Target food proves evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

save your breath. the op is just a troll. once you present irrefutable proof that he is full of baloney, he just ignores you and argues with someone else.

The only thing you ever presented to me was that we are going to have to eat 12 servings of calcium just to keep our calcium up. The problem is you only usually eat about 9 servings total in a day, so where are you suppose to find room?

So I pointed out that at least sardins are higher in calcium but even then you will have to eat 5.4 sevings a day.

You never commented on my replies, you just went on on ignored anything I proved you wrong with, I seriously doubt that you can call that iffefutable proof.

But your math is wrong. So we don't haggle over RDA's (since they recently changed), lets go ahead and use your over inflated figure of 1000mg/day.

If cereals (meaning, the grains from grasses) equal 1104mg/serving....and a serving is only 1/3 cup.....what kind of math are you using?

If a leafy green is 200mg/serving (and many are closer to 250-300mg/serving), then to get to your overinflated total, you could simply eat 2-3 servings/day of them. BTW, a single serving is 1/3 cup. So, once again, you do the math. Then have a side dish of meats or something, as well as eggs, during meal times.

RE: me ignoring you....my last reply to you was a video showing mitosis, and explaining that the process in that video is what drives evolution. You ignored THAT.

Nothing said to me has been ignored. It is just your cognitive dissonance talking.

reply to post by colin42

Well its quite simple actually.

Oh dear. This looks like you are not going to show your proof just more idiotic opinion.


Ask any scientist what a species eats, and they will have an answer for you. The fact that this answer will apply to the entire species is proof that there is some type of intelligence behind how food is chosen.

Yep, no evidence to back up your claim so no need to read any further.

Oh I see, it doesn't fit into your religion, so no need to read on. I'm glad you can be so narrow minded. It's people like you that make others question the credentials of forums.

Of course it doesn't because evolution believes that a species will just eat whatever it can, and that is going to be good enough.

Evolution describes no such thing. You want it to but it does not. GET AN EDUCATION.

Ok lets say I'm wrong, someone on this thread thew some bad advice out at me, and it's not exactly what evolution says. Tell us exactly what evoltuion claims a species will eat when it is the first of its kind, and what a species is supposed to eat when its food goes extinct? I'm all ears...

The problem is if it were true we would not see the same things being eaten within a species. Aside you still have no answer about how the human is not fine tuned for anything specifically.

The problem you have is there is a huge variation in diet with a species and a quick search will show that that very fact One example

Well that was another warning flag about target food. When you see a species that eats a large variety of things, it could be a red flag that they are missing some target food. Humans are the classic example of that. We eat everything, including things we shouldn't, and if its not edible, we process it and make it edible. We have no target food, and even you have confimed that by not even attempting to come up with any.

And ants. Don’t forget ants.

And you totally missed the point again, its only possible because we process the cows milk, unless you each own your own cow to drink straight from the teat. It's the processes that make it unnatural. An ant taking honeydew from an aphid as odd as it seems, is all in the realm of being natural. So your assuming that humans taking the milk from the cow is the unnatual part, which it is, but not totally, its the redundant processes that tells us its not natural.

If you studdied the aphid and ant relationship more closely you would probably find a lot of weird particulars about them that make it obvious that it was a relationship meant to be. For example how the ant stokes the aphid with his antenna to milk him. It's obvious there is a mutualistic relationship there.

What followed is more of your opinionated rubbish that has been burned many times. I refer you back to those.

So yet again no answers just your opinions. I will assume you have none and you have lost yet again.

Nope, nothing but answers here, I even answer your questions while you refuse to answer mine. I'm honeslty worried about you because your still not opening your eyes to see what a sham evoltuion is.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sure but that still doesn't explain WHY they all eat the same food.

You really do not have any ability to read and understand what has been written do you.

Of course I have explained why they all eat the same food but you refuse to understand which makes you the ultimate in ignorance. The rest of your reply which is again just your ignorance based opinion is such nonsense it is not worth my time.

Unless there is only a specific type of ant that the anteater eats, there is no geological differences tied to target food.

