Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

This is another argument from ignorance. Are you actually claiming that you do not know how to make plurals in English?

No what I'm saying is that its not a common of enough word for you to be passing it off in plural.

That is wrong. You don't know how to use google. That's the problem. It is your fault

google doesn't find it at all, I get an auto correct to forbes, thats not my fault.

I did. So you are caught telling another lie.

No you showed me a definition of forb nor forbs.

Your lying again.

Pye wrote a book to take money from stupid people. He was successful. He fleeced the gullible. Good for him.

I have already produced a number of people that show Pye is a fraud.

If you have, you haven't shared them on this thread.

I didn't need to look up a common word in google. Shame on you for being unable to use google.

Maybe you should search forbs yourself on google and see what you get, your WRONG.

You lie every chance you get it seems.

No one trusts anything yu say because of your record. You and Pye are the same. You both lie as often as possible.

You never proved anything I wrote to be a lie and you surely never proved pye to be a liar either.

You just lie.

Since you have no effort at providing even one piece of evidence about this fantasy called target foods why would I expect any different about any of your other absurd claims?

Because my claims are supported by facts, thats why.

Not asking you what lie Pye told I asked the name of the lab and the person that ran the test.

I believe the second lab was "242" but your going to have to do your own research which may require you to actually spend some time on some videos like I had to do, I'm not going to do your work for you.

1. Learn the difference between evidence and proof
2. Provide even 1 piece of evidence that target food exist

Strict matched diet proves target food with no questions.

You are telling yet another lie. You used the word precise. You should have used the word accurate since precise was meaningless in the situation you used it.

Not gazers, it's grazers and deer are browsers, not grazers. You have to realize that the real world differs from your fantasies.

I know what I read from the diet off wiki, I'm not taking YOUR word over it.

The original word I used was concise, not precise, your WRONG again.

The point is that your story was an anecdote that leads people into wacko ideas. it was lacking something important that you clearly lack.

The only thing its lacking from you is understanding, and intelligence.

You are again arguing from your personal ignorance. You couldn't determine that animals eat rocks. You couldn't find forbs. Just 2 examples of how your lack of ability has clouded your thinking.

Uhm that would be because its not forbs its forb.

Did it. You even supplied the information that squirrels experiment with predation. Invasive species move to new foods. Hawaiian moths have evolved to consume the recently introduced banana plants.

But again, if they are missing target food, they are certainly still eating in the food group.

But the cattle do not know that. They will eat and die.

Some species cant adapt.

Please provide evidence of your fantasies.

Sorry but I don't have any fantasies.

You get a good grade for using a word properly. Well done. Now let's work on the other failing marks in yur report card.

No thanks, I'm going to work on target food. But I could suggest an excellent ATS member that would fit very well with you, his name is colin.

reply to post by stereologist

Thought we were seeing improvement and it is back to being a liar. Deer eat bark whenever. You are the only 1 that has discussed starving. No one else.

You are clearly delusional as I have allready proven this to be wrong. As wiki explains there is no bark mentioned. I did however find a site claiming that they will eat bark when they are starving, however you didnt first indicate it was a starving deer you were intereseted in.

Now you are continuing to lie. A normal diet includes eating rocks.

I found nothing in the wiki about them eating rocks either, your clearly delusional and just rambling on. Prove it.

More lies. Google does recognize forbs, but you were too lazy to look beyond the first page of search results. The first list of food was not the diet of a browser and deer are browsers. You are a childish liar.

apparently people have just started searching that name more as NOW google recognizes it as a word.

So you have provided no evidence. In the case of the abalone the diet listed in the wiki is incomplete as I already pointed out. Still no evidence.

I found nothing in the diet to suggest that it was incomplete, and until you prove otherwise, your just stressing an opinion.

You continue to deny being wrong and your response to errors is not learning, but to lie repeatedly. I and others are trying to help out here by getting you up to snuff. You resist. Can't learn with your fingers in your ear and screaming.

dont kid yourself, the lack of learning stems from you having nothing to teach.

