Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

That is not what you originally stated. You were very specific saying that deer do not eat rocks or dirt.

Moving the goal posts is an attempt to weasel out of being wrong. You are still wrong.

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm just explaining in more detail the purpose. I was speaking in a total random sense of them eating rocks, not specifically targeting salt, which is different anyhow. I can see why you would try to claim that I'm moving the goal posts, its the only thing that will keep your head above water at this point.

So in fact you have checked virtually nothing. You also only checked articles from a source which contains introductory material and has been shown to be incomplete. Animals do experiment with their eating as has been observed by myself and others that have posted in this thread. Your claim is based on limited research and has been shown to wrong.

No one has proven they are incomplete, as a matter of fact they also don't indicate in the article that they are incomplete.

Go back and read the thread.

Delusions of grandure don't count.

Evolution are changes. If there are changes then there has been evolution. It's that simple. Evolution are not the changes, not the cause of the changes.

That was allready proven to be a false claim many times over. The best was the link I provided back on colins thread about ADHD being witnessed as changing our genes. Since it was a new find this means that prior to this, people would have assumed those changes to be evolution when in fact they are ADHD. I strongly feel that any and all changes can be accounted for in a simular way, its just a matter of time before science actually figures this out.

It is not a fact that all members of a species eat the same diet. Animals do experiment with their eating. Animals do use taste and other senses to find food and test whether or not eat when experimenting.

And what do you have that backs up that fantasy?

You are mistaken about what evolution is. Evolution is the changes. Evolution is not the mechanism. Nothing has been proved by you in this thread. In fact no evidence has been supplied for the notion of target foods. It seems to be just a fantasy with no connection to reality.

We know what a species eats, they know what they eat, there is no proof of them experimenting, there is no proof of choice, they all eat the same thing. its target food.

The mechanism that explains evolution has been identified and is well tested.

Thats an outright lie, evolution is unpredictable.

You might take it personal. So be it. Many people think they are open minded because they believe in odd and silly concepts such as believing that aliens interbred with humans. Believing in notions where there is no evidence for and a wealth of information against simply means the individual is gullible rather than open minded.

There is no proof that it is anything more than your opinion.

Go back and find them in the thread.

Are you sure they just wearn't links about opinion, as I never found any that debunked his claims. I also wasn't aware he was willing to loan the skull out to anyone so that they could do their own tests. I think your lying.

I told you its was failing you. I and another poster even told you how to get use Google to find what you want

One thing is clear out of all of this, if it doens't come up in a google tag, its obviously not a popular term.

Random is a word that is often misused. To me this sentence has no actual meaning. In what sense do you mean here when you write random. Is it random location, random content, random detection, random dimension, random weight, or something else. What would be random?

Well you would notice in the way it was used, was to describe the word right after it, which was rock. So random rocks mean just any old rock with nothing specific in the choice.

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

No amount of fanciful hand waving and yarn spinning supports your position. You are employing a logical fallacy called personal incredulity.
yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

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.

An anteater is taught to eat what it eats. Abalone eat a variety of things that they encounter.

Here is what you wrote in the OP.

A target food would be a food source that was intended for that species.

When have you are shown that ants and termites are intended for anteaters? You have only suggested that animals have diets. You have not shown that the food is intended for the consumer.

In an effort to save face you pretend that deer are missing their target food. This is nothing more than a bad excuse as to why your fantasy of target foods is a failure. Most of the species of the world have wide diets.

In the case of the anteater the anteater consumes what it does due to its morphology. The animal lacks teeth and thus consumes foods not requiring teeth. Ants are not chewed. The annelids, grubs, and soft fruit it eats also are a part of the anteaters diet.
nationalzoo.si.edu...
www.sandiegozoo.org...
www.animalcorner.co.uk...

Ants were not intended as a food for anything in particular let alone the anteater which has evolved to exploit an easily found food source.

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.

Here you are being vocal about being closed minded. What fossils clearly show us is that in the past there were no fish in the oceans. Not a one. Now there are. Something changed with life on Earth. That change is called evolution. At one time there was not a single land animal on Earth. Now there is a wide variety. That change of life on Earth is called evolution.

The order of life on Earth is shown through the fossils. The fossils also show that the bible is wrong. The order in the bible does not match the order seen in the geological record.

reply to post by stereologist

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

Trying to move the goal posts is not working. You made a mistake. You have probably learned something. Instead of thanking others you waste time trying to pretend that you meant something other than what you repeatedly stated and that was clearly that animals do not eat rocks. But they do.

dont have to move the goal posts, we never see them eating random rocks as though they are looking for something.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Anyhow? I pointed out a fundamental fallacy in your logic, and you go "anyhow"? You invent a fantastical concept of "target food", and then gladly conclude that evolution "fails" to explain this nonsense. Newsbreak: modern chemistry, for all its wonders, can't explain the "philosopher's stone".

