Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

I never claimed that, that would be insane to even think of such a claim. The possibilities are right up there with the idea of evolution. What I claimed is that a target food would be very high in nutrition for that specific species.

Funny that as you have always maintained target food would contain all an intended animal needs. Oh well all the more reason for you to provide that concise definition of target food.

I never said he only eats ants. Are you sure your not confusing me with someone else you have been debating with?

Nope. It was little old dishonest you maintaining your crown as King of the liars it seems. So explain now the diet of the anteater.

Fossil records can't prove or disprove creation or evolution, sorry.

In that case it cannot prove or disprove extinctions. Where does that leave your target food nonsense?

Unless your claiming that there are fossils that prove to be 4.3 billion years old, you are wrong.

I made no such claim. Here is what I wrote and you should be answering. '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.'

What does your comment have to do with my point?

It could be, as in the case of the abalone, but I never said it had to be, that would be an evolution find, very narrow, unthought of, and unproven.

Not answering again I see. Explain if an animal can have more than one target food why can’t ALL food be target food.

Well the ant has a mutualistic relationship with the aphid, so it depends on what you were thinking of. HIs target food is obviously the honeydew but his relationship is with the aphid.

Nope. You claim if an animal has to go through many processes to get its food then it is not target food. The ant goes through many processes to get honeydew. Its food according to you cannot be target food.

I don’t want your waffle I want cold hard facts.

Once again you supply a link to a quote that takes you to Google search. Your quote has no meaning because I cannot verify if you have cherry picked from it or even just made it up.

No I allso supplied 6 other sites for definition that also concur that the term natural will not involve anything that is caused or made by human kind.

Ah so I did catch you out trying to deceive. You refuse to post a link to the site you claim is the source of your information but in reality at best you cherry picked and worse made it up.

So I'm sorry but your obviously very wrong.

Really? You should be saying sorry for being so dishonest.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I did better than that, I gave you an example of it being used in a definition.

Nope all you did was what you tried again in your previous post. Supply a link to wild.

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

I allready have, the ant to the anteater, the millet to the parakeet, and the kelp to the abalone.

Nope you gave me your opinion. Do you know what an answer looks like? Do you understand the concept of evidence and proof?

Its under the synonyms.

Don’t you ever get bored with the same old joke. You again liked to Google. You are truly a clown.

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

They don't serve a purpose if we had our target foods.

But you claim we don’t have target food so they serve a purpose. English is another skill you cannot grasp. Seems dishonesty is your only trick.

And again with the google link. You are showing yourself to be 100% pathetic, just what I want you to do. Thanks

They are all in context and some verbatim that it applys to things that are not caused or made by human kind.

Share the original one with me. I want to check it out

Thats because your not weighing in the fact that there were things brought to earth.

What another alteration to what target food is? Start writing that definition boy.

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


When did I say that.

Here


A fossil record doesn't prove conclusivly that there was even a relationship. Thats all in your mind and those types of assumptions are subjective.

As you can see, my answer had nothing to do with extinctions, maybe you should read it again.

Childish avoidance again, way to go. You claimed as above shows the fossil record does not prove conclusively that there was even a relationship. I asked you how you can determine extinctions. do that

I would think it would be the best way.

ooops your pathetic opinion again. How can you determine extinctions if the fossil record is so unreliable?

But never anything about lost food right? Your also making another assumption that just because there were lost civilizations there would automatically be lost food to go with them.

So again another post where you have point blank answered nothing yet you issue playground dares for me to answer your trash on the Abalone. Pathetic

I don't blame you for not wanting to touch that one. Scary it is. Something that evolution is not able to explain, it looks like your religion is finally coming up short for you.

You don’t get off that easy Pinocchio. You made the thread. You made the claim, you provide the answers, evidence and proof for all your nonsense. Failure to do so means you admit there is nothing to back up your claims by default.