You use the anteater as your flag ship yet you do not even understand what it does and does not eat. Have you ever done any research at all? Do you base everything on your ignorance?

Let me sum this up in case you missed it. ............. Uneducated rubbish ............... as usual

I don’t need you to spout off your drivel, I want you to give an answer supported with evidence. Do that.

There could be many reasons for this. First of all the ant might not only have one predator, second there are different species of ants that could explain this as well.

Again you reply with your uneducated opinion showing no advancement at all. Where is your evidence?

There is also the possibility that a secondary food item that is required by the anteater is not available in those other areas.

But wait. The anteater is an ant eating machine. It eats ants that you say is its target food. Now you say it may need a secondary food. So your definition of target food fails again. That pretty much sinks your flag ship.

So your question is really a loaded question, and as usual you demand answers when you know full and well there is no one answer.

Nope. My question is a question you should have asked yourself and found the answer to. You are too lazy obviously.

Fossil records can't show evolution, all they can show is a variation of a species which could be explained different creations, or instances of where gametic isolation failed. Either way, claiming that fossils prove evolution is pure speculation and its not proof by any means. You have to prove it.

Nope. You claim the anteater was created, the fossil record shows you are wrong. You claim the anteater may not be from here. The fossil record shows you are wrong. The onus is on you to show why the fossil record is wrong. To do that you need evidence not your lame opinion.

Well the fact that the ant naturally farms the aphid for honeydew I think makes it pretty obvious that its a target food.

The ant farms many types of sap sucking insects so that blows that uneducated opinion out of the water but I asked you to show the evidence that ants farming aphids and going through the many processes to get the honeydew is any different than man herding cattle to get milk. You have failed again to do this.

I asked you to explain why you can accept the many processes the ant goes through to get honeydew when you claim that this would not constitute target food. You have failed to do that as well.

Now a better one still to expose is the abalone.

Well done finally getting the spelling correct. I want answers to my questions not you bringing in the abalone. Do that first.

Well they aren't using unnatural processes is why.

(Looks around for the evidence) Where is your evidence? Show me the evidence you base your opinion on that the ant’s processes are natural and man’s not. You may want it to be so but that does not make you correct. If ants as you have already stated are not natural to this planet. They are unnatural.

So your first job is to prove ants are native to this planet and if you cannot then their processes are just as unnatural as you claim mans are. Do that.

reply to post by colin42

It's still the same result, rather that the honeydew would be the target food. As far as the processes, are any of the processes unnatural?

You keep posting your link to natural and yet have no idea what it means, hilarious. The ant goes through processes to get the honeydew. Man goes through processes to get milk. Neither use magic or perform unnatural practices. I keep recommending. GET AN EDUCATION

Well if you don't know how to read, I'll spell it out for you. As the definition indicates anytime a human makes or causes changes, its unnatural. I never found anything about ants that claim their processes to be unnatural.

Millet is still always the main ingredient, in all cases, connector was wrong.

Connector gave you a link and quotes from that link. You are saying the link was wrong. Show the counter evidence that proves you correct not your usual one line dismissal as above.

Connector wasn't even on the right topic, he was looking for an easy out in this subject and just figured since the parakeet has such a large variety of things that it eats, that it can't have a target food. The fact is that millet accounts for the majority of what a parakett eats, and he totally missed that.

I wrote: As you brought it up. Other specific ants 'The leaf cutter Ant', gathers leaves to compost and grow a crop of fungus on. Do these ants not know according to you they should be eating aphids?
Your pathetic reply:

The are obviously the wrong species, it looks like only the myrica and meadow ants are the only types that have been identified as darying ants.

Are you serious, you ask a lame question like that and expect an answer. You honestly want to know what leaf cutter ants are suppose to eat. OMG your dense.

Coming from a clown that writes about animals using cell phones I think your answer is just another of a long line of avoiding answers. I know what a leaf cutter ant eats, do you?

Actually I was claiming that you must believe in them using cell phones as your coming up short in explaining how it is that they all instinctivly know what to eat and what not to eat.

