Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

So you do not know the difference between a medical problem and speciation yet you fantasise that you can debunk evolution. You are such a clown.

'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.

Your mistake. You claim aliens did it but here you admit to not knowing. Science shows us clearly using the theory of evolution to explain it.

Evolution would have to have prior intelligence to make sure this all happend the way its suppose to.

How do you know what is supposed to happen?

You have been told, shown many times that evolution does not need a supernatural intelligence for it to work. All you are doing is showcasing your denial, dishonesty and ignorance.

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.

Where is your evidence?

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.

The hell you didn’t:

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

Not only did you write the nonsense above You went on to defend that idiocy with

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

and yes, it is something YOU need to answer. Try it.

It could be a clue that someone has stepped off their menu and probably for extinction reasons.

Don’t even try that bull shine. You hold up the ant eater as 'designed' to eat ants. The same claim can be made for the sea lion, penguin and bull shark yet their diet of fish is the same. Which one of the three is the 'intended' species and which is not?

You need to look at this from a much simpler point of view.

TBH your ranting, fantasy based sermons bore the crap out of me. You wasted a whole chunk of the internet for more of your absurdist fiction and supplied no evidence at all. Try doing that for a change

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

This extreme ignorance again but this time you left out legs. Assuming each head would have a brain.

A few invertebrates such as sponges, jellyfish, adult sea squirts and starfish do not have a brain let alone one head. The octopus has a brain at the end of each tentacle so has 9 brains.

The human brain uses 20% of the bodies energy. Two heads would mean 40%, three 60%. Can you explain how this would be an advantage in our environment?

Despite this we do have examples and if you can be bothered to deny your own ignorance and read this article you will see that it is rare but not unknown. Polycephaly

So what does that tell you? In anything other than fantasy more than one head is NOT an advantage.

Even if you want to believe in evolution, and lets say for the sake of arguement that it is real, who made the process?

First. No one has to believe in evolution because we have evidence. Who cares what created the process. Evolution does not and cannot explain creation. It explains how organisms evolved after the point of creation.

It looks more and more like intelligence is behind both possibilities that we are able to see at this time.

That is due to your wilful ignorance and desperation to have a daddy you call the creator.

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?

No if's about it. There is no such nonsense as target food. Get over it.

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.

Are we in balance or not. Does it depend on what twaddle you are peddling at the time? Your main problem is either way your fantasy fails and fails epically

You can't believe that speices are meant to die in extinction.

A species evolves or becomes extinct. I have a massive amount of evidence to back my claim. You have nothing but your fantasy.

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.

My guess is only you know what that rubbish was meant to mean.

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.

Yep. So explain why we see that vast diversity we see today. PS only arguments with evidence will be accepted.

reply to post by flyingfish

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

So now your trying to admitt that evolution is NOT random.

reply to post by colin42

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.

Like I allready said you have to first establish that those are in fact target foods for them. You have to elimanate the possibility of extinctions, you have to elimanate the possibility that its not a main staple.

Aside from that, what they were suppposed to be eating and now eating could bew two different things.
As far as the species you mention, after you elimanate the aforementioned, then you can realize that they surly don't eat the exact same things, nor do they have the exact same diets.

reply to post by colin42

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

I have allready told you that I don't believe in religion, so I don't know how that could be possible.

I will say one thing, there is no way you can be a scietist when you choose to ignore one of the most important historical documents ever written about life.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Like I allready said you have to first establish that those are in fact target foods for them. You have to elimanate the possibility of extinctions, you have to elimanate the possibility that its not a main staple.

This answer above is why you are considered to be the most dishonest poster ever to tap a keyboard.

The animals I listed just like the ant eater that has evolved to eat ants, they have evolved to specialise as fish eaters. In no stretch of the imagination even one so dishonest an delusional as yours can you claim anything else

Aside from that, what they were suppposed to be eating and now eating could bew two different things.

Again you are prepared to deny anything and everything that shows you wrong. Your pathetic avoidance, lies and plain dishonest behaviour is reaching a point where I put you down as seriously damaged mentally because your responses here so far is beyond what could be considered normal the only answer can be you are truly damaged property.

As far as the species you mention, after you elimanate the aforementioned, then you can realize that they surly don't eat the exact same things, nor do they have the exact same diets.

