Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

No people believe in evolution because it is a well tested and well established fact.

No people believe in evolution even though its unpredictable. You can't claim that its well tested, when they have no proof that any or all changes actually come from evolution. It's just assumed that it is. Basing it on such sets it up on a poor ground floor.

You are quite ignorant of evolution and it shows. Evolution does not concern itself with abiogenesis

I wasn't speaking specifically of creation.

Again learn to use English. Before try to use words like 'forseeable ' you should look them up because that is not the word you want to use. As it stands the sentence is gibberish. It makes no sense. And you misspeleld the word as well. It is foreseeable.

It stands the sentance is gibberish, you got that right.

They are incomplete as I showed on every animal you listed

You didn't show anything, all you have done is make claims, you haven't backed any of them up.

That's a lie. You have offered no proof. Part of the problem is that you don't what proof means. Begin by providing at least one piece of evidence.

There is mountains of evidence that supports target food.

Milk is not man made. It is produced by all mammals.

True, its just that after its processed I view it as such.

Not surprised that this simple idea is way over your head

Not all rocks are salt, I think this is way over your head.

You are definitely challenged. You're not kidding

Just because I choose not to use spell check doesn't make me wrong.

You claimed that animals never experiment with eating. Then you relaxed that to sometimes experiment

Wrong again, the only time I'm aware they experiment is when they are starving.

Here you state taste buds are needed to test the food being eaten. Why test unless you are experimenting in eating.

There is still a choice that is made prior to them even tasting so again your WRONG.

There is plenty of choice in animal diets. In general animals eat a wide range of foods. There are some species that have a limited diet, but that is not the norm.

Large but still distinguishable, they have identifialbe diets. The only thing that a large diet proves is that he is missing target food.

You admit that animals have evolved to deal with experimenting with food. Thanks for figuring this out.

I have also read nothing about animals with evolving diets.

Got a real bible thumper thread here where no evidence is given for the the fantasy of target foods. Still there is the persistent telling of lies that it has been supplied. Typical bible thumper nonsense.

Evolution is a well tested and well established theory based on a wealth of facts. Each year more and more facts continue to support evolution.

You lie again, evolution can't be well tested as its unpredictable. Keep lying.

reply to post by colin42

Firstly you made the statement that target food proves evolution wrong. You have yet to give any valid examples of target food. so it is up to you to answer questions not ask them.

The thread is full of proof.

Seeing as though salt is a necessity of ALL diets my questions to you are valid. The fact you cannot answer them means target food is invalid.

Its no more necessary than air, water, or calcium.

What, dietary questions on the subject of target food? Admit it, you don’t have the answers.

I have the answers, I don't need them on this topic.

How many times does the point have to be made? Once again. You have given calcium a lot of importance here and in the other thread. Why is sodium of no importance when calcium is?

Again you must be suffering from selective amnesia, as I have allready explained that calcium was only an issue as we don't appear to have the proper supply of it that we need.

Again it is you that has ruled out salt. Even your bible calls says 'Salt is a necessity of life.' Are you going to ignore information from what you claim is a clear historical document?

Salt is important, so is air, so is water, so is calcium.

Hold on. You have made the statement this thread is about target food. You have also stated humans do not have a target food so why do you mention them when you are being asked to give an example of target food? Live by your new mantra and stay on topic.

Perhaps I'm speaking of the lack of target food, I don't know.

As expected, another refusal to answer. A few out of 100 could be 2. A few out of a thousand could be 100 and a few out of millions could be 1000's. I asked you for a range in the context of target food. As an expert you should have the answer. Do that or fly your flag of dishonesty yet again.

Then its obvious you need an education on the word few. The internet is at your fingertips, go learn.

You seem incapable of reading what is in front of you. You do not accept the fossil record and so you cannot use it to rule out extinctions. You keep throwing this up as a stipulation yet have no way to prove it.

I don't recall that fossils can't disprove extinctions.

Your requirement to identify if a target food has become extinct is what your denial of the fossil record has ruled out and that is what I wrote and pasted above. Now address that and not some silly attempt at deflection.

Well a fossil record would surely prove that.

Nope. You really don’t do you Supporting Evidence. Links just like the one I just supplied not the ones you supply to google front page.
certification, confirmation, confirming documentation, confirming documents, confirming evidence, confirming means of proof, corroboration, evidence which bears out the truth, evidence which buttresses a case, evidence which strengthens a case, reinforcing evidence, substantiating proof, substantiation, validation, verification

So I'm on track then.

Oh right so you now accept the fossil records of the extinct relatives/ancestors of the anteater. I doubt this is progress as I feel another about face about to come my way.

