Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.

Why do you need this proven? Every species tries things and eats what's better tasting in its immediate environment. Some species are instructed by their parents in what to eat (like how some species have to avoid poisonous plants, their parents teach them to avoid those plants).

You keep making up conditions for your theory, but instead of proving your theory, you keep making up new rules that would make it some kind of almost untruth if proved to you? Every time anything is proved to you, you just come up with another excuse.

reply to post by Varemia

Why do you need this proven? Every species tries things and eats what's better tasting in its immediate environment.

Thats a bold face lie, we never read about species trying out new food, unless they are domesticated. Even stranger is we never hear about how this section of the species likes the taste of something and this section likes something else. Your obviously wrong.

Some species are instructed by their parents in what to eat (like how some species have to avoid poisonous plants, their parents teach them to avoid those plants).

Thats adaptation, and means they can no longer go by their instincts to guide them for food. Just like humans, as our food is no longer here so we can't rely on our instincts. It's adaptation.

You keep making up conditions for your theory, but instead of proving your theory, you keep making up new rules that would make it some kind of almost untruth if proved to you? Every time anything is proved to you, you just come up with another excuse.

First of all no one has shared anything that I would call proof. Second, of course I come up with more excuses, the theory of target food is real, and makes total sense.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Repeat after me tooth because I'm starting to really question if you ever passed high school biology: TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EXIST!!!

There's 2 possibilities:

A) You are merely trolling and having a laugh at people arguing over your MADE UP WORD.
B) You are actually so dumb you believe a MADE UP WORD is a sound argument.

Take your pick

If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.

So you're simply going to ignore the link showing how a species changed their food source?

Delusional much?

“If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.”
Itsthetooth
Actually, it’s very simple. An animal that eats poison dies and its desire to eat that food is not passed down because being dead means no children. Those animals that ate nutritious foods survived longer (on average, of course there were accidental deaths) and therefore their tastes in food were passed on.

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.”
Itsthetooth
Actually, it’s very simple. An animal that eats poison dies and its desire to eat that food is not passed down because being dead means no children. Those animals that ate nutritious foods survived longer (on average, of course there were accidental deaths) and therefore their tastes in food were passed on.

This is really evolution in a nutshell: dead animals don't make successful parents.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So you're simply going to ignore the link showing how a species changed their food source?

Delusional much?

I didn't ignore the link, I commented, but as usual, you ignore my replys.

He is still eating in the fish food group which simply means that he lost his target food and is trying to stick to it.

Species can do this if they are moved from their element or if their target food goes extinct. The end result is adaptation in the form of now eating something in the same food group. Like I stated before, had he of been eliminated completly from access to that food group, he could venture to eat something else not in that group providing he is smart enough to try to adapt. If not he starves and dies.

reply to post by itsthetooth

First of all no one has shared anything that I would call proof. Second, of course I come up with more excuses, the theory of target food is real, and makes total sense.

Ha...explain this!

I think Lloyd Pye does a alright job.


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by wittgenstein

“If you were right, someone would have presented something that proves how a species knows and understand the food that he chooses to eat, but you haven't, because you are wrong.”
Itsthetooth

Your obviously wrong. Species eat a specific diet, and its apparent that they seem to know they should specifically be eating such food for nutrition purposes. I can't aruge that they might know its good food for them, but I can argue that they seem to know which food they should be eating. This is compounded by the fact that species that lose target food, try to stay in the same food group, thats just how it works. Keep in mind of course that the wild food groups are broken down a lot more than say our food groups.

As an example the anteater eats ants, termites, and grubs, and if he lost the ants and termites he might try to fill that void with a close or simular relative. Now if there wasn't anything in its place that was close, he could venture out to something that isn't even in the same type of group, perhaps a plant or fruit, but those are desperate times.

The original target that the species knows hes supposed to eat, is the best for that consumer specifically, thus its target food. The replacement foods would not be as good for the consumer, and would most likely not be as easy to obtain therefore the species will suffer and go through whats refered to as a reduction in the quality of life, just so he can eat. This occurs because the food isn't as good for him as the target food, and he might have to eat more of it, as the nutritients don't match his needs.

This is currently what humans are going through right now, which is why we have so many problems with our diet. There is no such thing as a perfect diet for humans as our diet was not brought here with us, just like it says in the bible.

Actually, it’s very simple. An animal that eats poison dies and its desire to eat that food is not passed down because being dead means no children. Those animals that ate nutritious foods survived longer (on average, of course there were accidental deaths) and therefore their tastes in food were passed on.

The problem with your theory here is that not every food is poison just because its not target food. Granted you will have a reduction in the quality of life, but its not poison. It's as though what your saying is if its edible, and even if its not as nutritious for you, your still ok. Your right, but not completly, you will suffer.

reply to post by john_bmth

This is really evolution in a nutshell: dead animals don't make successful parents.