And an Ant Eater does not just eat ants. Your claim of target food was any food that forms the main part of the diet but of course you have been caught out and so you move the goal posts. Precisely why I demand you provide a definition and an action you deny which as usual I have shown to be a lie

If I were you I would avoid looking in the mirror. It would be terrible to see your face and feel the shame that reflects back.
And for god’s sake get a dictionary and take 5 minutes to proof read what you write

reply to post by colin42

So you do not know the difference between a medical problem and speciation yet you fantasise that you can debunk evolution. You are such a clown.

No actually what I have been able to prove on here is that evolutionists wouldn't know the difference.

'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.

Your mistake. You claim aliens did it but here you admit to not knowing. Science shows us clearly using the theory of evolution to explain it.

I don't think aliens had anything to do with this part of the picture. The only thing that the theory of evolution explains in this topic is whats been observed with species struggeling to find something to eat. It makes no sense and you would never be able to convince me that this is the NATURAL order of things. It defies logic in the process of evolution, it defies the purpose of life itself.
Your understanding of this process is along the lines of several mechanics getting together to build the perfect automobile but no one bothers to think about the fact that we have no way to produce gas to feed the new car. That being from the creation view anyhow, from the evolution point of view, it still makes no sense as new species emerged only to find that they had to struggle eating food that belongs to another species. Sorry man I'm not that dim.

How do you know what is supposed to happen?

You have been told, shown many times that evolution does not need a supernatural intelligence for it to work. All you are doing is showcasing your denial, dishonesty and ignorance.

You have been shown over and over that the probability of evolution acting out of chance is akin to a 747 aircraft magically re-assembling itself from junk yard parts in a tornado. I find the analge to be generous as I see that its more possible then evolution.

Where is your evidence?

Evidence is simple, neither of them is plausable.

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.

The hell you didn’t:

What I mean is it may not be a target food to another source, target foods are not the ONLY things on an intended menu, it is possible that a small menu is normal, but in perspective as to not force a reliant consumer to starve.

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

Not only did you write the nonsense above You went on to defend that idiocy with

What I'm saying is in the realm of target foods, they are not suppose to.

It could be a clue that someone has stepped off their menu and probably for extinction reasons.

Don’t even try that bull shine. You hold up the ant eater as 'designed' to eat ants. The same claim can be made for the sea lion, penguin and bull shark yet their diet of fish is the same. Which one of the three is the 'intended' species and which is not?

I don't know enough about them to say.

TBH your ranting, fantasy based sermons bore the crap out of me. You wasted a whole chunk of the internet for more of your absurdist fiction and supplied no evidence at all. Try doing that for a change

And you wasted a large chunk of the internet by being ignorant and choosing to ignore an informative historical document.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have allready told you that I don't believe in religion, so I don't know how that could be possible.

Yeah. Your delusion goes that deep. Your ignorance is that ingrained. You post nothing but your crazy home spun religion. Plenty of your type deny their faith when it suits going right back to Peter and they later made him a saint, and before you get excited and don your nuns outfit that will not be you.

I will say one thing, there is no way you can be a scietist when you choose to ignore one of the most important historical documents ever written about life.

I have never claimed to be one unlike you that insists he is a science major that displays no understanding of science at all.

As for the rest of your goading, childish attempt to steer the topic away from the one you are again being slaughtered in. Respond to the comments made.

You are at best an absurdist, a follower of Absurdism and a very poor author of Absurdist Fiction

reply to post by colin42

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.

This extreme ignorance again but this time you left out legs. Assuming each head would have a brain.

It was just one example, one that I was hoping you could extrapolate from. If evolution were real we would see groups of species with extra limbs, or missing limbs, not just this off odd chance freak of nature.

We would see species with multiple eyes, disfigurment would be the norm, but its not, there is order and pattern to life.

Evolution doesn't exist, or if it does, it's either limited by what it can change or what it can do.

A few invertebrates such as sponges, jellyfish, adult sea squirts and starfish do not have a brain let alone one head. The octopus has a brain at the end of each tentacle so has 9 brains.

I'm not finding nine brains in an octopus...

An octopus has a highly complex nervous system, only part of which is localized in its brain.

en.wikipedia.org...

The human brain uses 20% of the bodies energy. Two heads would mean 40%, three 60%. Can you explain how this would be an advantage in our environment?