I think your confusing a statement I made a long time ago that fossils don't prove evolution, they can however prove extinctions.

reply to post by colin42

You have spammed your ignorance on the subject many times and been proven wrong just as many times. You must feel it plays an important role as you wrote earlier.

You must suffer from ADHD, as your once again taking something I originally wrote, out of context. The only reason calcium was ever brought up was because we appear to be missing our supply of it.

So you seem to have placed a HELL of a lot of importance on calcium but hey you did not answer my question.

Ya we have no supply.

'It is an important factor in the food of ALL life. Are you claiming target food does not include calcium? Can you tell me what the bones of the anteater are made from?' Try again.

On an individual basis, I'm sure it does. You obviously don't understand what your talking about.

Another thing you suddenly don’t understand. Try harder then answer my point.

Your so far off topic that your questions don't make sense.

Stay on topic, we are talking about target food here. In the example I gave above the target food, wing nuts can no longer grow without the intervention of the wing nut eaters (did not say humans). Is it still target food?

If it were cultivated, NO, as its not natural.

So do I take it target food has no taste or a taste that is only palatable to one species?

Neither, as it might play a role in telling a species if the food is bad or not, it doesn't tell them what to choose before they taste it.

Your clearly not getting the fact that species don't experiment on diets, they know what they are suppose to eat and they know this before they ever put the food in their mouths.

So as I stated way back you will now drop forever the subject of milk in this thread. You also see no part a food has in building bones and maintaining a healthy body which both calcium and salt plays a vital role in. This target food malarkey is appearing even more farcical.

Target food is pre programmed into a species, therefore there is no discrimination about salt or calcium, its all part of the programming. This is evident based on the fact that you haven't come up with one wiki diet that shows a species experiementing on food. You keep lying to yourself which is why your having such a problem understanding this.

Really yet the quote I gave you is straight out of the bible, your historical document and it is not proof? Now there is an admission by you.

Salt is important and so is air, and water, and calcium, and nitrogen, and anything else you could add to the list.

Target food is not a single food that fits everyone like your trying to precieve, its a wide range of foods where specific ones fit a species.

Colour plays a role in food choice as well. Red is often regarded as poisonous, a sign of danger and green of succulence and safety.

In the real world an animal see's and smells a food source. Tests it with its tongue and if it passes these tests it eats it. If after eating it the animal becomes sick yet survives it remembers the colour, smell and taste and does not eat it again

That is a lie as species know what they are suppose to eat long before they put it in their mouths. We never see them experimenting. In addition to this, your idea would render some liking this, and others liking something else, which also doesn't happen, the entire species eats the same food. Are you not getting this yet?

Let’s forget for a moment that you have not answered my questions AGAIN. Let’s forget for a moment how poorly you have used English AGAIN.

Who said tasted buds direct an animal to a food source. Animals have eyes’, a nose, sense of smell and experience to do that. There are countless examples of animals waiting to eat a food until it is ripe. Countless more of animals within a species sourcing their diets from what is available locally and seasonally so all of your poorly constructed and unsupported nonsense is yet again a showcase of how ignorant of the world you live in and your determination to remain uneducated on a subject you claim expertise in.

A lie again, your example again would render species eating different things within a species, and they don't, they all eat the same things.

Now let’s remember those unanswered questions:

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?

Salt has no specifics with target food, I suggest you move to another thread that talks about salt.

So target food can be bad for the consumer then, just like real world food. So what is the difference

reply to post by colin42

So target food can be bad for the consumer then, just like real world food. So what is the difference again?

Not if the senses catch it.

Target food is your claim. Supplying the proof is your responsibility. I am constantly amazed I have to continually remind a so called science major of this.

Just because you lack the ability to understand it, doesn't mean its not proven.

ALL things found in abundance on this planet. Requirements ALL things that ALL species and groups share from plants to insects, amoeba’s to humans. ALL the evidence at hand points to the planet of origin being earth for ALL known life.

Yes many things were brought here that can make it appear this way.

On the other hand you have provided NO evidence to dispute this, not one jot. Couple that to your dishonest approach on this subject and the other thread that puts you in a very poor position and your apparent desperation to remain there.

The bible clearly states that many things were brought to earth, I think that is a good place to start.

reply to post by Barcs

And how have you ruled out extinctions for humans?

We obviously would have made a record about it. It would have been remembered as a great loss.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Firstly you made the statement that target food proves evolution wrong. You have yet to give any valid examples of target food. so it is up to you to answer questions not ask them.

