Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

No. What I stated very clearly is that information was not on the label. A check with the manufacturer verified that the animal in question was used to make marshmallows.

Thats what you keep saying, but I have been the only one so far to produce any evidence on the contrary. You haven't produced anything but opinion at this point.

The next time you get the odd idea that you think I made a mistake you better check what I wrote instead of going with your failed recollection. That way you won't write such embarrassing posts.

Got it? Check and recheck, then post

Why would I bother, you haven't produced anything at this point. Everything you have presented so far is just speculation.

Read this, you wont have to read far as it explains right at the start, in more or less the firat paragraph.

Link to Gelitin Manufacturers of Amaerica Handbook

If it says gelatin on the label, its animal derived, if the company are using vegitable based gelling agents they have to label accordingly. (e.g. xantham gum)

Salt is a rock that you and every animal on this planet with a nervous system will die without.

Other rocks required for life include:

Sulphur
Phosphorus
Magnesium

and your all time favourite------calcium.


In conclusion, no matter how you try and swing it, gelatin comes from animals, and if you say that the processing it undergoes means its no longer an animal product, I call the same on cows milk.

DEBUNKED.

The rocks are absolutly essential and are not always ingested by accident or as a part of other food stuffs. Many animals will walk for days to find a good salt lick and guard it jealously. (google elephant salt licks)

So not only do these animals eat rocks, they do it on purpose. So do you. So does Mr Anteater, I think that conclusivly ties us all to having originated on the same planet.

If you think otherwise, you now need to identify the individual planets that each species originates from and prove that the minerals listed above are abundant enought to support those species...But you cant.

DEBUNKED


Now grow up and provide the evidence that if target food existed, it would prove evolution wrong. you have still so far failed to do this, but I will give you another chance before I make an official complaint to the MODS regarding false claims and purposeful hoax. (check the T&C's regarding posting of this type of idiocy)

reply to post by itsthetooth

First of all if you were right, and an animal product was used, despite the article I found that indicated that all gelatin in the us is synthetic, its still not an animal product, its an animal by product.

Do you not understand the difference?

First off the article you quoted does NOT indicate or suggest or state that "all gelatin in the us is synthetic". The quote you provided discusses one of many corporations.

Second the issue of animal product or by product is simply a diversion from the issue that you still cannot name the animal used to make marshmallows. Are we going to claim that a pie crust made with beef lard is actually not an animal product since the rendering process has somehow made it synthetic?

Third, gelatin may or may not be a by product of another process. That still does not change its origin.

Now your claiming that the manufacture has indicated that they use animal but you also indicated that they failed to issue this infomration on the nutrition facts or ingredients, so which is it?

All I have stated is that the labels do not tel us what we are eating. In particular marshmallows contain an animal product and the animal is no named.

And everything is still just your opinion at this point as you still haven't issued any links to prove yourself. Regardless even if you did have proof, it appears that the idea of considering the process as though it is using animal products is in itself, entirely opinion.

No matter how much weaseling and whining you do I will not give you the answer to the issue since I know third graders that quickly figured it out.

reply to post by idmonster

Read this, you wont have to read far as it explains right at the start, in more or less the firat paragraph.

Link to Gelitin Manufacturers of Amaerica Handbook

If it says gelatin on the label, its animal derived, if the company are using vegitable based gelling agents they have to label accordingly. (e.g. xantham gum)

I guess we will never know the truth untill the aleged truth gets posted.

Your link tells us nothing about synthetic gelatins.

Salt is a rock that you and every animal on this planet with a nervous system will die without.

Other rocks required for life include:

Sulphur
Phosphorus
Magnesium

and your all time favourite------calcium.

Calcium and salt where the only two I could think of.

In conclusion, no matter how you try and swing it, gelatin comes from animals, and if you say that the processing it undergoes means its no longer an animal product, I call the same on cows milk.

DEBUNKED

You would be correct if milk were a by product of the processing, but its not.