True but only intelligence explains how these animals know what they are eating. Heck we have to use a labratory to know what we are eating, how is it that they automatically know?

You missed the point in a spectacular way. What I pointed out was a clear starting point, and the "intent" that you declare as the source and explanation of nutrition sources.

Species are clearly being directed to know what to eat, now you can claim its simple instinct, but who programmed the instinct?

reply to post by stereologist

You realize that this statement makes it clear that a species eats different diets in different places. A moose in Maine and a moose in Wyoming do not encounter the same plant species. A deer in Virginia and a deer in South Dakota do not encounter the same plant species. A deer living in a place after a wildfire does not eat the same plants as a deer in a wooded zone.

True but they are still staying in the same food group. Its an attempt to stay on target food.

Evolution is the changes. Changes are not from evolution. You are mistaken about the meaning of evolution.

In some links I posted on colins thread about ADHD, you would be found to be wrong. ADHD has been identified as changing our genes. Now you might call that evolution but the problem is that they were also able to identify what actually caused all this. It was from a pregnant mother smoking with her unborn baby. It introduced lead into her system altering her babys genes, causing him to have altered genes of ADHD. Some genes were mutliplied, and some were erased. So in essence what you are telling me is that because women smoke when they are pregnant, they are forcing evolution.

It's pretty educational to study the history of avocado. It developed in co-evolution with giant sloths. No, it was not a "target food", but an encounter of a species that needed seed dispersal (avocado) and another species who needed calories and nutrients (the giant sloth).

reply to post by itsthetooth

Simple, if taste was the determining factor in food selection, there would be a varied acceptance, and there isn't.

You have no evidence for your position. You say there isn't, but like many of your claims it amounts to you making things up. Evidence has been posted showing that this is wrong.

Now thats a good observation, but is there anything that proves they actually eat everything they peck at, and then after trying it, make a decistion.

A doubt that chicks eat everything they peck at, but they do eat their own fecal matter.

Here is a discussion of treating chicks since they do eat everything they peck at including their own poop.

Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

Its trial and error or they learn it from their parents. It's not what they are supposed to eat. It is what they learn to eat.
www.dummies.com...

If you are correct, please explain how it is that humans have such a varied diet mostly on personal taste while animals seem to all agree on liking the same food?

Animals eat a wide variety. Animals do not agree to like the same food. Where did you get that odd idea?

So you admitt that somehow eyesight and smell must be the determining factor, especially since thats all thats left.

Essentially you don't know and made a guess. You are also limiting the senses to a few. Even humans have more senses than you list.

Your weak answer fails to explain why they aren't eating random things like rocks and dirt, why they are never witnessed trying new food, and why they all eat the same foods.

Drop a pebble into water and a fish will go after it and taste it if it has a chance. Fish go after lures even if they look like nothing in their environment. The lure is a new food and the fish will try to bite it. Do all animals eat the same thing? No. Deer in different parts of the country must eat different plants since there are different plants in different areas. Your argument is based on falsehoods.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is nothing, no proof to support the idea that all species do in fact do this. You are assuming first off that all animals have a complex communication structure, your also assuming that all species have the ability to learn in complex ways, do you have something that proves this to be true?

The claim that animals of a single species all eat the same thing is obviously wrong. Animals do not eat the same things across their own lifespan. Moose in Wyoming do not encounter the same plants as moose in Maine. Sessile feeders eat whatever passes by them and it can be just about anything. Benthic scavengers eat whatever rains down from the surface.

There is no assumption that animals have a means to communicate. It is well demonstrated that animals can communicate with each other from insects to birds to mammals. Pack animals learn from the pack how to hunt. Herd animals learn from the herd.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The fact that all species have a known diet that can't be explained, is proof enough.

We don't even know all species let alone their diets. This is a completely wrong claim.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

Your posts seem to be rich in verbs like "seem" and "appear", and a few more with a similar meaning. In my country of birth, there is a saying, when something "seems" or "appears", make a sign of cross. You'll be all the better for this.

Nothing "intelligent" is out there sharing info, and transmitting it via WiFi channels across the world's fauna. If you have a fetish with this idea, there is no arguing with you... Which seems to the the case.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The evidence is in the fact that they are never found eating random things to come to his finding.