You may think you are being clever but that is precisely what I want you to do and is why I suggested you post this thread. Thanks.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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.

Er, that's your job not mine. Your claim so you provide the evidence. See above


That mechanism is target food BTW.

Show your evidence for that claim

No colin, evolution was made long before target food was made. And evolution supposedly has a theory on how a species chooses its food. It's your turn.

That is not how it works boy. You made this thread. You claimed target food proves evolution wrong. Your job is to back up that statement with a lot more than you have so far because all I have seen from you is your ignorance based opinion.

You walked headlong into this trap and now your only escape is to provide the proof of your claim. You are not doing well. Target food is dying on its ass

Originally posted by idmonster
A quick Google search past the first item on abalone diet shows that these marine herbivores graze a variety of marine plant life but tend to subsist mainly on Kelp and Algae...that's kelp AND algae.

Also interestingly, further research shows that this "target food" may not be all its cracked up to be as scientist farming abalone are getting much higher yields using food pellets formulated in the lab.

Maybe his original "target food" became extinct and scientists have stumbled upon a closer match to his target food that Mr and Mrs Abalone did by themselves.


Anyways, that aside, you have still failed to meet your thread title of proving evolution wrong with target food. At what point do you intend to supply the evidence to back up your claim?

I repeat, regardless of whether an animal has a very specific diet or not....HOW DOES THIS PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG?

Please either supply the proof, or admit that you have made a mistake and "target food" real or imagined has no bearing on evolution.

P.S. Dont bother with replying about whether or not "target food" proves the lack of this planet origination for us, this is not your claim, just in case you forgot:

YOUR CLAIM IN THIS THREAD IS NOT THAT TARGET FOOD PROVES WE ARE NOT FROM EARTH>>>>>>YOUR CLAIM IS SPECIFICALLY THAT TARGET FOOD PROVEs EVOLUTION WRONG.

Well said. Our man is failing big time. He was able to hide behind the title in the other thread but this is his baby and he is not appearing to be a good parent.

Why did he ever choose the title 'target food proves evolution wrong'

Sniff sniff. Can you smell something crashing and burning?

reply to post by colin42

I never claimed that, that would be insane to even think of such a claim. The possibilities are right up there with the idea of evolution. What I claimed is that a target food would be very high in nutrition for that specific species.

Funny that as you have always maintained target food would contain all an intended animal needs. Oh well all the more reason for you to provide that concise definition of target food.

No its been made clear that target food could be in one to a few sources. Like I said the chances of there being one specific and one only food for everything is about as absurd as the theory of evolution.

As an example, it now appear that Abalone eats both kelp and seaweed, not sure there is much of a difference there but from a nutrient angle there probably is.

I never said he only eats ants. Are you sure your not confusing me with someone else you have been debating with?

Nope. It was little old dishonest you maintaining your crown as King of the liars it seems. So explain now the diet of the anteater.

As I have always maintained, ants and termites would be a target food, I'm sure there are still other things he eats however, but they may not classify as target food.
Maybe you not seeing why. If for the sake of argument one lets say three target foods goes extinct, you might see him supplementing his diet for that loss. The bottom line is there is still a target food missing.

Fossil records can't prove or disprove creation or evolution, sorry.

In that case it cannot prove or disprove extinctions. Where does that leave your target food nonsense?

Why do you refer to it as nonesense. You agree that a species eats the same foods, as a whole, you agree that they don't deviate from their diet by eating odd things that would confuse a scientist. It's as though they either know what they are eating, or at least know they are supposed to be eating it. You also never see them individually striking out and eating odd things that their species is known to not eat.

There is no question about it, all species are either directed to know what to eat or might be directed by something as simple as taste to tell them what is good for them, or at least what they are suppose to be eating. Now when you use this example with humans, its obviously false. We like to eat a lot of things that taste good but aren't good for us, but are those things processes by man, in other words does the idea work if your referring to natural foods? Some people don't like the taste of spinach but while its ok for you, its not a target food, so its going to be hard to figure out.