And for some reason this seems to be the bulk of what I'm getting as well.

reply to post by itsthetooth


No toothy, it certainly is not what you've been getting at for the past 500 pages

reply to post by john_bmth


It seriously seems to be the only argument for evolution.

Originally posted by colin42
I would like to pose a scenario.

Let's put all the evidence of evolution to one side for a spell. That Darwin and all that followed were mistaken as some maintain.

I would like the pro Evolution group (that includes me) to take a back seat and give the anti evolution group a chance to explain how life on this planet is the way it is now.

I am not asking how life started just an explanation of the diversity of life from the deep dark depths of the oceans to the blue skies above and pole to pole.

I would like an explanation of the fossil records but it is not essential.

As I say I would like the pro evolution group to resist comments for a while. My guess is there will be few takers but I may be suprised.

edit on Thu Sep 22 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: *misleading title, formerly was: Evolution proved 100% Wrong

One, Must Be Honest And Unbiased. www.kjvbible.org...



Scientists: Without God the existence of the universe is impossible!





Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

reply to post by colin42


You know Colin, if I never answered your question about diversity, it just occured to me now.

The diversity we see on this planet today is the accumulation of different species from different planets.

Thats what it says in the bible, it is the only historical seed we have that goes back to the begining, so there it is. All from other planets.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

You know Colin, if I never answered your question about diversity, it just occured to me now.

The diversity we see on this planet today is the accumulation of different species from different planets.

Thats what it says in the bible, it is the only historical seed we have that goes back to the begining, so there it is. All from other planets.

Well, while your opinion is still based on your imagination without collaboration from anyone else, at least we're making progress in changing your mind. Your problem is that you are so religiously stuck to your previous idea that you can only adapt your further ideas around your original idea.

Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

reply to post by Varemia

Well, while your opinion is still based on your imagination without collaboration from anyone else, at least we're making progress in changing your mind. Your problem is that you are so religiously stuck to your previous idea that you can only adapt your further ideas around your original idea.

Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

Not in the slightest. Target food was proven way back when selected diet was realized by evey species on this planet.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

Well, while your opinion is still based on your imagination without collaboration from anyone else, at least we're making progress in changing your mind. Your problem is that you are so religiously stuck to your previous idea that you can only adapt your further ideas around your original idea.

Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

Not in the slightest. Target food was proven way back when selected diet was realized by evey species on this planet.

No, target food was invented when you decided to personally focus on one portion of the diet of every species you look at. YOU decided what YOU believed was their "best" food, and then YOU called it their target food.

There is NO basis in fact in your theory. YOU made it up. YOU need to prove it. Instead YOU are simply asserting that the fact that you are defining creatures under YOUR theory, that it automatically applies everywhere. Then you have the GAUL to suggest that a BOOK written thousands of years ago is somehow factually correct, yet you are willing to take artistic liberty in which parts you consider to be suggestive of your theory! It's complete and utter bullhonky!

reply to post by Varemia

No, target food was invented when you decided to personally focus on one portion of the diet of every species you look at. YOU decided what YOU believed was their "best" food, and then YOU called it their target food.

Exactly, it wasn't proven when it was first thought of.

There is NO basis in fact in your theory. YOU made it up. YOU need to prove it. Instead YOU are simply asserting that the fact that you are defining creatures under YOUR theory, that it automatically applies everywhere. Then you have the GAUL to suggest that a BOOK written thousands of years ago is somehow factually correct, yet you are willing to take artistic liberty in which parts you consider to be suggestive of your theory! It's complete and utter bullhonky!

And your so sure its bulhonkey that your able to prove it as such right? I mean come on, put your money where your mouth is, if you honeslty think I'm just on this forum to make a bunch of stuff up, that couldn't possibly exist, then prove it. How hard can it be to prove me wrong if I was actually wrong?

You can't even prove the bible wrong as its a supernatural book, what are you going to do.
You also can't prove how this diet motivation is somehow instilled into every living organism.
You also wont be able to explain how this same intelligence is somehow telling species what foods, and what types are available, so that they do know what to eat.
That is to say that you wont be able to explain any of this without first debunking the evolution myth. These actions that are somehow already set in place, totally defy the idea of evolution in that they contain intelligence. This intelligence also requires prior knowledge of the foods that are available.
It totally debunks evolution, whether you believe in target food or not, is not the question, that fact that its principles exist automatically prove evolution to be wrong.
So if you believe in target food, you can see how evolution is obviously wrong. if you don't believe but are unable to prove the mechanics of this process by some other means, your still proving evolution wrong as it includes intelligence, on more than one level.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Exactly, it wasn't proven when it was first thought of.

It's still not proven. You haven't provided anything except your personal opinion on which food you think they should eat. You couldn't care less which foods they do eat every day, and all the evidence of species' changing diets.

And your so sure its bulhonkey that your able to prove it as such right? I mean come on, put your money where your mouth is, if you honeslty think I'm just on this forum to make a bunch of stuff up, that couldn't possibly exist, then prove it. How hard can it be to prove me wrong if I was actually wrong?

