Target food proves evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Says who? "You would think" isn't proof

A scattered diet is a sign of desperation.

Desperation how? If there's alternative food around that's perfectly fine for them (there are TOOOONS of examples for that), how is that desperation? It just means they ADAPT to a CHANGING ECOSYSTEM. It's EXACTLY what evolution predicts

reply to post by itsthetooth

As you can see, your wrong, Mr squirrel has a diet, however, you are right in that he may not have a target food. When you see such a large assortment of eating, its a clue that something is wrong.

As you point out the squirrels DO NOT have a concise diet. As squirrels have no concise diet no other animals in our area with this odd notion of yours.

Maybe in your fantasy world an animal with a wide spread diet is a problem, but that is not the case in the real world. All you are doing is showing how ignorant you are of the real world.

I'm not going to quote each species your questioning, what you need to do is stop being lazy and just wiki all of these species your commenting about so you can see for yourself that you are wrong.

If you read the article this time you'd know that squirrels do not have a concise diet as you claim.

Now your contradicting yourself as your saying that target food doesn't exist, yet your also admitting they deviate from there diet.
In your research which I suggest you do with looking up various animals on wiki, you will also notice that they never indicate a species going out of a known diet, we always know what they are eating, and they also never mention that diet depends on the individual either. So as you can see, your once again wrong.

So each time these species deviate from their diet as you claim, they are in fact experimenting which you say they do not do. You are the one with the contradictions. Those contradictions derive from your flaw of assuming target foods.

We have no idea what many species eat. That is why the squirrels were dissected to learn what they eat. They are predators, too.

I have not been wrong. You have been wrong about many things and your fumbling mistakes should be embarrassing by now.

reply to post by stereologist

Since the basis for this recent question is based on your illogical constructs this question does not need to be addressed. The burden is still on you to support this notion that animals are programmed to know what to eat

The fact that species aren't just eating whatever, and the fact that they seem to know what they are eating, and the fact that it happens to be good food for them, is proof of intelligence.

I pointed to the gypsy moth and the white moths as examples. So far you have not substantiated anything about your claim. It is a dismal failure.

I have already explained this before. In this case you took a species and moved it away from its enviroment. Now it has two choices, if its smart enough to try to adapt, it will try to do so, and possibly eat other things to try to replace the target food that is now misising. Otherwise, he will just starve and die.

Why would any species employ a random feeding habit? Can you provide a definition for random? Most people use the word and have no idea that there are many definitions for random. A fawn eating a Middle Eastern plant and eating toxic plants are examples of experimentation in eating. They are not part of a deer's diet

Your not understanding the magnitude of the observation here. The fawn isn't witnessed eating rocks, racoons, or tree bark, he isn't witnessed eating things out of his known diet. What tells him to not eat rocks? What tells him to not eat racoons? Even odder, what tells him specifically to eat leaves? In other species it might even be more specific like which leaves specifically.

So you are claiming that deer are programmed to eat poisonous plants?
Are you claiming that deer are programmed to eat nonidigenous species?

These are loaded questions first of all I answered them by posting the diet wiki on deer. The eat grasses, weeds, and herbs. If the poisonous plant your referring to falls into that catagory, then they will eat it.
As far as them eating the non indigenous species, it would have to once again qualify as a grass weed or herb.

The deer is within its diet according to the reality. According to you that cannot be since the deer is eating things that sicken it, and also nonindigenous plants that could not be programmed into it.

Thats because the deer is not eating his intended diet, did you miss that as well. So I was right, er, could be right because your talking about bringing in a poisoiness species and thats different. The fact that he eats just about anything in a food group is proof hes not eating target food. Again look at the lion, he eats just about anything in the meat group, and he too is not in his proper target food. Look at how humans eat everything from all possible food groups including ones we made up, we are obviously not eating our target food either. Are you getting this? I think you confused the fact that wiki has a confirmed diet with all species that it also means they are eating their target food.

It clearly doesn't.