Actually he prefers the millet.

Yeah right he told you so right. As you have maintained over many pages your parakeet is captive and suffers from the intervention of man and worse you. Millet is cheap filler. I know parakeets don’t talk but it appears yours does. No doubt it also say's GET AN EDUCATION (squawk) GET AN EDUCATION

The millet is always the first to go and makes up the majority of his diet.

Your still avoiding the abalone, does this one scare you? It is pretty shocking and alone proves target food.

I have explained many times that you have to put the use of 'in the wild' into context. Something you have no concept of. Supplying your over used link to wild does not do that. How many times do I need to say GET AN EDUCATION?

It's actually in the definition I keep giving you, where its listed as a noun.

Baking bread is NOT a natural process. Baked bread doesn't occur naturaly in the wild so you would be wrong on that one.

You bake bread using a living organism, yeast. If you did not give the yeast a natural environment within the dough you would not get bread. Jeeze you really need to GET AN EDUCATION.

But those ingredients don't magically come together anywhere else on the planet unless man makes it happen, and we have allready established that man made actions are not natural. In addition baking anything is also not a natural action.

You think so smartee? If we didn't build the homes would the house sparrow still come around? No he wouldn't, the relationship is with the house not the person.

If we did not provide the nesting sites for the house sparrow we would not see the house sparrow, it would be extinct. It relies on us building houses. That is a relationship. GET AN EDUCATION

But again we acted, and as a result its not considered to be a natural event.

That relationship is so strong that its actually illegal to own them. You just don't get it do you.

You are the one that purposely does not get it. The dog is a sub species of the Gray Wolf. We bred the dog from the Gray Wolf. The relationship spans back from the dog to the original wolves. A long and close relationship that only you can deny. An education will not solve that ignorance.

I don't care if hes related to god, his presence has been banned from humans because hes not friendly.

reply to post by colin42

You missed the point again. It wasn't about how it was presented, it was the fact that you believed it, your so desperate to find things that point in the direction of evolution that your willing to believe anything.

(it’s you’re willing BTW)Nope. You are lying again to make your fantasy fit your lie. The only one here that is showing desperation is you. The only one showcasing ignorance and dishonesty is you.

All you are being asked is to supply the evidence for your claims and because you cannot you go through all the dishonesty and avoidance evident here and in the other thread. Now that is pathetic

The only thing pathetic is how you avoid answering questions that prove target food. Keep running and hiding.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well first your making an assumption that cows milk was intended for humans to consume.

Just as you are making an assumption that any food is intended food.

So I would like to first of all know what is it about cows milk that makes you so sure that it was intended for humans to consume.

Milk is not intended food. The cow is a source of nourishment that we make use of. Go to any supermarket for the proof.

So now I would like you to prove any food is intended food.

The next problem is that unless you plan on keeping your own personal cow, you will be faced with the redundant processes of pastureization, homogenization, and fortifying it like we do today.

Again your pi$$ poor use of English is evident. Homogenization, pasteurization and fortifying the milk serves a purpose so it is not redundant. GET AN EDUCATION.

These processes are deemed not only unnatural but redundant, as there are so many of them.

Show your evidence for that ignorant statement that is wrong in so many ways. Until you can it is just your uneducated opinion based on your ignorance.

Remember that if man makes it or causes it, its not considered natural.

Why because you say so? Because you cherry pick from a definition and supply a broken link to it. Get a life man. Try an honest approach for once in your life.
Here is a link to natural

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death
4.
a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
b. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
c. Biology Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.

Now all you need to do is to use it in context. Farming is inherent in humans. We work with nature to achieve it and what we do conforms to the ordinary course of nature. GET AN EDUCATION.

Now on the reverse side reading up about aphids and how they are farmed by ants, I don't see anything in the article that indicates that any of the steps the ant takes as being unnatural or even odd for that matter.

There is nothing unnatural in man herding and milking cows either then. The processes are the same.

So there you have it. This is why humans farming cows is not considered natural while ants farming aphids is.

