Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

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.

Thats right because a starving animal will eat rocks if he needs to. I don't know what you mean by separating out another group of animals.

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.

No I think its more that your emberrased to hear it straight from wiki like I have been telling you.

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.

I had a friend that had an abandonded baby fawn. They fed him by bottle and when he was big enough he started to eat what other deer eat, now why is that? My friend didn't teach him what to eat.

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.

Except that the problem is that he is asking the exact same questions I am. So your just saying he's a mind reader I guess, or what a coincidence. I have to tell you this isn't the ONLY coincidence I have run into like this from ATS. The last one was about the possibility of us having telepathy, and the next thing you know, we have another coincidence. A well known doctor comes out to announce that telepathy is a fact. I think you guys need to pull your heads out. Everyone else is wrong and your right is the attituide.

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

Do your parents know your playing on the computer? Seriously, I can always tell when people are just screwing with me. As if nutrition lables don't actually tell you what your eating. So what do they tell you genius? I can understand being a big believer of evolutionism that your automatically going to be incredulous, but when you have to take it to the point of downright stupidity, it just tells me I'm obviously on the right track and you feel so threatend that you have to make stuff up even if you know it makes you look totally stupid.

Here is a simple question for you. What animal is used to make marshmallows?

There is gelatin in them which could be from many different hooved animals.

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.

Sure macaroni is from semolina and pasta is from durum flower.

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

Target food is already proven, and backed up by various diets I have posted from wiki.

reply to post by stereologist

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.

Well sure, just because you move a species isn't a guarantee he will be out of food, it depends on whats in the new enviroment. Are you seriously this dense?

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.

Depends on what you mean by experiment. If you think they will just start eating anything in front of them, they would have to be starving. On the other hand, they will usually just try to find something to eat within the same food group, provided of course there are any.

The food on our planet is so diverse that we almost never see meat and plant not available. This is why species are never just eating whatever, but at least usually have the option to at least stay in the food group they want.

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.

So in other words, I'm just suppose to take your word for things because you have reached your zen when it comes to deer eating bark. You might have low scruples when it comes to what you allow yourself to believe in, but I actually have high standards by comparison. Anyone that is trying to convince me that food nutrition facts don't actually tell you about the food, is obviously crazy.

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.

Well then since your so right, and I'm so wrong, you will have no problem explaining to me and everyone else on this thread how it is that species know what they are eating, how they know what food is good for them and why they all eat the same thing individually.

reply to post by stereologist

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

Maybe you should start a thread called "nutrition facts realy aren't nutrition facts" and see how well that one goes.

reply to post by MrXYZ

People have debunked your nonsense over and over and over again...but you're just too delusional to see it

So delusional that you consider it "normal" to argue points with made up words...sad really

Every word that you used in that sentence was made up by different people, and you don't have a problem using those words.

Just because I made a solid theory and your jelious about it, doesn't mean the word has no meaning. No one has debunked anything that I have said. I want to see proof of anything that I have in this theory that has been debunked.

I don't see anyone proving the mechanism that is responsible for telling species what they are supposed to eat, and until they do, nothing is debunked. Just be careful trying it yourself, as you will run into the obvious fact that intelligence must be involved, thereby automatically debunking evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your obviously high, everything I have presented is fact.

That's an outright lie. You admitted that you assumed the existence of target foods. You assumed it because you are unable to provide a shred of evidence.

In many cases you provided facts that were wrong such as the diet of deer. You did that because you did not read the material and had no idea what the correct answer might be. Personally, I am amazed that people do not know that deer are browsers.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats right because a starving animal will eat rocks if he needs to. I don't know what you mean by separating out another group of animals.

Again you expose how incredibly little you understand about animals. That is not the purpose of eating rocks. Have you figured which rock you eat on purpose? No? I know second graders that could easily answer that question. I gave a talk on rocks at a school and half the class knew the answer.

No I think its more that your emberrased to hear it straight from wiki like I have been telling you.

Actually, you got the deer diet wrong despite looking at the article. I can't believe that you got the answer wrong when it was right in front of you. That is so embarrassing isn't it?

I had a friend that had an abandonded baby fawn. They fed him by bottle and when he was big enough he started to eat what other deer eat, now why is that? My friend didn't teach him what to eat.