No matter how often you repeat this lie it is still a lie. All of the invasive species test food. There are invasive species that are eaten by consumers. That requires testing.

If they are smart enough to adapt, and invasive species usually are, they will find an alternative food. Keep in mind that when you are off your target food, you will enter the reduction in the quality of life. As the species will have to expend more energy to get that food, and that food will not be as good for them as the target food is. I also think your confusing a species testing food, while they are still searching in the same food group. It only proves they lost target food.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The fact that species aren't just eating whatever, and the fact that they seem to know what they are eating, and the fact that it happens to be good food for them, is proof of intelligence.

I agree that individual animals are usually pretty smart.

A few corrections are needed. Animals do try eating lots of things. They eat food which is good for them and food that is not as good. An example is a bovine allowed to eat as much corn as they want and it leads to acidosis.

I have already explained this before. In this case you took a species and moved it away from its enviroment. Now it has two choices, if its smart enough to try to adapt, it will try to do so, and possibly eat other things to try to replace the target food that is now misising. Otherwise, he will just starve and die.

There is no such thing as a target food. If you think there is then provide evidence for such a claim.

These animals must experiment to live. You say they never experiment. This is an example of a mistake you continue to repeat. Similar circumstances occur when animals exist in their present environment but the environment is changed due to drought, storms, disease, etc.

The fawn isn't witnessed eating rocks, racoons, or tree bark, he isn't witnessed eating things out of his known diet.

Are you saying that a white tail deer's diet includes Middle Eastern tree needles? They have never encountered the plant and the plant is toxic. Your suggestion that this is part of a deer's diet makes me laugh out loud. The deer was experimenting as all animals do with food.

BTW, deer do eat tree bark. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

These are loaded questions first of all I answered them by posting the diet wiki on deer. The eat grasses, weeds, and herbs. If the poisonous plant your referring to falls into that catagory, then they will eat it.
As far as them eating the non indigenous species, it would have to once again qualify as a grass weed or herb.

Had you actually read the article you would know that is NOT the diet of deer. Instead, you continue to flail with failed arguments.

Thats because the deer is not eating his intended diet, did you miss that as well. So I was right, er, could be right because your talking about bringing in a poisoiness species and thats different. The fact that he eats just about anything in a food group is proof hes not eating target food. Again look at the lion, he eats just about anything in the meat group, and he too is not in his proper target food. Look at how humans eat everything from all possible food groups including ones we made up, we are obviously not eating our target food either. Are you getting this? I think you confused the fact that wiki has a confirmed diet with all species that it also means they are eating their target food.

This is so poorly written I am not clear as to what you are saying.

The facts are simple. No evidence has been provided for a target food. Animals do not have a strict diet as you claim. The animals in my area have a wide assortment of foods that they eat including squirrels.

If they are smart enough to adapt, and invasive species usually are, they will find an alternative food

So now you admit that animals experiment in their eating.

Keep in mind that when you are off your target food, you will enter the reduction in the quality of life. As the species will have to expend more energy to get that food, and that food will not be as good for them as the target food is. I also think your confusing a species testing food, while they are still searching in the same food group. It only proves they lost target food.

You still have not provided any evidence for the existence of target food.

Here is a link to a site with a tree showing bark eaten by deer.

tracksandsigns.blogspot.com...

It really pays to check a few things before opening mouth and inserting foot.

At best this thread has shown that there are foods more nutritious than others. Then again it all depends on what we want to get out of the food that is consumed.

We might be able to identify a few cases of essential foods. These would be foods that are required for particular events such as mosquitoes needing blood to produce eggs. That blood can come from mammals, birds, reptiles, and even amphibians. But another requirement for the life cycle of mosquitoes is standing water.

More complicated species have some sort of varying forms through the life cycle. Parasites are simply incredible. Read the life cycle of the hook worm. They punch through your feet. They swim in the blood through the heart to the lungs. They crawl up to ... You just have to read it yourself and think, because the description in the link below is so gentle.
en.wikipedia.org...

