Target food proves evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
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.

Target air has more going for it than target food. At least I can prove it exists and show the results if it was taken away.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

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.

No I can't say that I can.

Oh come on. Please try. I have told you many times that you have the largest source of information ever in the history of mankind at your fingertips.

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia

 

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.

No I can't say that I can.

Oh come on. Please try. I have told you many times that you have the largest source of information ever in the history of mankind at your fingertips.

Jesus, you guys are still doing quid and pro quo?

BTW, the rock is salt. But there are other rocks we ingest, too (like lithium bicarbonate...it is in the water that some people drink, leaved from the rocks that water is in). Salt is just he most prevalent.

Heck, raw crude oil has been (and still is used) as a seasoning in food by some people.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Connector

 

I mean really....why the # is this thread even here other then traffic?

I think its more the reason here so people can ask me about rocks.

They are testing your ability to find/research a simple question and you are failing in epic proportions. For a guy obsessed with food that is astounding.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Because the actions required for it to work require intellgence to be present on a multi level.
You can't have species knowing what food is good for them without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what food they are suppose to eat without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what not to eat without intelligence.
You can't have species knowing what food is available to eat, in order to programm what to eat, without intelligence.
Dont forget that you also need intelligence to program all these results.

Target foods are a fantasy.

Species are not supposed to eat anything in particular. The physical structure of an animal makes certain feedings difficult or easy. An elephant would find it difficult to eat meat. Not impossible, but not easy.

Species can and do feed on things that are not good food or even toxic. The deer eat rhododendron, iris, daisies, and other toxic plants.

Species are not programmed to eat something in particular. Animals released into unfamiliar environments find foods.

Your assumption that intelligence is required is simply not true. Trial and error works. Is trial and error intelligence? Maybe. Depends on what you mean by intelligence.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Which is why I have given a plethora of links about diets that we have confirmed about various species. This alone proves target food. All species eat the same food within a species.

A single species can be distributed over a wide geographical area where different foods are available. A single species also eats different things at different times of the year.

You have not given a plethora of links about diets. That is a lie.

You have shown at least 1 diet list for a squirrel and found out that depending on region the squirrels ate a different diet. Squirrels eat many different things.

reply to post by itsthetooth

That is such a compliment stereo, thank you, but no, its actually my idea.

I choose not to believe it. It is more reasonable to assume that this is just another lie.

It's a really daft idea and it has no supporting evidence.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Heck, raw crude oil has been (and still is used) as a seasoning in food by some people.

Fascinating. You're not pulling my leg are you?

Is this done from seeps? Where can I read about this?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

That is such a compliment stereo, thank you, but no, its actually my idea.

I choose not to believe it. It is more reasonable to assume that this is just another lie.

It's a really daft idea and it has no supporting evidence.

What a shame Tooth was told what the rock was. What a disgrace he had to be told.

You are being very harsh on the group known as tooth. He has been told he is a borderline genius and has let it be known he is a science major, the discoverer of an arcane virus no less.

Tooth

You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?

I need to clear something up, it has been bugging me for quite a while and it is quite petty, but:

Tooth, are you aware that when you refer to people as incredulous, its not an insult?

A credulous person believes without evidence, on hearsay, are deemed to be gullible.

An incredulous person is the opposite, refusing to believe without evidence, requiring proof, skeptical.

As I say, a minor thing and probably another F on the report card for language comprehension, but I only mention it because you use it often and in a context that makes me believe that you think it is an insult.

Credulity - Wiki

reply to post by buddhasystem

Not all extinctions are created equal, with some having up to 96% species die. What the Earth is going through now is nowhere near these levels (duh), so your argument is without merit.

No they are not, and with 99% missing in the last one, thats a lot. Either way, 99% is a huge loss.

To quote Lewis Black, when I hear something like this, I reach for a fossil, and I go like, "Fossil!".

It's not all theories and hypotheses, there are dead animals to be found and pegged to a particular period in Earth history. And I thought everyone knew that. I guess I'm not very evolved after all.

Again what I have read, and what I read from other ATS members differs about this, but ATS members are telling me that evolution has a point not only in the creation of new species, but also in some of their destruction.

