Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by idmonster

As per your absolute blindness to see what is staring you in the face. Many animals eat and digest and assimilate into their very being specific rocks.

Everybody posting here does it, daily and out of necessity....yes even you.

You should view this as a little intellectual puzzle for yourself. See if you can work it out!

Seeing how it doesn't directly effect the idea of target food, it doesn't interest me.

reply to post by stereologist

Deer will eat anything. They feed on anything they can eat. Starving is not an issue. You pretend it is, but that is because you have no idea what you are talking about as you have shown post after post after post.

Have you not learned anything in the last few pages you have posted and replied? Do you not read any of the material I present. Your obviously very wrong. Species don't just eat anything.

Deer don't eat...
Bears, goats, cats, dogs, mice, rats, cows, other deer, rocks, dirt, etc... So your obviously wrong, they don't just eat anything.

There is no such thing as your ludicrous claim of a target food.

You can fool yourself into believing that but the fact is, and its been proven already that all species have a direction in the food they choose, and they all choose the same direction as well. How is that for mud in your eye.

Your never going to convince me that species just eat what ever, there are limited situations where they have been found eating odd things not on their menu, but only becuase they are starving. No target food.

I can't believe you do not understand the difference because the 2 lists. That's simply absurd to pretend to be so ill educated.

For starters ask yourself this: Where are fruits covered in the first list?

Well the plants bare them, so I thought it was a given.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

As per your absolute blindness to see what is staring you in the face. Many animals eat and digest and assimilate into their very being specific rocks.

Everybody posting here does it, daily and out of necessity....yes even you.

You should view this as a little intellectual puzzle for yourself. See if you can work it out!

Seeing how it doesn't directly effect the idea of target food, it doesn't interest me.

It should...If you remove this rock from the equation, Then any target food that you could possibly come up with would be null and void.

All of the animals you have named will die without including this rock in its diet. FACT!

New species

so now that that has been debunked on to the next

Man has ( some ) intelligence there for we can experiment. create fire, make tools, none of that is "natural"

so we have no "target food" because we are not "natural"

We are however indigenous to this planet

See this is where "tooth" fails in his desire to say we are not of "this" planet

He has said the Bible is his proof. Which bible would that be by the way??

Tooth you have not said which bible you are using, there are many and they all are different

and you know the KJV ( the V stands for version) the gutenburg and many other versions the Torah the Koran the I ching so which "bible" do you mean tooth?

BTW the way DNA double helix shape is universal on this planet, seems odd that we would have the same SHAPE DNA as everything else on this planet UNLESS we came from here (unless your saying all life on this planet was transferred along with us?) if so why would we leave our "target food" behind??


fascinating ( if absurd ) reading but then I love good fiction

reply to post by idmonster

It should...If you remove this rock from the equation, Then any target food that you could possibly come up with would be null and void.

All of the animals you have named will die without including this rock in its diet. FACT!

If its common like the idea of Target air, then it has no significance.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Dont forget, we also don't know what the animals were fed either.

Has no bearing on the issue that you can't figure out what animal is used to make marshmallows. The longer it takes the more it should be clear that the labels are incomplete.

What exactly does this have to do with target food?

The issue of animals including humans eating rocks has to do with you saying in several posts that animals do not eat rocks. You are so very wrong.

The rock isn't digested so its useless for target food.

That has no bearing on the fact that you were wrong that animals do not eat rocks.

It is oh so very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about especially when it comes to this fantasy of target foods.

Simple, if evolutionists can do it, why can't I? Understanding that spcies have a clear diet, and not being able to prove how this intelligence is shared amongst them, is just the tip of the ice berg. There is also the problem that evolution also doesn't explain how it is that the choice being made by the speices also happens to be the most nutritious, well at least when it appears to be a target food anyhow.

Thats how. There is no other explanation period. There is the sharing of intelligent information that is somehow telling species what to eat, what not to eat, and what it looks like so they can target it. In addition there has to be a prior understanding of the food being available before someone or something can tell them to target it. There is no way to get around the dilema of there needing to be intelligence passed on between them. This fact means that there is somehow the transfer if intelligence, which is obviously not evolution.