Take humans. When doing things like bicycling and not doping up they try to get a little extra performance out of themselves by carb-loading. This provides the nutrition deemed important by the athlete. This form of food targeting is done with an ulterior motive in mind. The goal is not health, but a specific task.
en.wikipedia.org...

Do target foods exist? Not at all.
Do humans occasionally target foods? Yes.

reply to post by stereologist

I agree that individual animals are usually pretty smart.

A few corrections are needed. Animals do try eating lots of things. They eat food which is good for them and food that is not as good. An example is a bovine allowed to eat as much corn as they want and it leads to acidosis.

I don't think they are suppose to be eating corn, are you sure thats not from domestication?

There is no such thing as a target food. If you think there is then provide evidence for such a claim.

In a lot of different ways, you have already agreed that it exists. You acknowledge the fact that some species have a strict diet while others are a little scattered, the only thing you missed is that they are keeping their focus in the same food group. You admit that some species show intelligence.
I agree that some species might be smart enough to have been taught what they are suppose to eat. This of course would require the presence of a programmer as the programmer would have to know before hand what foods are available.
If you pick an animal that is very basic, and not to intelligent, the story remains, where did he get the programming to know what hes suppose to eat. Based on what I have been able to provide up untill this point, I have proven that when target food is not an option, the species will venture into the same food group as though he might be replacing the target food. The fact that its clear they stick to a food is proof they must have some programming or intelligence to know about the food.

Now in rare cases you see species eating a variety of different things from many different food groups, this is proof of a total collapse of that species target food. Humans fall into this catagory as an example. One diet I was looking up as an example showed where the species would eat one or two different but specific rodents, but in addition to that a plethora of different plants. It's obvious from that example that this species lost a plant based target food, but was still hanging on to two target foods in the rodent family.

These animals must experiment to live. You say they never experiment. This is an example of a mistake you continue to repeat. Similar circumstances occur when animals exist in their present environment but the environment is changed due to drought, storms, disease, etc.

Then I insist you show me an example of this in action. If you think species don't know what they are eating, prove it. And don't send me to some link where a species got relocated so hes out of food. Also don't give me examples of domesticated species.

Are you saying that a white tail deer's diet includes Middle Eastern tree needles? They have never encountered the plant and the plant is toxic. Your suggestion that this is part of a deer's diet makes me laugh out loud. The deer was experimenting as all animals do with food.

First off why is he being exposed to that plant, it sounds like an unfair example. The other thing that you keep missing is the fact that hes missing his target food so he is going to eat all plants.

BTW, deer do eat tree bark. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

tree bark

Yes they do, especially in winter when other food sources are scarce.



Read more: wiki.answers.com...

You still understood my point, and as you can see from the link I provided they obviously only do it when they are starving, which again proves my point. It is still a plant so it totally makes sense.

Had you actually read the article you would know that is NOT the diet of deer. Instead, you continue to flail with failed arguments.

So now wiki is wrong and your right?

The facts are simple. No evidence has been provided for a target food. Animals do not have a strict diet as you claim. The animals in my area have a wide assortment of foods that they eat including squirrels.

It only takes one to prove it, probably the best one is abalone, that eats alge and kelp. Total target food.

So now you admit that animals experiment in their eating

Animals don't eat what ever, like you have suggested, we still never see them eating rocks, or dirt, so there is obviously a reason why they eat what they do. What I was agreeing to was that they eat within the same food group. You can decide if thats the same thing or not, IMO as far as target food goes, it obviously isn't as the species is trying to replace the target food from the same group.

You still have not provided any evidence for the existence of target food.

And you haven't provided anything that proves it to be wrong, even though I have of

reply to post by stereologist

You still have not provided any evidence for the existence of target food.

Even though I have offered a plethora of supporting reasons, including the fact that all species have a concise, or at one time had a concise diet.

At best this thread has shown that there are foods more nutritious than others. Then again it all depends on what we want to get out of the food that is consumed.

What does that have to do with species knowing what is nutritious for themselves?