The thread is full of proof.

Agreed but it is all proof that target food does not exist. Not one jot in support of target food.

Its no more necessary than air, water, or calcium.

Without sodium, air, water or calcium there is no life. Essential means just that. Any real theory on target food would include what a body needs to sustain life. Anyone claiming that target food not only exists but can prove evolution wrong would understand that.

Anyone making that claim should have researched and tested their claims. You obviously have not.

What, dietary questions on the subject of target food? Admit it, you don’t have the answers.

I have the answers, I don't need them on this topic.

Wrong again. FYI you just made many replies to the post above this on salt yet you claim to me it is not on topic. Again showing me you cannot answer my questions despite claiming you could.

Explain how essential minerals are not on topic when that topic is food?

as I have allready explained that calcium was only an issue as we don't appear to have the proper supply of it that we need.

This topic is about target food. You have made the claim humans do not have one. I have asked for examples of target food and how it proves evolution wrong. Talking about milk and human diet will not supply that example or explanation. Stay on topic.

Again it is you that has ruled out salt. Even your bible calls says 'Salt is a necessity of life.' Are you going to ignore information from what you claim is a clear historical document?

Salt is important, so is air, so is water, so is calcium.

So it is on topic and I am still waiting for the questions I asked to be answered.

Perhaps I'm speaking of the lack of target food, I don't know.

First port of call for you then is read your OP and thread title. Next step is to realise showing a lack of proof is not proof in itself. Your next step is to start answering the questions asked and providing this proof that disproves evolution.

Your requirement to identify if a target food has become extinct is what your denial of the fossil record has ruled out and that is what I wrote and pasted above. Now address that and not some silly attempt at deflection.

Well a fossil record would surely prove that.

You are the one that decided you would not accept the fossil record on many occasions. You either accept the fossil record or not. You cannot cherry pick the times in which it is acceptable to suit your argument.

Oh right so you now accept the fossil records of the extinct relatives/ancestors of the anteater. I doubt this is progress as I feel another about face about to come my way.

I think your confusing a statement I made a long time ago that fossils don't prove evolution, they can however prove extinctions.

Extinctions is part of the theory of evolution. The environment selects for advantage, remember. In the case of the anteater we have the ancestry shown clearly and in this case it is the prehistoric anteaters that became extinct not the 'target food' ants.

Please explain.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Eating rocks is not the same as mineral licks. Notice how one is eating them, notice how the other is licking them, notice how wiki doesn't use the word rock in the article.

Licking is a form of eating. It is done by many animals. Anteaters flick out their tongues and eat using their tongues is an example of an animal eating mostly by licking. Cats and dogs lap up liquids by licking the surface. Also, salt is a rock. It is found on the Earth's surface as a rock typically composed of a single mineral, but not always. Mineral licks are often eaten by getting the rock and other materials into the mouth and swallowing.

The article doesn't have to use the word rock. I already posted a link to show that rocks are made of 1 or more minerals.

the fact that wiki is not providing a single diet that can be found claiming that species experiment with food before making a decision, I think sums it up.

And you checked every single article? I don't find that credible. Furthermore I already provided a scientific journal article showing animals experiment with their eating. At beast you have shown that a few articles are incomplete as would be expected from introductory material.

Whoa, slow down Hauss, I believe the creation idea was out long before evolution was.

Just because creationists have been wrong for a long time has no bearing on anything except for those believing in this wrong idea will always be wrong.

No what we see, is we see changes, what we assume is that they are from evolution. I have allready proven in the thread prove evolution wrong, that changes to our DNA actually came from ADHD. Seeing how this was newley found, they would have been originally thought to be evolution.

Evolution is the changes we observe. If there are changes then there is evolution.

You have not proven anything at all. The first step is to provide evidence. So far nothing has been shown about target foods or evolution.

The problem here that I have stated so many times, is that there is no way to observe changes and scientifically observe them as being made by evolution, its only assumed that the changes are by evolution. This all comes down to specifically identifying exactly what it is that changes our DNA which up untill this point has been poor. So if you want to believe in evolution which is based on an assumption, your more than welcome to, but as you can see from the ADHD situation, eventually its going to get caught up with you as science is learning the truth.

By admitting that changes are occurring you are stating that evolution is happening. The only thing evolutionists debate is the mechanism. Evolution itself is a fact. You are admitting that evolution is not an assumption. You are in fact stating that it happens.

ADHD is not a mechanism for evolution.

How dare you call me closed minded, I'm the one that believes that our existence here was through alien intervention, hows that for closed minded?