Your claim that disadvantaged changes wouldn't make sense is false based on the fact that you keep using the term random to explain the changes that evolution makes. Or are you changing your idea now and willing to admitt that there is some intelligence put into this, or that its not actually random?

Despite this we do have examples and if you can be bothered to deny your own ignorance and read this article you will see that it is rare but not unknown. Polycephaly

Which is just one example of billions of random possibilities that seem to be unaccounted for. It appears that the random evolution is not so random. There is obvious pattern. I'll give you another example, all species either breath air or breath in water. Just another random coincidence right?

So what does that tell you? In anything other than fantasy more than one head is NOT an advantage

I don't understand, your saying on the other hand that the octopus is using nine brains, and hes doing good.

First. No one has to believe in evolution because we have evidence. Who cares what created the process. Evolution does not and cannot explain creation. It explains how organisms evolved after the point of creation

I have shared more than a fair amount that proves evolution isn't even possible beyond a preponderance of a doubt.

Again the only evidence, as you call it, that I have seen, is found on wiki in the speciation def. Some speciation has been observed in specific species but on a very limited scale. Anytime larger changes occur the species would die out. IMO there is no excuse for that to happen unless its NOT NATURAL. There is more proving that changes are NOT NATURAL then not. Besides, why would evolution hold back. Did you ever ponder the question of why species weren't able to just change in a flash? There is no known or understood reason, aside from the fact that it totally doens't make any sense.

It looks more and more like intelligence is behind both possibilities that we are able to see at this time.

That is due to your wilful ignorance and desperation to have a daddy you call the creator.

Well I'm not sold on the idea that a creator is how things happened, it raises more questions than answers. I will admitt however that its 1000 times more plausible than evolution.

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?

No if's about it. There is no such nonsense as target food. Get over it

Your entire basis for understanding of this stems from what you see in humans, and you keep overlooking the fact that we are not from here, so we are not good role models.

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.

Are we in balance or not. Does it depend on what twaddle you are peddling at the time? Your main problem is either way your fantasy fails and fails epically

So you believe that no species is suppose to have something to eat, or is any species suppose to have any order with anything they endure in life. I'm sorry man that just means that things are supposed to be totally chaotic, and few to nothing can survive in such an enviroment.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No actually what I have been able to prove on here is that evolutionists wouldn't know the difference.

You also demonstrate a complete disconnect with reality with your comment above

I don't think aliens

More absolute, unsupported drivel followed that deserves no answer at all.

You have been shown over and over that the probability of evolution acting out of chance is akin to a 747 aircraft magically re-assembling itself from junk yard parts in a tornado. I find the analge to be generous as I see that its more possible then evolution.

Attempt #2 to change the subject you are being slaughtered in and the second time it has failed.

What I mean is it may not be a target food to another source, target foods are not the ONLY things on an intended menu, it is possible that a small menu is normal, but in perspective as to not force a reliant consumer to starve.

Nope you claimed:

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

Not only did you write the nonsense above You went on to defend that idiocy with

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

and then came your denial:

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.

And now you claim:

What I mean is it may not be a target food to another source, target foods are not the ONLY things on an intended menu, it is possible that a small menu is normal, but in perspective as to not force a reliant consumer to starve.

So is any part of any of the conflicting statements you made not a lie?

What I'm saying is in the realm of target foods, they are not suppose to.

Oh boy add another to the list of conflicting statement above. You appear very confused kid.

I don't know enough about them to say.

You knew enough about them in your previous post to dismiss them without considering them or showing any supporting evidence and now you own up to being dumb because it suits you not to answer

And you wasted a large chunk of the internet by being ignorant and choosing to ignore an informative historical document.

Attempt # 3 and the topic will not change so you fail again

reply to post by colin42

A species evolves or becomes extinct. I have a massive amount of evidence to back my claim. You have nothing but your fantasy.

Again you lack insight, and not being able to visualize the larger picture. Your admitting that we are in our 6th extinction as we know it, yet we have never witnessed a single evoltuion. Whats wrong with this picture, well it means that extinctions are going on fast and evolution is so slow that we can't see it. Seriously do you have to be a genius to see whats going on, we are dying faster than we are making new species. In other words the life on this planet is disappearing.

Sorry man your wrong.

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.

My guess is only you know what that rubbish was meant to mean.

What I'm saying is that life is obviously the most important goal.