Here we go with yet another lie. The issue is that you claimed that the labels told you what you were eating and I easily identified a common product where the labels do not tell you what you are eating.

Twist and squirm and whine and you still cannot name the animal used to make marshmallows. The reason is that the labels do not tell you what you are eating.

but you never proved it so it doesn't count.

There are as many different manners in which animals eat and here are a few:
en.wikipedia.org...

These methods evolved. At one time there were no animals on land. Now there are animals that consume each other

Your example is rejected, as none of it has been witnessed, its all speculation, in the line of evolution of course.

Science studies the varied issues of animal behavior. An intro can be found here
www.nature.com...


Appetites — perceptions of need — usually link directly to physiological control systems and fall into a general category called behavioral homeostasis.


The area is well studied and certainly has nothing to do with fantasies such as target food.

Sure but it doesn't explain who or what programmed those abilities.

The abalone has been mentioned as a possible case of something seeking a target food. About all that has happened is that an incomplete diet has been listed.

Snails experimentally feed. Here is a paper on Aplysia.
brembs.net...

The situation for studying operant conditioning of Aplysia feeding behavior is almost ideal: 1. In search for food, the animals display seemingly random bites for food, even without any external stimuli triggering the bite (Kupfermann, 1974).


Thus the snail is experimentally searching and consuming food in its environment.

Intelligence doesn't mean that evolution is doing it in case you missed that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No what I'm saying is that its not a common of enough word for you to be passing it off in plural.

Oh please ... buck up.

google doesn't find it at all, I get an auto correct to forbes, thats not my fault.

Then learn to do research instead of reverting to an argument from ignorance.

No you showed me a definition of forb nor forbs.

Your lying again.

You really can be that uneducated or are you?

If you have, you haven't shared them on this thread.

There you go back to telling lies. I suggest you read other posts instead of making telling lies.

Maybe you should search forbs yourself on google and see what you get, your WRONG.

Here is what I get out of google for the first 2 search entries

forbsplural of forb
Noun:
A herbaceous flowering plant other than a grass.
More info »The Free Dictionary

Forb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forb
The term 'forb' is a shortened form of the word Euphorbiaceae, which is a family of plants that includes some well-known grassland species such as Euphorbia ...
Etymology - Forbs and guilds - Forbs in informal classification - See also

You are completely incompetent.

You never proved anything I wrote to be a lie and you surely never proved pye to be a liar either.

Pye is a liar. I provided several links showing what a charlatan he is. If you opted to not read the post then that is your problem.

You are a recalcitrant liar and I believe a pathological liar.

Because my claims are supported by facts, thats why.

That is a lie. You have provided nothing in the way of evidence. In fact you have admitted that these are just your assumptions, or as you put it nothing more than worthless opinion.

I believe the second lab was "242" but your going to have to do your own research which may require you to actually spend some time on some videos like I had to do, I'm not going to do your work for you.

So there was no lab. Actually, Pye refused to name the lab. He's a liar. He claimed an unknown lab at an unknown location. The original tests were well down and show that the skull and parents were human.

Only a numbskull would fall for Pye and his malarkey.

Strict matched diet proves target food with no questions.

Not true. Besides you've failed to show this to be the case for any animal.

I know what I read from the diet off wiki, I'm not taking YOUR word over it.

The original word I used was concise, not precise, your WRONG again.

I don't care what you used at some vague time in the past. In the post in question you used precise and that was the incorrect word. The word should have been accurate.

The section you read off of wiki was not the deer's diet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The only thing its lacking from you is understanding, and intelligence.

Still waiting for you to stop being a liar.

Uhm that would be because its not forbs its forb.

I used the plural. So you are wrong again.

But again, if they are missing target food, they are certainly still eating in the food group.

So meat is a target food for squirrels?

Some species cant adapt.

All species will fail to adapt to some environments. So this is meaningless drivel on your part.

Sorry but I don't have any fantasies.