Boy, what a logic fallacy. "Intended" by who exactly? By God our Lord? How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same? Weak mind. Very weak.

It's only a fallacy if you ignored the obvious points about diet.
Something has programmed all this life to somehow know what they are supposed to be eating. This observation is based on the fact that they somehow all simotaniously choose the same food, and stick with it. That food, from our observation appears to be the best for them, and fit their needs. What a coincidence. I would claim intelligence at this point but that doesn't have to mean god, or even a god.

In addition these species are not observed experimenting with different foods, unless they are in a starving situation. So not only do they know what they are suppose to eat, but also what they are not suppose to eat. In order for something to be able to program a species on what type of food they are suppose to eat, that something would have to obviously have a prior knowledge of the food actually being available. This is multilayerd intelligence.

You could claim that instinct simply programs them to eat what they do, however, who, or what programmed that instinct, and how did it know about the food that was going to be available? You CANT claim that species just eat whatever they can find, as that type of undirected activity has not been witnessed. The only time we see species going off their known diet is when they are starving.

A species may have more than one target food, but when you see a species eating everything out of the same food group, its a clear sign that a target food is missing.

What nonsense. We the primates are very good at forming our environment, such as (shudder! awe!) cooking our food, or fermenting our drinks (my favourite). Please don't tell me I can't bake a cake (very unnatural thing to do), brew some mead (yummy, but you have to take care for it to work), or pickle a herring (do it all the time, and it's highly unnatural, just try to pickle yourself). In fact, primates (like us) evolved to rely on processed food, to one degree or the other. Heck, even bears dig their fish in the sand to rot, and acquire a specific taste, I argue this is not natural, it's rotten fish. Remarkably, the Vikings did the same (gravlox).

Give a man a fish, and he can eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he can eat forever. The problem here is that if fishing were instinct, we would not need teaching to know how to do it. Therefore its not natural. Fishing might be necessary however if you want to survive. I'm not saying don't fish. I'm just saying its not natural to us. Adaptation, like fishing is a work around to an existing problem. Anytime you have to adapt, there is serious question about its nature.

This is only due to Big Business. Don't deify it, that would be stupid. I drank plenty of fresh milk (like straight from the cow 2 minutes ago) and it was cool. Pretty unusual to taste, so what. What does industry have to do with anything e.g. evolution?

To believe that people are suppose to drink milk is like agreeing that mass processing is natural, which it isn't. In addition, you can get sick and die from drinking cows milk directly...

bad cows milk

I see, you have quite an open mind! At some point (I hope) you drank your mother's milk and it was fine, but some other milk -- oh no! Of course it's very different, but come on, same concept

Actually its not the same concept, you see cows milk is obviously for baby cows, breast milk if for human babies, goats milk is for baby goats, and so on.

You seriously need to start working on your education. Just google a little if you can't be bothered to open a book. There is plenty of calcium out there.

I can safely state that I have studdied and read more about the subject than you have. I know this beca

reply to post by itsthetooth


That's the problem when using evidence to try to prove something. It's impossible to completely explain things in one post. I could max out five posts character limits just partially explaining the diet of a deer and what it eats to neutralize the effects of other things it eats. To do it right it would bore everyone to death. And I don't even know hardly anything compared to a guy who has studied deer with a passion all his life.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You seriously need to start working on your education. Just google a little if you can't be bothered to open a book. There is plenty of calcium out there.

...I know this because you are wrong.

I have researched to the depths of hell looking into the pros and cons about calcium. It's apparent that humans are MISSING some type of source of calcium. This decision is based on the fact that the highest calcium that be obtained on the planet through a common (and I use that loosely) food is sardines. However you will have to consume 5.4 servings of sardines at over 16 oz total per day to meet requirements. Cows milk is not considered natural, however it does pack a higher punch of calcium, which is probably why we resorted to it in the first place. You could get away with 3 servings of dairy a day. You will need over 1000mg of calcium per say. All fruits and veggies are way below the standard for meeting requirements, unless you plan on gorging yourself on them.

Processed cheese is the best, but again thats processed, and not natural. The best found fit for our problem here with calcium is in the form of seaweed. Packing 7 to 14 times more calcium than milk, you could get away with 1/2 a serving a day.