So not only do these animals eat rocks, they do it on purpose. So do you. So does Mr Anteater, I think that conclusivly ties us all to having originated on the same planet.

Your making an assumption that these elements are only found on earth.

If you think otherwise, you now need to identify the individual planets that each species originates from and prove that the minerals listed above are abundant enought to support those species...But you cant

There is a lot of things I can't prove, but that doesn't mean they can't exist.

Now grow up and provide the evidence that if target food existed, it would prove evolution wrong. you have still so far failed to do this, but I will give you another chance before I make an official complaint to the MODS regarding false claims and purposeful hoax. (check the T&C's regarding posting of this type of idiocy)

I already have, proof of a chosen diet proves target food, and I have clearly identified many species that have target foods. Tisk tisk report away I guess.

If claiming something is a fraud could get your thread removed, I would have had evolution threads removed a long time ago.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well then that manufacturer probably is distributing outside of the us.

That's a great guess, but wrong. Sorry.

Looks pretty obvious to me.

That's something an illiterate person might say. Then again it might be what a liar says. The fact is that nowhere does it say anything other than one particular manufacturer's statement. It furthermore, may not cover marshmallows.

True, only that which is sold, which is what I'm assuming we are all talking about, unless you have inside channels to purchase black market gelatin.

Now you are lying - again. Don't you feel bad about your pernicious attitude?

You obviously don't know how to read.

Reflecting your lies and failures onto others is so easily spotted.

And all you do is say this and say that, and you back up nothing which you claim. Just totally opinionated.

Tsk, tsk. Don't embarrass yourself further.

Ok do all people eat this rock? Because I probably don't.

Here is the easy test. If you are alive then you are eating this rock. I simply can't believe you have not determined this rather common rock. You'll be red faced when you figure it out. That's ok. This is part of learning. I have great confidence that you can figure this out.

Oh boy, its a growing case of everyone else being wrong, and your correct again.

Not at all. But picking a dullard liar charlatan hoaxer like Pye? He's not a scientist. He doesn't do science. You can do better than listening to a fake like that. When you listen to him, and I am sure you will, ask tough questions. Is this really true? Did a lab check the results? What lab? When did they do this? What methods were employed? What are the limitations of that method? Are there other methods to get a cross check?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thats what you keep saying, but I have been the only one so far to produce any evidence on the contrary. You haven't produced anything but opinion at this point.

Let's learn some basic definitions. I am not reporting opinion. Opinion would be me guessing what the animal is. Opinion is not involved. I am reporting what the manufacturer stated. You could consider this anecdotal evidence. You on the other hand have lied about the issue and have misrepresented the issue.

I am simply stating that labels are not complete and it is not possible to determine the animal used to make marshmallows from the labels on the package. You must be in agreement with that because you are arguing that NO animal is involved. The manufacturer disagrees with you.

Why would I bother, you haven't produced anything at this point. Everything you have presented so far is just speculation.

I have reported many times that you lie and you do. That is not speculation. You are a liar.
I have reported many times that you are unable to report the diet of a deer. You insisted that forbs and grasses included fruit and twigs. That is unbelievably wrong.
You claimed fungi was a plant. How could you be so wrong?

These are not speculations but facts.

reply to post by stereologist

That's a great guess, but wrong. Sorry.

Well am I just supposed to take your word for it?

That's something an illiterate person might say. Then again it might be what a liar says. The fact is that nowhere does it say anything other than one particular manufacturer's statement. It furthermore, may not cover marshmallows.

It wasn't untill after the fact that jello was even used as the topic for explanation. The first sentance clearly states that all gelatin in the us is synthetic.

Now you are lying - again. Don't you feel bad about your pernicious attitude?

I wouldn't know if anything I have stated is wrong, you haven't proven anything.