Yes you do. You have many.
Target foods, that you can read and comprehend the deer article in wiki, that you can make plurals in English, that Google deal with tags, that you have provided evidence, that you can make simple inferences. These are all fantasies of yours.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You are clearly delusional as I have allready proven this to be wrong. As wiki explains there is no bark mentioned. I did however find a site claiming that they will eat bark when they are starving, however you didnt first indicate it was a starving deer you were intereseted in.

The wiki is incomplete in many respects. So what. They do not discuss deer starving. Only you do that. So you found one site. I have found dozens and none mention starvation. You are incompetent at research as you have pointed out many times. I was not and have not discussed starving deer. I see deer consume bark during times of plenty. Deer consume bark when they want to.

You are arguing from your own ignorance.

I found nothing in the wiki about them eating rocks either, your clearly delusional and just rambling on. Prove it.

Again you argue from your own position of ignorance. Just because you are incompetent at doing research does not have any bearing on the matter.

en.wikipedia.org...
fw.ky.gov...

apparently people have just started searching that name more as NOW google recognizes it as a word.

Just stop the whining and excuses.

I found nothing in the diet to suggest that it was incomplete, and until you prove otherwise, your just stressing an opinion.

I already posted it the last time you posted the incomplete diet. One of the things they consume are bacterial mats.

dont kid yourself, the lack of learning stems from you having nothing to teach.

I suppose it is hard to teach someone that would rather lie than learn. I suppose it is hard to teach someone that cannot read a short article on deer and figure out where the diet is listed. It is hard to teach someone that cannot figure out that adding an 's' to the end of a word makes it a plural. I suppose it is hard teaching someone that cannot do 2nd grade material.

but you never proved it so it doesn't count.

Sorry not telling a dolt that can't figure out a third grade question.

Your example is rejected, as none of it has been witnessed, its all speculation, in the line of evolution of course.

Evolution is well established. I have met plenty of pinheads that reject it. I have even gone to see creationist lecturers just to see how stupid people can be. The people on stage act like you. They lie and they lie and they lie and the audience takes it all hook, line, and sinker.

Evolution proves target foods do not exist. Evolution proves that your ideas are a failure.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Science studies the varied issues of animal behavior. An intro can be found here
www.nature.com...

Appetites — perceptions of need — usually link directly to physiological control systems and fall into a general category called behavioral homeostasis.



The area is well studied and certainly has nothing to do with fantasies such as target food.

Sometimes people cannot understand issues and so they introduce new ideas where none is needed such as the following.

Sure but it doesn't explain who or what programmed those abilities.

There is no who or what involved in evolution. It is a process that is not goal oriented.

When someone like tooth does not understand something they introduce other unnecessary notions such as the need for something or someone to direct or run a process.

It turns out that a who is not need and a what is not needed either to direct the system.

The abalone has been mentioned as a possible case of something seeking a target food. About all that has happened is that an incomplete diet has been listed.

Snails experimentally feed. Here is a paper on Aplysia.
brembs.net...

The situation for studying operant conditioning of Aplysia feeding behavior is almost ideal: 1. In search for food, the animals display seemingly random bites for food, even without any external stimuli triggering the bite (Kupfermann, 1974).

Thus the snail is experimentally searching and consuming food in its environment.

Again we see that an unnecessary notion is again added. It is is totally unclear what is meant here by intelligence. Is this in reference to the experimenter or the snail?

Intelligence doesn't mean that evolution is doing it in case you missed that.

It does not really matter. The snail uses no apparent organization to its feeding method. The snail takes random bites. It experiments with its surroundings which include experimenting with feeding.

More evidence against the absurdity of target foods are filter feeders. There are many types including sponges, seq squirts, barnacles, and molluscs. They consume whatever passes by them. They do not seek out food, but rely on what is passing by and can be removed from the passing water.

en.wikipedia.org...

These creatures eat anything that passes by.

reply to post by stereologist

Oh please ... buck up.

You really should argue with another ATS member called colin, you argue just like him, you also post repeated information like he does too. You also start profiling like he does too.

Then learn to do research instead of reverting to an argument from ignorance.

The research is done, we know what species are eating.

You really can be that uneducated or are you?

You haven't proven I'm uneducated, its just your opinion.