And your opinion about me not understanding how to read a diet is obviously false, they started out as what appeared to be herbivours, and remained so after the fact. So your WRONG.

Species do not have a clear diet. That is what I am trying to teach you. You showed that there is no clear diet for squirrels and deer.

Why do you think that evolution needs to explain the manner in which animals experimentally locate food? Nothing directs animals to a particular food. This is a wacky idea that you have made up in your fantasy world. You inability to understand simple things like the diet of a deer or the difference between plant lists is ample evidence of your complete lack of understanding of anything here.

You are wrong. You repeatedly listed a quote which did NOT describe the diet of deer and yet claimed it did. Then when you finally found the correct section on deer diet after a dreadfully long time span you claimed it was the same. You have no idea what you are writing about - nothing at all.

reply to post by itsthetooth

They could still be seen as being in the same food group. I understand that its debatable about Lichen being called a non vascular plant, but it still happens.

Absolutely clueless.

This silliness about food groups reminds me of children that decided all animals fell into 5 groups of life: bug, wolf, rat, fish, and squishy.

No funghi is not a plant but again I can see where the deers diet would include them as though they were. Twigs would also be part of this , and as wiki claims, they do eat twigs.

You think a browser eats twigs?

So you think that deer employ a taxonomical system assigning funghi to the plant kingdom?

So here we are still working out a report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat.

Why an F? Unable to determine the animal used to make marshmallows. Hint: it is important for people to know.

2. F - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks.

Why an F? All posters here eat rocks on a regular basis. Everyone should know this answer.

3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet.

Why an F? Arguing that a grazing list of plants is the same as a list of plants for a browser.

4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved.

Why an F? Because no evidence let alone proof has been supplied. For stating that it was assumed to be correct.

5. F - For claiming that fungi are plants.

Why an F? Fungi are in a distinct kingdom from plants.

This is a partial report card and so far things look poor. But there is the hope that through prodding it is possible to raise these grades and also awareness of biological issues. This is a simply a starting point. Unless we keep track of where we are it is not possible to resolved some of these issues. There is always hope that things can move forward.

reply to post by thedigirati

so now that that has been debunked on to the next

Man has ( some ) intelligence there for we can experiment. create fire, make tools, none of that is "natural"

so we have no "target food" because we are not "natural"

We are however indigenous to this planet

See this is where "tooth" fails in his desire to say we are not of "this" planet

He has said the Bible is his proof. Which bible would that be by the way??

Tooth you have not said which bible you are using, there are many and they all are different

and you know the KJV ( the V stands for version) the gutenburg and many other versions the Torah the Koran the I ching so which "bible" do you mean tooth?

BTW the way DNA double helix shape is universal on this planet, seems odd that we would have the same SHAPE DNA as everything else on this planet UNLESS we came from here (unless your saying all life on this planet was transferred along with us?) if so why would we leave our "target food" behind??


fascinating ( if absurd ) reading but then I love good fiction

Wow, an actuall ATS Archivist. I feel like its an honor to forum in the presence of someone so decorated.

Anyhow, the types of bibles I have used are KJV / ESV / and NIV.
They all indicate that earth is not our home, in the hebrews section, in obvious words. There is also mention of super powers or abilities that might have been taken away from us. In that same section. This could have been as a result of many different punishments which the book seems to be a lot about.

Hebrews 11:1-16

Yes, I'm saying, just like the bible indicates that life was placed here on this planet.

According to the preface of the ESV, the bible is not fiction, it is supernatural.
Supernatural

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

As you can see, these elements are not within the boundries of our scientific understanding, therefore its impossible for us to test or quantify some of its events.

It is perhaps just one realized contradiction in the bible, that if god made us, how can we also be from a different planet. The earth not being our home is crystal clear, and in many places. God making us in his image, could have different meaning, and I'm sure it does.

