Target food proves evolution wrong

Are marshmellows the Target food for Chimps? Using tools, cooking and camping. Are chimps not from here?

reply to post by colin42

So you finally supply a link to a site and it is a site written by creationists so by your rules means that it is not reputable.

Unless you can find a non creationist bible. Your forgetting that its not the faith or religion your after from the book, its the history.

So in one line you demonstrate how dishonest you are but even more pertinent that you do not know what a fact is or is not. What constitutes evidence and what does not, pathetic even at your age.

I'm doing a lot better than you are. I'm following documented history, and your tyring to write your own.

Evolution was described 150 years ago after years of observations and experiments. Many have challenged it. ALL have failed.

I have already proven many things about evolutoin wrong. Like the ADHD genes being looked at as though they were evolution.

If you think all it takes is imagination to explain the diversity we see around us then it is you that has problems just like your problem of not understanding evolution has nothing to say on the subject of creation. How many times do you need telling that?

Documentation is not imagination. You on the other hand is following your imagination. There is nothing that has ever proven evolution to be the role that explains diversity.

It is YOU that is assuming demonstrated by your reply above. You show you do not even understand the word assume

The bible was written by and edited by those that believe in creation with the sole purpose of showing creation. That alone rules it out from being of any value as an historical document

Woah, slow down there Hauss. Why would your disagreement with faith make the historical parts unreliable?

But by your weird logic if you are a creationist then you are not a reputable source of information. You are a creationist and have proved that you are not a reputable source every time you post.

Your wrong, because I don't believe in a creator, but lets say for the sake of argument your correct, I must be wrong because I believe in creation is what your saying. Well thats some real detective work you have done there.

reply to post by Barcs

Dude, you completely changed the subject AGAIN! Please try to be just a little bit honest. Would it really hurt? None of that applies to humans prior to agriculture, so you are dead wrong and again just making stuff up. You completely ignored my main point which was that humans DID NOT ALWAYS use all these "processes". They used to hunt and compete with nature just like all other creatures. You gonna ignore this again and change the subject comparing modern day humans? Watch planet carnivore and you'll see creatures that have to go through a much LONGER process than 11 steps to get their food. You act as though it's easy.

I'm not changing the subject, your just not understanding how the information is reflecting on your question.

Humans go out into the forest. They pick berries, nuts and vegetables to eat . That's not an 11 step process. You are wrong again.

But humans don't live on nuts and berries so your wrong again.

It's impossible to prove something didn't go extinct. The best proof is that we have no record, or knowledge of it ever happening.

That was your exact excuse for why most creatures don't have target food and again it's just a guess. Nothing you have said proves anything.

We are keeping very good records, your just saying we didn't know how up until now.

Target food was already proven back when there was no basis found for integrated diet.

That's a lie.

An integrated diet amongst species can't be explained without the idea of intelligence, bottom line, please give her a go, I dare you.

If you don't have anything to eat, its a pretty good clue you aren't from here, considering others do have food.

Another lie. Humans have plenty to eat

And like I have said for over umteen dozens of pages, we can even eat toilet paper, it doesn't mean it was meant as food. Your not understnading the technical difference between things we can eat that aren't food, and things we process to become food, to things that were inteneded to be our food from the get go. If you have any doubt that such a thing exists, then explain how the anteater has such a fitting diet of ants and termites that keep him healhty?

Now what do we have that keeps us healthy?

Cows milk is natural to baby cows. You don't see other species sucking off the teat of other species.
The lies just keep coming. Something is either man made or its not. Stop lying and saying that something is natural for one creature but not for another. Is milk man made? Ok then, you are wrong

You don't have to be a genius to see that drinking another animals milk is just sick and wrong. Yet you remain unchanged, probably because you grew up on it and rely on it everyday, but couldn't imagine it not being a normal part of your diet. Man invented it into our diet, it wasn't meant for us, your lying to yourself.

You must be referring to the fact that google definitions seperates humans from the light of anything natural. I don't know, I didn't write the definition I'm just following it.

You didn't prove anything. You are saying that unnatural indicates that something isn't from earth, when that's not true. You need to prove it.

Of course, what else do you think unnatural means? It means something not from around these parts, something that doesn't fit in, something that doesn't blend into nature. It's obvious its another way of saying its alien to the territory.

That's a lie. No creature has "scheduled diets". They eat what they can to survive, another point that's been ignored over and over and over again.

But they don't, hence any diet you look up for any animal, you NEVER see them claim that ANY species just eats what it can to survive. Furthermore, they all eat the same things. So you once again failed to indicate how they share with each other what they are suppose to be eating so that that entire species is on board with the same diet. You also failed to explain why it is that we never see them just trying new food, its simple, because they don't. They have a scheduled diet and they know it.