Because you won't even acknowledge that anyone has proven you wrong. When you get proven wrong, instead of admitting it, you just re-tailor your theory to stretch around the new facts. It doesn't seem to matter how many we throw at you, because instead of looking at the big picture, you only see your one idea that you must stretch around each new fact you learn. There's no room in your theory for scientific expansion.

You can't even prove the bible wrong as its a supernatural book, what are you going to do.
You also can't prove how this diet motivation is somehow instilled into every living organism.
You also wont be able to explain how this same intelligence is somehow telling species what foods, and what types are available, so that they do know what to eat.
That is to say that you wont be able to explain any of this without first debunking the evolution myth. These actions that are somehow already set in place, totally defy the idea of evolution in that they contain intelligence. This intelligence also requires prior knowledge of the foods that are available.
It totally debunks evolution, whether you believe in target food or not, is not the question, that fact that its principles exist automatically prove evolution to be wrong.
So if you believe in target food, you can see how evolution is obviously wrong. if you don't believe but are unable to prove the mechanics of this process by some other means, your still proving evolution wrong as it includes intelligence, on more than one level.

The book exists in the natural world, so the book is not supernatural. You have just been proven wrong.

Diet motivation? I assume you mean the drive to eat and survive? Only you think that choosing a single piece of an organism's diet makes it their "motivation."

You're making piled assumptions. It's an assumption based on your previous assumption.

It doesn't require prior knowledge if the organisms eat what gives them energy. The ones that don't get enough energy die before they can reproduce, and so the ones eating stuff in their environment that sustains them can reproduce.

You're just plain wrong. Target food requires faith that you are correct in your assumptions, and only you, Tooth. Science requires backing up by thousands of other scientists in observing the same thing and coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise, any deviations can be attributed to personal bias, which you are simply full of.

reply to post by Varemia

It's still not proven. You haven't provided anything except your personal opinion on which food you think they should eat. You couldn't care less which foods they do eat every day, and all the evidence of species' changing diets.

Evidence of species changing diets? What evidence is that?

Because you won't even acknowledge that anyone has proven you wrong. When you get proven wrong, instead of admitting it, you just re-tailor your theory to stretch around the new facts. It doesn't seem to matter how many we throw at you, because instead of looking at the big picture, you only see your one idea that you must stretch around each new fact you learn. There's no room in your theory for scientific expansion.

It's funny that your telling me this because I was thinking the same thing about the theory of evolution. With the exception that no one is saying anyting at this point about proving target food wrong, except that they claim it to be.

The book exists in the natural world, so the book is not supernatural. You have just been proven wrong

The book was written in the presence of supernatural activity.

Explain to me how you feel you have proven this to not be the case.

Diet motivation? I assume you mean the drive to eat and survive?

No, the drive to eat and survive explains nothing about the precise diet that all individuals within a species do simultaneously.In addition to the fact that when a species appears to be eating a target food, that food also appears to be ideal in nutrients to the consumer. As you can see, you have your work cut out for you, unless your living in a fantasy world and actually think that all the wiki or any diets looked up that render a diet just so happen to be coincidence.

Only you think that choosing a single piece of an organism's diet makes it their "motivation."

Oh its more than that, the fact that they simultaneously all choose the same food and are not trying or experimenting on things like rocks and dirt, and in addition are targeting food that actually exists, in addition to the target food actually being highly benefical to the consumer, is what makes it motivation.

You're making piled assumptions. It's an assumption based on your previous assumption.

It is no assumption that some species appear to have target food, it is also no assumption that food also appears to be the best for them in what it offers, or in its natural catagory.

It doesn't require prior knowledge if the organisms eat what gives them energy. The ones that don't get enough energy die before they can reproduce, and so the ones eating stuff in their environment that sustains them can reproduce.

The problem with your example is that it expresses the idea that a species has free will when it comes to choosing its food which is obviously not the case. Free will would mean that all individuals within a species would all be eating different things according to their individual taste and geography. We are seeing the opposite.

You're just plain wrong. Target food requires faith that you are correct in your assumptions, and only you, Tooth. Science requires backing up by thousands of other scientists in observing the same thing and coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise, any deviations can be attributed to personal bias, which you are simply full of.

Target food has no faith or personal bias, in fact the complete opposite. There is clear organization of whats considered the correct food when only target food exists, and this structure weakens to a broad choice based on the consumers perception of something else that is close to the original target. In our terms this could often times be the idea of a food group, but as you can see from my last argument with Stereologist, that perception can depend on the consumer and may not match our understanding. None the less it is east to still understand why these choices are made.

If target food didn't exist every species and everyone within a species would all be eating different things. We clearly don't see that. If target food didn't exist we would also see species eating what appeared to be a target food but that woudln't be an ideal match for nutrition. In those rare cases we don't see that either. If target food didn't exist species would also be eating things that didn't even qualify as food, such as dirt and rocks. So as you can see, your very wrong.