I'm interested in knowing what your basis is for believing we are from earth? We have no instinctive values that tie us to this planet. In fact the only thing there seems to be is we breath air and drink water. Even the water aside from a few places on earth is not safe to drink. The planet supports us in hardly no way I can see. What does happen is we change things to make the planet work out for us, adaptation. It seems to be all we do, but any time you have to adapt, you have to spend time and energy, which means you will have a reduction in your quality of life.

reply to post by stereologist

Has no bearing on the issue that you can't figure out what animal is used to make marshmallows. The longer it takes the more it should be clear that the labels are incomplete.

They also don't give nutrition information about the corn that was used in the corn syrup but that doesn't mean its any less accurate. Your not getting it when I say its steps down the road, it means zilch, nada, nuka, zero value as once the gelatin is extracted it makes no difference.

The issue of animals including humans eating rocks has to do with you saying in several posts that animals do not eat rocks. You are so very wrong.

Of course I would expect you to be smart enough to realize that I'm referring to them actually digesting the rocks, and not just using them for pre digestion reasons. I have heard of different species in that sense using rocks, but not wilfully digesting rocks.

That has no bearing on the fact that you were wrong that animals do not eat rocks.

It is oh so very clear that you have no idea what you are talking about especially when it comes to this fantasy of target foods.

Well sure it does, if they are using them in pre digestive positions, I'm aware of those, I'm talking about them actually eating rocks and pooping them out.

Species do not have a clear diet. That is what I am trying to teach you. You showed that there is no clear diet for squirrels and deer.

And you would be wrong again, the deer diet was so concise that they gave both a broad description and a detailed description, which for the most part said the same thing, depending on how picky you want to be. But like I stated, even with species that eat leaves, I assumed he ate fruit and berries from those same plants, which was true by your definition find. Now from a GENERAL view he is an herbivore. Because his diet can be labled, and given full description proves you to be wrong, we know what deer eat. Now I know you have some brain glitch that is telling you that wiki is wrong, and your positive that you have seen them eat tree bark, you might have, like I said, I found a link that says they will do that when they are starving. So unless you can prove YOUR deer wasn't starving, we have to reason to press on about it.

Your obviously wrong as you can wiki just about any species and find out what they are eating. Not that wiki is never wrong, I can't believe I have actually found something wrong by them, but anyhow, any species search will usually yeild what a species is eating. Now how can that be if we supposedly don't know what they are eating? Your wrong, and I have shown this multiple times over, and its getting redundant.

Why do you think that evolution needs to explain the manner in which animals experimentally locate food?

Well first off because they aren't experimenting, so an explanation would be in order if you claim its true. Second, and explanation of why none of the diets I have looked up (about 50 so far) have also not mentioned anything that resembles what would be an experimenters diet.

Nothing directs animals to a particular food.

No of course not, they just all happen to eat the same identical specific food on accident.

This is a wacky idea that you have made up in your fantasy world. You inability to understand simple things like the diet of a deer or the difference between plant lists is ample evidence of your complete lack of understanding of anything here.

Thats only because your unable to see them in a catagory by nature rather than a catagory by man.

But no worries, I didn't expect you to understand, you probably believe that evolution is real.

You are wrong. You repeatedly listed a quote which did NOT describe the diet of deer and yet claimed it did. Then when you finally found the correct section on deer diet after a dreadfully long time span you claimed it was the same. You have no idea what you are writing about - nothing at all.

Either way you look at it, he is eating the same things by both definitions. The only technical disagreement was with fungi and litchens, however from a broad understanding, anyone can see how they could be regarded as plants. At least as far as the deer is concearned, which is view point here..

So from the general perspecitve, you were still wrong, there is little to no difference in the two definitions, and if you still feel you need to argue about it, maybe you should take it up with wiki and let them know they made a mistake.

This is a wacky idea that you have made up in your fantasy world. You inability to understand simple things like the diet of a deer or the difference between plant lists is ample evidence of your complete lack of understanding of anyt

reply to post by stereologist

This is a wacky idea that you have made up in your fantasy world. You inability to understand simple things like the diet of a deer or the difference between plant lists is ample evidence of your complete lack of understanding of anything here.

Then maybe you should take it up with wiki and let them know you found a mistake.

You are wrong. You repeatedly listed a quote which did NOT describe the diet of deer and yet claimed it did. Then when you finally found the correct section on deer diet after a dreadfully long time span you claimed it was the same. You have no idea what you are writing about - nothing at all.

