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.
“The fact that their food is predictable, and they don't venture off their menu is proof that intelligence was involved.”
Itsthetooth
Take two foods 1. Optimum nutrition for the needs of a particular species. 2. Minimal nutrition for the needs of that particular species. Those animals that eat 1 will on average live longer and therefore have a greater chance of reproduction. Their offspring will inherit a propensity to prefer food 1.
Target foods are not necessarily the best foods for a particular species. We evolved when food ( fat, calories) were scarce. That is why we crave high fat, high calorie foods, foods that are not best for us.
And that would be the problem right there, there is no trial and error. We never hear about a species trying a different food, let alone that it liked it so switched. There is not trial and error, what we have is clear concise instruction.
Trial and error over generations is not complicated. Maybe for you it is.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
What your really saying is that your not happy with your own attempts to try to slaughter my thread, so as a result you try to resort to some other tactic like telling me to stay our of YOUR thread.
You have a thread for discussing your views on target food. Just because you are being slaughtered there does not mean you can move that discussion here.
First off Target food started on this thread LOL.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Target food and its existence has allready been proven from the ant and the anteater, kelp and the abalone, millet seed and the parakeet.
Studys would show that these choices of food for these specific species are highly important to their diet. At any rate they qualify as being the majority of the diet.
Target food wasn't just made up, as you claim, as you can see there is actually a lot behind it, and a lot that supports the theory.
The only proof that supports evolution is the fact that there is always change. You can believe that that change comes in the form of unguided randomness, that can't be proven, while I'm looking at culprits like ADHD that is causing change and could be mistaken as evolution.
The fact that humans don't follow these rules is proof that we are either designed differently or not in our element, where as most other species would have to be.
Sure its natural for a dog to drink dogs milk.
Its natural for a cow to drink cows milk.
Its natural for a goat to drink goats milk
Its even natural for a human to drink human milk.
Its not natural for humans to drink any of the others.
The fact that their food is predictable, and they don't venture off their menu is proof that intelligence was involved.
He is a failed troll then as he has not shown anything that challenges evolution even though his thread title claims he can.
FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a lie because he won't even explain it. His agenda is to attack evolution and nothing more.
Proving evolution wrong is not off topic. Besides, the moderators would have removed me if it were true. Your such a fibber Colin. WAAA
YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC
*REJECTED*
Your threats don't worry me. I can see that you sucked at the debate, and have attempted just about every shotty trick in the book to get me off the thread. Target food proves evolution wrong, and the funny part is I have a feeling that you know this, so you are trying to hide from it.
1. Your infantile attitude in this thread is not welcome
2. Your off topic posts are not welcome
3. your dishonest tactics are not welcome
4. Your insults and attempts to troll this thread WILL get you reported. I will break a personal rule to ensure it happens.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Well I can't post google searches, but you could look them up for yourself. Just pick a handfull of different species and type in "what does the XXXXX eat" and you will always get an accurate answer.
Please post your scientific references and studies for "target food". Your own personal opinion doesn't qualify. Post facts. Stop avoiding it.
No its not, no one has ever witnessed or proven that one species turns into something else. No one has ever witnessed macroevolution. Before you answer, it couldn't be witnessed even if it were real, but its not.
Evolution is 100% proven process that happens in nature.
As an example I recently shared a link that proved that scientists just found out that ADHD has the ability to change genes. What this means is prior to them realizing this, evolutionists were looking at those changes as though they were evolution, they in fact werent. All I'm saying is there is probably a simular excuse for ALL of the changes. In other words none of it is from evolution.
There's always change but not evolution? C'mon man. What do you think evolution is? Saying that it might have an intelligence guiding it, doesn't prove it wrong. Read about it, stop trolling. Everything you just brought up was already addressed.
It doesn't prove we are not from earth, it proves our food isn't here, which in turn proves we are not from here. While other species in part do have their target food.
And another blatant lie. So you make up a rule, claim that species have to follow it in order to be from earth and then claim humans don't follow it while other creatures do and it has something to do with being from earth. Prove it. Prove any part of your logic. ANY PART.
Target food exists due to three basic reasons. The first is that we are able to confidently announce what each species eats.
1. Prove that target food exists
The only thing it can do is prove if you are NOT from here. Obviously if your food is not here and you have ruled out extinctions, something is very wrong.
2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth
That proof lies in the understanding of the fact that every species, aside from humans, have either a direction though intelligence, or are intelligently programed by evolution so that they know what they are supposed to eat.
3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of evolution rather than scientific studies
Of course but that doens't mean its natural for humans to consume it.
Do you not even know what the word natural means? If it occurs in nature without human intervention, it's natural. Cows producing milk is natural.
So what you are saying is that it would be perfectly natural for you to drink milk from say a cat, a grasshopper, a turtle, a fish, and just about any other species on the planet, all milk was meant for us to drink because it started out natural.