There you have it. You would not know evidence if you were slapped repeatedly over the head with it.

Sure, its all entirely possible because your forgetting that target food doesn't prove your from here, it can only prove that your not from here.

If having target food cannot prove you are from here then not having it does not prove anything either unless you can show the evidence why.

It is a good idea to assume that ants and anteaters are from the same place.

Nope. It's a good idea to back up your claims with evidence. Remember you dont accept assumptions do you.

Thats exactly why its so important to rule that out.

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?

If you don't have it, and you have ruled out extinctions, then there is only one answer, your not from here.

Again. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot rely on the fossil record?

As with humans, we have no natural relationship with any species unless ............... blar ....... blar.

Been there, done it and slaughtered you. GET AN EDUCATION.

We are very aggressive about keeping tabs on things that dissapear from this planet. If there ever was a target food that would obviously knock the pants off of anything we have ever eaten, do you think it would have been presented in our history.

How uneducated are you? The written word has not been around that long and even when it was history is recorded by the observer and is usually opinion. So there is no way of knowing if man lost this fabled target food so you are stuffed again. But really, seriously. GET AN EDUCATION

What I was trying to tell you colin is that you only pretend to be blind when all you have to do is open your eyes.

Coming from you that means absolutely nothing

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

But your math is wrong. So we don't haggle over RDA's (since they recently changed), lets go ahead and use your over inflated figure of 1000mg/day

What is the recommended daily dose of calcium?

[What is the recommended daily dose of calcium?

The Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of calcium increases with age.

· Children (ages 1-3): 500 mg per day
· Children (ages 4-8): 800 mg per day
· Youth (ages 9-18): 1300 mg per day
· Adults (ages 19-50): 1000 mg per day
· Adults (ages 51 or older): 1200 mg per day

/ex]
As you can see there is nothing inflated about the mg I stated, unless your between the ages of one and eight, I guess thats possible, I never ask people how old they are on here. So I assumed you were an adult. The teen years actually need even more than that. So make sure your able to hit your numbers for teens as well thats 1300 mg per day.

If cereals (meaning, the grains from grasses) equal 1104mg/serving....and a serving is only 1/3 cup.....what kind of math are you using?

Well I said this three times now, that both milk and cereal are not natural foods. Those are fortified, both of them. If I wanted to get my numbers from fortified places I would just take supplements.

If a leafy green is 200mg/serving (and many are closer to 250-300mg/serving), then to get to your overinflated total, you could simply eat 2-3 servings/day of them. BTW, a single serving is 1/3 cup. So, once again, you do the math. Then have a side dish of meats or something, as well as eggs, during meal times

Only now YOUR math is off, those leafy greens don't have that mg in them...

Food Amount of Calcium in milligrams (mg)
1 Tbsp sesame seeds 90
1 Tbsp Tahini 63
1/4 cup Brazil nuts or hazelnuts 55
8 medium sardines (canned) 370
3 oz salmon 180
1/2 cup oysters (canned) 60
1/2 cup shrimp (canned) 40
1/2 cup bok choy 75
1 cup kale 94
1 cup broccoli 178
1 cup celery 54
1 cup cooked green beans 58
1 cup cooked butternut squash 84
1 cup cooked sweet potato 70
1 medium naval orange 56
2/3 cup raisins 53
10 medium dried figs 269
1 cup calcium-fortified orange juice 300
1 cup enriched soy milk 300
1 cup enriched rice milk 300

www.fitsugar.com...

Now do the math off this list and put together for yourself a list of what your going to have to eat in a given day. You will see that calcim is going to be on the gorging side of your list.

RE: me ignoring you....my last reply to you was a video showing mitosis, and explaining that the process in that video is what drives evolution. You ignored THAT

I didn't ignore it, I commented on it. What I said is that it doesn't appear to have anything to do with evolution. I'm failing to see how a species for example would be able to split from within a species of itself.