I'm sorry but you never proved there to be a obvious difference between the two definitions, and maybe you should let wiki know they messed up. Don't shoot the messenger man.

Your obviously just being incredulous. The way that I know this is you haven't done a single thing to try to test my theory to be true, only to see if you could find anything that proves it wrong. Your just upset that you haven't presented anything that can prove it wrong, and your also upset that you can't provide anything that proves your claims about an experiment diet. There is no such thing, its made up just like evolution is.

Absolutely clueless.

This silliness about food groups reminds me of children that decided all animals fell into 5 groups of life: bug, wolf, rat, fish, and squishy.

Which is why you will never understand this, its from the perspecitve of the consumer, not from our eyes.
deer
You think a browser eats twigs?

deer select easily digestible shoots, young leaves, fresh grasses, soft twigs, fruit, fungi, and lichens

Yes I do believe it, just like wiki claims.

So you think that deer employ a taxonomical system assigning funghi to the plant kingdom?

It could be the opposite which could explain why he eats fungi and lichens. He doesn't know the difference, just like the two definitions failed to do.

So here we are still working out a report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat

So if nutrition lables don't share nutrition, what do they share? Your expecting them to explain where everything comes from, if that were the case it would be called species facts, not nutrition facts DUH!

Why an F? Unable to determine the animal used to make marshmallows. Hint: it is important for people to know.

Nutrition facts aren't supposed to share that information, WTF man.

2. F - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks.

All your opinion so far as you haven't proven otherwise.

3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet.

Which you have also failed to prove to be different so again its just your opinion.

4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved.

Where is your proof, not your opinion.

5. F - For claiming that fungi are plants.

To the deer they could be seen as the same thing, which again is just proof that they are missing target food.

Why an F? Fungi are in a distinct kingdom from plants.

Not according to deer, you seriously lack insight.

This is a partial report card and so far things look poor. But there is the hope that through prodding it is possible to raise these grades and also awareness of biological issues. This is a simply a starting point. Unless we keep track of where we are it is not possible to resolved some of these issues. There is always hope that things can move forward.

Cool, so you give me a fat F so far, at least I'm beating you. Your lack of proving anything wrong that you claim to be wrong, puts you with a fat zero!

reply to post by itsthetooth


Deer can eat a lot of stuff. When you get to know them they will start to eat almost everything you give them if they trust you. They like potatoes, especially baked with butter. They like french fries also. I'll just list out the foods I gave them, it's easier all at once Cereals of all kind, especially the sweet ones like fruitloops. Most seeds like sunflower seeds, sometimes they inhale them though and that gets pretty scarey. They like pasties, meat and all, they also like fried pork chops. They eat roast and steak but only a little at a time (2 oz.). They like rice with soysauce and popcorn with butter and salt. They eat almost everything that we eat, maybe It would be easier to say what they don't eat. They don't eat icecream or milk products(exc butter), not even cheese. They don't eat spinach and sometimes poke their nose up at leaf lettuce. Out of the hundreds of foods I tried, they ate almost everything, even garlic bread and chicken strips. They do start ripping up the garbage bags at the roadside if you start feeding them people food though. I discontinued feeding them this kind of stuff and put them on an organic vegan diet the next year. I was afraid for the safety of the hunters. I didn't want them going through McDonalds drive through either.

reply to post by rickymouse

Deer can eat a lot of stuff. When you get to know them they will start to eat almost everything you give them if they trust you. They like potatoes, especially baked with butter. They like french fries also. I'll just list out the foods I gave them, it's easier all at once Cereals of all kind, especially the sweet ones like fruitloops. Most seeds like sunflower seeds, sometimes they inhale them though and that gets pretty scarey. They like pasties, meat and all, they also like fried pork chops. They eat roast and steak but only a little at a time (2 oz.). They like rice with soysauce and popcorn with butter and salt. They eat almost everything that we eat, maybe It would be easier to say what they don't eat. They don't eat icecream or milk products(exc butter), not even cheese. They don't eat spinach and sometimes poke their nose up at leaf lettuce. Out of the hundreds of foods I tried, they ate almost everything, even garlic bread and chicken strips. They do start ripping up the garbage bags at the roadside if you start feeding them people food though. I discontinued feeding them this kind of stuff and put them on an organic vegan diet the next year. I was afraid for the safety of the hunters. I didn't want them going through McDonalds drive through either.