Yep. So explain why we see that vast diversity we see today. PS only arguments with evidence will be accepted

Backing for diversity can't be proven.

reply to post by itsthetooth

It was just one example, one that I was hoping you could extrapolate from. If evolution were real we would see groups of species with extra limbs, or missing limbs, not just this off odd chance freak of nature.

You mean like centipedes, millipedes with many limbs or snakes, worms and slugs that have none.

We would see species with multiple eyes, disfigurment would be the norm, but its not, there is order and pattern to life.

You mean like spiders and many insects

Evolution doesn't exist, or if it does, it's either limited by what it can change or what it can do.

Evolution is a word. The process explains the limitations. Small changes over time selected for by the environment.

I'm not finding nine brains in an octopus...

That is either because you are not looking or don’t understand what you are reading. Probably both. Yahoo answers also follow the links supplied by the responder for further reading.

I am surprised you are not aware of this information as this is about the third time I have supplied it to you. Who am I kidding; it is par for the course as far as you are concerned.

Your claim that disadvantaged changes wouldn't make sense is false based on the fact that you keep using the term random to explain the changes that evolution makes.

Disregard the fact I hardly ever use the word random in respect to evolution because the selection of any advantages due to change is selected for by the environment. This means the selection is anything but random, it is in fact very selective.

Now look at what advantage a human with three heads would have? 40% more energy needed to fuel the brains. One head dies they all die. All that effort to find the energy needed for no perceivable advantage.

The young of the three headed human would need 40% more sustenance so unless the human female body changed to supply that whilst nursing very unlikely the three headed infant would reach maturity.

The female birth channel struggles with one headed birth. It is likely that with three heads both the mother and child would die during the birthing process in fact it is pretty much a certainty

Or are you changing your idea now and willing to admitt that there is some intelligence put into this, or that its not actually random?

You are really dense. I mean really very dense.

Which is just one example of billions of random possibilities that seem to be unaccounted for.

So you did not bother to read it. No surprise there then.

It appears that the random evolution is not so random. There is obvious pattern.

Yeah. Read my explanation above re selected for by the environment. Note how many times you have used 'random' compared to me.

I'll give you another example, all species either breath air or breath in water. Just another random coincidence right?

Oh dear Mr. Science major is that so? Breathe air or breathe in water. Explain what you mean by both.

I don't understand, your saying on the other hand that the octopus is using nine brains, and hes doing good.

And his environment is? His anatomy is? Come on you claim you think out of the box yet demonstrate you are just out of your box

I have shared .................... Boring

More unsupported drivel that poses as your opinion.

Well I'm not sold on the idea that a creator is how things happened, it raises more questions than answers.

You can say that again. Look what you have to make up to support it

I will admitt however that its 1000 times more plausible than evolution.

Just like that unsupported drivel above

Your entire basis for understanding of this stems from what you see in humans, and you keep overlooking the fact that we are not from here, so we are not good role models.

So far all you have done is bang on about how humans could not have evolved. Refused to explain diversity (the subject of this thread) and then make that claim. You may not have two heads but you show you have two faces and a forked tongue

So you believe that no species is suppose to have something to eat, or is any species suppose to have any order with anything they endure in life. I'm sorry man that just means that things are supposed to be totally chaotic, and few to nothing can survive in such an enviroment.

A pi$$ poor straw man but a great example of your ignorance but please stop. We have more than enough examples of both from you.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your admitting that we are in our 6th extinction as we know it, yet we have never witnessed a single evoltuion.

I never made any such claim. You have so you show the supporting evidence, with links and quotes from those links. That includes your drivel that followed.

What I'm saying is that life is obviously the most important goal.

Yep, just what is explained by the theory of evolution.

Backing for diversity can't be proven.

Diversity does not have to be proven. It is all around us It is fact. Evolution explains why. Did you study science in the same caravan as Hovind?

reply to post by colin42

It was just one example, one that I was hoping you could extrapolate from. If evolution were real we would see groups of species with extra limbs, or missing limbs, not just this off odd chance freak of nature.

You mean like centipedes, millipedes with many limbs or snakes, worms and slugs that have none.

And you have to ask yourself why it was just limited to those species. Randomness in evolution would create disfigurment, and we don't see that anywhere. Once in a blue moon we have a genetic defect that is usually short lived.