This proves you wrong. There is no such thing as, "it's natural for A but not B. It's either natural or its not. Since it occurs in nature and has been on the planet before humans, it's 100% natural. End of story.
Milk from any species is intended to feed the offspring of that same species, not every species on the planet.
Claiming its not natural for humans to drink milk is like claiming its not natural for them to eat a banana, the egg from a chicken, or drink coconut milk. We get essential nutrients from milk, which is naturally produced. Therefor, you are wrong.
Some species have target food, and some don't. But just because they don't still doesn't prove they are from here. Their food could have been brought here with them. It's only the absence of target food that proves something is not from here. Humans, dogs, cats, etc...
You shouldn't lie and call something a fact when its not. Most diets in the wild change on a MONTHLY basis. You are claiming that because 3 creatures in the history of the planet eat the food they are well equipped to eat that it's this magical target food. Sorry. That would mean 99% of all species on earth were not from earth, which doesn't make any sense.
FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a l
Well I wasn't aware that target food attacked evolution, but I'm glad to make progress in any direction. Also it wasn't intentional either, it's just the truth.
FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a lie because he won't even explain it. His agenda is to attack evolution and nothing more.
I skimmed through it, its a lot of material. They are smart as hell for sure, and very innovative.
Over the last few days I have been reading this thread
Ant: what the hell are these things anyway
It is a top post in my view and has fast become an ideal resource for information on this tiny and very successful insect whose society mirrors ours in so many ways.
If you have not read this thread yet I highly recommend it.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well I can't post google searches, but you could look them up for yourself. Just pick a handfull of different species and type in "what does the XXXXX eat" and you will always get an accurate answer.
The fact that we know what a species eats, and that they all eat the same thing within the species, proves intelligence is behind the mechanism of how they eat. Target food is the correct food by that response.
No its not, no one has ever witnessed or proven that one species turns into something else. No one has ever witnessed macroevolution. Before you answer, it couldn't be witnessed even if it were real, but its not.
It doesn't prove we are not from earth, it proves our food isn't here, which in turn proves we are not from here. While other species in part do have their target food.
Target food exists due to three basic reasons.
The first is that we are able to confidently announce what each species eats.
Second we don't see scattered eating amongst species, they all eat the same thing.
Third that diet is always a very nutritious one for that consumer, and has natural processes.
The only thing it can do is prove if you are NOT from here. Obviously if your food is not here and you have ruled out extinctions, something is very wrong.
2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth
That proof lies in the understanding of the fact that every species, aside from humans, have either a direction though intelligence, or are intelligently programed by evolution so that they know what they are supposed to eat.
3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of evolution rather than scientific studies
So what you are saying is that it would be perfectly natural for you to drink milk from say a cat, a grasshopper, a turtle, a fish, and just about any other species on the planet, all milk was meant for us to drink because it started out natural.
Well I wasn't aware that target food attacked evolution, but I'm glad to make progress in any direction. Also it wasn't intentional either, it's just the truth.
Proof needs evidence. You have none evident by the fact you have never produced any.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
Proving evolution wrong is not off topic. Besides, the moderators would have removed me if it were true. Your such a fibber Colin. WAAA
YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC
*REJECTED*
Originally posted by pacifier2012
Yes i ca.
Evolution is a constant micro change that should be able to be documented piece by piece to be proven. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and therefore 10.
Show me 1-10 in micro evidence of a microbe turning into a human. There isn't any that I've ever been shown. I should see a fish with flippers and half developed lungs and then the same fish with fully deveolped lungs in micro chnages... no hang on, a fish out of water dies... so how did the ones struggling for breath develop the ability to live while they were adapting?
It makes a smuch sense as putting 100 homosexulas on a island and expectign them to breed or adapt to breed. Death results. You cannot change except in micro steps or you die in or out of your environment.
I can show you plenty of species that change sex if either the male or female population is reduced. It is quite common actually.
Originally posted by pacifier2012
Yes i ca.
Evolution is a constant micro change that should be able to be documented piece by piece to be proven. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and therefore 10.
Show me 1-10 in micro evidence of a microbe turning into a human. There isn't any that I've ever been shown. I should see a fish with flippers and half developed lungs and then the same fish with fully deveolped lungs in micro chnages... no hang on, a fish out of water dies... so how did the ones struggling for breath develop the ability to live while they were adapting?
It makes a smuch sense as putting 100 homosexulas on a island and expectign them to breed or adapt to breed. Death results. You cannot change except in micro steps or you die in or out of your environment.
I am glad you think so.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
I skimmed through it, its a lot of material. They are smart as hell for sure, and very innovative.
Over the last few days I have been reading this thread
Ant: what the hell are these things anyway
It is a top post in my view and has fast become an ideal resource for information on this tiny and very successful insect whose society mirrors ours in so many ways.
If you have not read this thread yet I highly recommend it.
So according to you ants are not natural
Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better.