Not at all. But picking a dullard liar charlatan hoaxer like Pye? He's not a scientist. He doesn't do science. You can do better than listening to a fake like that. When you listen to him, and I am sure you will, ask tough questions. Is this really true? Did a lab check the results? What lab? When did they do this? What methods were employed? What are the limitations of that method? Are there other methods to get a cross check?

Anyone can challenge it as the human genome is public information. And I have been unable to find one single person to challenge him.

Let's learn some basic definitions. I am not reporting opinion. Opinion would be me guessing what the animal is. Opinion is not involved. I am reporting what the manufacturer stated. You could consider this anecdotal evidence. You on the other hand have lied about the issue and have misrepresented the issue.

I am simply stating that labels are not complete and it is not possible to determine the animal used to make marshmallows from the labels on the package. You must be in agreement with that because you are arguing that NO animal is involved. The manufacturer disagrees with you.

Why is it that your first line of defence was that the lable never told you that you were eating animal, now your claiming you have found out otherwise. So your claiming that you caught the manufacture in a lie. I don't believe you unless your again thinking that gelatin as a by product constituites being animal product when it does not.

Anytime you claim something to me without backing it up with links and evindence, as far as I'm concearnd, its just your opinion.

I have reported many times that you lie and you do. That is not speculation. You are a liar.
I have reported many times that you are unable to report the diet of a deer. You insisted that forbs and grasses included fruit and twigs. That is unbelievably wrong.
You claimed fungi was a plant. How could you be so wrong?

These are not speculations but facts.

Well you can report all you want, its when you prove things that you get my attention.
Forbes is not a word by the way.
Yes I was trying to say that the deer would probably treat fungi as though it were another plant. From a deers perspective, he would include fruit and twigs, and proabably nuts too, seeing how he is eating from a vague diet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well am I just supposed to take your word for it?

You stated that animals do not eat rocks or dirt and it turns out that the simple answer of salt,known by second graders, was fairly obvious when you get around to it. The animal used to make marshmallows is a little harder to figure out, but not much.

It wasn't untill after the fact that jello was even used as the topic for explanation. The first sentance clearly states that all gelatin in the us is synthetic.

After all of that mess where you were utterly confused about the diet of deer and still are unable to understand that the list you quoted is not the diet of a browser I am not surprised that you can't figure out what you posted. Sorry, marshmallows are made with a particular animal and it is not information that can be found on the label as you so falsely and repeatedly have claimed.

I wouldn't know if anything I have stated is wrong, you haven't proven anything.

You have lied about all US gelatin being synthetic.
You lied about proving the existence of target food.
You lied about me making a mistake.
You lied about a list of forbs and grasses including twigs.

The repetitive and indignant nature of your posts clearly shows that you are not making blunders, but rather that you purposely are not telling the truth.

Anyone can challenge it as the human genome is public information. And I have been unable to find one single person to challenge him.

Another argument from ignorance. Pye is a clown, a charlatan, a huckster, a con man, a fraud. He is anything but a scientist.

Why is it that your first line of defence was that the lable never told you that you were eating animal, now your claiming you have found out otherwise. So your claiming that you caught the manufacture in a lie. I don't believe you unless your again thinking that gelatin as a by product constituites being animal product when it does not.

It is well known amongst vegans that you can't eat marshmallows. Why? They contain gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product. Which animal? Some people need to know. A little checking and the name of the animal is known.

The manufacturer did not lie. They were very clear about the animal. No waffling. No pretending. Ask and they are very, very clear about the animal.

What we do know is that you are untruthful about gelatin and it not being animal in the US. How do we know? The makers of products using gelatin say it is an animal product.

Anytime you claim something to me without backing it up with links and evindence, as far as I'm concearnd, its just your opinion.

Clearly this is not the same person I responded to earlier as tooth since the spelling has deteriorated again.

Well you can report all you want, its when you prove things that you get my attention.
Forbes is not a word by the way.

