Science against evolution

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Didn’t you read my reply that I cannot find a reference to Alopathic speciation in that thread.

What’s more the closest word I can find to Alopathic is THIS Allopathic medicine but why that would be on a wiki definition of evolution beats me.

Cut and paste from the link you supplied where it stated that, I mean I could have missed it.

AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciation
During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

speciation wiki And don't try to say the link doesn't work, I just tested it and it works fine.

edit on 12-2-2013 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)

Why would I claim the link does not work? You only use that ploy with natural

tooth this is another great example of your reading ability or lack of. Your paste above says allopatric speciation and your original that I questioned was alopathic speciation which is why I asked the question I did.

You cannot admit you were wrong can you. Dude you really should have gone to spec savers

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

If you are sure then take it to the debate forum. If your theory has any merit then you should have no problem doing so but if can’t do that small task then you must not believe in yourself or your theory. Darwin had faith in his theory and himself to where he put himself out there and stood behind his work and faced persecution and ridicule but you are afraid of a mod. If you do not have faith in yourself or your own work you shouldn’t expect others to either. I can’t take you serious if you do not take yourself serious.

I am not sure I can even call what you have a theory it is more of a lose idea.

If you wish to debate I will do so in the debate forum if you decline to do so then you have nothing worth debating

I already explained that I have recieved unfair treatment from a mod here on ATS that was as a result of somone trying to pressure me into the repeat game. Why would I even think of it. Besides I seriously doubt if ATS is the determining factor that can determin if my theory is good or not.

Oh i see!

Well that easily remedied.....the judges on the debate forum can be anyone. Anyone can sign up to be a judge. And they're anonymous.

Originally posted by GAOTU789

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I know for a fact that the only things that have been witnessed are adaptation, which has nothing to do with evolution.

I think your confusing adaptation with evolution.

Adaptation has everything to do with evolution. In fact it is one of the main drivers of evolution..

You would say that.....you're biased

What tooth means is that his understanding of what adaptation means, has no relationship to his understanding of what evolution means.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

I never said NO ONE would live past puberty, thats what you get for not paying attention and I have already been over this with you. What I said is there are defects in our genes that don't allow you to make it past puberty. There is a big difference.

Nope. You have maintained that due to 4000 defects we need medical intervention to live past puberty.

Example of your nonsense

Check out Lloyd Pye's Human genetics video.
Over 4000 gross defects, over 2 dozen that wont allow you to live past puberty.

This post of more nonsense

I never said the bubonic plague would wipe us out before puberty. What I said was that out of 4000 defects in our genes, 2 dozen of them wouldn't allow you to make it past puberty per Pye's video.

Again shows you change your story to fit your present lie just as you tried here

reply to post by itsthetooth

If you believe that evolution is responsible for diversity, I guess thats fine, provided you can find any truth in it, I know I can't.

Yelling la-la-la with fingers firmly planted in your ears makes learning hard. The correct word is won't, not can't.

On the other hand you have creation.

Proved false countless times.

This lack of order does not support life, as its obviously not healthy for species to just eat whatever.

It is not obvious that a particular diet is healthier than others. I would even guess that there are healthier diets NOT available to an organism.

but that isn't proof that things are suppose to be that way.

No. It is very strong evidence against.

I however question that diet, and claim that each species has an intended food. Most of which aren't connected, either through extinction or due to the fact that we were all moved here, minus our food perhaps. The reason I know this to be fact is actually quite simple, its the ONLY way life can progress on any planet.

You make a speculation that there is intended food and then speculate that it is a fact. Begin with your speculation of intended food and provide evidence. Later you can try to provide evidence that "the ONLY way life ..."

You can't have unbalanced life on a planet and expect them to live a normal and healthy life, most likely they will die out as a species.

Please provide evidence for that claim.

In case you didn't know, earth is now in the 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life, and thats a quote from wiki.

This is a lie. Nowhere does it state that the current loss of species will result in 98% of all life. That is a flat out lie you have made several times before.

Species aren't suppose to be born either from creation or evolution just to find out they have no food.

Nonsensical claim unrelated to reality.