A closed mind is one which avoids the evidence. You deny the fact of evolution yet claim it happens. Believing in odd and silly notions does not make for an open mind. Being able to filter out the ridiculous from the plausible is important. Accepting anything no matter how ludicrous does not mean open minded. It means being gullible.

Pye is an educated author, he is easily understood as well. I have yet to read anything about him that says otherwise. This tells me that its just your opinion, I'm curious what it is exactly that your opinion is based on.

Pye is a charlatan. He is also a good seller to those that won't try to differentiate between fact and fantasy. I supplied a large number of links that you apparently did not inspect. All of them showed why Pye is wrong and how he has been a hoaxer. So you are write wrong to say it is my opinion although my opinion is in line with all of the links I produced.

Google has worked fine for me up until now.

But when things do not work out try other tools. That is all part of doing research.

When I brought up the discussion that species don't eat rocks, I didn't specifically state that rock salt was what I was referring to, I was in fact talking about random rocks on the ground. Your just trying to pick up all rocks as being rock salt and they are not, Your being dishonest. Furthermore I never claimed that species don't eat salt, it has nothing to do with the topic.

Dishonesty is moving the goal posts. The original post and posts over many days denied that animals eat any rocks. It was an endless recital of never, never, never.

I and many others posters tried to correct that misunderstanding by showing that animals do eat rocks.

reply to post by colin42

Agreed but it is all proof that target food does not exist. Not one jot in support of target food.

The fact that a species has direction to food before ever tasting it, is proof that there is intelligence in the operation.

Without sodium, air, water or calcium there is no life. Essential means just that. Any real theory on target food would include what a body needs to sustain life. Anyone claiming that target food not only exists but can prove evolution wrong would understand that.

Anyone making that claim should have researched and tested their claims. You obviously have not.

While these individual things are obviously important to life, they are not the determining factor in target food. If they are, then your just admitting that all species big and small are smart enough to identify these elements before they test food, which is impossible.

Wrong again. FYI you just made many replies to the post above this on salt yet you claim to me it is not on topic. Again showing me you cannot answer my questions despite claiming you could.

Explain how essential minerals are not on topic when that topic is food?

Because the minerals can't be detected prior to a species coming into contact with it.

This topic is about target food. You have made the claim humans do not have one. I have asked for examples of target food and how it proves evolution wrong. Talking about milk and human diet will not supply that example or explanation. Stay on topic.

The fact that we eat a plethora of items within each food group is the obvious sign of a species searching for its target food. This alone proves we are not from here, which obviously proves evolution wrong.

So it is on topic and I am still waiting for the questions I asked to be answered.

Salt has no significiance to target food.

First port of call for you then is read your OP and thread title. Next step is to realise showing a lack of proof is not proof in itself. Your next step is to start answering the questions asked and providing this proof that disproves evolution.

There are many things that prove evolution wrong, which one would you like? The fact that we have no target food is perhaps the easiest for you to understand. We obviously didn't evolve if the food isn't fitting for us, and we obviously couldn't be from here if we don't have any of our intended food while other species do in fact have intended food.

You are the one that decided you would not accept the fossil record on many occasions. You either accept the fossil record or not. You cannot cherry pick the times in which it is acceptable to suit your argument.

No I'm sure your confusing me stateing one time that fossils don't prove evolution with fossils not being accepted as proof of extinctions.

Extinctions is part of the theory of evolution. The environment selects for advantage, remember. In the case of the anteater we have the ancestry shown clearly and in this case it is the prehistoric anteaters that became extinct not the 'target food' ants.

I'm well aware there is fossils of simular ant eaters, they are in fact just different species. There seems to be a confusion with these types of things causing people to believe there must be a relation, yet there is no evidence of that other than whats made up in our minds.

reply to post by itsthetooth

When I brought up the discussion that species don't eat rocks, I didn't specifically state that rock salt was what I was referring to, I was in fact talking about random rocks on the ground. Your just trying to pick up all rocks as being rock salt and they are not, Your being dishonest. Furthermore I never claimed that species don't eat salt, it has nothing to do with the topic.

You did not say animals do not eat salt. You made the more general statement that animals do not eat rocks. That as you now know is incorrect. I have never suggested all rocks are salt. No idea where you are getting that odd idea. That makes no sense.

Remember you were the one that claimed animals do not eat rocks. You stated that. No one else made that mistake.

But not ALL rocks are beneficial to ones diet, and I was originally speaking of random rocks on the ground. It is YOU that has chosen salt as a focus, when I never made any claims about the rocks on the ground all being from salt. In addition you have also excused one important fact from the picture that I also claimed species don't eat dirt.