It is spelled forbs or phorbs. You have so little knowledge about this area and yet you are pushing this fantasy of target foods. Here read about forbs for pete's sake.
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes I was trying to say that the deer would probably treat fungi as though it were another plant. From a deers perspective, he would include fruit and twigs, and proabably nuts too, seeing how he is eating from a vague diet.

There you go admitting that this lunacy of concise diets is in general wrong.

So here we are still working on the report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. C - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. change
Someone spilled the beans about salt. Need to see if the grade can be raised on the realization that salt is a connection between terrestrial life forms.
3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change
4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change
5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change
6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no change
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change
9. B - For stating that deer have a concise diet change
There is the recognition that deer have a wide diet that can be considered to be vague.
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change
11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change
12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change
13. C - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes
The word you were looking for was third in Yahoo! and in Google it replaces forbes with forbes unless you add a space after forbs and then the second item down in the suggested search is forbs plants. You get a C because you were unable to figure out how to get around the failings of the search engine. Hope a few tricks helps out like using multiple resources.

All animals could probably have originally had a single food they could survive on. If that food disappeared than the animal would die though because it would lose the ability over generations to digest anything else properly. This could possibly make the animal extinct if it's sole food disappeared. This may have been the case long ago but since then animals have all learned to diversify their diet. They acquired a different body chemistry as a result. They cannot go back to their target food anymore, they evolved away from it. Humans were not the only animals that are intelligent enough to adapt to this.

This actually shows that evolution to a changing food change is possible and helps supports Evolution and natural selection. All animals may have evolved from mushrooms long ago. Along with mushrooms insects formed which may have a different evolution beginning growing alongside of the fungi. We could be part insect and part fungi I suppose but who knows. The part I do not agree with in evolution is where our DNA came from. I don't think that our DNA was created on earth, maybe it came from a distant world somewhere when it blew up or maybe it was intentionally sent here by an advanced race. Either way, that race of beings may no longer even exist anymore. It may be they looked like humanoids did a million years ago also, nothing like we look like today. Life here could have even come here from another planet in our own solar system that at one time was full of life. Who knows what really happened, all traces of evidence may have disappeared in the last million years. All life here has been around for a very long time and conscious all that time.

Since mankind originated we have evolved a lot. We may have even been some sort of dinosaur at one time long ago also. That would push the delivery of the DNA here much earlier. I also believe there were some sort of dinosaur type creatures here along with mankind. There is too much circumstantial evidence to exclude this possibility. Too many tales from all over the world about similar creatures. Science would say the tales are fantasies that were spread far and wide but they won't even acknowledge that man could navigate the waters between the continents twenty thousand years ago.

Target food does not really prove evolution wrong. Food evolution does not prove their theory of evolution either. It only explains things that have happened in the meantime. I am more worried what is happening to our planet right now than what has happened in the past. Half the people in this country believe god will save us when we destroy our Ecosystem. Why would he save us if we destroyed his creation? That doesn't sound like reasonable behavior for a being that has been around for so long. He'll let us learn our lesson and redo the planet after we all die, putting another race of beings in charge of taking care of the earth. He might even help steer our destruction before we kill the planet. That's for those who believe in god to ponder on.

reply to post by stereologist

You stated that animals do not eat rocks or dirt and it turns out that the simple answer of salt,known by second graders, was fairly obvious when you get around to it. The animal used to make marshmallows is a little harder to figure out, but not much.

No I stated that they don't eat rocks or dirt as a food replacement. I still fail to see why the big drum roll for salt. It has nothing to do with anything in the topic of target food. If I didn't know any better I would bet that you are a discruntled ATS member assuming a prior idenity. It's wonderful that you know that salt is so important. Did you want a brownie button or a chest to pin it on?

After all of that mess where you were utterly confused about the diet of deer and still are unable to understand that the list you quoted is not the diet of a browser I am not surprised that you can't figure out what you posted. Sorry, marshmallows are made with a particular animal and it is not information that can be found on the label as you so falsely and repeatedly have claimed.

