Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

www.badhonhara.com...

Here is a site that clearly states we do depend on cows milk.

Wrong!

Get over the milk man, it's not going to prove evolution wrong.

Debunking the Milk Myth:

reply to post by flyingfish

We depend on cows to supply most of our milk, but in Spain, for example, the sheep is one of the chief milk-producing animals

The sad thing is his link in no way says we depend on cows milk as the paste above shows. He really has a hard time reading so dont expect him to read your link, not enough pictures.

Just to make it clear to tooth. your (tooths) link says we depend on cows to SUPPLY most of our milk. Not, we depend on cows milk

The two statements contain completely different information. The original means where we get our milk supply which is what was written.

Not as you maintain, we depend on cows milk which was not the information at all. How many times do you want to fail completely? How many times do you wish to mislead by distorting information to suit your argument?

You cannot even understand your own links information and you have the cheek to question the information supplied to you by others with such gusto and sadly with no understanding at all.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

www.badhonhara.com...

Here is a site that clearly states we do depend on cows milk.

Whats this "we" business...I already told you//I dont.

Still no reply to my request for a defin ition of evolutionism! ah well suppose I'd better suply it.

First off, evolutionism was a term coined referring to social theory in the 1800’s and had no link to biological evolution what so ever.

It refers to the building of societies from simple to complex.

When using the term evolutionism with reference to biological models, what the proclaimer is stating is that evolution has a goal, and that that goal is to take a simple organism, a worm maybe, and evolve it into a complex organism such as one of the “higher” mammals.

Neo-Darwinian synthesis (I do like that phrase) makes no such proclamation. Every single organism on the planet is equally as evolved as every other organism. This is due to the fact that all organisms on the planet have had an equal amount of time to evolve.

This raises the question of why there are “simple” organisms, and “complex” organism, still in abundance throughout the planet.

Once again you need to remove yourself from the belief system of evolutionism.

When an organism evolves, it has no game plan. It isn’t aiming for anything more than survival. When an organism becomes adapted to such an extent that it becomes a specialist in its field, (for some reason the anteater springs to mind), barring some environmental change, it can remain static for long periods of time, eons. Any random mutations that do not infer a dramatic survival advantage are quickly diluted throughout the gene pool. This means that the slug, the worm, the wasp, in fact every animal on the planet right now, and I mean RIGHT NOW, even if this is being read a million years from 2012, is there because it has evolved to take advantage of the environmental niche it has evolved to fill.

And it is not, NOT, random. Mutations are random, survival is not.

Earlier, our learned colleague referred to the “747 in the junkyard”. Again he has been told to believe this by those that explain evolution in “evolutionism” terms. And it is a good analogy against evolutionism, but also totally inappropriate for evolution.

Evolution, real evolution, is more akin to the following. (apologies for a slight amount of plagiarism)
If I were to sit you in front of a computer keyboard and ask you to type the alphabet, in order blindfolded, with the keys remapped randomly, pressing each key only once until all 26 keys had been pressed, and then re-setting them, what are the odds of you randomly typing the alphabet “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz”?
I think it somewhere in the region o 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000 (1 times 10 to the power of 26 – any mathematicians, help me out here!)

However evolution isn’t random…If all of the letters above, have to be in the right place for humans to be humans, randomly typing letters is never going to get us here. What actual hppens is more like the following.

Repeat the above experiment, however on the second run, any letters that have appeared in the correct place, will be locked in. This is to simulate a survival advantage and that letter will get passed onto the next “generation”.

But even this is far too random for evolution; let’s say any letter within three spaces of its correct position gets locked in, only moving from an incorrect position if displaced by another letter closer to ITs own position.
However, evolution is not aiming to get those letters in that order unless that order is the correct sequence for survival in the current environment, and this is open to change at any point.

Evolutionism, says that “abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz” is the optimal order that all organisms strive for. Evolution says that tomorrow the order could change to “qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm”

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by idmonster

 

.....See colin, youve got me at it now

I think I can convince you that ants package their food also.

What is the reason to package anything. Ease of transport and maximise storage. Ants package food for transport in two ways. Cut them up into transportable pieces. They do this to leaves, large insects. They also use their bodies to package the food. Obviously this 'processing' of their foraged food means they also maximise storage space.