Food Amount of Calcium in milligrams (mg)
1 cup of milk 300
6 oz of yogurt 350
1 oz hard cheese (cheddar) 240
2 slices processed cheese 265
1/4 cup cottage cheese 120
1/2 cup soft serve frozen yogurt 100
1/2 cup ice cream 85
1/2 cup tofu 258
1/2 cup pinto beans or chick peas 40
1/4 cup almonds 95
1 Tbsp almond butter 43

Acorn squash, cooked
1 cup
90

Arugula, raw
1 cup
125

Bok Choy, raw
1 cup
40

Broccoli, cooked
1 cup
180

Chard or Okra, cooked
1 cup
100

Chicory (curly endive), raw
1 cup
40

Collard greens
1 cup
50

Corn, brine packed
1 cup
10

Dandelion greens, raw
1 cup
80

Kale, raw
1 cup
55

Kelp or Kombe
1 cup
60

Mustard greens
1 cup
40

Spinach, cooked
1 cup
240

Turnip greens, raw
1 cup
80

www.ucsfhealth.org...

Fruits

Figs, dried, uncooked
1 cup
300

Kiwi, raw
1 cup
50

Orange juice, calcium fortified
8 oz
300

Orange juice, from concentrate
1 cup
20



Legumes

Garbanzo Beans, cooked
1 cup
80

Legumes, general, cooked
.5 cup
15 to 50

Pinto Beans, cooked
1 cup
75

Soybeans, boiled
.5 cup
100

Temphe
.5 cup
75

Tofu, firm, calcium set
4 oz
250 to 750

Tofu, soft regular
4 oz
120 to 390

White Beans, cooked
.5 cup
70



Grains

Cereals (calcium fortified)
.5 to 1 cup
250 to 1000

Amaranth, cooked
.5 cup
135

Bread, calcium fortified
1 slice
150 to 200

Brown rice, long grain, raw
1 cup
50

Oatmeal, instant
1 package
100 to 150

Tortillas, corn
2
85



Nuts and Seeds

Almonds, toasted unblanched
1 oz
80

Sesame seeds, whole roasted
1 oz
280

Sesame tahini
1 oz (2 Tbsp)
130

Sunflower seeds, dried
1 oz
50

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

RE: me ignoring you....my last reply to you was a video showing mitosis, and explaining that the process in that video is what drives evolution. You ignored THAT

Fish

Mackerel, canned
3 oz
250

Salmon, canned, with bones
3 oz
170 to 210

Sardines
3 oz
370



Other

Molasses, blackstrap
1 Tbsp
135

As you can see, you were wrong. These measurments were listed in cups, not 1/3 cups and the mg wasn't near what you though it was. Again, you will have to gorge yourself daily on these things to hit your quota.

Again the highest NATURAL think you could eat is sardines and you would need 5.4 servings of those at 3oz each, thats 16.2 oz of sardines a day just to hit your quota, and its more if your a teenager.

bon appetit

reply to post by itsthetooth


Where do you see cups on there? You are talking about meats, not veggies. Meats are measured by the weight, and 3-4 oz is average weight (that is 1/4 lb)

Veggies, typically, have measured servings of 1/3 or 1/2 cup.

This is, again, established fact. It is the standard of the foodservice industry. Which I manage businesses within.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

RE: me ignoring you....my last reply to you was a video showing mitosis, and explaining that the process in that video is what drives evolution. You ignored THAT

Fish

Mackerel, canned
3 oz
250

Salmon, canned, with bones
3 oz
170 to 210

Sardines
3 oz
370



Other

Molasses, blackstrap
1 Tbsp
135

As you can see, you were wrong. These measurments were listed in cups, not 1/3 cups and the mg wasn't near what you though it was. Again, you will have to gorge yourself daily on these things to hit your quota.

Again the highest NATURAL think you could eat is sardines and you would need 5.4 servings of those at 3oz each, thats 16.2 oz of sardines a day just to hit your quota, and its more if your a teenager.

bon appetit

No, the highest natural thing you can eat is cereal (or grains). When they say "cereal" they are not talking about a box of post toasties. They are referring to cereal grains, such as wheat, corn, oat, etc, etc. Just like where the cow gets ITS calcium from. Grains. Which, to a cow, means "grass".