It is possible that evolution programmed all species to like the taste of the food that would be a target food, and I can see that. It's totally impossible to bridge any connection between the two because sometimes a living species is also a target food. Are they just not suppose to evolve?

Either evolution changes us to accept the food choices we have or it changes the food to fit our needs. If you believe that evolution changes us to accept the food choices we have, than evolution would have to have intelligence to know what our food choices are. If you believe that evolution changes the food to fit our needs, than there would have to be intelligence shared somehow between humans and all possible food to calculate that change. Either way you slice it, intelligence is needed to make it work. If you believe in evolution there are only these two options I have laid out when it comes to food sources.

I made no such claim. Here is what I wrote and you should be answering. '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.'

What does your comment have to do with my point?

And you totally missing the point, what I'm saying is I never made any claims about WHEN the anteater could have been brought here, so you are wrong. Its entirly possible he was brought here a hell of a long time ago, this could explain why there are fossil records.

reply to post by colin42

It could be, as in the case of the abalone, but I never said it had to be, that would be an evolution find, very narrow, unthought of, and unproven.

Not answering again I see. Explain if an animal can have more than one target food why can’t ALL food be target food.

Well your forgetting that a target food will yeild high end results for the consumer, it may appear to be a good portion of his diet. As an example, just recently fathairytexan argued that oatmeal packs a whopping amount of calcium. So after I look it up, it turns out that its only about 150mg, which means it would take us 6.6 cup servings just to hit our daily goal. Thats obviously not a target food. It's taking up so much room that the rest of our diet is going to suffer.

I'll give you an example of something that might be a target food for humans. Seaweed. It packs 7 to 14 times more calcium over milk which is about 400 mg per serving, which would place it at 2800 mg per serving. Thats almost three times the needed daily requirement, which obviously means you woudln't even have to eat but 1/3 of a serving and get your daily needs. It is natural, it is in abundance, it's accessable with the exception that you can only get it on shores. It also seems to come with some other nutrients that we need as well. But I was only looking at the calcium for this.

Most people can't get themselves to even eat it, which raises a red flag, but this could be from us not being used to it. Anyhow a lot of the websites I have looked at actually reccomend you go ever the daily requirement for calcium, to a small degree, going way over can cause problems.
This may not be proof that seaweed is a target food, but it will sure make you wonder.

Nope. You claim if an animal has to go through many processes to get its food then it is not target food. The ant goes through many processes to get honeydew. Its food according to you cannot be target food.

And how many processes is that exactly?

Ah so I did catch you out trying to deceive. You refuse to post a link to the site you claim is the source of your information but in reality at best you cherry picked and worse made it up.

There are six sites that agree with me, I believe there were a total of seven, so no, your wrong again. If you think I cherry picked your wrong. All I did was present the highest amount of the true answer which was that they agreed with me. I never found the site you quoted, and the only one I omitted didn't appear to be in clear english.

Really? You should be saying sorry for being so dishonest

Your still wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I think its more that you are unable to comprehend the complexity of the subject, so you see it your way.

Really? You have again demonstrated you cannot answer the simplest of questions. You are going to disprove evolution with what, your ego. Fail

I don't offer my opinion on here, there is another thread for that, I only present things that can be backed up.

(Looks around) The only thing I can see in this thread that is backed up is all the questions you have not answered, provided proof or evidence for. Wait I see something .......... ...... Oh it's just one of your opinions.

Clearly you feel this is a thread for you to share your opinions. Your not a serious guy.

Nope. I thought it was a thread that after reading the title promised to prove evolution wrong using target food. What I found was you on a pulpit giving your usual self opinionated sermons with nothing to back them up.

The fact we have no target food and have no effecient source of calcium is proof alone.

You cannot show one target food that has not been discredited and as for your calcium nonsense how many times and in how many ways do you need to be proven foolish?

