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.
Why would I stop with it. I believe everything is supposed to have something to eat. I have no idea how you think you got your menu, but everything I have tells me how.
Or he simply found a more convenient way because cars weren't around for most of the time crows existed
And PLEASE stop with that target food nonsense, it's a bit silly of you to expect us to deal with a MADE UP WORD that has no bearing in reality
No all species DONT have something to eat which is why we are in the 6th largest extinction right now. Of course all we see is what does have food to eat, simply because they are still alive, again all that means is they are eating something, and doesn't prove they are eating what they are supposed to.
But all species HAVE something to eat...it just doesn't fit your uneducated and uninformed opinion
Again: Your entire argument is based on a MADE UP word that has no basis in reality!!
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
No all species DONT have something to eat which is why we are in the 6th largest extinction right now. Of course all we see is what does have food to eat, simply because they are still alive, again all that means is they are eating something, and doesn't prove they are eating what they are supposed to.
But all species HAVE something to eat...it just doesn't fit your uneducated and uninformed opinion
Again: Your entire argument is based on a MADE UP word that has no basis in reality!!
Extinctions on mass levels like the one we are in now, prove that things are out of balance and that species are venturing off their menu. To assume dying because of not having something to eat, or that venturing over to someone elses menu is normal, is just bat crazy.edit on 23-7-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)
So the mysteries of evolution deepen. Now, your trying to tell me that not only is evolution a creator of new species, but that evoltuion has also claim the role of death for certain species. The same thing that creates new life, also predicts when that species, and how that species is supposed to die. However when it comes to eating, evoltuion plays not role in that aside from the idea that when a species has nothing to eat, it dies all at the idea of evolution.
Species die out because of...wait for it...waaaaaaait for it....EVOLUTION!!! The environment changes, and while some species can adapt, sometimes the environment changes too quickly for them to adapt....because evolution often takes a very long time
So you can learn one of two things from a Dodo, either man was not supposed to be on the same planet with him, or we were supposed to kill him.
The Southern Pacific once had a beautiful bird that had almost no natural predators...the Dodo. Along comes us humans, and suddenly that Dodo was faced with a change in the environment...a new predator, us. And since we appeared so suddenly he didn't have time to evolve any sort of defence, so it died.
Just because rats grew in population to decimate something only proves that they found an easier food source, which has nothing to do with proving or disproving target food. It could be that the rats original food source went extinct, and birds we the next abundant source for them. Your confusing the fact of a species changing its menu with what it was intended to eat in the first place. Some species are smart enough to look for new food, and if they want to survive they will. On the other hand some other species are just not as smart. It's all the domino effect of other things going extinct.
On other islands, rats suddenly showed up and completely decimated the bird population.
Of course thats how it is, otherwise you die. This is not proof that things are supposed to be that way. Of course everything alive today has food, how else would they survive if they didn't? I'm talking about all the species that died out in the 1st, 2nd,3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th extinctions.
There's THOUSANDS of such example.
Either you adapt to the changing environment, or you die out. It's as simple as that. But fact is, anything alive today HAS food. Maybe that food source is dying out slowly because of a changing environment, but it obviously didn't happen just yet...because if there was no food, no more generations would survive. So again, everything alive today has food.
Extinctions
Scientists have estimated that over the course of Earth's history, anywhere between 1 and 4 billion species have existed on this planet. Be it through disease, genetic obsolescence, over-predation or any number of other factors, the overwhelming majority of these species are now extinct. Of these billions of species, roughly 50 million still survive into the modern era. While these numbers are certainly extreme at first glance, it serves as proof that extinction, while a sad occurrence, is a part of life for all living things
life is not making new species, only the hard core survivors are staying, and the rest is dying out.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish
If the larva were a target food, he would have had a naturaly equipped way of getting to them, other then by devising the stick method.
Oh man.... I forgot about that one, thanks! ☆
That raven is clearly just having fun sledding.
These New Caledonian crows are being observed using a twig like skewer to spear beetle larvae for a yummy target food treat.
This is obviously a case of extinction. He's not automatically equipped to eat them from their homes, therfore its not natual.
Other species that use tools that are NOT automatically connected to their bodys, is a good sign of redundant adaptation, probably from extinctions.
I'm sure evolutionists will concot a theory about where these new genes came from. What they will say is that the species that used to share them, have all gone extinct
I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but I will try anyway.