I know that not all rocks are beneficial. High sulfur waters are bad. Had you meant random rocks you might have made that correct a week and dozens of posts ago. You were the one that repeatedly claimed animals do not eat rocks. But they do.

Do animals eat dirt? You bet they do. Is this going to take hundreds of posts to resolve?

In other words I must be correct.

No, you are still quite wrong.

Again you must be suffering from selective amnesia as I have allready stated that I was able to get google to also work for me just two days ago in regards to the word forb.

You must have overlooked the posts where I stated that I choose not to believe you. Long before that I and another poster provided the means of using Google to find definitions.

Here is what you posted

Well salt can be in rock form but it doesn't have to be.

My response to this obviously false statement was a challenge to provide an example of when salt is not in rock form.

Give me an example of salt when it is not a rock. You can't.

Instead of answering the question you chose to say something that has no bearing on your original statement.

All salt could be called rock, but not all rock is salt, your not getting the difference here.

Please provide an example of when salt is not in rock form. You chose to label me a liar when you wrote that. I expect that you are going to be able to provide an example.

Animals might visit mineral licks but that doesn't mean that all rocks are salt.

Not sure where your confusion is because I have not and would not make such a claim.

Changing the topic so as to address a different issue is called a straw man argument. Please address the original question or apologize for calling me a liar.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The only reason calcium was ever brought up was because we appear to be missing our supply of it.

This is about target food proving evolution wrong not what you think is missing from our diet. When are you going to do that?

So you seem to have placed a HELL of a lot of importance on calcium but hey you did not answer my question.

Ya we have no supply.

You have been spoon fed so much information showing that statement to be false I find it hard to understand how you maintain that stance. Add to that you have never provided anything to support your stance.

Stay on topic, we are talking about target food here. In the example I gave above the target food, wing nuts can no longer grow without the intervention of the wing nut eaters (did not say humans). Is it still target food?

If it were cultivated, NO, as its not natural.

Why?

So do I take it target food has no taste or a taste that is only palatable to one species?

Neither, as it might play a role in telling a species if the food is bad or not, it doesn't tell them what to choose before they taste it.

Proof.

Your clearly not getting the fact that species don't experiment on diets, they know what they are suppose to eat and they know this before they ever put the food in their mouths.

Not only does that contradict your statement above it flies in the face of observable evidence. Show you supporting evidence.

Target food is pre programmed into a species, therefore there is no discrimination about salt or calcium, its all part of the programming.

Show proof of that pre programming as it again flies in the face of observable evidence

Salt is important and so is air, and water, and calcium, and nitrogen, and anything else you could add to the list.

So why is salt not included in a target diet.

Target food is not a single food that fits everyone like your trying to precieve, its a wide range of foods where specific ones fit a species.

Never understood it to be anything else. Any so called target food must include the essential vitamins, mineral and proteins. Why is salt not included?

USU EDU How do animals learn what to eat

reply to post by itsthetooth

No people believe in evolution even though its unpredictable. You can't claim that its well tested, when they have no proof that any or all changes actually come from evolution. It's just assumed that it is. Basing it on such sets it up on a poor ground floor.

Evolution is change. If there is change then there is evolution. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of tests over more than a century and evolution is one of the best established theories in science.

I wasn't speaking specifically of creation.

Actually you did. Here is the statement you wrote.

The only thing that evolution has done, is found a way to overwright religion, all the way down to offering an explanation of creation without calling it creation, but it still is.

You are wrong. Admit it.

It stands the sentance is gibberish, you got that right.

At least we both agree that the sentence was gibberish. You are welcome to report the question after you figure out what you wanted to say.

You didn't show anything, all you have done is make claims, you haven't backed any of them up.

I did. You are welcome to read the links I posted for deer, abalone, etc.

There is mountains of evidence that supports target food.

If that is correct then it should be easy for you to supply at least 1 piece in this thread. So far nothing.

Not all rocks are salt/quote]
That's a straw man argument and not the issue being discussed.

Wrong again, the only time I'm aware they experiment is when they are starving.

I already produced a peer reviewed article where the standard feeding method is experimental. Nothing has been produced by you or anyone else that starvation causes experimental feeding.

There is still a choice that is made prior to them even tasting so again your WRONG.

Even if there is a choice beforehand that does not mean it is the only choice. So your idea is based on a bad inference.

Large but still distinguishable, they have identifialbe diets. The only thing that a large diet proves is that he is missing target food.