Just what I said, and I actually stated this a long time ago, did you miss class that day?

Supply the quote and page.

I'm not going to do the work for you lazy B just because you missed class that day.

Not far back you told me to repost a question I had asked at least four times. Accused me of sulking.

So again another unfounded claim to avoid giving an answer.

I supplied a link to a science paper 30 years in the making, the same amount of time it took you to become an expert in the supernatural. Read that. Comment on that.

Oh dear, if it took you 30 years to make a science paper, you must have had problems.

Coming from a guy that claims he studied the supernatural for 30 years but shows no signs of having studied anything for 30 minutes that is pretty rich

Still what part of 'I supplied you a link to a science paper led you to believe I wrote it Pathetic. So I take it another point you will not address.

Neither, it has to do with the documented proof that says earth is not our home.

Show that documented proof.

I base mine on both, we have documentation telling us earth is not our home, and that our food was not brought here.

Show that documentation

What a coincidence, thats exactly what we are dealing with and supplements are proof.

Supplements are proof of what. Careful now as you have admitted the anteater supplements his target food of ants with other foods. That is a supplement. What do supplements prove again?

Who said it does? Evolution explains the diversity we see and how it evolved. Only you want to award it god like powers of creation.

Not necessarily, I'm just saying you have to first rule that out.

Rule what out first?

They obviously eat fungus that is farmed by the leaves they cut.

well done, you found out then except the ants farm not the leaves they cut. Did you get tired from all that exercise? They cut the leaves to a transportable size. Clean it before it is taken into the nest. Chew it into a pulp. Plant the fungus on the pulp. Remove bacterial infections to the fungus using antibiotics. Lots of processes there.

But wait. They also forage for insects to take back to the nest to feed the grubs. So they scavenge and hunt as well as farm. What is their target food?

Well one thing is for sure colin, you are showing some signs of being able to learn. Just a month ago, you would refuse to repeat the phrase target food as though it were a bad word, not your having a better understanding of its meaning.

I am on your thread about target food where you are going to show how it proves evolution wrong not my thread inviting discussion on diversity. Why wouldn’t I mention target food? Unlike you I try to stay on the thread topic.

reply to post by colin42

That is not how it works boy. You made this thread. You claimed target food proves evolution wrong. Your job is to back up that statement with a lot more than you have so far because all I have seen from you is your ignorance based opinion.

You walked headlong into this trap and now your only escape is to provide the proof of your claim. You are not doing well. Target food is dying on its ass

What would I want to escape from? Proving your wrong a dozen times over.

Look the facts are simple. Evolution does nothing to explain why and how a species eats the same things. There would have to be intelligence shared somewhere to make that possible. As humans we are missing a natural adequate calcium source here for us, and we have no target food to speak of.

Game over, you lost, we are obviously not from here, you have done nothing to prove otherwise except claim that fossil records show otherwise, but fossil records don't prove whether or not we are from here, only what used to be here at one time.

You come on here and demand answers and I always give them, but when it comes to putting you in your place you don't like that and don't like to answer. I don't blame you, you don't have any answers to give that could support your religion. Very embarrasing. Pathetic.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Look the facts are simple. Evolution does nothing to explain why and how a species eats the same things. There would have to be intelligence shared somewhere to make that possible. As humans we are missing a natural adequate calcium source here for us, and we have no target food to speak of.

Except.....except many of the observations around natural selection explain exactly how an animals evolutionary path can lead it to specialise in eating a specific food source, and how the abundance, or otherwise of a specific food source has a dramatic effect on the phenotype of a species

Game over, you lost, we are obviously not from here, you have done nothing to prove otherwise except claim that fossil records show otherwise, but fossil records don't prove whether or not we are from here, only what used to be here at one time.

BUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..........Off topic post...............Please try and stick to providing evidence as to how target food....(if it exist)....prove evolution wrong.