There you go back to telling lies. I suggest you read other posts instead of making telling lies.

The only thing you have shared on this thread is your opinion and your scores of profiling.

Here is what I get out of google for the first 2 search entries

good for you, yesterday, google wasn't even recognizing the word forb.

You are completely incompetent.

Don't just say it, prove it, your opinion is not of high value here.

Pye is a liar. I provided several links showing what a charlatan he is. If you opted to not read the post then that is your problem.

You are a recalcitrant liar and I believe a pathological liar.

And you lie again, you never gave any links about pye being a liar, there are none. and you have never proven me to be one either, just your opinion again.

That is a lie. You have provided nothing in the way of evidence. In fact you have admitted that these are just your assumptions, or as you put it nothing more than worthless opinion.

Assumptions based on facts, otherwise why hasn't evolution included the programming of diets into their fantasy?

So there was no lab. Actually, Pye refused to name the lab. He's a liar. He claimed an unknown lab at an unknown location. The original tests were well down and show that the skull and parents were human.

Only a numbskull would fall for Pye and his malarkey.

Then where did I get lab 424 from? Do you think I just pulled it out of my ass? I'm not going to seriously do your work for you, you need to seriously do more research. Don't ask me about pye again before doing more research, don't claim hes a liar again without doing more research first, your just making yourself look bad.

Not true. Besides you've failed to show this to be the case for any animal.

I see so everytime I google or wiki a diet about a species, and find out what they are eating, are you trying to tell me this actually isn't what they eat?

I don't care what you used at some vague time in the past. In the post in question you used precise and that was the incorrect word. The word should have been accurate.

The section you read off of wiki was not the deer's diet

That is YOUR opinion.

Still waiting for you to stop being a liar.

Prove it!

I used the plural. So you are wrong again

I did too and google came up with an autocorrect of forbes. So sorry your wrong again for issueing me a plural when it shouldn't have been.

So meat is a target food for squirrels?

[They are predominantly herbivorous, subsisting on seeds and nuts, but many will eat insects and even small vertebrates/ex]
Because they predominantly are herbivorous, but also eat seeds and nuts, its very suspicious that they might eat insects and small vertebrates. It would appear that insects and small vertibrates are an attempt to replace something that is missing from their diet.

All species will fail to adapt to some environments. So this is meaningless drivel on your part.

Then why don't humans fail?

Yes you do. You have many.
Target foods, that you can read and comprehend the deer article in wiki, that you can make plurals in English, that Google deal with tags, that you have provided evidence, that you can make simple inferences. These are all fantasies of yours.

Well then my fantasy is YOUR opinion.

The wiki is incomplete in many respects. So what. They do not discuss deer starving. Only you do that. So you found one site. I have found dozens and none mention starvation. You are incompetent at research as you have pointed out many times. I was not and have not discussed starving deer. I see deer consume bark during times of plenty. Deer consume bark when they want to.

I typed in do deer eat tree bark, it doesn't get any easier than that, and used the first link there was.

You are arguing from your own ignorance.

And you are arguing from your own opinion..

Again you argue from your own position of ignorance. Just because you are incompetent at doing research does not have any bearing on the matter.

en.wikipedia.org...
fw.

reply to post by stereologist

Again you argue from your own position of ignorance. Just because you are incompetent at doing research does not have any bearing on the matter.

en.wikipedia.org...
fw.ky.gov...

And this has what to do with target food?

Just stop the whining and excuses.

Hey I'm telling the truth, it wouldn't search yesterday and works today.

I already posted it the last time you posted the incomplete diet. One of the things they consume are bacterial mats.

I did not see bacterial mats anywhere in the menu.

I suppose it is hard to teach someone that would rather lie than learn. I suppose it is hard to teach someone that cannot read a short article on deer and figure out where the diet is listed. It is hard to teach someone that cannot figure out that adding an 's' to the end of a word makes it a plural. I suppose it is hard teaching someone that cannot do 2nd grade material.

Prove it!

Sorry not telling a dolt that can't figure out a third grade question.

Maybe if you were actually here to teach me something about target food, I would have an interest about it.