ETA: matter of fact, compared to grains, sardines are a poor source of calcium. Compared to grains, milk is also a poor source of calcium.

See that....that is your theory sinking below the waves.

reply to post by colin42

Sure but that still doesn't explain WHY they all eat the same food.

You really do not have any ability to read and understand what has been written do you.

Of course I have explained why they all eat the same food but you refuse to understand which makes you the ultimate in ignorance. The rest of your reply which is again just your ignorance based opinion is such nonsense it is not worth my time.

I don't remember seeing that magical answer anywhere. Let me guess it has something to do with evolution. Evolution determines what we eat rigth? I don't see why not it is also supposedly responsible for creating new species, extinctions, and everything inbetween. LOL

Unless there is only a specific type of ant that the anteater eats, there is no geological differences tied to target food.

You use the anteater as your flag ship yet you do not even understand what it does and does not eat. Have you ever done any research at all? Do you base everything on your ignorance?

There is nothing ignorant about how the anteater functions, it only takes a watchful eye to realize something very unique about it. It's more than a flagship for target food, he also proves intention behind design, which evolution is unable to account for. When asked why humans haven't also evolved in the same way, I'm not hearing anything back. When you comapre humans to anteaters, you get to very different understandings. The fact that he has a target food shows he is in his element, that fact that we don't shows that we aren't.
The fact that he displays an obvious purpose in life and we don't is also proof that we are not where we are suppose to be.

Let me sum this up in case you missed it. ............. Uneducated rubbish ............... as usual

I don’t need you to spout off your drivel, I want you to give an answer supported with evidence. Do that.


There could be many reasons for this. First of all the ant might not only have one predator, second there are different species of ants that could explain this as well.

Again you reply with your uneducated opinion showing no advancement at all. Where is your evidence?

Actually after readin up about it, its clear that it only applies to certain ants.
So I was right.

There is also the possibility that a secondary food item that is required by the anteater is not available in those other areas.

But wait. The anteater is an ant eating machine. It eats ants that you say is its target food. Now you say it may need a secondary food. So your definition of target food fails again. That pretty much sinks your flag ship.

Nope I never claimed much less eluded to the idea that a target food would stand alone, its just turning out to be a commonly missunderstood problem.

Nope. You claim the anteater was created, the fossil record shows you are wrong. You claim the anteater may not be from here. The fossil record shows you are wrong. The onus is on you to show why the fossil record is wrong. To do that you need evidence not your lame opinion.

I see because a creator couldn't possibly make to close variations of the same species right?

Well the fact that the ant naturally farms the aphid for honeydew I think makes it pretty obvious that its a target food.

The ant farms many types of sap sucking insects so that blows that uneducated opinion out of the water but I asked you to show the evidence that ants farming aphids and going through the many processes to get the honeydew is any different than man herding cattle to get milk. You have failed again to do this.

I guess I'm having a problem understanding what your trying to get to here. It's entirly possible that there is more than one target food, in case you missed that. Ants farming aphids appeas to be a mutualistic relationship for food. It's obviously a target food.

I asked you to explain why you can accept the many processes the ant goes through to get honeydew when you claim that this would not constitute target food. You have failed to do that as well.

Once again, for the 8th time, because those processes are natural.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0jQwUM3wBuSdiQKho4HgBg&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c0736 2cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

I don't know how many times I have to share this definition with you colin, but it remains the same, and still as easy as it is, you fail to retain it. Are you sure you

reply to post by colin42

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0jQwUM3wBuSdiQKho4HgBg&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362cbb1a&biw =1115&bih=541

Are you sure you don't have a learning dissability of some sort, I must of shared this link with you over 3 dozen times now.

Just like the term in the wild. you always ask me what it means and I share the link for the term wild to show exactly how in the wild is used as a noun. You just don't get it. Pathetic.

Well done finally getting the spelling correct. I want answers to my questions not you bringing in the abalone. Do that first.