All the evidence so far leads me to the conclusion that if an animal had such a thing as a target food, this would prove evolution correct. In fact, come to thimk of it, with or without target food, the fact that all species manage to thrive on what is available points to the only logical conclusion that the acquisition of food sources is due to evolutionary changes occuring within a species.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No its been made clear that target food could be in one to a few sources. Like I said the chances of there being one specific and one only food for everything is about as absurd as the theory of evolution.

So as I have asked you many times now. If target food can be one or many foods why is mans food not all his target food.

As I have always maintained, ants and termites would be a target food, I'm sure there are still other things he eats however, but they may not classify as target food.

So the anteater has target foods and non target foods? Why

Why do you refer to it as nonesense.

I like to be accurate and what you describe is nonsense.

You agree that a species eats the same foods,

Nope. You claimed if evolution was real there would be many diets within a species. I linked you to a scientific paper that shows a large variation of diet within species so you changed your story to ‘that proves target food’.

as a whole, you agree that they don't deviate from their diet by eating odd things that would confuse a scientist.

Nope. I linked you to a scientific paper showing a large variation of diet within a species. Written by a scientist who did not appear confused.

It's as though they either know what they are eating, or at least know they are supposed to be eating it.

Assumption

You also never see them individually striking out and eating odd things that their species is known to not eat.

Easily witnessed every day and by many species. examples birds eating bread. Carp eating boiled potatoes used as ground bait. To name but a few.

You know what your rubbish bores me. Let me remind you what you wrote in a recent post

I don't offer my opinion on here, there is another thread for that, I only present things that can be backed up.

Here is the link to that post by you

All I can see on offer is your opinion. No evidence no links to evidence. No proof of your claims just your opinion. nothing is backed up.

Your title says 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. When do you intend to do that

I made no such claim. Here is what I wrote and you should be answering. '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.'

What does your comment have to do with my point?

And you totally missing the point, what I'm saying is I never made any claims about WHEN the anteater could have been brought here, so you are wrong.

I am missing the point? Are you sure? Scientists say with full confidence the fossil record shows how the anteater evolved. You have been given many links to this information.

So your claim the anteater is not from here is challenged by the evidence in the fossil record. For your claim to be successful that the anteater is not from here you need to discredit the fossil record and to do that you need evidence. Where is it?

Its entirly possible he was brought here a hell of a long time ago, this could explain why there are fossil records.

That changes nothing. Scientist say with confidence the fossil record shows how the anteater evolved. So as I see it you have a couple of choices:
1. Admit the anteater evolved after it was brought here a long time ago or
2. Present the evidence that the fossil record is wrong.

Your opinion is not required or acceptable. As you will never admit anything evolved let alone the anteater. Show your evidence discrediting the fossil records and while you are about it the DNA information that shows the same thing.

It is that simple.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well your forgetting that a target food will yeild ............. boring.......... no evidence..........no backup

Ignored

Nope. You claim if an animal has to go through many processes to get its food then it is not target food. The ant goes through many processes to get honeydew. Its food according to you cannot be target food

And how many processes is that exactly?

You claimed you read up on ants, you should know. If not do what you claimed you did and read up. Until then I am telling you many. Look if you cannot answer my questions man up and admit it.

Ah so I did catch you out trying to deceive. You refuse to post a link to the site you claim is the source of your information but in reality at best you cherry picked and worse made it up.

There are six sites that agree with me, I believe there were a total of seven, so no, your wrong again. If you think I cherry picked your wrong. All I did was present the highest amount of the true answer which was that they agreed with me. I never found the site you quoted, and the only one I omitted didn't appear to be in clear english

Not good enough. You have quoted that so called definition many times. I want to see that definition and link, until you do that I can only assume you cherry picked or worse made it up. Not looking good for you is it.

I just found my target food: filet mignon. OMG, i just made the best steak.