We would see species with multiple eyes, disfigurment would be the norm, but its not, there is order and pattern to life.

You mean like spiders and many insects

Thats another good point, that even in what few rare examples you are able to come up with, is also like saying that evolution only ever happend to those species. Why is everything symmetrical? I guess evolution believes in things only being symmetrical. There is nothing random about that.

Evolution doesn't exist, or if it does, it's either limited by what it can change or what it can do.

Evolution is a word. The process explains the limitations. Small changes over time selected for by the environment

So you claim that the enviroment decideds the changes. Yet you don't agree that every species is suppose to have something to eat.

That is either because you are not looking or don’t understand what you are reading. Probably both. Yahoo answers also follow the links supplied by the responder for further reading.

I am surprised you are not aware of this information as this is about the third time I have supplied it to you. Who am I kidding; it is par for the course as far as you are concerned.

Do you have a credible source you could share that shows they have nine brains.

Your claim that disadvantaged changes wouldn't make sense is false based on the fact that you keep using the term random to explain the changes that evolution makes.

Disregard the fact I hardly ever use the word random in respect to evolution because the selection of any advantages due to change is selected for by the environment. This means the selection is anything but random, it is in fact very selective.

So the same enviroment that the species lives in, determines what genetic changes will be allowed to evolve. Do you have any credible sources that have witnessed this.

Now look at what advantage a human with three heads would have? 40% more energy needed to fuel the brains. One head dies they all die. All that effort to find the energy needed for no perceivable advantage.

The multiple head theory was just an example, you need to extropolate on that. What about more legs, or more arms, or more fingers, how about eyes behind our heads.

The young of the three headed human would need 40% more sustenance so unless the human female body changed to supply that whilst nursing very unlikely the three headed infant would reach maturity.

Now your admitting that there could be limitations in birthing allowences.

The female birth channel struggles with one headed birth. It is likely that with three heads both the mother and child would die during the birthing process in fact it is pretty much a certainty

And still we don't even hear about failed births with multiple heads, or eyes. or eye.

Or are you changing your idea now and willing to admitt that there is some intelligence put into this, or that its not actually random?

You are really dense. I mean really very dense.

I don't think so.

Which is just one example of billions of random possibilities that seem to be unaccounted for.

So you did not bother to read it. No surprise there then.

No I read it, its just that your once again missing the big picture.

It appears that the random evolution is not so random. There is obvious pattern.

Yeah. Read my explanation above re selected for by the environment. Note how many times you have used 'random' compared to me.

Ask yourself, is there more randomness, or more pattern? I see more pattern, even in compared DNA.

I'll give you another example, all species either breath air or breath in water. Just another random coincidence right?

Oh dear Mr. Science major is that so? Breathe air or breathe in water. Explain what you mean by both.

almost all of the life on this planet breaths air, or in water. With a few rare bacteria and viruses that live in other enviroments.

Well I'm not sold on the idea that a creator is how things happened, it raises more questions than answers.

You can say that again. Look what you have to make up to support

reply to post by colin42

Well I'm not sold on the idea that a creator is how things happened, it raises more questions than answers.

You can say that again. Look what you have to make up to support it

Just because its the best answer, doesn't mean its the perfect answer.

Your entire basis for understanding of this stems from what you see in humans, and you keep overlooking the fact that we are not from here, so we are not good role models.

So far all you have done is bang on about how humans could not have evolved. Refused to explain diversity (the subject of this thread) and then make that claim. You may not have two heads but you show you have two faces and a forked tongue

Just because you know that something is wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you know another option is right.

So you believe that no species is suppose to have something to eat, or is any species suppose to have any order with anything they endure in life. I'm sorry man that just means that things are supposed to be totally chaotic, and few to nothing can survive in such an enviroment.

A pi$$ poor straw man but a great example of your ignorance but please stop. We have more than enough examples of both from you.

Nope its piss poor observation on your end, you actually believe that there is nothing to anything on this planet except that its every species for itself. The only order you have is that new species will emerge, randomly but with a great amount of pattern.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And you have to ask yourself why it was just limited to those species. Randomness in evolution would create disfigurment, and we don't see that anywhere. Once in a blue moon we have a genetic defect that is usually short lived.

Moving the goal posts again. You claimed there were no examples. I gave you just a few but not an exhaustive list. So now you claim it is just a few but still try to make the same claim you made when writing there were none.