To late man, the abalone is out of the water. It's a much easier target food for you to wrap your little pea brain around as you don't have to be so confused with it possibly being food, or with any other food type getting in the way of you understanding what the hell is going on.

It eats only Kelp. Thats it man, there is no arugment that its a target food. target food obviously exists, end of story.

(Looks around for the evidence) Where is your evidence? Show me the evidence you base your opinion on that the ant’s processes are natural and man’s not. You may want it to be so but that does not make you correct. If ants as you have already stated are not natural to this planet. They are unnatural.

So your first job is to prove ants are native to this planet and if you cannot then their processes are just as unnatural as you claim mans are. Do that.

Sure, here it is again...

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=bDYwUM_zJ6f0igK-v4GABg&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c073 62cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

reply to post by colin42

Just as you are making an assumption that any food is intended food.


So I would like to first of all know what is it about cows milk that makes you so sure that it was intended for humans to consume.

Milk is not intended food. The cow is a source of nourishment that we make use of. Go to any supermarket for the proof.

So now I would like you to prove any food is intended food.

Well sure, the anteater and ants are the ideal example.

Now you might argue that its not so, please tell me it can't be because my evolutionism is about to fall thorugh the roof, but the fact is, there are to many things that tell us otherwise.

The anteater was obviously designed to hunt and eat ants. He has special hearing to hear them in the ground, special snout to sniff them out in holes, and specific claws for tearing up their homes, he also has a special tounge for reaching into the hills and grabbing them out. Now anyone with half a brain can obviously see that this guy was designed to hunt and eat ants. Now you can claim that evolution did this over time, but there is no proof of that. There is counter proof as humans haven't evolved into anything specific like the anteater has.

The next problem is that unless you plan on keeping your own personal cow, you will be faced with the redundant processes of pastureization, homogenization, and fortifying it like we do today.

Again your pi$$ poor use of English is evident. Homogenization, pasteurization and fortifying the milk serves a purpose so it is not redundant. GET AN EDUCATION.

Redundancy doesn't have to mean useless, it can also mean excessive..

re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.



Synonyms: superfluous - unnecessary - needless - excessive - spare

www.google.com...=en&q=redundant&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=0zkwULbIDeGBiwKz74C4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc 835c07362cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

In this case however it does mean exactly what you think it does but only from the persepctive that it wouldn't be needed if the target food was present.

Show your evidence for that ignorant statement that is wrong in so many ways. Until you can it is just your uneducated opinion based on your ignorance.


Remember that if man makes it or causes it, its not considered natural.

Why because you say so? Because you cherry pick from a definition and supply a broken link to it. Get a life man. Try an honest approach for once in your life.
Here is a link to natural

So you think that by spending a few days to eventually come up with one that omitts the human factor, that your all straight.
Google definitions is going to be the most accepted one there is, and BTW, just because you found one that omitts the human intervention , doesn't mean your right. Look at 10 of them and see what they all say.

Google is in the right contrast again even in this other link of definition by merriam webster.
www.merriam-webster.com...

Dictionary.com also agrees...
dictionary.reference.com...

Oxford dictionaries agrees...
oxforddictionaries.com...

Macmillin dictionary agrees...
www.macmillandictionary.com...

Biology online agrees...
www.biology-online.org...

Sorry colin, looks like your wrong again. At least your used to it.

Now all you need to do is to use it in context. Farming is inherent in humans. We work with nature to achieve it and what we do conforms to the ordinary course of nature. GET AN EDUCATION.

But any humans actions are not considered natural, as proven in the last 6 links I have shared with you.

There is nothing unnatural in man herding and milking cows either then. The processes are the same.

If they are acts that don't normally occur without mans intervention, then no your wrong.

If having target food cannot prove you are from here then not having it does not prove anything either unless you can show the evidence why.

Well colin, maybe this is your calling, you can come up with a way to explain how the involvement of evolution has taken away our food. I'm sure you will come up with something, every other evolutionist has.

Thats exactly why its so important to rule that out.

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?

When did I say that.