OK, well....this thread is nonsense, and I thought I would share this bliss out with you guys.

reply to post by itsthetooth
No evidence. Nothing backed up no point to your post

You come on here and demand answers and I always give them

Nope you reply but never give an answer. You avoid, lie and ignore but do not answer. You pretend to link to quoted sources that in reality is the google front page.

This is your thread, these are your claims I have a right to expect you to be able not only to answer but back up your claims the fact that you refuse tells me you have no evidence. Your claims fail and so do you.

reply to post by colin42


natural

reply to post by idmonster

Except.....except many of the observations around natural selection explain exactly how an animals evolutionary path can lead it to specialise in eating a specific food source, and how the abundance, or otherwise of a specific food source has a dramatic effect on the phenotype of a species

And thats fine to believe that, but one thing I pointed out earlier is what happens if the target food is a species itself? Does it just not get to evolve, or does the predator always get the upper hand on the list?

BUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..........Off topic post...............Please try and stick to providing evidence as to how target food....(if it exist)....prove evolution wrong.

So you are claiming that we would evolve into our food. So I ask with all intentions of getting an answer, what did humans evolve into eating? If you can't give me a straight answer on that, evolution is a fraud.

All the evidence so far leads me to the conclusion that if an animal had such a thing as a target food,

What do you mean IF. Your acting like you couldn't ask any scientist about what a species eats. Aside from humans, we know for a fact what every species eats. That alone tells you that target food is real. The fact that there is direction of some type occuring in all species to tell them not only what they are to eat, but also what they are not to eat.. The rest of the species on this planet obviously don't do food testing like we do to determine what they should be eating, and they sure in the hell don't hold dieting groups to relay to the rest of the units in their species, to keep them on track with the same diet. The just know, do you not get that. There is an element of guidance here that tells them what to eat and what not to eat. It's from this understanding that target food was derived. So when you question if its real, your only fooling yourself.

this would prove evolution correct. In fact, come to thimk of it, with or without target food, the fact that all species manage to thrive on what is available points to the only logical conclusion that the acquisition of food sources is due to evolutionary changes occuring within a species.

Your claiming they pick and choose on their own, which is false, there is no trial and error and there is no labratorys for them to do experiments either, and there are no groups held to keep the rest of the species up to date on your new findings.

reply to post by colin42

No its been made clear that target food could be in one to a few sources. Like I said the chances of there being one specific and one only food for everything is about as absurd as the theory of evolution.

So as I have asked you many times now. If target food can be one or many foods why is mans food not all his target food

When you see a species eating a large variety of different things, its an obvious sign of desperation. Some or many things are lacking from its diet, and the species is struggeling to find its food, of course its not here. We only typically see this behavior in humans but there are many other examples. Wild dogs, Wild cats, scavengers. Their food is not here. Now we make food for cats and dogs, but that is man made food, its not natural. They are obviously not in their element.

As I have always maintained, ants and termites would be a target food, I'm sure there are still other things he eats however, but they may not classify as target food.

So the anteater has target foods and non target foods? Why

Most likely becuase he is missing one or more. He's trying to substuite for something missing. Take what we do for example, thats all we do, we substuite to the point that we have even made supplements.

Nope. You claimed if evolution was real there would be many diets within a species. I linked you to a scientific paper that shows a large variation of diet within species so you changed your story to ‘that proves target food’.

Someone on this thread had shared with me that according to evolution, a species will just eat whatever it can. This of course we be total chaos, frogs eating cows, chimps eating birds, notice how nothing eats humans.

as a whole, you agree that they don't deviate from their diet by eating odd things that would confuse a scientist.

Nope. I linked you to a scientific paper showing a large variation of diet within a species. Written by a scientist who did not appear confused.

I have no link but I'm not shocked, Humans are the best example of not having any target food. And you know what, we were warned, we were told in the bible that none of the things given to us here, are from our home.