The rest of your post is just nonsensical drivel not even remotely close to science. How many times are you going to get caught lying?

I already posted about a dozen or so diets from various species. None of them indicated that they had a varied diet, none of them indicated that they had to every experiement with what they might like to eat. Your clearly wrong.

reply to post by colin42

Using tools, cooking and camping. Are chimps not from here?

It all depends, you have to first ask, is this species one that has the ability to learn? Did someone teach him how to do this?

Here you go, tooth. Look at all the processes involved in a family of lions acquiring their food. OMG THEY CAN'T BE FROM EARTH! Everything is a struggle! Their target food is missing! Watch all the parts, it's well worth it and explains their evolution and everything else.

reply to post by Barcs

Here you go, tooth. Look at all the processes involved in a family of lions acquiring their food. OMG THEY CAN'T BE FROM EARTH! Everything is a struggle! Their target food is missing! Watch all the parts, it's well worth it and explains their evolution and everything else

The only problem is that I'm already on the fence about species that are scavengers, as it could be a sign of desperation.

Could you find another example perhaps, thats not desperate.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
The only problem is that I'm already on the fence about species that are scavengers, as it could be a sign of desperation.

Could you find another example perhaps, thats not desperate.

Lions aren't scavengers. They are predators that actively hunt prey. Obviously you didn't watch the video.

I've through the thread with much amusement. It seems that the target food idea is rather fanciful and well removed from reality. I also find the silly creationist tactics amusing such as not understanding that evolution is not goal directed. The ADHD issue is a simple example of a chuckle. Another creationist method is to pretend that they are not arguing from a lack of education. For example, the "no one has ever seen that happen" argument is really one of "I don't know thus no one knows." I've attended a number of creationist lectures and it really boils down in each of the lectures to telling lies.

Here we have the idea of a target food. It is an idea that has not been demonstrated in any manner. After 33 pages you'd think that some effort had been made, but no.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Here you go, tooth. Look at all the processes involved in a family of lions acquiring their food. OMG THEY CAN'T BE FROM EARTH! Everything is a struggle! Their target food is missing! Watch all the parts, it's well worth it and explains their evolution and everything else

The only problem is that I'm already on the fence about species that are scavengers, as it could be a sign of desperation.

Could you find another example perhaps, thats not desperate.

Wow tooth. You're asking for proof that animals go through the same hardships as humans, and then you get upset and ask for more animals when we prove it to you. You really can't change your mind, can you?

reply to post by Barcs

Lions aren't scavengers. They are predators that actively hunt prey. Obviously you didn't watch the video.

Do they eat any meat they can catch? I rest my case.

reply to post by stereologist

I've through the thread with much amusement. It seems that the target food idea is rather fanciful and well removed from reality. I also find the silly creationist tactics amusing such as not understanding that evolution is not goal directed. The ADHD issue is a simple example of a chuckle. Another creationist method is to pretend that they are not arguing from a lack of education. For example, the "no one has ever seen that happen" argument is really one of "I don't know thus no one knows." I've attended a number of creationist lectures and it really boils down in each of the lectures to telling lies.

Here we have the idea of a target food. It is an idea that has not been demonstrated in any manner. After 33 pages you'd think that some effort had been made, but no.

Target food has already been verified by the listing of numerous scheduled diets I have posted about other species. There is no way to program a species to know what to eat, without using intelligence.

reply to post by Varemia

Wow tooth. You're asking for proof that animals go through the same hardships as humans, and then you get upset and ask for more animals when we prove it to you. You really can't change your mind, can you?

As if anyone has produced any hardships.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Do they eat any meat they can catch? I rest my case.

The answer to that is yes. I have seen lions catch and consume prey with my own eyes.

So you rest for your case because you are clearly, obviously, and just plain wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Target food has already been verified by the listing of numerous scheduled diets I have posted about other species. There is no way to program a species to know what to eat, without using intelligence.

I have no idea why you think you have done any such thing. You have not shown that the notion of target foods exists. You need to do that at some time. I read the thread and can see that you are confused on many issues including this notion of target foods.

What is this intelligence you refer to and what does that have to do with your unsupported notion of target foods?

reply to post by stereologist

The answer to that is yes. I have seen lions catch and consume prey with my own eyes.

So you rest for your case because you are clearly, obviously, and just plain wrong.

This must be way over your head.

If they eat ANY meat they can catch, then what I'm saying is based on that, they are clearly scavengers. In other words they are not picky about meat, in other words they eat all and any type of meat.