It might be possible at some point in time to know all animal diets, but not at this time. There are many species which are rarely seen. How would it be possible to determine their diets? It simply is not known today. Target foods still lack even a single piece of supporting evidence. Please supply it.

reply to post by stereologist

Licking is a form of eating. It is done by many animals. Anteaters flick out their tongues and eat using their tongues is an example of an animal eating mostly by licking. Cats and dogs lap up liquids by licking the surface. Also, salt is a rock. It is found on the Earth's surface as a rock typically composed of a single mineral, but not always. Mineral licks are often eaten by getting the rock and other materials into the mouth and swallowing.

The article doesn't have to use the word rock. I already posted a link to show that rocks are made of 1 or more minerals.

Just so that there is no confusion, when I was talking about species eating rocks, I was referring to them randomly, not though choice of say, knowing it was salt or calcium or anything specific. to digest them and have them end up in their stomach as though they were food.

And you checked every single article? I don't find that credible. Furthermore I already provided a scientific journal article showing animals experiment with their eating. At beast you have shown that a few articles are incomplete as would be expected from introductory material.

No I only checked about 50 but I'm content with 100%.

Just because creationists have been wrong for a long time has no bearing on anything except for those believing in this wrong idea will always be wrong.

Now where did this come from, have you single handedly disproven all religion? Please share.

Evolution is the changes we observe. If there are changes then there is evolution.

Well the changes we observe are prematuraly called evolution with nothing to back them. There is no proof that evolution is causing those changes, as was the case with ADHD changing genes.

You have not proven anything at all. The first step is to provide evidence. So far nothing has been shown about target foods or evolution.

The fact that all species eat the same diet and don't experiement or deviate, prior to tasting the food is evidence that there is much more to this picture and it can only be intelligent.

By admitting that changes are occurring you are stating that evolution is happening.

This just proves to me that you are easily taken by the fallacy that any and all changes are caused from evolution. As I had allready proven back in the thread can you prove evolution wrong, ADHD changes our genes and could give us the false idea that evolution is causing this.

The only thing evolutionists debate is the mechanism. Evolution itself is a fact. You are admitting that evolution is not an assumption. You are in fact stating that it happens.

ADHD is not a mechanism for evolution.

The fact that mechanism has not been identified blows the whole theory out of the water, especially since ADHD has been identified as changing our genes. How do we not know that it is ADHD we are witness to or some other type of disorder?

A closed mind is one which avoids the evidence. You deny the fact of evolution yet claim it happens. Believing in odd and silly notions does not make for an open mind. Being able to filter out the ridiculous from the plausible is important. Accepting anything no matter how ludicrous does not mean open minded. It means being gullible.

Where was it ever proven that my understanding is odd or silly? I would like proof please, or is this just your opinion?

Pye is a charlatan. He is also a good seller to those that won't try to differentiate between fact and fantasy. I supplied a large number of links that you apparently did not inspect. All of them showed why Pye is wrong and how he has been a hoaxer. So you are write wrong to say it is my opinion although my opinion is in line with all of the links I produced.

I'm sorry, but I never got your links, and I did go back and look for them as well. I would enjoy reading them if I ever get to see them.

But when things do not work out try other tools. That is all part of doing research.

I had no reason to believe it was failing me, it had never failed me before.

Dishonesty is moving the goal posts. The original post and posts over many days denied that animals eat any rocks. It was an endless recital of never, never, never.

If there was any shortcoming on my end, what I meant was random rocks and dirt.

I and many others posters tried to correct that misunderstanding by showing that animals do eat rocks

Then I will leave this at the fact that no one ever proved that animals eat random rocks, just that they eat mineral licks, which is not my point. My point was random rocks on the ground. They would have to go through a lot of rocks to find salt, and we don't see that either

reply to post by itsthetooth

I have also read nothing about animals with evolving diets.

I didn't state that. This is an attempt at a straw man argument. It is wrong.

Animal diets do change. They change over a lifetime. They change as the environment changes.

You lie again, evolution can't be well tested as its unpredictable. Keep lying.

Before you make such rash statements you should learn how evolution is tested. Evolution can be tested and it is tested regularly as are all scientific theories.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So target food can be bad for the consumer then, just like real world food. So what is the difference again?

Not if the senses catch it.

You mean like sight, smell and taste. Sounds like the tongue plays a major role in that so.

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

ALL things found in abundance on this planet. Requirements ALL things that ALL species and groups share from plants to insects, amoeba’s to humans. ALL the evidence at hand points to the planet of origin being earth for ALL known life.

Yes many things were brought here that can make it appear this way.

Now all you need it that little thing called proof. Supply that please.