Your deer was obviously starving.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Can you quite figure out which rock all animals need and eat? It's a very important rock. I bet you've eaten it every day.

reply to post by itsthetooth

They also don't give nutrition information about the corn that was used in the corn syrup but that doesn't mean its any less accurate. Your not getting it when I say its steps down the road, it means zilch, nada, nuka, zero value as once the gelatin is extracted it makes no difference.

Seeing that you like to get off topic to hide your scores of hideous mistakes let me remind you that you claimed labels allows you to know what we eat. That is wrong.

What is the animal used to make marshmallows? You can't figure it out because you have no idea how to figure it out.

Of course I would expect you to be smart enough to realize that I'm referring to them actually digesting the rocks, and not just using them for pre digestion reasons. I have heard of different species in that sense using rocks, but not wilfully digesting rocks.

The ingested rocks are NOT for digestion reasons. You eat the rocks. You are guessing and guessing wrong time after time after time. This is evidence that you have zero idea what you are talking about.

Well sure it does, if they are using them in pre digestive positions, I'm aware of those, I'm talking about them actually eating rocks and pooping them out.

No you're not. You are flailing as you have with everything you've posted. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

And you would be wrong again, the deer diet was so concise that they gave both a broad description and a detailed description, which for the most part said the same thing, depending on how picky you want to be. But like I stated, even with species that eat leaves, I assumed he ate fruit and berries from those same plants, which was true by your definition find. Now from a GENERAL view he is an herbivore. Because his diet can be labled, and given full description proves you to be wrong, we know what deer eat. Now I know you have some brain glitch that is telling you that wiki is wrong, and your positive that you have seen them eat tree bark, you might have, like I said, I found a link that says they will do that when they are starving. So unless you can prove YOUR deer wasn't starving, we have to reason to press on about it.

What a joke! They did not give a concise and a broad description. There was one diet description. You need to read the article AGAIN. Learn this time. They provided a single diet description and it was broad and as you learned yourself it was incomplete.

Here comes that assume word again. And I never would consider that a leaf eater would also be a fruit eater. So don't pretend anything about what I have posted.

So now that we know that deer consume a very wide range of plant materials you think that means they have this fantasy of yours called a target food? If you read my posts such as this one I stated quite clearly that YOU were wrong, not the wiki. And you found one link suggesting that the deer would avoid starvation by eating bark. I saw the bark consumption in late spring when the environment was lush with food. You guessed again and you are wrong once again.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your obviously wrong as you can wiki just about any species and find out what they are eating. Not that wiki is never wrong, I can't believe I have actually found something wrong by them, but anyhow, any species search will usually yeild what a species is eating. Now how can that be if we supposedly don't know what they are eating? Your wrong, and I have shown this multiple times over, and its getting redundant.

You didn't find something wrong in the wiki. It is a bit tough here when we have to get back to elementary school material. You found that wiki was incomplete, not wrong. There is a difference.

No one in this thread has suggested we do not have some idea about what animals consume. As you have learned yourself (not really sure that was true) dietary lists are often incomplete such as in the case of deer and squirrels.

Well first off because they aren't experimenting, so an explanation would be in order if you claim its true. Second, and explanation of why none of the diets I have looked up (about 50 so far) have also not mentioned anything that resembles what would be an experimenters diet.

I have shown multiple examples of experimentation. Just because you claim you are unable to do proper research is meaningless. You are arguing from ignorance again.

No of course not, they just all happen to eat the same identical specific food on accident.

That's not true. That's just a part of the fantasy you've constructed.

Thats only because your unable to see them in a catagory by nature rather than a catagory by man.
But no worries, I didn't expect you to understand, you probably believe that evolution is real.

So you admit you cannot understand why the 2 plant lists are different. You've stated that in several posts already. You need to take a basic course in biology. When you get to high school take a biology course and you will learn about plants and animals.