Frankly, I don't believe you. Had this been true you would not have gotten the deer diet wrong. If this is true you got the diet wrong despite a wikipedia article in front of you and personal experience. You must be quite embarrassed.

Except that the problem is that he is asking the exact same questions I am. So your just saying he's a mind reader I guess, or what a coincidence. I have to tell you this isn't the ONLY coincidence I have run into like this from ATS. The last one was about the possibility of us having telepathy, and the next thing you know, we have another coincidence. A well known doctor comes out to announce that telepathy is a fact. I think you guys need to pull your heads out. Everyone else is wrong and your right is the attituide.

Multiple people making the same mistake still makes it a mistake. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Do your parents know your playing on the computer? Seriously, I can always tell when people are just screwing with me. As if nutrition lables don't actually tell you what your eating. So what do they tell you genius? I can understand being a big believer of evolutionism that your automatically going to be incredulous, but when you have to take it to the point of downright stupidity, it just tells me I'm obviously on the right track and you feel so threatend that you have to make stuff up even if you know it makes you look totally stupid.

So if the labels tell all please tell me what animal is used to make marshmallows. The reason you can't is because the important ingredient is not on the label. You can pretend to be a condescending teenager, and you might be that old, but please tell me where it names the animal used to make marshmallows.

There is gelatin in them which could be from many different hooved animals.

Did you use the wikipedia to get that far? Let me give you a hint. I asked for the animal, not a collection of animals. Please name the animal and show me where it is on an ingredient label. You claied the ingredients and nutrition label told you all. So far you have had to use the inference of gelatin to imply animal product. So what is the animal? Show me a label naming the animal.

Sure macaroni is from semolina and pasta is from durum flower.

It's spelled flour, not flower. I asked for the difference between past and noodles. Don't you read the posts you are responding to?

Target food is already proven, and backed up by various diets I have posted from wiki.

You haven't proven anything. You haven't even provided evidence. Earlier you stated that you assumed the existence of target foods. Did you forget or one your posts a lie?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well sure, just because you move a species isn't a guarantee he will be out of food, it depends on whats in the new enviroment. Are you seriously this dense?

Listen dear, the issue is that transplanted animals show that animals experiment with their diets and your claim that they never do is thus shown to be wrong - just like everything else you posted.

Depends on what you mean by experiment. If you think they will just start eating anything in front of them, they would have to be starving. On the other hand, they will usually just try to find something to eat within the same food group, provided of course there are any.

The food on our planet is so diverse that we almost never see meat and plant not available. This is why species are never just eating whatever, but at least usually have the option to at least stay in the food group they want.

Your assumption that animals only experiment when starving is another wrong assumption on our part. The deer in my yard are not starving and they eat anything they see including poisonous plants such as the several I already posted.

Your second paragraph sure sounds like you are dropping this nitwit notion of target foods. Thanks for tacitly admitting the idea didn't work out.

So in other words, I'm just suppose to take your word for things because you have reached your zen when it comes to deer eating bark. You might have low scruples when it comes to what you allow yourself to believe in, but I actually have high standards by comparison. Anyone that is trying to convince me that food nutrition facts don't actually tell you about the food, is obviously crazy.

So your supposedly high standards include telling lies? You've been caught several times. And your high standards include not being able to figure out from a wikipedia article what an animal's diet is?

Have you figured out which animal is used to make marshmallows? Show me a label that contains that information.

Well then since your so right, and I'm so wrong, you will have no problem explaining to me and everyone else on this thread how it is that species know what they are eating, how they know what food is good for them and why they all eat the same thing individually.

The answer is that animals all eat different things even within a species. Any deer in my area consumes all sorts of vegetation including bark, leaves, twigs, forbs, grasses, etc. They consume a variety of species that are native to the area and introduced species. So how do they know what is good for them? Part of that is their parents. Fawns are often with the does for over a year. Still they consume poisonous plants in our area. How do they know what good for them? Trial and error, watching parents, their teeth, their digestive systems, ...

Take your high school's biology class and learn something.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Maybe you should start a thread called "nutrition facts realy aren't nutrition facts" and see how well that one goes.