Evolution is well established. I have met plenty of pinheads that reject it. I have even gone to see creationist lecturers just to see how stupid people can be. The people on stage act like you. They lie and they lie and they lie and the audience takes it all hook, line, and sinker.

Evolution proves target foods do not exist. Evolution proves that your ideas are a failure.

Good then you should have no problem proving what the mechanism is that forces an entire species to eat the same food.

Sometimes people cannot understand issues and so they introduce new ideas where none is needed such as the following.

But target food gives answers, it just doesn't raise more questions like the theories of evolution does.

There is no who or what involved in evolution. It is a process that is not goal oriented.

When someone like tooth does not understand something they introduce other unnecessary notions such as the need for something or someone to direct or run a process.

It turns out that a who is not need and a what is not needed either to direct the system.

There is always an MO to any process, your just to dense to realise that.

Again we see that an unnecessary notion is again added. It is is totally unclear what is meant here by intelligence. Is this in reference to the experimenter or the snail?

Neither I was trying not to acknowledge your attempt at changing the subject in this thread, but your welcome to start your own thread if you need to.

It does not really matter. The snail uses no apparent organization to its feeding method. The snail takes random bites. It experiments with its surroundings which include experimenting with feeding.

Just because it appears random, doesn't mean that it is. Is there evidence of a known diet?

More evidence against the absurdity of target foods are filter feeders. There are many types including sponges, seq squirts, barnacles, and molluscs. They consume whatever passes by them. They do not seek out food, but rely on what is passing by and can be removed from the passing water.

en.wikipedia.org...

These creatures eat anything that passes by

They fall into what I was calling scavengers, but that may not be accurate. As I allready said, I'm on the fence about these types of diets, and what they could mean to the idea of target food.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The research is done, we know what species are eating.

Not true. Science understands some things about animal behavior. More work is constantly being done. There are millions of species. New ones are being studied all of the time. You errors on deer and bark eating are just an example of your bad research and lack of understanding.

You haven't proven I'm uneducated, its just your opinion.

Can't spell. Can't understand how plurals are written. Can't read a short article on deer. Don't understand the meanings of simple words. Can't figure out 2nd grade and 3rd grade questions. The evidence proves my position.

The only thing you have shared on this thread is your opinion and your scores of profiling.

You are a liar. No surprise there. I have provided a wealth of information and when needed backed it up.

good for you, yesterday, google wasn't even recognizing the word forb.

I told you how to use google. That is what I used and it works. You still seem unable to learn even when people try to help you as I did.

Don't just say it, prove it, your opinion is not of high value here.

You proved it by being unable to determine the definition of forbs after I told you how.

And you lie again, you never gave any links about pye being a liar, there are none. and you have never proven me to be one either, just your opinion again.

I provided a number of links showing Pye to be a liar. just because you did not read them is your problem.

Assumptions based on facts, otherwise why hasn't evolution included the programming of diets into their fantasy?

Here you are arguing from ignorance again. Just because you do not understand what evolution is and the theories that describe how it works simply means you need to learn. Diets are not programmed. That is your fantasy.

Then where did I get lab 424 from? Do you think I just pulled it out of my ass? I'm not going to seriously do your work for you, you need to seriously do more research. Don't ask me about pye again before doing more research, don't claim hes a liar again without doing more research first, your just making yourself look bad.

I have no idea the last time you called it 242. This must be your typical baloney where you make stuff up. You probably did pull it out of your ass.

So you lied about Pye who is a liar, charlatan, hoaxer.

I'm not surprised that you fell for his obvious lies. Learn something - please.

I see so everytime I google or wiki a diet about a species, and find out what they are eating, are you trying to tell me this actually isn't what they eat?

You are using a summary of the knowledge out there. Use better resources. Bark was left off the deer diet. First off you couldn't even find the diet section in the article. Abalone left off bacterial mats and other foods.

The wikipedia is a quick overview of a subject. It is a stepping stone at best. It is an introduction.

Look at short the deer article is. Even then you completely goofed on finding the deer diet in the article. How could anyone do that?