Do target foods exist? Not at all.
Do humans occasionally target foods? Yes.

Your easily proven wrong based on what we don't see species doing. You are in essence saying that all species either eat whatever is available, or just magically choose the right food for them. Which is target food. What your not explaining is how a species is able to tell the difference between say rocks, dirt, and anything else they eat. You see if you were correct, we would see them eating these things as well, but we don't, which means they know a little, just a little about what they are eating. Now don't forget that in that little bit that they know, they seem to also magically know what food is good for them, or at least what food groups to target. How is that possible without intelligence first telling them what they are suppose to eat.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't think they are suppose to be eating corn, are you sure thats not from domestication?

Animals will eat corn, sorghum, rice, sugar cane and other materials in large quantities that lead to their death. This is due to the structure and metabolism of these animals. The animals do not target particular foods and will eat foods that lead to their deaths.

In a lot of different ways, you have already agreed that it exists. You acknowledge the fact that some species have a strict diet while others are a little scattered, the only thing you missed is that they are keeping their focus in the same food group. You admit that some species show intelligence.

Here you are playing silly words games.

The fact of the matter is that target foods do not exist. You made it up. You have provided no evidence to support your idea.

I agree that some species might be smart enough to have been taught what they are suppose to eat. This of course would require the presence of a programmer as the programmer would have to know before hand what foods are available.

Here you making things up that are unrelated to reality. Animals may be fed by their parents. Not all are. Despite their parents young such as fawn do try and eat all sorts of things that are not a part of a deer's diet including poisonous plants. The only one assuming a programmer is you because you seem to require one for your failed idea.

If you pick an animal that is very basic, and not to intelligent, the story remains, where did he get the programming to know what hes suppose to eat. Based on what I have been able to provide up untill this point, I have proven that when target food is not an option, the species will venture into the same food group as though he might be replacing the target food. The fact that its clear they stick to a food is proof they must have some programming or intelligence to know about the food.

Again the assumption of a programmer and the assumption of target foods. What you need to do is provide evidence for these ideas. You have provided nothing.

Now in rare cases you see species eating a variety of different things from many different food groups, this is proof of a total collapse of that species target food.

A laughable statement. Most animals eat a broader diet than you are aware. You seemed totally unaware that squirrels have a very broad diet. Again you are simply arguing from your own ignorance of animal behavior.

I wrote

These animals must experiment to live. You say they never experiment. This is an example of a mistake you continue to repeat. Similar circumstances occur when animals exist in their present environment but the environment is changed due to drought, storms, disease, etc.

your response was

Then I insist you show me an example of this in action. If you think species don't know what they are eating, prove it. And don't send me to some link where a species got relocated so hes out of food. Also don't give me examples of domesticated species.

1. The issue of whether or not a species is aware of what they are eating is irrelevant. Most people have no idea what they are eating.
2. You have so little understanding of animals or of the material you have posted I hardly see any need to listen to your whining about what is eligible to show this notion of target foods to be the rubbish it is.

Small rodents eat the vegetative parts of grasses. During droughts these parts do not exist so the animals switch to a diet of seeds.
science-in-farming.library4farming.org...
The diet is a reflection of situation at hand.

I wrote

Are you saying that a white tail deer's diet includes Middle Eastern tree needles? They have never encountered the plant and the plant is toxic. Your suggestion that this is part of a deer's diet makes me laugh out loud. The deer was experimenting as all animals do with food.

Your response was

First off why is he being exposed to that plant, it sounds like an unfair example. The other thing that you keep missing is the fact that hes missing his target food so he is going to eat all plants.

There is no such thing as target food. It is not an unfair example. It simply shows that animals experiment with their eating. You stated several times they did not. You were wrong.

You still understood my point, and as you can see from the link I provided they obviously only do it when they are starving, which again proves my point. It is still a plant so it totally makes sense.

Deer eat tree bark in our area during the summer when food is plentiful. That does not matter.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. You stated that deer do not eat bark. They do.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So now wiki is wrong and your right?