The bible clearly states that many things were brought to earth, I think that is a good place to start.

So start then as up to now I only have your word that it appears in the bible at all.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Agreed but it is all proof that target food does not exist. Not one jot in support of target food.

The fact that a species has direction to food before ever tasting it, is proof that there is intelligence in the operation.

That is not a fact. Now show proof that the intelligence you speak of is not that of the animal. Again your claim directly conflicts with observable evidence.

Without sodium, air, water or calcium there is no life. Essential means just that. Any real theory on target food would include what a body needs to sustain life. Anyone claiming that target food not only exists but can prove evolution wrong would understand that.

Anyone making that claim should have researched and tested their claims. You obviously have not.

While these individual things are obviously important to life, they are not the determining factor in target food.

If you claim that a species is limited to a a target food then that target food MUST include the essentials to life and so would be a major factor in determining any such food.

If they are, then your just admitting that all species big and small are smart enough to identify these elements before they test food, which is impossible.

Yep. Its called the sense of smell, sight, taste and experience which is and has been fully observable and so far from impossible.

USU EDU How animals learn what to eat

Because the minerals can't be detected prior to a species coming into contact with it.

And that is supposed to mean what?

The fact that we eat a plethora of items within each food group is the obvious sign of a species searching for its target food.

Nope it is a sign of a varied diet for it to be anything else you need to supply the evidence. I am still waiting.

This alone proves we are not from here, which obviously proves evolution wrong.

Nope. Only evidence can prove that and you have not supplied any.

Salt has no significiance to target food.

Then target food has no significance.

There are many things that prove evolution wrong, which one would you like?

The ones you made a claim for in your thread title

The fact that we have no target food is perhaps the easiest for you to understand.

You cannot show one example of target food so again another fact claimed by you that is not a fact.

We obviously didn't evolve if the food isn't fitting for us, and we obviously couldn't be from here if we don't have any of our intended food while other species do in fact have intended food.

Again your egocentric argument that revolves around humans has not been proven. Has no supporting evidence and flies in the face of the observable evidence that is well documented and there for all to see.

I am still waiting for your first post that contains evidence of proof.

No I'm sure your confusing me stateing one time that fossils don't prove evolution with fossils not being accepted as proof of extinctions.

As stated: You are the one that decided you would not accept the fossil record on many occasions. You either accept the fossil record or not. You cannot cherry pick the times in which it is acceptable to suit your argument.

Extinctions is part of the theory of evolution. The environment selects for advantage, remember. In the case of the anteater we have the ancestry shown clearly and in this case it is the prehistoric anteaters that became extinct not the 'target food' ants.

I'm well aware there is fossils of simular ant eaters, they are in fact just different species. There seems to be a confusion with these types of things causing people to believe there must be a relation, yet there is no evidence of that other than whats made up in our minds.

Of course they are different species and if you are now claiming the fossil record does not show relation how in the hell can it show diet?

reply to post by stereologist

I have also read nothing about animals with evolving diets.

I didn't state that. This is an attempt at a straw man argument. It is wrong.

Animal diets do change. They change over a lifetime. They change as the environment changes.

Thus the term "evolving diet."

Before you make such rash statements you should learn how evolution is tested. Evolution can be tested and it is tested regularly as are all scientific theories.

The only thing that is tested is whether or not there is change, it is assumed that all changes are from evolution, which is not proof.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Look what I stumbled upon.

Ceiba Foundation - Tamandua

Anteaters spend a lot of time teaching their young how to live off this specialized diet.

And also from the same paragraph

The youngster gradually learns the techniques for finding nests, tearing them open, sucking the ants and larvae from inside, withdrawing once defensive soldiers appear, and maintaining a map of feeding sites that it has visited.

This does not look good for a so called target food.

Finally, anteaters have a very low metabolism compared to other mammals of their size, an adaptation thought to help them survive on a nearly pure diet of ants and termites, which provide a regular but not rich source of calories.

So far from knowing its intended food and being pre progammed it seems your flag ship needs to learn how to survive on the diet it has adapted to eat.

reply to post by colin42

So target food can be bad for the consumer then, just like real world food. So what is the difference again?

Not if the senses catch it.

You mean like sight, smell and taste. Sounds like the tongue plays a major role in that so.

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

Sure any food could be bad if its bad. The difference is that species are directed to the food prior to tasting it, we know this because they don't randomly pick up inedible things like random rocks and random dirt in foods place. So something not only tells them what to eat, but this also tells them what not to eat. The taste might tell them food is bad but not untill after a decision had first been made to eat it.

The tounge is not the first of the senses to locate food, I'm sorry but your wrong.