There really is no point in starting a thread which has a topic every is well aware of.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just because I made a solid theory and your jelious about it, doesn't mean the word has no meaning. No one has debunked anything that I have said. I want to see proof of anything that I have in this theory that has been debunked.

The problem is that you do NOT have a theory except in the sense of the vernacular where it means a wild eyed guess with little or no supporting evidence.

Step 1 is to collect facts. You have not done this.
Step 2 is to formulate a theory that explains those facts. Such a theory must be falsifiable.
Step 3 is for YOU to test that theory and see if the theory holds up to scrutiny.

The problem begins by starting with the assumption that target foods exist. So far no evidence has been provided to form facts. You need to collect facts. What we do find is that the facts you have attempted to form are not facts at all. Consider the case of the squirrels. You stated that they had a concise diet. They did not. Squirrels by your own posting had a huge diet that even included a range of animals.

Get your ducks in row and restart this process.

reply to post by stereologist

That's an outright lie. You admitted that you assumed the existence of target foods. You assumed it because you are unable to provide a shred of evidence.

Whats wrong with assuming from facts. Your so incredulous does it really make a difference if I tell you that the theory is fact based or not?

In many cases you provided facts that were wrong such as the diet of deer. You did that because you did not read the material and had no idea what the correct answer might be. Personally, I am amazed that people do not know that deer are browsers.

Oh you mean the part where you assumed the dear eats tree bark and I said he doesn't and was only able to find information that claimed he only eats tree bark when he is starving? Your the one not being very upfront with any proof.

Again you expose how incredibly little you understand about animals. That is not the purpose of eating rocks. Have you figured which rock you eat on purpose? No? I know second graders that could easily answer that question. I gave a talk on rocks at a school and half the class knew the answer.

Instead of tyring to embarrase yourself by mocking the situation and claiming that you know what your talking about to only find me providing information that would embarrase you. Why don't you post some proof of facts instead of just talking. I have been very fourthcoming with facts, especially from wiki and google. I'm never going to just take your word for anything, especially after you try to convince me that nutrition facts don't tell you about what your eating LOL
Save us both the wasted time, give me PROOF abou rocks.

Actually, you got the deer diet wrong despite looking at the article. I can't believe that you got the answer wrong when it was right in front of you. That is so embarrassing isn't it?

If your referring to the tree bark that didn't come from wiki, and it doesn't agree with you. What it says is that only starving deer eat tree bark. My claim was that deer wouldn't eat tree bark, which is true provided they aren't starving. You never stated that you were talking specifically about starving deer.

Frankly, I don't believe you. Had this been true you would not have gotten the deer diet wrong. If this is true you got the diet wrong despite a wikipedia article in front of you and personal experience. You must be quite embarrassed.

I never got the deer diet wrong, I copied and posted it right from wiki, whats to get wrong.

Multiple people making the same mistake still makes it a mistake. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Ya but the problem here is that your claiming to always be right and everyone else is wrong, I'm seeing a trend here, like trying to prove to me that nutrition facts don't tell you about what your eating.

So if the labels tell all please tell me what animal is used to make marshmallows. The reason you can't is because the important ingredient is not on the label. You can pretend to be a condescending teenager, and you might be that old, but please tell me where it names the animal used to make marshmallows.

It doesn't matter, its a hooved animal, the technicality of your question makes not a bit of difference in the nutrition facts.

Did you use the wikipedia to get that far? Let me give you a hint. I asked for the animal, not a collection of animals. Please name the animal and show me where it is on an ingredient label. You claied the ingredients and nutrition label told you all. So far you have had to use the inference of gelatin to imply animal product. So what is the animal? Show me a label naming the animal.

That information was omitted because nutrition facts about gelatin is the same either way.

It's spelled flour, not flower. I asked for the difference between past and noodles. Don't you read the posts you are responding to?

Thats what I meant, and if you were really on board you would be smart enough to see that.

Target food is already proven, and backed up by various diets I have posted from wiki.

You haven't proven anything. You haven't even provided evidence. Earlier you stated that you assumed the existence of target foods. Did you forget or one your posts a lie?

Yes, target food is assumed based on the facts that support it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Whats wrong with assuming from facts. Your so incredulous does it really make a difference if I tell you that the theory is fact based or not?