No you are wrong. You are the one that stated deer do not eat bark. I stated they do. That link agrees with me, not you.

It only takes one to prove it, probably the best one is abalone, that eats alge and kelp. Total target food.

There is no such thing as a target food. All you are pointing out is the common diet of the adult mollusks. They also eat bacterial films, diatoms, and coralline alga.

Animals don't eat what ever, like you have suggested, we still never see them eating rocks, or dirt, so there is obviously a reason why they eat what they do. What I was agreeing to was that they eat within the same food group. You can decide if thats the same thing or not, IMO as far as target food goes, it obviously isn't as the species is trying to replace the target food from the same group.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Animals do eat dirt and rocks. In fact, I eat rocks every day. So do you. You eat the rocks on purpose.

Once again it sounds like you want to make this target food so vague and nebulous that it fits your poorly conceived notions of reality.

Your idea of target foods is an utter failure. You have shown no evidence. You have shown no merit to this idea. It sounds like the ill conceived ideas put out by the creationists.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Even though I have offered a plethora of supporting reasons, including the fact that all species have a concise, or at one time had a concise diet.

That is a lie. You have made up this term concise diet and in the case of deer and squirrels we saw very clearly that you were completely wrong.

What does that have to do with species knowing what is nutritious for themselves?

Just because a consumer consumes a food does not mean it is nutritious. There are many ways in which we could think of the term nutritious.

Your easily proven wrong based on what we don't see species doing. You are in essence saying that all species either eat whatever is available, or just magically choose the right food for them. Which is target food. What your not explaining is how a species is able to tell the difference between say rocks, dirt, and anything else they eat. You see if you were correct, we would see them eating these things as well, but we don't, which means they know a little, just a little about what they are eating. Now don't forget that in that little bit that they know, they seem to also magically know what food is good for them, or at least what food groups to target. How is that possible without intelligence first telling them what they are suppose to eat.

You proven nothing at all. Now you want to do it based on something you claim is not observed. I am not saying animals choose the food that is right for them. I point out that deer eat poisonous plants.

Animals have senses. These senses allow them to distinguish what is in the world based on smell, taste, motion, shape colors, etc. I have never stated that animals are unable to distinguish the various objects in the world. I do see fish attack rocks and bark dropped into the water. They quickly figure out using their senses that this is not edible.

The only person making the claim that animals know what food is good for them is you. No one else. That is just one of the big mistakes you have repeatedly made.

reply to post by stereologist

Animals will eat corn, sorghum, rice, sugar cane and other materials in large quantities that lead to their death. This is due to the structure and metabolism of these animals. The animals do not target particular foods and will eat foods that lead to their deaths.

I know not all animals would. My parakeets wont eat corn or rice, not sure about sugar cane but the sorghum is usually used for livestock.

Are you confusing once again domesticated animals with wild animals, living in the wild?

Here you are playing silly words games.

The fact of the matter is that target foods do not exist. You made it up. You have provided no evidence to support your idea.

Do I have to go back and quote you, you said that you agreed some species were intelligent. Not that it proves anything because I'm just now realizing that it takes a little bit more than just intelligence to direct species in knowing what to eat.

Here you making things up that are unrelated to reality. Animals may be fed by their parents. Not all are. Despite their parents young such as fawn do try and eat all sorts of things that are not a part of a deer's diet including poisonous plants. The only one assuming a programmer is you because you seem to require one for your failed idea.

Thats bunk, fawns have been abonded by both parents and they still know what to eat. Now what?

Apparently I'm not the only one that has realized that animals have figured out what to eat, while humans are clueless...

paleohacks.com...

This is strange to me: humans, just by observations, can figure out what most animals eat, and far beyond the simplistic terms like carnivore, omnivore, herbivore. Cows and goats for example, just eat grass and bark in the case of goats. Sure they get some bugs and stuff too, with that, but their needs are simple and they don't get bored.