So when you claim I know nothing about calcim, Please, man give me a break, I have posted charts here about it.

You seem to have never known much of anything, but please research primates. They always did fine. What an eye opener.

Humans are considered primates as well in case you didn't know that. If you were referring to chimps and apes, I can tell you their diet is functioning while ours is not. I will leave it up to you to decide why that is, I'm just saying there is no excuse.

reply to post by Connector

Dear lord........this is the intelligence level your dealing with people........

All this tells me is that you know little to nothing about Pye's star child, as this is the medical claim is is presenting based on actuall findings from it's DNA and mtDNA.

What the heck is Pye's star child? Sounds like some alien being.

Never mind, I looked it up, I never knew it was called Pye's star child.

reply to post by stereologist

Please stop the excuses. Stop telling lies and I won't call you on it.

Calling on me isn't going to accomplish anything, when its just your opinion. What you need to do is start proving me wrong.

I don't believe you.

Go back and read for yourself, and you will see.

The problem with telling lies is that you get lost in that twisted clutter of lies. You have repeated claimed that grasses and forbs list you posted was the same as the list that included twigs and fruit.

And for the 5th time, from the perspective of the deer, yes.

That makes no sense at all except maybe in your fantasy world.

All your doing is talking trash, and not backing up any of your claims. Your just full of opinions.

That's another lie.

Prove it!

Another another lie.

Prove it!

The plants in the list were completely different. You can't possibly be pretending that a grazers diet is the same as a browsers diet.

From the perspective of the deer, it can be.

If I'm wrong, prove it!

reply to post by stereologist

The skull is a human skull.

That was based on mtDNA as nuclear testing was not available at that time, and he had to wait until it was. You seriously need to do more research on this subject.

Watch all the idiot videos you want. Meaningless drivel to keep a fraud like Pye alive

If pye was so bent on passing of a regular skull as being alien, and the DNA proved it to be human, he simply wouldn't have published those findings. Which is not the case. You need to do more research.

What we do know is that you have almost no understanding of anything you post. Your posts are full of misrepresentations, mistakes, and outright lies.

You falsely claimed that labels tell you what you eat. You were wrong in that case. I chose a simple, common item and knew that the animal used to make the food item was not going to be located in a simple search engine query.

Prove it.

Forb and forbs are words in the standard English language. You are once again arguing from ignorance.
dictionary.reference.com...

Here is another hint for you. In Yahoo type define in front of a word. In Google type define: in front of a word.

I don't use yahoo, I told you, I use google, and it is not a word in google, sorry your wrong.

hy are a listing a herbivore with fungi and lichen?

Please tell us where you stole the idea of target foods. It clearly is not your idea. You took it from somewhere and have not attributed the source. Please do.

It was the definition of a concise diet, NOT A PRECISE diet like your assuming. So in that was the defintion for concise, that you seem to be overlooking.

reply to post by stereologist

It is not a credible idea. I think it is a very unintelligent idea. I just don't believe you dreamed up even this dismal concept.

Well perhaps the reason you don't believe is because you are incredulous.

A delusion on your part.

The report card is adding more items as you continue to flail

I hate it when I flail, but especially when its an epic flail.

reply to post by stereologist

The two plant lists were very different. You lie each time you claim they are the same or even similar. One is a grazer diet and the other a browser diet.

But you got the point, they are both plants. Do you honeslty believe the deer would know the difference?

reply to post by colin42

Hold on matey. Your title says target food proves evolution wrong but it is crystal clear you cannot even show target food exists.

How sad.

Well thats what happens when you take a vacation colin, you miss all the good stuff.

Catching up during a dull period but this is becoming a really gritty who done it or more to the point will he do it.

I am not going to turn to the last page to see and spoil the surprise. Will he or won’t he, that is the question

It's ok I'm not diving into rocks, it has nothing to do with target food.

Target air has more going for it than target food. At least I can prove it exists and show the results if it was taken away

As I have proven what happens when a speices loses target food as well.

Oh come on. Please try. I have told you many times that you have the largest source of information ever in the history of mankind at your fingertips.

I'm not even going to entertain the idea.