How did I do?

edit on 6-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Terrible, Untill I see a barcode, it didnt happen ;0

I honestly think it's best to ignore Itsthetooth at this point. He's clearly not here to argue intervention or anything else. He's either doing an experiment to see how far he can push and repeat the same circle of information, or he's trying to teach himself English. I can't figure it out, but he's been trolling for 150 pages about stuff that has nothing at all do with this thread or evolution. If he actually believes what he's saying then I suspect he's either a young kid or somebody with a learning disability, very poor reading comprehension, and probably not well versed in the English language. Let him have his fantasies so he'll finally go away.

reply to post by colin42


Hang on stop the world, colin is having a temper tantrum and claiming I don't answer all of his questions, once again, so Here I will make sure to answer each question.

Hi. You appear to have doged this again for a third time? Its about your favourite anteater?

I'm sorry I don't understand this question so you will have to re word it.

I am crushed you have not only chosen to ignore the first post over the page addressing you being a science major you have totally ignored a logical post discussing what you have admitted is your favourite example of all, the ant eater.

I don't see a question here or a question mark so ....

I think I have made a good argument that the anteater shows humans are from here. Please try to discuss this and not ignore it because you will be stretched/unable.

Again there is no question or question mark here but I will respond by saying, you have in fact not proven humans are from here.

Failure to even discuss this will show you in an even worse light. Answering it with just another question will also be seen as avoidance.

OK, and still no question here.

I see above you do indeed intend not to discuss my post.

Still no question here.

What part does not campare that we (ants and humans) both grow, harvest, process, ship and store.

Still no question mark here but it does look like you were attempting your best to produce a question...
None of it. Your comparing apples to oranges. Ants do not process, homogenize, pasturize, fortify, package, ship, and refridgerate there products.

Grow and harvest even with your stunted world view you must agree.

Again no question or mark...Ants don't grow product.

Process: Please give your definition for process as this can mean many things

It looks like you were making another ill attempt at a question here, again with no question mark...
I'm specifically referring to humans using un-natural methods to process, like pasturizing, homogenizing, fortifing, packaging, and refridgerating.

Ship: Ants not only transport food to the nest comparitively large distances they carry nectar and honeydew (aphid milk) inside their bodies turning themselves into container lorries of the insect world. They also follow set paths, roads.

Not sure if this is a question, there is no question mark but I'm learning that doesn't mean anything with you. Anyhow I will comment. Humans can do the same things in which you are referencing. We can transport, carry nector in our stomachs. The major difference is they aren't using mass highways to have this stuff transported over long distances. Again its un-natural.

Store: Well of course they store food and in many ways so that the colony can survive the winter. BTW without the home they build and the food they store they would not survive also just like humans.

Again no question, no question mark, but I will comment. You are compareing apples to oranges again. There methods of storage are natural. What we do is NOT NATURAL. Much less can we store our food in a natural way as its not meant to be stored. You would say its because we evolved, I would say its because its not our food.

Ants have fulfilled all your qualifactions for being another candidate for not belonging just as humans but your stance on the anteater seems to kill your whole idea which means if it is wrong for ants it is wrong for humans.

Again no question or question mark. Please learn proper syntax. No wonder your so frustrated with my replies, you expect me to be a mind reader. I fast read and look for points like question marks, prompting me that a reply is needed. FYI "?" means your expecting an answer, look at it that way. Anyhow, ...........Ants have not fufilled the qualifications for not belongining, they are able to utilize the aforementioned in a natural way, proving they in fact belong.

There are many google pages you can read to confirm this. If you wish to contest any of the points made I would reccomend you do some research.

Yes thank you for the heads up, its greatly appreciated but I did allready know about it.

Now back to THE ANTEATER PROVES MAN IS FROM EARTH.

Time YOU answered/discussed at least one question asked of you.

Be sure I will continue to ask the above in exactly the same way until you do. You have never avoided talking about the anteater before so why this time?

AH HA.......A question with a mark, I think you might be on to something here. I'm not aware I was avoiding anything, sorry. Maybe I just wasn't seeing any questions as shown in the first 8 pointed out.

reply to post by colin42

Intervention has nothing to do with the points I made. A terrible attempt to deflect from my post.

I went back and answered everything sentance by sentance, none of which were actuall questions, which is probably why I never answer you. If you have a question, you have to ask, followed with a question mark. Some people are speed readers you know.

Anyhow, you will see with all of my answers that intervention explains them all. This is why I gave it to you as an answer. Of course I figured you were up to speed on this but maybe not. Anyhow I broke them down in easy to understand english, all leading back to intervention.

reply to post by flyingfish


It's not just milk, its a plethora of things that all tell us that we aren't from here.

reply to post by colin42


Colin, are you high? Thats a question BTW. BTW stands for by the way. You have to read the article to realize how dependant humans are on milk in general.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

It's not just milk, its a plethora of things that all tell us that we aren't from here.