So as you can see your clearly wrong, they are scavengers.

reply to post by stereologist

I have no idea why you think you have done any such thing. You have not shown that the notion of target foods exists. You need to do that at some time. I read the thread and can see that you are confused on many issues including this notion of target foods.

What is this intelligence you refer to and what does that have to do with your unsupported notion of target foods?

If there is a verifiable diet, as I posted with the umpteen different species, then that alone proves that target food exists. It only has to be apparen't in one species to prove it exists, I have given dozens of examples.

The anteater eating ants and termites was just one. Abalone eating alge and kelp, and so on.

Evolution fails to explain how these species just so happen to know what they need to eat to be healthy.
It's not blind faith either as they don't experiment or switch diets. There is no trial an error ever.
They also have no labratory that tells them what foods should be eaten, like humans have to.
There is one common denominator in all of this, there is intelligence some how shared with the species.
If you want to believe that evolution caused this obvious transfer of information, which I'm not going to argue as being possible, then you would also automatically be agreeing that evolution is intelligent based, or it has intelligence behind it.
If you want to believe that god programmed all this life, well I guess thats possible too.
Either way, no matter what you believe, there must be intelligence behind it.

There is no way that evolution can be involved with the programming of all species diets without there being some sort of intelligence behind the workings of it.

There is no confusion about target food, there are ways to narrow down its identity. You have to understand, from the pieces of the puzzle we have before us, your asking me to recreate and describe what pieces are missing, and I for one think I have done a pretty damn good job considering the pieces I have to work with.

We all know target food exists based on the fact that there are to many species that have obvious scheduled diets, they all eat the same diet, they don't test the diet, and its a solid rule. Humans again are an exception for obvious reasons.

Remember that species don't test their food, they don't venture off diet, and what really odd is they seem to know what they are eating suits their needs. Again humans are an obvious exception.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If there is a verifiable diet, as I posted with the umpteen different species, then that alone proves that target food exists. It only has to be apparen't in one species to prove it exists, I have given dozens of examples.

So an available food is a target food?

Evolution fails to explain how these species just so happen to know what they need to eat to be healthy.

Evolution does not get involved in any species knowing what is healthy to eat. Evolution is the change in a genetic population, not the behavior of individuals foraging for food.

It's not blind faith either as they don't experiment or switch diets. There is no trial an error ever.

That's false. I have observed fawns eating plants in my yard that are poisonous. The adults don't but the fawns do.

There is one common denominator in all of this, there is intelligence some how shared with the species.

That is your assumption. Now it is up to you to test that assumption. You claim no trial and error. That's false. Look at the plants herbivore eat in your yard. Look at elephants eating corn crops in Africa. Corn is not native to that area. Look at insects wreaking havoc in other places - eating plants that were not previously on their diet. Ever seen a Japanese beetle? What about snakes introduced into areas where there were no snakes and the local population of birds is decimated. What about the introduction of introduction of placental mammals to areas where they have had a great time eating the local birds and marsupials?

Looks like your ideas are really poorly thought out with the many counter examples that are pretty blatant.

If you want to believe that evolution caused this obvious transfer of information, which I'm not going to argue as being possible, then you would also automatically be agreeing that evolution is intelligent based, or it has intelligence behind it.

Your assumption about this so-called intelligence is wrong. It does not exist.

Either way, no matter what you believe, there must be intelligence behind it.

When you begin with the closed minded approach that this intelligence exists, then you make a lot of bad mistakes as is so clear. This intelligence does not exist and it is trivial to think of examples where your claims are just plain wrong.

There is no confusion about target food...

Yes there is. The confusion is with you. There is no such thing.

We all know target food exists based on the fact that there are to many species that have obvious scheduled diets, they all eat the same diet, they don't test the diet, and its a solid rule. Humans again are an exception for obvious reasons.

You can always tell when you have a creationist in the crowd. They want to make humans special.

Remember that species don't test their food, they don't venture off diet, and what really odd is they seem to know what they are eating suits their needs. Again humans are an obvious exception.

Species test their food. They do. From fish to insects to mammals to reptiles to all animals, humans included, they test their food.

Here is another example. Escaped zoo animals such as monkeys can forage in North American forests and remain healthy despite never having encountered these plants before. Parrots have established colonies in other areas. Snakes from Asia are taking over the Everglades. If you read the newspapers you will be able to find all sorts of animals, think frankenfish, that have taken up residence in other areas. All of these violate your target food claim.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Lions aren't scavengers. They are predators that actively hunt prey. Obviously you didn't watch the video.