When a species has no target food, they will go through the phases of hunger like I have already explained, and in our case there is even processed food that we make for ourselves. Making food is a form of adaptation and anytime you have to adapt, its not only not natural, but its another clue that your not from here.

Now you speculate target food exists. Please provide evidence for it.

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium.

False.
ods.od.nih.gov...

Kale, broccoli, and Chinese cabbage are fine vegetable sources of calcium.

Most grains (such as breads, pastas, and unfortified cereals), while not rich in calcium, add significant amounts of calcium to the diet because people eat them often or in large amounts.

This is why we have super supplement stores because our diet needs are in dire.

False. These stores exist because people are told they need supplements when in almost all cases they do not.

We also suffer from many food related illnesses, and food isn't suppose to make you sick its suppose to make you healthy, providing your eating what your supose to. There is no such thing as a perfect diet, simply because our food isn't here.

Please provide evidence.

In Target Food, it's ideal and the best for the consumer. Target Food provides all the nutrients needed and is ideal to the consumer. I know it sounds like magic, and considering what we have to go through, I understand why its looked at like that, but the fact of the matter is, if evolution is capeable of the diversity or if you believe in creation, it only stands to reason through commen sense that there would also be food for that species /quote]
Please provide evidence that target foods exist.

This has been nothing but long winded speculation with some of it demonstrably wrong such as creation claims and calcium claims.

Now that you have your speculations listed it is time to provide evidence for these.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. I know for a fact that the only things that have been witnessed are adaptation, which has nothing to do with evolution.

False. Evidence posted multiple times in this thread.

I think your confusing adaptation with evolution.

Every post you show that you do not understand the term evolution as used in science.

Adaptation is an ability and has NOTHING to do with changes happening on a molecular level, just more proof that your silly religion is total bunk.

There you show that you do not understand the terms.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As you can see for yourself, this diet gives no clue about deer being experimental with food, in fact they appear to have a clear concise diet. A browser tab explains he is an herbivore, again, we know what he eats.

Deer constantly experiment. That is how they find their diet. They look for the mentioned foods through experimentation. Deer are the bane of farmers growing everything from fruit, to Christmas trees. They are destructive in communities where they eat everything in sight. One of the problems with deer is they are most likely to eat new plantings in an area because they experiment. Something new and they want to try it.

The wiki does not discuss the issue of experimentation. It says neither yes nor no.

The only time that animals experiment with food is when they are starving. Of course it's only common sense, why would they be experimenting with food if they have food avaiable to eat that is tried and true in the past? So you sort of walked into that one.

False. Deer experiment with food all year long regardless of the abundance of food. The obvious has been you have no common sense. Animals experiment with food. Filter feeders experiment with food. Sessile organisms experiment with food. Rodents experiment with food.

If you want to claim that animals never experiment with food then you need to find a place that makes that statement. Please show me that. I know you can't since animals experimenting with food is extremely common in the natural world.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Don't forget the evolution of reptile to mammal which is one the best documented transitions in the fossil record.

reply to post by stereologist

Deer constantly experiment. That is how they find their diet. They look for the mentioned foods through experimentation. Deer are the bane of farmers growing everything from fruit, to Christmas trees. They are destructive in communities where they eat everything in sight. One of the problems with deer is they are most likely to eat new plantings in an area because they experiment. Something new and they want to try it.

The wiki does not discuss the issue of experimentation. It says neither yes nor no.


The only time that animals experiment with food is when they are starving. Of course it's only common sense, why would they be experimenting with food if they have food avaiable to eat that is tried and true in the past? So you sort of walked into that one.

False. Deer experiment with food all year long regardless of the abundance of food. The obvious has been you have no common sense. Animals experiment with food. Filter feeders experiment with food. Sessile organisms experiment with food. Rodents experiment with food.

If you want to claim that animals never experiment with food then you need to find a place that makes that statement. Please show me that. I know you can't since animals experimenting with food is extremely common in the natural world.

Those are all a part of the deers diet, hes not experimenting. Please show me where the diet claims they are experimenting? I'm not seeing it. I do have bad eyes but I went over it twice.