Either way you look at it, he is eating the same things by both definitions. The only technical disagreement was with fungi and litchens, however from a broad understanding, anyone can see how they could be regarded as plants. At least as far as the deer is concearned, which is view point here..

The same by both definitions? You think that forbs and grasses includes fruits? The more you post the more obvious it becomes that you have no idea about a wider and wider range of issues. Please tell us where twigs appear in the first list. You know, the list that was NOT the deer diet.

PS You have not shown me to be wrong - not once.
PPS The frequent red lines under words means that you are misspelling them.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then maybe you should take it up with wiki and let them know you found a mistake.

The mistake is not with the wikipedia. It is you that were unable to read and comprehend the article. No point in pretending it was the wikipedia. Everyone reading the thread has to chuckling over your strange mistake.

I'm sorry but you never proved there to be a obvious difference between the two definitions, and maybe you should let wiki know they messed up. Don't shoot the messenger man.

Now you are telling a lie.
1. I pointed out that twigs did not fit into the first list.
2. You goofed, not wiki. You are wrong and no one else

The way that I know this is you haven't done a single thing to try to test my theory to be true, only to see if you could find anything that proves it wrong. Your just upset that you haven't presented anything that can prove it wrong, and your also upset that you can't provide anything that proves your claims about an experiment diet. There is no such thing, its made up just like evolution is.

You don't understand science. That's just another one of the basic things you need to learn.

I don't need to do anything other than test your fantasy and it fails miserably. Everything you write is wrong. You seem to have this predilection to wanting to be wrong. I am not upset at all. I am laughing wholeheartedly reading each and every post.

You think a browser eats twigs?

Of course and deer are browsers and you fumbled through a dozen posts before you figured that out. That was awe inspiring to watch ineptness follow ineptness ...

It could be the opposite which could explain why he eats fungi and lichens. He doesn't know the difference, just like the two definitions failed to do.

Another fantasy statement just like everything else you've claimed.

reply to post by itsthetooth


The nine deer we had here that year were far from starving. You have to watch that you don't give them too much breads or corn though, they will get big bellies. that's not a good sign. They build up a lot of fat in the fall to last the winter. If they gain too much weight though it is hard on their ankles. We have had the same deer returning here for many years. The oldest doe didn't return this spring, she had been coming here every year to have her kids since she was a fawn. She was our friend. Kind of miss her.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So here we are still working out a report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat.

Why an F? Unable to determine the animal used to make marshmallows. Hint: it is important for people to know.

2. F - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks.

Why an F? All posters here eat rocks on a regular basis. Everyone should know this answer.

3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet.

Why an F? Arguing that a grazing list of plants is the same as a list of plants for a browser.

4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved.

Why an F? Because no evidence let alone proof has been supplied. For stating that it was assumed to be correct.

5. F - For claiming that fungi are plants.

Why an F? Fungi are in a distinct kingdom from plants.

You can pretend that you stated something else, but the labels on packages do not tell you everything you are eating. A simple example is the name of the animal used to make marshmallows. I provided a hint to assist you. Probably everyone else reading the thread knows the answer. You've failed over 15 or more posts.

I a not going to give you the answer to what rocks are eaten on purpose because the answer is known by 2nd graders, i.e. kids that are 7 years old. Seems that the rest of the people reading this thread know the answer. Don't be lazy and beg for the answer go out there and do a little research.

Your posts since I gave you an F for being unable to differentiate between a browser and grzer continue to affirm that you still do not understand the difference.

Where is your proof, not your opinion.

This simply shows that you do not even understand the difference between evidence, proof, and facts. Need to add that to the report card.

To the deer they could be seen as the same thing, which again is just proof that they are missing target food.

Your F continues to stand. Get out of your fantasy world and learn something.

Sad, but nothing has been learned.

6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence.
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same
9. F - For stating that deer have a concise diet
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your deer was obviously starving.

Clueless, simply clueless.

I know one thing deer will rarely eat. It's daffodils. Other than that it is anything within reach. And they eat it regardless of how lush the year may be.