I did too and google came up with an autocorrect of forbes. So sorry your wrong again for issueing me a plural when it shouldn't have been.

Just because you are incompetent at using google is meaningless. I showed you what I got when I used google. I told you how to get that search result. If your so incompetent that you only use one search engine and cannot even use that after multiple people tried to assist you and then claim others are wrong. Well, not much help for you I guess.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And this has what to do with target food?

Just showing you AGAIN how incompetent you are by showing other places that show you are wrong. These show that deer eat rocks.

Hey I'm telling the truth, it wouldn't search yesterday and works today.

I simply do not believe you.

I did not see bacterial mats anywhere in the menu.

That's because you need to do research. I posted that and other foods when I pointed out the incompleteness of the wikipedia entry.

I provided sufficient the proof anyone needs to see that teaching someone who is close minded, fighting learning, and constantly lies is not easy.

Maybe if you were actually here to teach me something about target food, I would have an interest about it.

I have been teaching that it is an ignorant fantasy.

Good then you should have no problem proving what the mechanism is that forces an entire species to eat the same food.

There is no mechanism forcing species to eat the same food. That is part of your delusion.

Why do species eat similar foods? It is partly dependent on structure and morphology. It is dependent on issues of means of digestion. It is dependent on means of maintaining homeostatis. These issues are studied by behavioral zoologists.

But target food gives answers, it just doesn't raise more questions like the theories of evolution does.

So far no evidence for target foods. Nothing, nada, zilch has been presented. It makes no sense and evolution shows it to be wrong.

There is always an MO to any process, your just to dense to realise that.

I guess you're just too dense to know that is a false statement.

Neither I was trying not to acknowledge your attempt at changing the subject in this thread, but your welcome to start your own thread if you need to.

No need to start a new thread when I am correct your prolific mistakes.

Just because it appears random, doesn't mean that it is. Is there evidence of a known diet?

You probably have no idea what random means. The diet is based on random bites. You should read the article.

reply to post by itsthetooth

More evidence against the absurdity of target foods are filter feeders. There are many types including sponges, seq squirts, barnacles, and molluscs. They consume whatever passes by them. They do not seek out food, but rely on what is passing by and can be removed from the passing water.

en.wikipedia.org...

These creatures eat anything that passes by.

Filter feeders show that target foods do not exist. Often these are sessile creatures relying on whatever passes their way.

They fall into what I was calling scavengers, but that may not be accurate. As I allready said, I'm on the fence about these types of diets, and what they could mean to the idea of target food.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of these species. They show that target foods do not exist.

There are other feeding mechanisms that do the same.

Over the course of evolutionary history we see many different life forms that show that target foods do not exist. Evolution shows target foods is a bogus idea.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by itsthetooth

 

Sorry, you lost me at needing cow's milk as a calcium source. It's actually quite a poor one due to high protein content leaching even more calcium out of our bodies than it provides (hence high milk producing/consuming countries having higher rates of osteoporosis).

Plant sources are much better at providing useful calcium, and our prior/natural & varied diets likely would have handled this wonderfully.

This also overlooks the fact that most of humanity is lactose intolerant...

Will come back to try to give the rest a fair shake later, but...hrm. Can't do it now.

edit on 8/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

This is completely erroneous. Research factor X and K2, and what is in raw, unpasteurized milk, and organic eggs, exactly what you need for your teeth and bones. Chicken liver too. And the reason for what you said, is due to their OVERPROCESSING FOOD TO RUIN ITS NUTRITIONAL VALUE.

www.radicalstrengthcoach.com...

To answer these questions let us take a look at the work of dentist, nutritional pioneer and scientist Weston Price. He discovered that a major cause of tooth decay and degenerative disease was the lack of nutrients provided in modern diets.

His book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, shows that primitive people with perfect teeth and no disease had high levels of fat soluble vitamins from certain animal sources in their diet.....

The districts with the highest mortality rates for pneumonia and heart disease were also the districts which had the lowest content of these fat soluble vitamins.