The onerous is on you to prove it. Your claiming they experiment, so you should have no problem producing something that backs that claim up. Wiki isn't going to state the obvious and claim there is no experimentation when there obviously isn't.

reply to post by stereologist


Allopathic speciation is a joke. No species has ever evolved into another species in a lab. According to the wiki which I have read plenty of times, they claim that speciation has occured in some bacteria, some viruses, and some aquatic life. Those changes are however are not proof of evolution. For all scientists know, its simply adaptation by the species.

Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Adaptation is an ability not a molecular change. All the more reason you can see evolutionists just grasping at straws. If you want to do something constructive, try to locate the proof as to why evolution claims adaptation is part of evolution and read it really good. There is no proof. Just like the rest of the theory, it was simply added because it sounded cool.

reply to post by stereologist

False. Deer experiment with food all year long regardless of the abundance of food. The obvious has been you have no common sense. Animals experiment with food. Filter feeders experiment with food. Sessile organisms experiment with food. Rodents experiment with food.

Then you should have no problem producing proof that they experiment. It's not hard to do, all you do is google what your looking for, and usually if it exists, you will find it in google.

Or is it possible that your the first person to think of deers experimenting with food.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Those are all a part of the deers diet, hes not experimenting. Please show me where the diet claims they are experimenting? I'm not seeing it. I do have bad eyes but I went over it twice.

Deer experiment with heather, spruce, firs. Not part of their diet.

Anything newly planted in an area will be tested by the deer including poisonous plants such as foxglove.

Wiki isn't going to state the obvious and claim there is no experimentation when there obviously isn't.

The wiki does not state if deer experiment or not. In fact in a previous thread you claimed that the deer ate a different diet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Allopathic speciation is a joke. No species has ever evolved into another species in a lab. According to the wiki which I have read plenty of times, they claim that speciation has occured in some bacteria, some viruses, and some aquatic life. Those changes are however are not proof of evolution. For all scientists know, its simply adaptation by the species.

Evidence already posted in thread. PS it is allopatric.

Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Adaptation is an ability not a molecular change. All the more reason you can see evolutionists just grasping at straws. If you want to do something constructive, try to locate the proof as to why evolution claims adaptation is part of evolution and read it really good. There is no proof. Just like the rest of the theory, it was simply added because it sounded cool.

Once again you show that you do not understand the meaning of these words.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then you should have no problem producing proof that they experiment. It's not hard to do, all you do is google what your looking for, and usually if it exists, you will find it in google.

Or is it possible that your the first person to think of deers experimenting with food.

I already provided the evidence.

The burden is on you to support this nitwit target food claim. You are the one claiming that they NEVER experiment. Please provide that proof. I've already shown you wrong.

Please provide the proof that animals never experiment with food.

reply to post by stereologist

On the other hand you have creation.

Proved false countless times.

So let me get this straight, you have single handedly disproven the creation theory

This lack of order does not support life, as its obviously not healthy for species to just eat whatever.

It is not obvious that a particular diet is healthier than others. I would even guess that there are healthier diets NOT available to an organism.

Well its not obvious, as in there is no way they could know the difference, but still some diets are better for the consumer then others and thats just a fact of science. If I'm wrong then you need to let our scientists know to give up on trying to come up with an ideal diet because according to you, its not possible.

I however question that diet, and claim that each species has an intended food. Most of which aren't connected, either through extinction or due to the fact that we were all moved here, minus our food perhaps. The reason I know this to be fact is actually quite simple, its the ONLY way life can progress on any planet.

You make a speculation that there is intended food and then speculate that it is a fact. Begin with your speculation of intended food and provide evidence. Later you can try to provide evidence that "the ONLY way life ..."

Life can't flourish when its out of balance, its that simple.

Take the example of 98% of all species going extinct right now. Life is dying on this planet, and I guarantee its not a natural process.

You can't have unbalanced life on a planet and expect them to live a normal and healthy life, most likely they will die out as a species.

Please provide evidence for that claim.

sure.

extinctions wiki

In case you didn't know, earth is now in the 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life, and thats a quote from wiki.

This is a lie. Nowhere does it state that the current loss of species will result in 98% of all life. That is a flat out lie you have made several times before.

