on about existing quarters? You claimed you had read up on ants. I supplied a link you claimed you skimmed through. The ants farm the aphids on the plants near not in the nest. The ants move the aphids to other parts of the plant and to other plants as needed. So your sign of natural does not even exist. That makes you demonstrably WRONG


There is no comparison by all of the things we have to go through.
I have proven your opinion wrong. I take it you are not going to show any evidence for your failed argument and so you lose the whole argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Your never going to convince anyone that a process responsible for creating over a billion species did it all on accident.

He has never claimed it happens by accident. Neither has anyone else.

I'm glad your finally admitting that evolution is a creator.
More of your incredulous, dishonest behaviour. You display no respect for anyone on this thread yet complain when you are treated with little which is more than you deserve.

YOUR CHILDISH TAUNT HAS BEEN REJECTED


Oh come on, I was the one that had to teach you that evolution is obviously a creator.
Really despite me telling you many times evolution does not describe creation. You really are the ultimate in ignorance and dishonesty. Why do you post here?


So as you can see, a creator can be a thing, like evolution, it doesn't have to be god as you know it, or it can also be a replacement for god wihich is the other part, that I believe you are also using.
All I see is a person who cannot even read his own definition and evolution is not a thing, it is a word.

cre•a•tor/krēˈātər/Noun: 1.A person or thing that brings something into existence.
2.Used as a name for God.

Synonyms: maker - originator - author - founder
Evolution shows how an organism evolves. A new species evolves after so much change has occurred over time that it can no longer breed with the originator and that is supposing the originator still exists. NOTHING was created you just do not have the education to understand that. You have made that abundantly clear.


Evolution is not predictable. If you were correct, they would have identified the motivation a long time ago
Then I am correct. The motivation is for life to succeed. To live long enough to breed and pass on its advantages to enable it to continue doing so whilst being selected for by its environment. You fail again


If your going to claim that everything is enviroment selected, then I want to know how a process like evolution could pre program food choices into a species,
Love a duck. 500 pages and you come out with that nonsense.

The environment selects for advantage. Not everything in the environment is selected. Jeezus H.

We have a group of slugs. The diversity within the slugs means some do better in the heat than others. For some reason their environment gets warmer. Those at the lower end of temperature tolerance scale suffer greatly and die. Those mid range don’t do so well and thus a lower % live long enough to breed. Those with a higher tolerance to heat are not affected and breed much more often in the group. Their genes become the dominant genes within the group. ADVANTAGE SELECTED FOR BY THE ENVIRONMENT.

If you cannot understand that you need to go and GET AN EDUCATION.


There has to be thought, in this transaction, and there has to be intelligence that has prior knowledge of the menu.
I just explained to you yet again the only intelligence needed is that of you understanding what has been spoon fed you. I know that will not happen


Your waddeling in your pity because you know I'm right .............................twaddle
Not worth responding too

DISMISSED





edit on 22-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Even if you believe that evolution is responsible for this programming, its still intelligent. There is no way evolution could think about what food attraction to program into a species without knowing whether or not its even available.

Drop the evolution argument, you don't even understand the basics about it, so discussing it with you it useless. Prove that there is intelligence in evolution and that it's more than adaptation and genetic mutations. Good luck. I await your dozens of resources that you will post (NOT).



Silly? So its silly to drink a cats milk but not a cows milk right?

Yes, because you will not get much milk from a cat. It's a waste of effort unless you are desperate and have nothing else.




But again, nothing is ever "meant" for anything.
If that were true we wouldn't have entire species eating the same healthy food, as though it were meant for them.

Proof? You made up the concept, not me. Prove it.



If that were true, we would see a variation of different foods being eaten by the same species, and we don't, they eat the same things as though they are a group and know what they are suppose to eat.

You are lying again. You need to prove this or it won't be taken seriously. Again, most creatures eat a large variety of food and have diets that change on a monthly basis depending on what's available.



If this were true, humans wouldn't have all of the sickness and disease, and super supplements, as well as all the fortifying we do to our food. So your obviously wrong again.

yahoo answers

The yahoo link question was deleted. Let me guess, you created it and answered it.
Your dishonesty holds no bounds. You need to post proof. You are obviously wrong again. STOP MAKING THINGS UP AND CLAIMING THEY ARE FACTS. POST THE REFERENCES.



If this were true, we would see species everywhere nursing out of their own species.

Another unfounded lie. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean that every single animal partakes in it. You have no clue.


We dont, so your obviously wrong again. And don't send me a picture of one domesticated animal sucking off someone elses teat, its because they are domesticated that it happens.

None of those animals have the intellect of humans. Another nice fallacy.

www.youtube.com...

A lioness adopts a young antelope and treats it like its own child. They certainly aren't domesticated.