You don't assume from facts. Assumptions are not based on facts. Theories are based on facts. Yours is not a theory. You have provided no facts. You have made many, many mistakes without being able to provide facts.

Oh you mean the part where you assumed the dear eats tree bark and I said he doesn't and was only able to find information that claimed he only eats tree bark when he is starving? Your the one not being very upfront with any proof.

There you lie again. I did not assume deer eat bark. I have seen deer eat bark. I know deer eat bark. I showed a link where deer eat bark. You stated that deer did not eat bark. You were wrong - AGAIN. So when you made a blunder don't play the part of a politician and try to cover up your blunder. It makes your position all the worse.

Instead of tyring to embarrase yourself by mocking the situation and claiming that you know what your talking about to only find me providing information that would embarrase you. Why don't you post some proof of facts instead of just talking. I have been very fourthcoming with facts, especially from wiki and google. I'm never going to just take your word for anything, especially after you try to convince me that nutrition facts don't tell you about what your eating

I see you are still unable to determine the animal used to make marshmallows. No wonder. It is not on the label or listed in the ingredients.

PS You have posted zero evidence and zero facts so far in this thread. You have made a ton of mistakes, but those do not count as facts. Example: posting the wrong diet for deer despite looking at the wikipedia article.

Save us both the wasted time, give me PROOF abou rocks.

No surprise that you cannot figure out what rock you eat on purpose. Go figure out it out for yourself. Actual research might do you some good.

If your referring to the tree bark that didn't come from wiki, and it doesn't agree with you. What it says is that only starving deer eat tree bark. My claim was that deer wouldn't eat tree bark, which is true provided they aren't starving. You never stated that you were talking specifically about starving deer.

Amazing you still don't get it. You got the deer diet wrong. You posted text from the wikipedia that did not describe the deer diet because you DID NOT read the article. Your claim about bark is wrong as well.

I never got the deer diet wrong, I copied and posted it right from wiki, whats to get wrong.

How hard is it to read the article? You got it wrong. Read the article. Learn something for a change by getting the diet right.

BTW, I already posted the correct diet from the article, but you blundered by not reading my posts.

Ya but the problem here is that your claiming to always be right and everyone else is wrong, I'm seeing a trend here, like trying to prove to me that nutrition facts don't tell you about what your eating.

No. All I have been saying is that YOU are wrong. I posted evidence and you have even posted evidence showing you are wrong.

It doesn't matter, its a hooved animal, the technicality of your question makes not a bit of difference in the nutrition facts.

So now you admit that the label does not tell you what you are eating. Thank you for admitting being wrong - AGAIN!

That information was omitted because nutrition facts about gelatin is the same either way.

So you do not know what you are eating. Thanks for agreeing with me that you were wrong.

Thats what I meant, and if you were really on board you would be smart enough to see that.

So you still don't know the difference between noodles and pasta.

Yes, target food is assumed based on the facts that support it.

You've provided no facts and if you had facts you would not make assumptions. You are wrong again.

reply to post by stereologist

You don't assume from facts. Assumptions are not based on facts. Theories are based on facts. Yours is not a theory. You have provided no facts. You have made many, many mistakes without being able to provide facts.

You keep saying that, what mistakes specifically have I made that you keep referring to exactly?

There you lie again. I did not assume deer eat bark. I have seen deer eat bark. I know deer eat bark. I showed a link where deer eat bark. You stated that deer did not eat bark. You were wrong - AGAIN. So when you made a blunder don't play the part of a politician and try to cover up your blunder. It makes your position all the worse.

First of all you didn't post a link, if you did, I never saw it. Second you never stated that you were talking about starving deer. You have to realize that a starving species can do odd things that goes against the idea of nutrition.

I see you are still unable to determine the animal used to make marshmallows. No wonder. It is not on the label or listed in the ingredients.

I never said I can't determine, I said it doesn't matter as its all the same, hooves are hooves.

PS You have posted zero evidence and zero facts so far in this thread. You have made a ton of mistakes, but those do not count as facts. Example: posting the wrong diet for deer despite looking at the wikipedia article.

Really, what did I say they eat?

No surprise that you cannot figure out what rock you eat on purpose. Go figure out it out for yourself. Actual research might do you some good.