Thats another good point, that even in what few rare examples you are able to come up with, is also like saying that evolution only ever happend to those species.

Ditto with this reply. The list is not exhaustive. It does not even include organisms with no eyes. They are not rare in the animal kingdom even by any stretch of the imagination even yours and so you move the goal posts. Make more ignorant unfounded claims.

Why is everything symmetrical? I guess evolution believes in things only being symmetrical. There is nothing random about that.

Don’t guess, don’t assume. Get off you flaccid lazy butt and use the biggest resource for information in mans history. The information on this and many other topics is at the end of a simple search and it is free.

So you claim that the enviroment decideds the changes.

Nope. The Theory of Evolution explains the environment selects the changes based on advantage that allows the organism with that advantage to breed and pass those advantages on. I have read the explanation. Considered the evidence repeated what observations I could and have concluded that it is correct.

What have you based your conclusions on?

Yet you don't agree that every species is suppose to have something to eat.

Not even sure you are as much as 10 - 12 years old?

Do you have a credible source you could share that shows they have nine brains.

you have been defeated again I see so this old tactic is dragged out of your swag bag. I know you have not read the link or the other links within it that I asked you to read. Your loss and no less than I expect of you.

So the same enviroment that the species lives in, determines what genetic changes will be allowed to evolve. Do you have any credible sources that have witnessed this.

I refer you back to the previous 450 pages

The multiple head theory was just an example, you need to extropolate on that. What about more legs, or more arms, or more fingers, how about eyes behind our heads.

Already done. It is your turn as you made the claim so I have done more than I need to have.

Now your admitting that there could be limitations in birthing allowences.

How low is your understanding of the language you use? How poor is your spelling. Quote me where I stated that the birth channel of women could handle anything from a pea to an elephant? Jeeze you are ignorant

And still we don't even hear about failed births with multiple heads, or eyes. or eye.

Do you look? Did you read the link I provided? Get off your butt. Use Google. Come back when you have an education and have reduced your ignorance.

I don't think so.

Point made

No I read it, its just that your once again missing the big picture.

So you have read it but cannot form an opposing argument. Tragic

Ask yourself, is there more randomness, or more pattern? I see more pattern, even in compared DNA.

I am more interested in you answering my points than your random answer. NOTE! in respect of your answers I have to use random quite a lot another of your tactics when you cannot answer the points made.

almost all of the life on this planet breaths air, or in water. With a few rare bacteria and viruses that live in other enviroments.

So Mr Science Minor you did not understand the question. I'll give you a clue. Read your answer

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just because its the best answer, doesn't mean its the perfect answer.

More to the point. Just because you make an unfounded claim that it is an answer in no way means it is. In fact I would go as far to state if you endorse it then it is no answer at all.

Just because you know that something is wrong, doesn't automatically mean that you know another option is right.

And how does your random answer apply to my point?

Nope its piss poor observation on your end, you actually believe that there is nothing to anything on this planet except that its every species for itself. The only order you have is that new species will emerge, randomly but with a great amount of pattern.

Please stop looking at my end. I need a translator to make any sense out of the rest of the drivel you wrote. Have you got a more credible and coherent source?

reply to post by colin42

And you have to ask yourself why it was just limited to those species. Randomness in evolution would create disfigurment, and we don't see that anywhere. Once in a blue moon we have a genetic defect that is usually short lived.

Moving the goal posts again. You claimed there were no examples. I gave you just a few but not an exhaustive list. So now you claim it is just a few but still try to make the same claim you made when writing there were none.

Those are far from what I would consider disgigurement, there is obviously order of some type.

Ditto with this reply. The list is not exhaustive. It does not even include organisms with no eyes. They are not rare in the animal kingdom even by any stretch of the imagination even yours and so you move the goal posts. Make more ignorant unfounded claims.

But even in those examples I'll bet you still find order and semitry to design.

Don’t guess, don’t assume. Get off you flaccid lazy butt and use the biggest resource for information in mans history. The information on this and many other topics is at the end of a simple search and it is free.

I was being sarscastic, the only excuse is that there is intelligence or creation behind them.

Nope. The Theory of Evolution explains the environment selects the changes based on advantage that allows the organism with that advantage to breed and pass those advantages on. I have read the explanation. Considered the evidence repeated what observations I could and have concluded that it is correct.