Do they eat any meat they can catch? I rest my case.

Of course they eat the meat they can catch! What kind of question is that? Scavengers wait for other creatures to kill and then feed on the scraps when they are done.

As if anyone has produced any hardships.

In the video I posted of the family of lions, they could barely survive. The entire family almost died because the pride lost their best hunter. Nah, that's definitely not a hardship. Eating no food for almost a week isn't a hardship? You are a proven fraud. Please just stop.

reply to post by stereologist

If there is a verifiable diet, as I posted with the umpteen different species, then that alone proves that target food exists. It only has to be apparen't in one species to prove it exists, I have given dozens of examples.

So an available food is a target food?

So your basically telling me at this point that you haven't read the OP, or the prior posts. Do me a favor man, come back when you at least have the common courtesy of at least reading the OP.

Had you of read it you would know that its just not as simple as an available food.

Evolution fails to explain how these species just so happen to know what they need to eat to be healthy.

Evolution does not get involved in any species knowing what is healthy to eat. Evolution is the change in a genetic population, not the behavior of individuals foraging for food.

Well then there is just a little problem here Fred, who is it that is programming the species so that they know what to eat.

As I have proven beyond a doubt with links to various species diets, they have a directed diet. We never read about them trying new foods, we never read about individuals of a species trying out new food, all we read about is how they all eat the same thing.

Something intelligent is directing them to do so. Now you could claim that evolution might be responsible for this but evolution would have to somehow be sharring intelligence with each species not only about what to eat, but having the knowledge of that food being available to begin with. Either way you slice it, there is intelligence behind it.

Deer

The majority of large deer species inhabit temperate mixed deciduous forest, mountain mixed coniferous forest, tropical seasonal/dry forest, and savanna habitats around the world. Clearing open areas within forests to some extent may actually benefit deer populations by exposing the understory and allowing the types of grasses, weeds, and herbs to grow that deer like to eat. Additionally, access to adjacent croplands may also benefit deer. However, adequate forest or brush cover must still be provided for populations to grow and thrive

That would be because they are still eating within the outline of their diet, as you can see from above. Sometimes the studys in these don't reveal exactly what plants they feast on just that its about any type in the forrest. Your Fawn is not deviating from the diet.

That is your assumption. Now it is up to you to test that assumption. You claim no trial and error. That's false. Look at the plants herbivore eat in your yard. Look at elephants eating corn crops in Africa. Corn is not native to that area. Look at insects wreaking havoc in other places - eating plants that were not previously on their diet. Ever seen a Japanese beetle? What about snakes introduced into areas where there were no snakes and the local population of birds is decimated. What about the introduction of introduction of placental mammals to areas where they have had a great time eating the local birds and marsupials?

Looks like your ideas are really poorly thought out with the many counter examples that are pretty blatant

And as I have clearly explained, when you see this type of activity, its a sign that something is missing from their diet.

There is no assumption in any of this, its clear and proven that species have a concise diet. Your elephant example eating corn that isn't even native to that area, could be because he was missing something from his diet to begin with. Either way hes not living on corn, and its not a normal part of his diet, and in addition to that, it was introduced to him which is also why he was trying it. When you domesticate animals, it totally changes the understanding of everything I'm shareing here.

If you want to believe that evolution caused this obvious transfer of information, which I'm not going to argue as being possible, then you would also automatically be agreeing that evolution is intelligent based, or it has intelligence behind it.

Your assumption about this so-called intelligence is wrong. It does not exist.

There is no other explanation for the sharing of intelligent diet information. I say intelligent because the food also seems to always fit their needs for nutrition. It's obvious that its intelligent.

Species that have a clear concise and short diet are obvously using target food.

Either way, no matter what you believe, there must be intelligence behind it.

When you begin with the closed minded approach that this intelligence exists, then you make a lot of bad mistakes as is so clear. This intelligence does not exist and it is trivial to think of examples where your claims are just plain wrong.
[

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well then there is just a little problem here Fred, who is it that is programming the species so that they know what to eat.

As I have proven beyond a doubt with links to various species diets, they have a directed diet. We never read about them trying new foods, we never read about individuals of a species trying out new food, all we read about is how they all eat the same thing.

Something intelligent is directing them to do so. Now you could claim that evolution might be responsible for this but evolution would have to somehow be sharring intelligence with each species not only about what to eat, but having the knowledge of that food being available to begin with. Either way you slice it, there is intelligence behind it.

Still posting nonsense I see

First of all, species are very well changing their diet as their ecosystem changes: LINK

And secondly, what's your proof that a designer is required? You haven't present any evidence that that's the case