Not that I have researched every species there is, but I never ran across one that eats rocks.

Amazing you still don't get it. You got the deer diet wrong. You posted text from the wikipedia that did not describe the deer diet because you DID NOT read the article. Your claim about bark is wrong as well.

I obviously have no idea what your talking about in terms of me supposedly posting the wrong diet for deer.

As far as the tree bark I copied and pasted, so if you think its wrong, its not my work your questioning.

Amazing you still don't get it. You got the deer diet wrong. You posted text from the wikipedia that did not describe the deer diet because you DID NOT read the article. Your claim about bark is wrong as well.

I went back and read it again, I'm sorry I don't know what your talking about, wiki says what it says. I have it right.

No. All I have been saying is that YOU are wrong. I posted evidence and you have even posted evidence showing you are wrong.

The only thing you have posted so far from what I have noticed is your opinion.

So now you admit that the label does not tell you what you are eating. Thank you for admitting being wrong - AGAIN!

You must believe in evolution, because you assume a lot of things, like the rest of the evolutionists do on this thread. I never said I agreed with you, what I said was that it doesn't matter, hooves are hooves.

So you do not know what you are eating. Thanks for agreeing with me that you were wrong

No your wrong, and assuming again. I'm eating gelatin from hooved animals, thats enough.

So you still don't know the difference between noodles and pasta

Noodles is made from semonilla and the pasta from durum.

You've provided no facts and if you had facts you would not make assumptions. You are wrong again.

Target food can easily be assumed from the facts.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Since you continue to pretend that you are unaware of any mistakes you have made we need to keep it simple so we begin with one mistake: deer diet.

Here is what you posted.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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 is not the diet of deer. That is wrong. Deer are browsers as the article stated.

I have been explicit with your constant mistakes. SO please do not pretend you are unaware. All of the others reading this thread see you trying to weasel out of errors and lies almost every post.

First of all you didn't post a link, if you did, I never saw it. Second you never stated that you were talking about starving deer. You have to realize that a starving species can do odd things that goes against the idea of nutrition.

I did post a link and as others have stated in this thread that is one of your typical claims that you did not see the link. You are the only one talking about starving deer or starving animals. No one else is. I never brought up starvation. Only you did. I am not interested in that excuse you are trying to introduce.

I never said I can't determine, I said it doesn't matter as its all the same, hooves are hooves.

Laughable. You can't tell. Besides learn the difference between artiodactyla and perissodactyla. They are quite different.

So please tell us all how the labels on marshmallows tell us what you are eating. What animal is used to make marshmallows?

Really, what did I say they eat?

See above. Basically you lied again.

Not that I have researched every species there is, but I never ran across one that eats rocks.

You eat rocks every day and you still can't figure it out. As I mentioned before, the kids in the second grade class knew immediately the answer. Maybe that is part of their second grade curriculum. I don't know. I didn't ask.

As far as the tree bark I copied and pasted, so if you think its wrong, its not my work your questioning.

There is a well written statement. You looked it up and took either the first thing you found or the first thing you thought sided with your point of view. Turns out not to be correct, but at least you admit that you have no idea whether or not the material is correct. Was it that hard to take a proper stance?

I went back and read it again, I'm sorry I don't know what your talking about, wiki says what it says. I have it right.

Actually you need to read the article. You didn't because if you had you would realize that you continue to blunder and blunder and blunder. Read the article. You clearly have not.

The only thing you have posted so far from what I have noticed is your opinion.

I have posted references, personal observations, and analyses of your silly notion. In that posting material I have pointed out your mistakes, which turned out to be trivial to do.

No your wrong, and assuming again. I'm eating gelatin from hooved animals, thats enough.

So you are unable to determine what you are eating. Not surprised. You would be surprised to learn what animal you are eating. It is really sad to see people unable to determine such a simple question. I really can't believe you can't figure it out.

Noodles is made from semonilla and the pasta from durum.

Noodles include another material. You really should get a better source than the wikipedia which tends to miss important issues at times.

Target food can easily be assumed from the facts.

You are not assuming from facts. You have not posted any facts in this thread. You are assuming based on your fantasy version of the world. There is no such thing as a target food except in your fantasy.