Assumption

There is no assumption, aside from the human species, the diet of every other species is 100% predictable. Of the 5 million species we don't see diets changing so this is another clue that evolution is a fraud.

All I can see on offer is your opinion. No evidence no links to evidence. No proof of your claims just your opinion. nothing is backed up.

Your title says 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. When do you intend to do that

My best proof is that the diet of any given species is 100% predictable, with the exception of humans. You can't explain why this is through evolution because it will only work when intelligence is involved, and evolution isn't suppose to have any intelligence.

I am missing the point? Are you sure? Scientists say with full confidence the fossil record shows how the anteater evolved. You have been given many links to this information.

So your claim the anteater is not from here is challenged by the evidence in the fossil record. For your claim to be successful that the anteater is not from here you need to discredit the fossil record and to do that you need evidence. Where is it?

Neither, what I'm trying to say is that there is no proof that its even the same species. It's only because its simular that an assumption was made that it was an evolved species.

That changes nothing. Scientist say with confidence the fossil record shows how the anteater evolved. So as I see it you have a couple of choices:
1. Admit the anteater evolved after it was brought here a long time ago or
2. Present the evidence that the fossil record is wrong.

And I'll bet you if you look hard enough you can even see a connection to pink unicorns.

Your opinion is not required or acceptable. As you will never admit anything evolved let alone the anteater. Show your evidence discrediting the fossil records and while you are about it the DNA information that shows the same thing.

Hell the DNA is probably real close, its still not proof of evolution. DNA doesn't prove evoltuion. Keeping track of a species is the only way its ever going to be proven. We have to many lifeforms on this planet with simular DNA, it doesn't mean a damn thing.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Why can't a species just naturally be a scavenger? Why do you judge it as being desperate if it is a perfectly viable lifestyle for a great deal of animals?

Mods....why the # is this idiotic thread here and not in the Grey Area? Going for a Titor effect ranking wise?

Delete points as needed. Oh ya, forgot, they don't mean anything anymore.......................................

reply to post by Varemia

Why can't a species just naturally be a scavenger? Why do you judge it as being desperate if it is a perfectly viable lifestyle for a great deal of animals?

Varemia... Look man, its like this. Would you agree that humans are smarter than anteaters?
Your assuming they aren't at this point. There is no explanation that can explain why it is that they have a hearty diet of ants and termites, that accounts for most of their diet, and that they can specifically hear ants, and smell ants, and tounge ants from afar.

Now you can pretend they evolved into that status, but again why haven't humans evolved? I'm an equal opportunity believer ok. Whats good for them, should also be good for us, right?

It gets worse. an anteater not only knows what to eat, but how to hunt it with his natural abilitys. Compare that to humans. First of all we can hunt, but we have to be taught how. Remeber teach a man how to fish, man doesn't automatically know these things. The reasons are simple, its because this is not our home, so we need direction.

Now if we were on our home base, things would be way different. No adaptation needed, things just work for us naturally. No processing, no cooking, none of that crap, it was meant for us, are you getting this? Things would work for us, just like they work for the anteater. Our ears would be fine tuned for specific purpose, our eyesight would be perfect tuned for specific things as well. and our diet would be rich and plentiful, there would be no such thing as supplements, you wouldn't need them. You would also not have to rely on animals milk as there would be a natural source for us.

So if you still believe we evolved, we failed miserbly. We failed to evolve and accept our food, to the point that we had to adapt to it. We failed to evolve into our surrounding element, instead we seperated ourselves by building homes and structures to seperate ourselves from them. I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

reply to post by Connector

Mods....why the # is this idiotic thread here and not in the Grey Area? Going for a Titor effect ranking wise?

Delete points as needed. Oh ya, forgot, they don't mean anything anymore.......................................

Rather than piss and moan why dont you step up to the plate and dish out some proof yourself.

I started this thread because colin tempted me to. He thought it would be funny because he assumed they would throw me in skunk works and I told him they would not. And as you can see, he was wrong, again