How uneducated are you? The written word has not been around that long and even when it was history is recor

reply to post by colin42

How uneducated are you? The written word has not been around that long and even when it was history is recorded by the observer and is usually opinion. So there is no way of knowing if man lost this fabled target food so you are stuffed again. But really, seriously. GET AN EDUCATION

Your just trying to tell me that after too many years, we would automatically forget what we are suppose to eat.

Here is where the problem is colin. You need to first identify the mechanism that does in fact tell an individual species what its suppose to and not suppose to eat. Only after you identify that mechanism, will you be able to see how a species might be able to forget what its suppose to eat.

That mechanism is target food BTW.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Where do you see cups on there? You are talking about meats, not veggies. Meats are measured by the weight, and 3-4 oz is average weight (that is 1/4 lb)

No you totally got confused. You were trying to come up with a good daily diet using greens, I proved that isn't possible as the mg is to low and would require way to many servings in a day.

So I offered a better substuition by using sardines, which are weighed in by oz.

Veggies, typically, have measured servings of 1/3 or 1/2 cup.

As per what I posted, from the website with the link, they are clearly listed in cups. Not to say YOURS wasn't. However the numbers are far worse then you had claimed after the math is done.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

No, the highest natural thing you can eat is cereal (or grains). When they say "cereal" they are not talking about a box of post toasties. They are referring to cereal grains, such as wheat, corn, oat, etc, etc. Just like where the cow gets ITS calcium from. Grains. Which, to a cow, means "grass".

I wasn't able to find anything that resembled cereal in my local forrest.

ETA: matter of fact, compared to grains, sardines are a poor source of calcium. Compared to grains, milk is also a poor source of calcium.

Well if I wanted to shoot for processed crap I would have just gone to the front of the line with supplements.

See that....that is your theory sinking below the waves.

Well actually its not. You failed to produce a decent diet using natural foods, and it looks like you lost miserbly.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I wasn't able to find anything that resembled cereal in my local forrest.

Are humans natural inhabitants of your forest?

And your forest doesn't have grasses? That is what grains are....grasses.

Well if I wanted to shoot for processed crap I would have just gone to the front of the line with supplements.

Raw oats are not processed. That is what cereal is: raw grains. You can process it if you want....but the nutrition stays the same.

Well actually its not. You failed to produce a decent diet using natural foods, and it looks like you lost miserbly.

Sure i did. You just choose to ignore that grains are the superior source of calcium, which is where cows get the calcium for their HUGE bones plus all that milk that people drink.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Are humans natural inhabitants of your forest?

And your forest doesn't have grasses? That is what grains are....grasses.

Sure but I'm not seeing any natural cereal around here.

Raw oats are not processed. That is what cereal is: raw grains. You can process it if you want....but the nutrition stays the same.

What do you mean, like oatmeal?

Sure i did. You just choose to ignore that grains are the superior source of calcium, which is where cows get the calcium for their HUGE bones plus all that milk that people drink.

I doubt very seriously if grains pack a punch of calcium. Show me proof please.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well it looks like your right...

Oatmeal isn't just for breakfast. One cup of oatmeal not only provides 100–150mg of calcium, it is also a versatile add-in to many other foods and can be used to goose up the calcium quotient in your breakfast cereal, added to yogurt, or even mixed in with your favorite baking recipes.

www.spine-health.com...

The great news is I only have to eat 6.6 servings a day, yay. Thats 6.6 cups a day.

bon appetit

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Are humans natural inhabitants of your forest?

And your forest doesn't have grasses? That is what grains are....grasses.

Sure but I'm not seeing any natural cereal around here.

Raw oats are not processed. That is what cereal is: raw grains. You can process it if you want....but the nutrition stays the same.

What do you mean, like oatmeal?

Sure i did. You just choose to ignore that grains are the superior source of calcium, which is where cows get the calcium for their HUGE bones plus all that milk that people drink.

I doubt very seriously if grains pack a punch of calcium. Show me proof please.

I have shown you enough. Enjoy your arguing. You can see that just about everyone thinks your way off base. But "everyone" has been wrong before.

This isn't one of those times....but whatever.