Tooth = liar and proven fraud. Eveything he's said is unfounded garbage. Not a single valid point or scientific reference to back him up. He just says things for the heck of it. Sorry kid, we have higher standards on this site. You are nothing but a dishonest troll. If your next post does not have scientific resources that prove the 4 points I listed above, your post will be ignored, so if you aren't posting them, don't respond.

Species don't know what to eat. They eat what they can catch. If it tastes good and gives them energy they will eat it again. They aren't as smart as humans, but probably are smarter than you.

edit on 22-8-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Come on man, if all species eat the same food, someone or something is guiding them to do so.

Show your evidence not your ignorance.
What I mean to say is that all species have an identifiable diet.

I just posted proof on my thread of random diets right off google. Every single one of them discloses a diet from about 10 different random species I picked.




If its evolution, then evolution is backed with intelligence because there is no way it could evolve a species and inform it of what it should at, without first knowing that the food is even available.

Again you have had this evidence spoon fed to you so often it must be your target food. Show your evidence not your ignorance
If you still believe that evolution is to blame for this, then I ask in all seriousness how it is able to share a knowledgable diet with a newly made species?




It's totally backed with some type of intelligence.

Now all you have to do is prove it. Do that.
I just did, there is no way as an example that evolution could tell a new species to eat oats, whithout evolution not first having an understanding that oats are an option to being with. The more you keep asking me to prove it the dumber your looking each time as I already have.




You are the only one that makes claims for a creator despite being shown many times evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life in the beginning and does not create anything after that event

So all in all. You offer nothing but your ignorance based opinion as showcased by your comments above


YOUR OPINIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED


Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life? So what are you saying, evolution is NOT responsible for the diversity of life? I see your finaly learning.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





There are many things that can prove creation. The best perhaps, is flagellum.

That nonsense has been debunked many times including just a couple of pages ago. That is not proof of anything more than your desire to remain ignorant to enable you to troll this thread.
Your the only troll in this thread, and right now your running and hiding because as usual you totally avoided my question about flagellum. If evolution is real then I want soemone to explain to me how gears and sprockets evolve, and what they evolved from and what they evolved into.




The complex inner workings of species and food, can only be explained by a creator, having prior knowledge of the food thats available.

It can be explained and examples given using evolution to do so. You again only offer your opinion.

REJECTED
And your still not understanding that even if I'm wrong, which I'm not, this would still require the backing of intelligence to share the information of what food is available.

As an example, lets pretend I'm a creator, and I'm creating wing nuts, lets say YOUR a wing nut. In order for you to have some direction on what your supposed to eat, I would have to first have a prior knowledge of the food that I'm going to direct you to. I would also have to know that food is available, and that you will have access to it.

There is simply no way that evolution is capeable of directing a species to a specific diet without it first having knowledge that the diet in fact exists. There is total intelligence behind the idea of target food. We know target food exists because each species has a target diet, its confirmed, except for humans.




so a natural skill would be that of farming.
But before you make this bold claim, I would like to know what intrinsic value you have identified that leads you to believe this. The fact that we do it is not proof, there would have to be something a little more consistant. As an example the anteater has special ears, snout, claws, tounge all specialized for dealing with ants. I want just one natural characteristic that proves your right.




An instinct to grow things would lead to farming. Humans display an innate need to grow and nurture and has nothing to do with your ignorant opinion displayed below
If we had a natual instinct to grow things, we would not need instruction to do so. We would not need tractors and special tools to farm. Granted we may not need all of these tools all of the time and for each situation, but the fact that we choose to use tools is proof that its out of our league. You can beg otherwise but the fact is we never see species with a natural way to perform something, that all of a sudden starts utilizing tools to advance the already natural process. Humans have no natural ties to farming. All of this might seem light pointless information at this point because it doesn't really tell us what we are naturaly made to do, but it does tell you what your are NOT made to do.




Now if I were wrong, our bodys would be equipped with SPECIFIC tools that would make farming very easy for us.

Then you are wrong. We have a brain that solves problems remembers failures and successes. Most of us learn from experience. We have intelligence that allowed us to design a calendar to enable us to time when we plant and harvest. We have hands that enable us to make tools to make the job easier.
Thats right, we have brains that solve problems, because farming would naturally be a problem for us as we are not naturally equipped to do it. Having to go out of our way to solve these problems, and go out of our way to make tools that helps us get around these problems is just more work and effort placed on us, which is ultimately a reduction in your quality of life. I'm sorry but your obviously very wrong here.




It is not easy for lions to hunt.
Excuse me but a lion did not have to make special guns or rifles, and he didn't have to take classes to learn how to use those tools. He does whats natural to him, he runs, jumps, they are down, it doesn't get any more natural then that, your obviously very wrong here.




For ants to farm. Your lazy outlook on life does not prove anything more than that.
Ants are automatically equipped to farm, humans are not.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 488  489  490    492  493  494 >>

log in

join