You need to figure out a few things.

1. You claim that labels on food tell us what is in the food yet you cannot determine the animal used to make marshmallows. Without being able to name the animal it seems you were wrong that the labels tell us what is in our food.

2. You claim that no animals eat rocks. You eat rocks probably every day. You do it on purpose. Yet you are unable to figure out the rocks you eat. How can we believe anything at all you claim about animal diets when you can't even figure this out.

3. You repeatedly have been unable to report the diet of deer. You continue to misrepresent the diet of deer using an article int he wikipedia that describes the diet of deer. How can we believe anything you post if you cannot properly report what is in an article in the wikipedia?

Once the basics get figured out we can move forward.

Originally posted by stereologist
You need to figure out a few things.

2. You claim that no animals eat rocks. You eat rocks probably every day. You do it on purpose. Yet you are unable to figure out the rocks you eat. How can we believe anything at all you claim about animal diets when you can't even figure this out.

Interesting....!

Many...many moons ago tooth was looking something that tied us to all of the other animals on this planet.

I too eat a particular rock everyday, in fact, along with every animal on this planet that has a nervous system, I believe that without eating this rock we would all pretty soon die.

So this rock links us to all other animals that have a nervous system. ergo, if they are from here, so are we.

reply to post by idmonster


I also eat this rock. I even go out of my way to make sure the rock is mixed with certain plants to put on my meat. It's a good rock!

reply to post by stereologist

Since you continue to pretend that you are unaware of any mistakes you have made we need to keep it simple so we begin with one mistake: deer diet.

So below is an external text copy from the page you listed claiming to share information about deer diet. It appears to be what I coppied from wiki.

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 is not the diet of deer. That is wrong. Deer are browsers as the article stated.

Then I don't know what to tell you dude, I guess you will have to contact wiki and let them know they are wrong too. All I did was share a part of their page and your telling me I'm wrong. Looks like you have your work cut out for you as your right and everyone else seems to be wrong.

I have been explicit with your constant mistakes. SO please do not pretend you are unaware. All of the others reading this thread see you trying to weasel out of errors and lies almost every post.

I'm not aware of any lies or errors, all I get from you is claiming so and not proving anything, so it looks like your just squawking your box for no reason. If your going to accuse someone of errors or lying, at least have the common courtesy of proving why, which you haven't done. Not even about the deer diet, but your so bent on claiming that I made a mistake. To be honest with you, it doesn't matter, mistakes or not, my theory is still correct.

I did post a link and as others have stated in this thread that is one of your typical claims that you did not see the link. You are the only one talking about starving deer or starving animals. No one else is. I never brought up starvation. Only you did. I am not interested in that excuse you are trying to introduce.

You know if your going to try to come off as some big shot that knows what hes talking about, it would help if you actually did. I never posted that from opinion, it was coppied from a link. Clearly stateing that the only time deer eat tree bark is when they are starving. Of course you don't want to hear it, because it proves your wrong. You never want to hear the truth.

Laughable. You can't tell. Besides learn the difference between artiodactyla and perissodactyla. They are quite different.

So please tell us all how the labels on marshmallows tell us what you are eating. What animal is used to make marshmallows?

You have asked this three times now, and I have answered twice now that the type of animal is irrelivent. It's from a hooved animal which is the most detail we need to know about the technical differences in diet. Now not to burst your bubble but it doesn't matter anyhow as this is a processed food, processed foods are always up for problems like this. This is why my subject focuses on natural foods, as processed foods are not found in the wild to begin with.

So as you can see, your BARKING up the wrong tree.

Really, what did I say they eat?

See above. Basically you lied again.

So my question is a lie? Would you mind explaining that one to me?

Not that I have researched every species there is, but I never ran across one that eats rocks.

You eat rocks every day and you still can't figure it out. As I mentioned before, the kids in the second grade class knew immediately the answer. Maybe that is part of their second grade curriculum. I don't know. I didn't ask.

So now it looks more like your just interested in having a battle of the wits, which is not what this thread is about. This thread is about target food proving evolution wrong, and your pressed on quizzing me about trivial things just to try to make yourself look smarter. The bottom line is when it comes to processed food, the sky is wide open on the possibilities, but thats not the focuse of the discussion.