Originally posted by wittgenstein
“I have a question for the pro evolutionist. I think that mathematically speaking, the population of the earth would be far greater than 7 billion if man has been here reproducing as long as the theory of evolution claims we have. Can someone validate/refute this mathematically?”
micmerci
Malthus influenced Darwin. The pressures of population growth, rather then being an argument against evolution actually contribute to it.
geography.about.com...
They might find species that are new to OUR inventory but not new to existing.
So.. You're saying that new species are not evolving? That we have what we have, and losing some day by day? haha
If that were the case, we would have an inventory of every species that inhabits the earth.... Which we don't, considering the fact that we discover new species quite often. There is no way of telling if life is decaying or growing, because it is always in a constant state of species dying out and new ones evolving.
I think there is a reason why its called gene duplication, while your stumbling for something more along the lines of gene creation.
That's like asking where more atoms come from.. It's a stupid argument you're making. And there is these things called gene duplication, and horizontal gene transfer.. In fact bacteria and other things inside us contribute to this. DNA errors alone through reproduction guarantees evolution as a fact. It just takes intentional ignorance to pretend it's not a fact. It's like talking to flat Earther's who will label anything and everything as a conspiracy. And well, that's is essentially the game. And you know you are playing that game. But the funny part is, you actually think people don't realize that :/ And my posts btw, actually prove evolutionary theory on an academic level. You however are stuck with non academic and dogmatic arguments that have no intellectual value what-so-ever.
Well I did use evolutionism for a while but apparently that one had been used allready. Ok, so does that mean we are all an extension of the slug?
And no, there is no such group called the "evolutionists", it's only a dogmatic term btw.. And lastly, no, science does not state that all that had shared genes have gone extinct. Seriously, the green sea slug is again another good little example here.
I'll tell you where the ignorance is, humans have a blood type that isn't even indigenous to this planet. Can someone please explain to me how we emerged with such a blood type. If you want to believe we evolved slowly, which I'm willing to pretend for the moment, how did this odd blood type come into play. No other species that we know of has this rare blood type either.
In addition to this we have DNA sections that also don't match anything else on earth, now how did this happen?
I can tell you how they both happened, we aren't from here.
Look at how much you lie Colin. If any of this nonesense were true I would have been removed off this thread long ago. I never claimed to be racist, thats just an assumption you made, which you do a lot of BTW. I also never claimed that whites were superior either, its just yet another assumption made by you. But I can totally understand your direction, as you are not able to prove diversity while I'm proving that we aren't even from here.
I know this is going to fall on deaf ears but I will try anyway.
This is not a thread where the 'Pro evolutionist' is meant to prove anything. It is about people that say evolution is false explaining the diversity we see around us today without refering to evolution.
So far no one has attempted is partly because of an infection of this thread by a backward racist trying to prove whites are superior.
Thank you for your educated answers.
This is wrong on so many levels that it's literally laughable.. How about you provide a scientific peer reviewed journal backing up your claims.. What? No? You have no education on the subject to know your argument is utterly nonsense? Oh wait, you already knew that Nothing like internet trolling the fora with intentional ignorance.
I think there is a reason why its called gene duplication, while your stumbling for something more along the lines of gene creation.
Gene duplication makes new genes..Helloooo!? .. Also for gene creation, look up electromagnetism and what atoms are. Learn the differences between atoms, and then learn what chemical reactions are. It's a no duh how genes would have to be made irregardless if you think something made them through intelligence, or through natural processes. So your argument is a pretty hallow one at best. But for giggles, Genes are made by DNA and of DNA: 1920s, experiments showed that a harmless strain of bacteria can become infectious when mixed with a virulent strain of bacteria that had been killed. The dead bacteria apparently provide some chemical that "transforms" the harmless bacteria to infectious ones. This so-called "transforming principle" appeared to be a gene. A team of scientists led by Oswald Avery at the Rockefeller Institute, rigorously followed up on these experiments in the 1940's. They found that a pure extract of the "transforming principle" was unaffected by treatment with protein-digesting enzymes but was destroyed by a DNA-digesting enzyme. This showed that the transforming principle is DNA — and, by extension, a gene is made of DNA
Avery, MacLeod, and McCarty published their discovery that the transforming principle was DNA in 1944 in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. Their conclusions in this paper were cautious, and they presented several interpretations of their results. The phenomenon of transformation, Avery wrote, "has been interpreted from a genetic point of view. The inducing substance has been likened to a gene, and the capsular antigen which is produced in response to it has been regarded as a gene product."
Gene product: The RNA or protein that results from the expression of a gene. The amount of gene product is a measure of the degree of gene activity.
Well I did use evolutionism for a while but apparently that one had been used allready. Ok, so does that mean we are all an extension of the slug?