Thats what you get for not clicking on the links. And your right, its not that its going to happen, I was wrong, its already happened. Read up.

extinctions

Over 98% of documented species are now extinct,[2] but extinction occurs at an uneven rate. Based on the fossil record, the background rate of extinctions on Earth is about two to five taxonomic families of marine invertebrates and vertebrates every million years. Marine fossils are mostly used to measure extinction rates because of their superior fossil record and stratigraphic range compared to land organisms.

So it must be a pretty big shock to you for the first time to realize that your living on a dying planet, looks like even evolution is failing to provide answers for this one. It's because of what I have been explaining all along, someone gathered all this life and placed it on earth, and you can't do that.

Species aren't suppose to be born either from creation or evolution just to find out they have no food.

Nonsensical claim unrelated to reality.

Ok then perhaps you would agree that without food we all die.

Now you speculate target food exists. Please provide evidence for it.

Target Food exists based on patterns observed in the search for intended food by over 30 varied diets. I'm not going to play the repeat game when you obviously don't even click on my links.

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium.

False.
ods.od.nih.gov...

Kale, broccoli, and Chinese cabbage are fine vegetable sources of calcium.


Most grains (such as breads, pastas, and unfortified cereals), while not rich in calcium, add significant amounts of calcium to the diet because people eat them often or in large amounts

Did you not read your own link, I have the most time invested in this area and I can tell you didn't even read it. First of all most cearels and grains have calcium added because they come up short.

Here is how weak your argument is, I noticed you listed broccli as a good source of calcium. Thats 21 mg per 1/2 cup so ya your right as long as you eat 47 servings of it per day, thats 23 cups of broccli per day. Did you not pay attention that you need 1000 mg per day, not 21mg?

reply to post by stereologist

This is why we have super supplement stores because our diet needs are in dire.

False. These stores exist because people are told they need supplements when in almost all cases they do not.

So once again, you have the inside scoop that could wipe out all business for all supplement stores

First of all, your wrong, AGAIN

You give me this calcium list that supports everything I have been telling you, then you want to try to sell me on the idea that eating cows milk is probably natural for humans, even though it has to be processed. Why don't you try to find a natural supply for calcium, and good luck.

We also suffer from many food related illnesses, and food isn't suppose to make you sick its suppose to make you healthy, providing your eating what your supose to. There is no such thing as a perfect diet, simply because our food isn't here.

Please provide evidence.

Which part?

reply to post by colin42

Nope. You have maintained that due to 4000 defects we need medical intervention to live past puberty.

No I didn't, you need to go back and read it again. What I said is that we have over 4000 defects in our genes and that 12 of them wont allow you to live past puberty.

For the fourth time now.

reply to post by stereologist

As you can see for yourself, this diet gives no clue about deer being experimental with food, in fact they appear to have a clear concise diet. A browser tab explains he is an herbivore, again, we know what he eats.


Your argument is again an appeal to personal ignorance.


Now I'm not sure if your getting confused with the fact that he does have a large varied diet, and your taking that to mean that he experiments with food, but that is false. The only time that animals experiment with food is when they are starving. Of course it's only common sense, why would they be experimenting with food if they have food avaiable to eat that is tried and true in the past? So you sort of walked into that one.


False. Deer experiment with food all of the time and in all seasons and independent of the abundance of food. Only a liar and a fool state otherwise.

I can see that your still not getting this.

Ok maybe if I softened this up a bit so that you could understand it, might help.

Does the dear ever eat cat, dog, wolf, squirrel, rocks, dirt, no, hes obviously not experimenting.

reply to post by stereologist

Sorry you do not know what theory means. It's not a theory. It was easily shown to be false numerous times.

When you get to high school you can take basic courses to help you learn these things.

At least my school never taught me to see things that aren't there, or that aren't documented, like deer that experiment

I'm still waiting for you to post proof of that, why don't you do that?

reply to post by SplitInfinity

ADAPTATION IS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

Why are you saying it is seperate as it is not.

The thing I find amusing is that you will not admit to something such as Evolution which is easily proven yet you talk about a GOD as being a fact.

Split Infinity

Adaptation is an ability like seeing, and hearing. Evolution is changes on a molecular level. Please explain to me how adaptation is something that happens on a molecular level.