Oh there was no confusion as it was basically the same diet, at least in the eyes of the deer it was, which is the angle I'm doing my research on. Your never going to understand if you lack the insight that you do.

Well I think your lying, I don't believe that animal product is found in marshmallows, and I even provided a link that supports that claim. In addition to the fact that even if animal products were used to manufacture gelatin, its still only a by product and not considered animal product. So keep lying to yourself.

You have lied about all US gelatin being synthetic.

Without any proof like I have provided, I'm going to have to say your lying untill your qualified to prove otherwise.

You lied about proving the existence of target food.

Target food was proven way back when selected diets were realised, which was pages ago. Did you miss it?

You lied about me making a mistake.

Well one of us sure has and it sure wasn't me.

You lied about a list of forbs and grasses including twigs.

I already told you I don't read that magazine, and the twigs were assumed through the diet of an herbivore, I just so happend to be rigth is the only thing your not able to explain. I even pasted the second section of the diet showing that twigs are in fact included in their diet.

The repetitive and indignant nature of your posts clearly shows that you are not making blunders, but rather that you purposely are not telling the truth.

That is entirely your opinion, as I have said, without any proof, your just talking trash.

Another argument from ignorance. Pye is a clown, a charlatan, a huckster, a con man, a fraud. He is anything but a scientist.

Prove it.!

It is well known amongst vegans that you can't eat marshmallows. Why? They contain gelatin. Gelatin is an animal product. Which animal? Some people need to know. A little checking and the name of the animal is known.

Prove it.

The manufacturer did not lie. They were very clear about the animal. No waffling. No pretending. Ask and they are very, very clear about the animal.

Prove it.

What we do know is that you are untruthful about gelatin and it not being animal in the US. How do we know? The makers of products using gelatin say it is an animal product.

Prove it.

Clearly this is not the same person I responded to earlier as tooth since the spelling has deteriorated again.


Well you can report all you want, its when you prove things that you get my attention.
Forbes is not a word by the way.

It is spelled forbs or phorbs. You have so little knowledge about this area and yet you are pushing this fantasy of target foods. Here read about forbs for pete's sake.
en.wikipedia.org...


Yes I was trying to say that the deer would probably treat fungi as though it were another plant. From a deers perspective, he would include fruit and twigs, and proabably nuts too, seeing how he is eating from a vague diet.

There you go admitting that this lunacy of concise diets is in general wrong.

Prove it!

Boy,, you guys have got to stop tmaking this an argument. It is a discussion. You two are starting to act like Republicans and Democrats.

reply to post by stereologist

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change

And here I would give you a zero for not answering what it is exactly that nutrition facts do tell you.

2. C - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. change
Someone spilled the beans about salt. Need to see if the grade can be raised on the realization that salt is a connection between terrestrial life forms.

Well you know, so is air, so is water, so is nitrogen, and many other things, but whos counting. You still get a zero here for failing to provide an example to back up your claims.

3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change

I have no idea how you derived at this conclusion, when the basic idea of an herbivore still covers it from a general perspective, which is what I was looking at seeing You get another zero for not being able to realize that.

4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change

You would get another zero for not paying attention. Target food is well proven.

5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change

You get another zero for not seeing it as the deer does.

6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no ch

Zero for not proving that I have missused them.

7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change

You get another zero for ignoring the fact that I repeatedly stated excluding these examples.

8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change

Zero for not proving me wrong.

9. B - For stating that deer have a concise diet change

concise

conciseadjective /kənˈsīs/ 
conciser, comparative; concisest, superlative

1.Giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive
- a concise account of the country's history

Booya, another zero.

10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change

Another zero for not explaining what the hell your talking about.

11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change

Your opinion will always land you with a fat zero.

12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change

Well we sure in the hell don't tell them what to eat, another zero.

13. C - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes

First of all its "Forb" not forbs, or forbes, and you get another zero for causing the confusion and trying to purposly make someone else look bad as a result of it. VERY BAD. ZERO.