In other words when people were taking in higher levels of fat soluble vitamins and Activator X there were less cases of pneumonia and heart disease. There are many more studies which back the effectiveness of Activator X in reversing disease and symptoms.

It's cancer too, it helps prevent and cure.

There is a vegan way as well.

www.healingteethnaturally.com...

I prefer the milk way to the soya but fermented is always good where possible.

reply to post by Unity_99
Please see my later responses in this thread for quotes/references to research on the matter - I'm by no means saying milk itself is a bad food (although it may have various other issues at times), I'm simply saying it is an inadequate as a primary source of calcium as it's high protein content makes it counterproductive.

The protein causes additional excretion of calcium, hence those areas (and diets later modified to include larger and larger amounts of milk) with greater milk intake also have higher rates of osteoporosis - this isn't limited solely to milk intake, but other sources of excess protein intake as well.

Milk itself may be an excellent food for multiple reasons - but one would want to drink it reasonably and also have other dietary sources of calcium to mitigate interactions and detrimental effects.

Love Weston Price, BTW. Just trying to warm up to the idea of shifting primarily to organ meats and other recommended food sources to enjoy his shown dental benefits.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

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 didn't have to be told the answer, I didn't care.

Man up ..... The truth is you didnt know and never had the wit or capability to find out.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You really should argue with another ATS member called colin, you argue just like him, you also post repeated information like he does too. You also start profiling like he does too.

Why would we argue?

1. Stereologist has discovered you are a liar, just as I did. We agree so no argument there.

2. We both have shown you in many ways that target food is a fantasy. The construct of a weak and uneducated mind. Again no argument there.

3. We both post and repeat the same questions because you refuse to give a reasoned, logical answer backed up with evidence not your ignorance. Again, no argument there.

4. You avoid/deflect/ignore giving answers to any challenging questions and deny ALL evidence we show you. Again no conflict.

5. He gives you higher grades than I would award you so I suppose we could argue about that.

Well done Stereo, you have earned all the stars I have given you

I noted you have not answered my questions on salt. Try doing that. (This is why I keep asking the same questions)


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?

reply to post by stereologist

Not true. Science understands some things about animal behavior. More work is constantly being done. There are millions of species. New ones are being studied all of the time. You errors on deer and bark eating are just an example of your bad research and lack of understanding.

There isn't anything in the realm of science that has ever explained how a species knows a food is good for them.

Can't spell. Can't understand how plurals are written. Can't read a short article on deer. Don't understand the meanings of simple words. Can't figure out 2nd grade and 3rd grade questions. The evidence proves my position.

Your just a profiler. This isn't a court case where discrediting the author means the author is wrong about everything else.

You are a liar. No surprise there. I have provided a wealth of information and when needed backed it up

You mean like giving me the word forbs that was supposed to be forb?

I told you how to use google. That is what I used and it works. You still seem unable to learn even when people try to help you as I did.

Neither, the tags started working yesterday and didn't the day before.

You proved it by being unable to determine the definition of forbs after I told you how.

Thats the whole point there is no definition for forbs, its forb.

I provided a number of links showing Pye to be a liar. just because you did not read them is your problem.

I don't need Pye shown to be a liar, he needs to be proven a liar, they are just more opinion, like your rubbish

Here you are arguing from ignorance again. Just because you do not understand what evolution is and the theories that describe how it works simply means you need to learn. Diets are not programmed. That is your fantasy.

It has to be as there is never experimentation until they all realise the same diet.

I have no idea the last time you called it 242. This must be your typical baloney where you make stuff up. You probably did pull it out of your ass.

So you lied about Pye who is a liar, charlatan, hoaxer.

I'm not surprised that you fell for his obvious lies. Learn something - please.

Actually the problem here is that your buying into the links that offer no proof pye is a liar, which actually just shows what your willing to believe in.

You are using a summary of the knowledge out there. Use better resources. Bark was left off the deer diet. First off you couldn't even find the diet section in the article. Abalone left off bacterial mats and other foods.

Well you claim that bark was left off, I never saw anything that proved that so its entirely your opinion. So all the wikis are wrong and your right, this is just another case of YOU being right and EVERYONE else being wrong.