Now all you need it that little thing called proof. Supply that please.

Proof is obvious in that something directs species to the food before it is even bitten.

So start then as up to know I only have your word that it appears in the bible at all.

I allready shared the link and paste of what things the bible claims to have shared with us.

The fact that a species has direction to food before ever tasting it, is proof that there is intelligence in the operation.

That is not a fact. Now show proof that the intelligence you speak of is not that of the animal. Again your claim directly conflicts with observable evidence.

Then what is it that directs species to choose the food they do prior to eating it?

If you claim that a species is limited to a a target food then that target food MUST include the essentials to life and so would be a major factor in determining any such food.

Yes I allready explained that target food is ideal to the consumer.

If they are, then your just admitting that all species big and small are smart enough to identify these elements before they test food, which is impossible.

Yep. Its called the sense of smell, sight, taste and experience which is and has been fully observable and so far from impossible.

Which is a strawmans argument, your lacking insight because your not seeing. If you want to believe that all senses are used to determine what is considered to be food to a specific species there are just a few more problems. First why would all individuals in a species choose the same foods, as though they have a collective mind? If you were correct in your observation we would still see individuality in species, and we do not. The have a known diet and it matches for all of them in the species. Something has programmed them.
You could claim that all sense are used in locating food, which I'm sure that it is, but those senses are useless if they don't know what to look for, and whats odd is they are all looking for the same food. The know exactly what they are looking for as the food also matched their needs. We rarely hear about animals dying from malnutrition, at least that its not common.

USU EDU How animals learn what to eat

As your link indicates there are examples of the parents teaching the young how to eat. This is a form of adaptation which means that instinct has failed either due to extinctions or being moved out of the element. When you see a species teaching young how to eat, its only because instinct will no longer work which proves target food is no longer there.

Because the minerals can't be detected prior to a species coming into contact with it.

And that is supposed to mean what?

Animals don't have detectors to tell them where these things can be found, and they are never seen searching for them. At least its not documented.

Nope it is a sign of a varied diet for it to be anything else you need to supply the evidence. I am still waiting.

Its simple, species eating randomly in a food group could starve because not all food has the same nutrients, some could even be toxic, and they have no way to know or guage that either. Its another clue that target food is obviously real.

Nope. Only evidence can prove that and you have not supplied any.

You must be suffering from selective amnesia again, as I have stated that the bible clearly explains that earth is not our home. You have never justified why this historical document should not be taken seriously aside from the fact that it conflicts with the idea that we evolved here on earth.

Then target food has no significance.

There is nothing that stands out about salt that makes any difference with target food.

The ones you made a claim for in your thread title

Evolution has never been a proven theory.
The idea of ta

reply to post by colin42

The ones you made a claim for in your thread title

Target food proves evolution to be wrong. There is no way that a species could know beforehand what its suppose to be eating without intelligence telling it so.

You cannot show one example of target food so again another fact claimed by you that is not a fact.

There have been many examples of target food. The anteater and ants and termites, abalone and seaweed or kelp. You can also identify which species have fallen out of target food and are trying to supplement as a result such as the deer.

Again your egocentric argument that revolves around humans has not been proven. Has no supporting evidence and flies in the face of the observable evidence that is well documented and there for all to see.

So you think that sickness diabetes, IBS, colon cancer, and every food disorder you can imagine, obesity, supplements, dieticians, diets, fortified food, genetically modified food, are all signs that our food is perfect for us?

I am still waiting for your first post that contains evidence of proof

Proof has allready occured in the thread, you will have to read it again.

As stated: You are the one that decided you would not accept the fossil record on many occasions. You either accept the fossil record or not. You cannot cherry pick the times in which it is acceptable to suit your argument.

Again you must be suffereing from selective amnesia, as the only thing I said I wouldn't accept is fossils as proof of evolution, fossils do prove extinctions however. Extinctions are not the same as evolution.

Of course they are different species and if you are now claiming the fossil record does not show relation how in the hell can it show diet?

It doesn't, I never claimed it could.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Again you must be suffereing from selective amnesia, as the only thing I said I wouldn't accept is fossils as proof of evolution, fossils do prove extinctions however. Extinctions are not the same as evolution.

Just to get this straight in my own head.

You accept fossils of evidence of extinctions but not of evolution?

OK, what you are sugessting is that every fossil found that has no living exact match, was on this planet at the same time as every species currently residing here, is that correct?

So at one time the entire lineage of what science recognise as "homo" were all wandering about this planet together at some point, again I ask, is my understanding of what you believe correct?