It's like arguing with a five year old.
Been there done that

reply to post by idmonster


It's ambigious, and I meant it in a sarcastic way. Claiming that evolutionism is a belief, which it is. There is no proof of any species every evolving into another species, its a scam. I bet it sells a lot of books.

reply to post by Barcs

I honestly think it's best to ignore Itsthetooth at this point. He's clearly not here to argue intervention or anything else. He's either doing an experiment to see how far he can push and repeat the same circle of information, or he's trying to teach himself English. I can't figure it out, but he's been trolling for 150 pages about stuff that has nothing at all do with this thread or evolution. If he actually believes what he's saying then I suspect he's either a young kid or somebody with a learning disability, very poor reading comprehension, and probably not well versed in the English language. Let him have his fantasies so he'll finally go away.

Sure colin doesn't know how to ask a quesiton or use punctuation but I"m the one with the disability.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

It's ambigious, and I meant it in a sarcastic way. Claiming that evolutionism is a belief, which it is. There is no proof of any species every evolving into another species, its a scam. I bet it sells a lot of books.

I am glad I've finaly managed convince you.

So we all agree evolutionISM, is a misguided belief system that attempts to explain the course of evolution

So we can drop the term now and discus evolution.

No need to apologise this time, I can see where you've been purposefully misled by whichever church elders poisoned your mind.



BTW you did read the post, right? You are now aware of the difference between evolution and evolutionism?

If you havnt read the post, do not reply to this post, it would be a waste of yours and my time. If you have read it and intend to reply to this post with a quote, please quote this post in its entirety to remove accusations of quote mining.

reply to post by itsthetooth
The most absolute perfect example of failure I have ever seen.

You cannot make a valid defence of anything in that post showing that either ants do not fit or humans do fit.

Your response is to say the least that of a spoilt petulent child in the middle of a hissy fit because it has been told it is wrong.

You are not man enough to admit when you are wrong but it is plain to see that even you know I have wrecked your little fantasy to everyone and you have neither the wit or knowledge to construct a counter to it.

I'll leave you with this. My favourite example is the anteater. It shows without a doubt that humans originate and evolved on this planet and it has done this by eating ants.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sure colin doesn't know how to ask a quesiton or use punctuation but I"m the one with the disability.

When correcting someone on their punctuation it actually helps to get your own correct.

I"m = wrong
I'm = correct

When someone lays out a argument for discussion it does not require a question mark at the end of each point. Only direct questions need that.

I also note your still raging in your hissy fit. You really cannot take being proven completely wrong can you. Take two anteaters and get some rest.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Colin, are you high? Thats a question BTW. BTW stands for by the way. You have to read the article to realize how dependant humans are on milk in general.

Ignoring that you have probably broken another T&C with your reference to me being high I suggest you read the information in your link again.

No mention is made of humans being dependant on cows milk, none at all. You cannot even understand your error when someone points directly at it.

Still when you are red faced and ranting as you appear to be it is very hard to read anything with a clear head.

I again suggest you take two anteaters disolved in water and get some rest. Give me a ring in the morning if you are no better and be assured. It is impossible for you to get any worse.

Hi Colin et al.,

Give it up, guys. I admire your persistence and I can't believe you've been this patient, but this is going nowhere. As Oscar Wilde put it, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damned fool about it."

Toothy and the others won't make any attempt to learn anything that doesn't fit into their cozy world view, and there's nothing you can do about that. You've done what you can, and now you should just move on.

Just my two cents.

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Hi Colin et al.,

Give it up, guys. I admire your persistence and I can't believe you've been this patient, but this is going nowhere. As Oscar Wilde put it, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damned fool about it."

Toothy and the others won't make any attempt to learn anything that doesn't fit into their cozy world view, and there's nothing you can do about that. You've done what you can, and now you should just move on.

Just my two cents.

I'm agreed with you. Itsthetooth has been bringing up arguments that we explained and supported with hard evidence far earlier in the thread. It's as if his brain is on a creationism/alien-implantation time loop.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by HappyBunny
Hi Colin et al.,

Give it up, guys. I admire your persistence and I can't believe you've been this patient, but this is going nowhere. As Oscar Wilde put it, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then give up. There's no use being a damned fool about it."

Toothy and the others won't make any attempt to learn anything that doesn't fit into their cozy world view, and there's nothing you can do about that. You've done what you can, and now you should just move on.

Just my two cents.

I'm agreed with you. Itsthetooth has been bringing up arguments that we explained and supported with hard evidence far earlier in the thread. It's as if his brain is on a creationism/alien-implantation time loop.

Agreed! There are more productive ways to use ATP.