The word you were looking for was third in Yahoo! and in Google it replaces forbes with forbes unless you add a space after forbs and then the second item down in the suggested search is forbs plants. You get a C because you were unable to figure out how to get around the failings of the search engine. Hope a few tricks helps out like using multiple resources

Well I don't use yahoo so thats a problem there, I think if you had spelled it correctly to begin with, I would have caught it. It's still close enough to be vaguly part of a herbivore diet. The fact is you can probably break down the deer diet into 36 different catagorys, but to the deer, its all one.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No I stated that they don't eat rocks or dirt as a food replacement.

That is a lie. That is not what you posted.

I still fail to see why the big drum roll for salt. It has nothing to do with anything in the topic of target food. If I didn't know any better I would bet that you are a discruntled ATS member assuming a prior idenity. It's wonderful that you know that salt is so important. Did you want a brownie button or a chest to pin it on?

The issue is that you wrote that animals do not eat rocks or dirt and you were wrong. It is an example of how little you know about animal feeding behavior.

Oh there was no confusion as it was basically the same diet, at least in the eyes of the deer it was, which is the angle I'm doing my research on. Your never going to understand if you lack the insight that you do.

Well I think your lying, I don't believe that animal product is found in marshmallows, and I even provided a link that supports that claim. In addition to the fact that even if animal products were used to manufacture gelatin, its still only a by product and not considered animal product. So keep lying to yourself.

So once again you claim that grasses and forbs include fruit and twigs? You are simply clueless or more like a pernicious liar.

Your link did not cover marshmallows or marshmallow manufacturers. You are wrong. The material used to make marshmallows comes from a particular animal. Again you are wrong to state that the labels tell you what you are eating. Many people in the US are unable to conscientiously consume marshmallows.

Without any proof like I have provided, I'm going to have to say your lying untill your qualified to prove otherwise.

You have provided no proof. You misrepresented an article. You are just a liar it seems.

Target food was proven way back when selected diets were realised, which was pages ago. Did you miss it?

That never happened. You are telling another lie.

I already told you I don't read that magazine, and the twigs were assumed through the diet of an herbivore, I just so happend to be rigth is the only thing your not able to explain. I even pasted the second section of the diet showing that twigs are in fact included in their diet.

That takes the cake for the silliest comment of this post. For days you were unable to locate the diet of the deer despite the article being remarkably short. What you did post was not the diet of deer and did not include the diet of a browser. And it certainly did not include the main diet of a deer. I posted the correct diet long before you did. You still claim they are the same?

Prove Pye is not a scientist and is a fraud?
Simple. He is pretending a skull is evidence of ETs.

I am not going to give you the answer that is easy for third graders to figure out. Someone finally had to tell you the answer to a question second graders know. You can whine and cry and lie about things you find online, but there I am not going to tell you the answer to what animal is used to make marshmallows. You don't deserve to be told the answer.

I also proved that forbs is a word.

You also showed that you were wrong in claiming that all animals have a concise diet.You did it twice. The first time was the squirrel diet. The second time was the deer diet. You called that one vague.

It is pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this fantasy called target foods. What I'd like to know is where you stole the idea. Pretty clear at this point is that you took someone's idea and you have not properly attributed the idea to whomever you stole it from.

So please tell us all where did this come from?

So here we are still working on the report card.
1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
For trying to shift the goal posts
3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change
4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change
5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change
6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no change
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change
9. D - For stating that deer have a concise diet change change
For trying to revert to your incorrect position
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change
11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change no change
It is bad to get high marks here.
12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change
13. F - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes change
For pretending that I did not give you the link and incite into how to do better searches.
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen
15. F - For not understanding forbs is the plural of forb. Most English words are made plural by adding an s to the end of the word.
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence.