Ok, so those are bad examples perhaps because they are domesticated. but certain species of turtles eat ONLY certain things, wild snakes only eat certain things (and often, while still alive), some wild animals eat almost exclusively dead, scavenged flesh (yes, the buzzards really do circle) along with a bunch of "whatever" and it's very predictable in the animal kingdom. Least Flycatchers (a kind of North American bird) catch flies. So do barn swallows in flight, others like woodpeckers, pick them out of trees, while some want nothing more than to scarf growing seed plants like grains and berries, only to poop them out and thusly playing Johnny Appleseed for more of those same plants.

Nature has it figured out. Why don't we?



For more Paleo Diet hacks: Why do animals have it so easily figured out, and we don't know what to eat? - PaleoHacks.com paleohacks.com...

Again the assumption of a programmer and the assumption of target foods. What you need to do is provide evidence for these ideas. You have provided nothing.

The fact that you can take a species from its parents, early on, and then put it out on its own, and it eats the same things the rest of the same species does, sort of tells you whats going on.

A laughable statement. Most animals eat a broader diet than you are aware. You seemed totally unaware that squirrels have a very broad diet. Again you are simply arguing from your own ignorance of animal behavior.

I know, they are missing target food.

1. The issue of whether or not a species is aware of what they are eating is irrelevant. Most people have no idea what they are eating.

Ya thats why there is nutrition facts on everything and caloric information, your so dead wrong.
I think your confusing people not caring with them not knowing. We know what we eat, its all tested and documented.

2. You have so little understanding of animals or of the material you have posted I hardly see any need to listen to your whining about what is eligible to show this notion of target foods to be the rubbish it is.

Small rodents eat the vegetative parts of grasses. During droughts these parts do not exist so the animals switch to a diet of seeds.
science-in-farming.library4farming.org...
The diet is a reflection of situation at hand

Which is just another sign of target food missing.

reply to post by stereologist

There is no such thing as target food. It is not an unfair example. It simply shows that animals experiment with their eating. You stated several times they did not. You were wrong.

Of course its unfair, you cant pull aligators out of florida and move them to Colorado where the temperatures dip down to -40 and expect them to find habitat and food. Not going to happen. Your uprooting species then asking why they arne't eating.

Deer eat tree bark in our area during the summer when food is plentiful. That does not matter.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. You stated that deer do not eat bark. They do.

The only thing I have been able to verify is that they only do so when they are starving.

reply to post by stereologist


~ETA~ Feel free to use this post in the future to respond to noobs in this thread

You're wasting your time as many other's here have learned. tooth is a closed minded fool.....he is here to preach not to learn. Numerous times he has been provided evidence and facts and yet ignores them. You will provide a well respected, peer reviewed/researched and documented source and he will reply with his opinion or links to blogs, religious sites, or "Ask About" type sites ( which anyone can reply to). If your lucky, you will get a Wiki link, usually the first few lines of his links will somewhat support his immediate claim, but if you read further ( which he doesn't), it actually debunks it. No prob, one paragraph is true and one is not all in the same article /link provided.

He will ignore any question he has no answer to,
he will change his definitions ( moving the goal post) whenever it suits,
he will make one claim and then 2 posts later contradiction it,
he will pretend to not see your question and ask you to repost,
he will claim to have thoroughly read your links, but it is obvious he didn't,
he will suddenly and intermittently not be able to post links to back up his claim, but then can for other replies.
he will claim he has provided numerous links and evidence/facts previously and he's not reposting them( he hasn't), and the ones he has, have all been debunked

His first "draft" of target food was one food, one species / no target food, not from here....since being schooled several times, he has now expanded that to include several target foods/ species, extinctions, target food was brought here for some not all. At least a traditional "ancient alien" "intervention" theory have a reason we were brought here, mine gold etc. Tooth has none....why were anteaters, ants, whales, and everything else he is "on the fence" about brought here? It serves no purpose. His response: God ( aliens) are sadistic mothers...aliens abduct, don't ya know? Some sort of a galactic



Again, you are wasting your time....tooth is a delusional, narcissistic idiot OR a construct Don't debate him....keep him spinning for your/our amusement

just for tooth, because wiki is his fav when he can post links....