Well of course it is, survival of the fittest, anyone with half a brain knows that if something isn't going to make it, it's not going to make it. The problem is this says nothing about creating new life.

The difference between you and I is that there are things your considering or assuming to be common place not allowing species to survive, and I'm saying they are not natural.

What have you based your conclusions on?


Yet you don't agree that every species is suppose to have something to eat.

Not even sure you are as much as 10 - 12 years old

Here I am supposedly 12 and I can see that everything is supposed to have a specific diet. You also asknowledge the fact that we are in the 6th largest extinction. Maybe, just maybe wouldn't you think some things no longer have food and have stepped on others food menu?

There is this simple equation of whats called supply and demand. There is no way that you can believe that any species is suppposed to just eat whatever it wants.

Do you have a credible source you could share that shows they have nine brains.

you have been defeated again I see so this old tactic is dragged out of your swag bag. I know you have not read the link or the other links within it that I asked you to read. Your loss and no less than I expect of you.

I was looking for a credible link.

How low is your understanding of the language you use? How poor is your spelling. Quote me where I stated that the birth channel of women could handle anything from a pea to an elephant? Jeeze you are ignorant

Either way, its a limitation which means that evolution could not render a three headed human if it wanted to, which means evoution is NOT random and your agreeing with this.

Do you look? Did you read the link I provided? Get off your butt. Use Google. Come back when you have an education and have reduced your ignorance.

Quit being a stoop, you know damn good and well that yahoo answers is NOT a credible source anymore than ATS is.

I am more interested in you answering my points than your random answer. NOTE! in respect of your answers I have to use random quite a lot another of your tactics when you cannot answer the points made

So you believe there is more random than pattern. Nevermind that millions of species breath air, and millions more live in water. Why is it we never hear about a human baby not making it into this world because he is suppose to breath amonia rather than air?

almost all of the life on this planet breaths air, or in water. With a few rare bacteria and viruses that live in other enviroments.

So Mr Science Minor you did not understand the question. I'll give you a clue. Read your answer

I see more pattern than I do randomness.

reply to post by itsthetooth

But even in those examples I'll bet you still find order and semitry to design.

So what? How on earth is that proof for your crazy claims?

You are using the argument from ignorance and argument from complexity again.

reply to post by colin42


So here is the big question that I'm sort of baffled over.

You claim that there seems to be absolute randomness in all of the life here on earth.
Yet when I look at them I find shocking simularitys, at least in land species....
The majority has two eyes, four limbs, a nose, a head, two ears, one mouth etc...

Aquatic life also has patterns but they don't match with land species. So my big question to you is if there is so much pattern how do you explain it if evoltuion is suppose to be bases on random selection?

Natural selection could explain how certain things were kept the same way but the problem is that there are things that could have been better. For example, humans with webbed feet as we do live on a predominantly water planet. How about wings to fly as we seem to be relying on trucking and transportation to bring us the large selection of food we require.

Looking at adaptation, dont you agree that adaptation would not be needed had we of evolved correctly to begin with? Seriously answer this as its a solid fact, you claim that natural selection makes sure that the advantage survives, you said that yourself. So if thats true, why do we rely so much on adaptation? Often to the point that it's redundant. Which leaves you with only two choices of how things have happened.
One is that we evolved so fast that adaptation was needed to fill in something that evolution could not, which I highly don't agree with, its like saying that evolution failed.
Another is that we never evolved to begin with and adaptation just so happens to be a trait we have.

The bottom line is that they are contradictions of each other, you surely don't need both, and to have both would imply that one is not working. Why do we adapt so much if we supposedly evolved? Your either admitting that we sucked at evolving, and didn't evolve correctly or your admitting adaptation just happened to be a trait we picked up for the hell of it.

Now you claimed yourself that only the advantages win in evolution, so please explain to me the adavantage of having evolved when we have adaptation, or why we would need adaptation if we supposedly evolved.

If you claim that our ability to adapt came after evolving, then you are admitting that evolution failed us. If you agree that adaptation came first, then why would we need to evolve when we can just adapt. There is no need for both.

You cant claim that our ability to adapt came after we evolved unless you admitt that evolution has preconceived notions. There is no way that evolution could have predicted that we would need the ability to adapt, unless it has a crystal ball.