The wikipedia is a quick overview of a subject. It is a stepping stone at best. It is an introduction.

Look at short the deer article is. Even then you completely goofed on finding the deer diet in the article. How could anyone do that?

There were three sections where diet was mentioned, I did not know this at first. Either way it doesn't matter as the diets are very close, how come you keep missing that fact?

Just because you are incompetent at using google is meaningless. I showed you what I got when I used google. I told you how to get that search result. If your so incompetent that you only use one search engine and cannot even use that after multiple people tried to assist you and then claim others are wrong. Well, not much help for you I guess.

It wasn't google that failed me, it was you misspelling the word. By adding an S to the end, I would never find it that way, not knowing what the word was, I had no way of knowing if the s was part of the word or indicating that it was pluarl. It was entirely your fault.

reply to post by stereologist

Just showing you AGAIN how incompetent you are by showing other places that show you are wrong. These show that deer eat rocks

You say these, and you present nothing. LOL.

I simply do not believe you.

Why not, you believe someone that slanders pye with no proof, and I have proof of target food.

hat's because you need to do research. I posted that and other foods when I pointed out the incompleteness of the wikipedia entry.

I provided sufficient the proof anyone needs to see that teaching someone who is close minded, fighting learning, and constantly lies is not easy

All you do is speculate, and show your opinion. You never prove your side with information.

I have been teaching that it is an ignorant fantasy.

Then you are failing as you haven't produced anything to prove it wrong.

There is no mechanism forcing species to eat the same food. That is part of your delusion.

Of course not, its the magic of evolution isn't it LOL

Why do species eat similar foods? It is partly dependent on structure and morphology. It is dependent on issues of means of digestion. It is dependent on means of maintaining homeostatis. These issues are studied by behavioral zoologists.

So now your changing your story, now your lying, at first you claimed they don't all eat the same food and there is no proof. Enviroment does play a role in this but its not the only factor.

So far no evidence for target foods. Nothing, nada, zilch has been presented. It makes no sense and evolution shows it to be wrong.

That was the whole point, evolution makes no claims about why species eat the way they do, I guess they will have to come up with something and add this to their large library of theories now. LOL

I guess you're just too dense to know that is a false statement.

Not at all, you in fact have provided perfect examples of false statements.

No need to start a new thread when I am correct your prolific mistakes.

You will never get the recognition you deserve from someone elses thread, just saying. If your are correct anyhow.

You probably have no idea what random means. The diet is based on random bites. You should read the article.

I haven't studdied them enough to know.

Filter feeders show that target foods do not exist. Often these are sessile creatures relying on whatever passes their way.

I haven't studdied them enough to know, and I obviously can't just take your word for it as your not a good source.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of these species. They show that target foods do not exist.

There are other feeding mechanisms that do the same.

Over the course of evolutionary history we see many different life forms that show that target foods do not exist. Evolution shows target foods is a bogus idea.

Evolution never made any claims about current diet of species so I seriously doubt if evolution proves target food to be wrong.

reply to post by Unity_99

This is completely erroneous. Research factor X and K2, and what is in raw, unpasteurized milk, and organic eggs, exactly what you need for your teeth and bones. Chicken liver too. And the reason for what you said, is due to their OVERPROCESSING FOOD TO RUIN ITS NUTRITIONAL VALUE

The fact that we have to process it to make it good for consumption is proof alone it wasn't meant for us.

It's cancer too, it helps prevent and cure.

There is a vegan way as well.

www.healingteethnaturally.com...

I prefer the milk way to the soya but fermented is always good where possible.

Sometimes people get confuse about my claims about milk. If you need what milk has to offer, and it offers a lot, you better drink it, I never said don't drink milk. What I'm saying is that by obvious facts that I have found, it wasn't meant for us to drink. We have to process the hell out of it or take a chance on dying from drinking it, in addition to all the cancer that it can cause. We are stuck between a rock and hard place as it is the best for us at this point for our needs, but that doesn't mean it was suppose to be that original source.