What is the argument of twigs of trees in the deers diet about. I have much knowledge of the diet of deer, I've read many articles on them including articles from the forestry service on their impact on an the forests. Deer love the twigs on little trees and prune them almost perfectly with their teeth. The Hormonal compound in the buds is good for them in the spring, especially does that are pregnant. This keeps the forest from getting overgrown with little trees and actually keeps their natural grazing clearings from being grown in. They steer their environment just like humans do..

Must be a private forum, I'll just observe from now on.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Read this, you wont have to read far as it explains right at the start, in more or less the firat paragraph.

Link to Gelitin Manufacturers of Amaerica Handbook

If it says gelatin on the label, its animal derived, if the company are using vegitable based gelling agents they have to label accordingly. (e.g. xantham gum)

I guess we will never know the truth untill the aleged truth gets posted.

Your link tells us nothing about synthetic gelatins.

Because, as a food stuff, they don't exist, vegetable gelatin substitutes do...but they are not allowed to be labeled as gelatin..........The truth is in the handbook. (you never read a word of it did you?)

Salt is a rock that you and every animal on this planet with a nervous system will die without.

Other rocks required for life include:

Sulphur
Phosphorus
Magnesium

and your all time favourite------calcium.

Calcium and salt where the only two I could think of.

I don't believe you!

In conclusion, no matter how you try and swing it, gelatin comes from animals, and if you say that the processing it undergoes means its no longer an animal product, I call the same on cows milk.

DEBUNKED

You would be correct if milk were a by product of the processing, but its not.

I am correct regardless as no one made you god of food classification, and it appears that we are free, in your delusion to classify food according to what we want it to show, ergo, fungus becomes plants and materials clearly derived from animals become.....what?......plant as well?

So not only do these animals eat rocks, they do it on purpose. So do you. So does Mr Anteater, I think that conclusivly ties us all to having originated on the same planet.

Your making an assumption that these elements are only found on earth.

I make no assumptions, I merely point out that you need to show that any supposed planet that you think animals originate from needs an abundance of the aforementioned materials.

If you think otherwise, you now need to identify the individual planets that each species originates from and prove that the minerals listed above are abundant enough to support those species...But you cant

There is a lot of things I can't prove, but that doesn't mean they can't exist.

Well so far you have proved nothing and assumed the existence of a great deal.

Now grow up and provide the evidence that if target food existed, it would prove evolution wrong. you have still so far failed to do this, but I will give you another chance before I make an official complaint to the MODS regarding false claims and purposeful hoax. (check the T&C's regarding posting of this type of idiocy)

I already have, proof of a chosen diet proves target food, and I have clearly identified many species that have target foods. Tisk tisk report away I guess.

If claiming something is a fraud could get your thread removed, I would have had evolution threads removed a long time ago.

Once again you drag your own thread away from the point. Your thread title isnt about proving target food exists, you clearly state that target food proves evolution wrong.

I don't care if it exists or not (It doesn't and you haven't shown anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise), what I care about is you statement. with that in mind, please answer the question.

IF TARGET FOOD EXISTS, HOW DOES THIS DISPROVE EVOLUTION?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist

 

Anytime you claim something to me without backing it up with links and evindence, as far as I'm concearnd, its just your opinion.

Well that works both ways.....and means that every statement you have made thus far is........opinion.

All tooth statements-------------dismissed.

reply to post by rickymouse


For days and days tooth quoted the followed words as being the diet of deer.

grasses, weeds, and herbs

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice that this does not cover the food of browsers and deer are browsers.

After days and days of prodding I was able to get tooth to find the proper section of the wikipedia article to quote.

shoots, young leaves, fresh grasses, soft twigs, fruit, fungi, and lichens.

He is insisting that these 2 lists cover the same diet. When asked where twigs and fruit call into the first list there have been 2 excuses.
1. deer think these are the same
2. fruit are in the first list

At this point it has become clear that tooth has no idea what they are saying and will lie and lie and lie to no end.