Delusioanl Wiki

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).
[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Hey Larry? You like Fudge? I like walnuts in mine Inside joke.....

reply to post by Connector


If I'm so delusional, why can't anyone provide proof that I'm wrong?

Love your video, but I had a better one for you, its like OH Brother.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I know not all animals would. My parakeets wont eat corn or rice, not sure about sugar cane but the sorghum is usually used for livestock.

Are you confusing once again domesticated animals with wild animals, living in the wild?

First you claimed it was unfair that I pointed out that displaced animals were able to find food in areas where they had never been. Now you are trying to separate out another group of animals. Simply more evidence of the failure of your notion of target foods.

Do I have to go back and quote you, you said that you agreed some species were intelligent. Not that it proves anything because I'm just now realizing that it takes a little bit more than just intelligence to direct species in knowing what to eat.

Yes you do need to go back and reread my post because I never stated that. You are doing a very poor job of reading other material including my posts, the link you provided about deer, and other issues.

I used the word smart to distinguish my statement from the way you have bandied about the word intelligence for apparently different purposes.

Thats bunk, fawns have been abonded by both parents and they still know what to eat. Now what?

This is just another one of your made up stories. You have no idea if that is true or not. You simply make things up which are baseless. I don't believe you.

Apparently I'm not the only one that has realized that animals have figured out what to eat, while humans are clueless...

So you found someone with a poorly conceived idea and you think that supports your position? There is no evidence there. It is simply another person with a poor understanding of reality.

The fact that you can take a species from its parents, early on, and then put it out on its own, and it eats the same things the rest of the same species does, sort of tells you whats going on.

Can you provide evidence for this? Making up stories is called fantasizing. This is your fantasy; has been the entire thread.

I know, they are missing target food.

Just more of fantasy.

Ya thats why there is nutrition facts on everything and caloric information, your so dead wrong.
I think your confusing people not caring with them not knowing. We know what we eat, its all tested and documented.

You are so dead wrong, because those labels do not tell you what you are eating.

Here is a simple question for you. What animal is used to make marshmallows? Sorry, not on the label. People have no idea what they are eating. Without looking it up can you tell me what xantham and guar are? You probably have no idea what you eat. Can you tell me what the difference is between noodles and pasta? You probably have no idea.

Which is just another sign of target food missing.

You still have not provided a single shred of evidence for this fantasy of yours.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Of course its unfair, you cant pull aligators out of florida and move them to Colorado where the temperatures dip down to -40 and expect them to find habitat and food. Not going to happen. Your uprooting species then asking why they arne't eating.

You can make up a silly transfer that won't work, but there are thousands and thousands of species that have been transplanted to new areas and those species experimented and survived.

This is a huge list of animals that have experimented and survived well and that disproves your rather silly claim that animals do not experiment with their foods.

In response to deer eating bark

The only thing I have been able to verify is that they only do so when they are starving.

That's because you know so little about animal life. It is not to be learned just from your keyboard. Maybe you need to get out and actually learn from some researchers or find better reading material.

Most of your arguments are called arguing from ignorance. You also make up most of your stories about animal behavior. Your arguments are no better than the trashy nonsense I've seen put out by creationists that lie, and lie, and lie to their audiences.

reply to post by Connector


I agree wholeheartedly with your entire post. In fact he has done everything you listed and more than once.

I find it interesting that itsthetooth admits that he has no evidence for target foods. In one post he fully admitted it was an assumption. Basically, this entire thread is based on a complete lack of understanding of anything to do with animals.

reply to post by itsthetooth

If I'm so delusional, why can't anyone provide proof that I'm wrong?

Have you been right even once? Don't think so. Shameful, not even right once.

So have you figured out which rock you purposely eat almost daily?

And you claimed you knew what you were eating. You are so :"dead wrong" as you put it.