That is a falsehood. That is completely untrue.

I reviewed the wiki about chickens and found nothing to support your claims, not that wiki is god, but there seems to be no proof about chickens pecking at anything, if they do, they could be starving.

You are arguing from ignorance.
www.fallacyfiles.org...

It's an unknown, that seems to share intelligence. We know it exists because there is no evidence of species randomly experimenting with food or having seperate personal choice in the foods they allegedly try.

This is a lie. Evidence has been supplied showing abalone, chickens, deer, fish, crustaceans, barnacles, amphibians, and other animals experiment with food. Read the thread or just admit you continue to tell lies.

Taste is not the determining factor in the choice of food as there would be personal differences and there is none.

Please provide evidence for your claim. I simply do not believe you.

Again if taste was a factor there would be personal differences.

This is based on your previous statement which is not believable.

This something must be intelligent, can you prove its not?

The onus is on you to support what appears to be a completely illogical and unwarranted construct.

But how did the first species learn if no one was there to teach them, and how did they come to realize that the food chosen is also the best for them?

Prove that the foods animals eat are the best for them. I do not believe that is true. In fact the most nutritious foods can lead to the deaths of animals due to acidosis.

... then why is there no proof of this in wiki?

The wikipedia is an introductory text. to argue that the information does not appear in the wikiipedia is unfounded. This is an argument form called personal ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

The fact that they eat a diet any don't dieviate from it, and all eat the same thing is proof.

Again, where is your evidence that this is correct? It is fairly obvious that you made this up. Another way of stating this is that you have constructed a fantasy that is not a part of reality.

Originally posted by Connector
tooth

One simple question. What is the target food of the common rat?

Wiki Rat

reply to post by itsthetooth

They are obviously missing target food.

Nothing is missing a fantasy.

Who taught them the first time?

Their parents. Themselves.

Usually such an argument is based on the close minded approach of the creationist that thinks there has to be a start to a process. In that start there is a lonely first individual. No. That is not reality. The evolving, i.e. adapting and changing, population adjusts to new challenges. So do the foods. They too adapt and change. There is no target food. There are changing foods out there and changing consumers.

Which all results in the the species coming to a final conclusion of what it likes to eat. Again the problem with the idea of personal choice, is that none of them are making it. They are all making the same decision, how is that for magic?

Individuals in a population do not all eat the same foods. They can't when a species is spread across a wide distribution. An elephant in Namibia cannot be eating the same foods as an elephant in the Congo.

How is that for a reality check?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Which is more proof that we were added to this planet after the dinosaurs were destroyed.

Humans appear well after dinosaurs went extinct. Humans appear well after trilobites went extinct. So what? There are many hominid fossils showing the evolutionary past of modern humans.

Thats a good question, what is your take on this, that it never really happened?

What we do know is that the stories from the bible are for the most part stories. No exodus. No genesis. No flood. None of that happened.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Species all eat the same food, as though they know what they are suppose to be eating.

Repeating a falsehood does not change it. It still is wrong. Your inference is also invalid as explained many many many times before.

Oh of course I have...

I have been following the thread and you have not posted that link before. I checked it out and you are clearly misrepresenting the blog. The sentence suggests that our home is with god. The sermon states that Earth is just a temporary place for our souls.

I see this as a purposeful lie.

You took this from "Sermons Preached at Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, NC." Here is what the Presbyterian church has to say about evolution.
www.presbyterianmission.org...

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

You quote from a church that accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory and this statement is dated 1969. That means that for over 50 years the Presbyterian church has supported evolution as a scientific theory not in conflict with the bible.

This is proof that you purposely and thoughtlessly have misrepresented the sermon you linked to.

Originally posted by stereologist
Individuals in a population do not all eat the same foods. They can't when a species is spread across a wide distribution. An elephant in Namibia cannot be eating the same foods as an elephant in the Congo.

How is that for a reality check?

Right on.
At the same time... What about vegetarians vs carnivore humans? Both seem to live viable lives. Their diets are vastly, and I will repeat that, vastly -- different. Both groups thrive. In some cases, there is little to no overlap in their diets. At all.

Eat that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

All living things are programmed with what they would consider food, as to quickly identify with what is food and what is not. It's intelligence that shares that information.

Another fantasy with no supporting evidence.

Abalone with kelp and seaweed is a good one.

Abalone eat a wide range of foods and their diet changes over the life time of the animal.

Your not doing to bad your just epically failing at proving what the mechanism is that is choosing food, or how it knows what to choose, or how it knows what not to choose, or how they are all choosing it as a species.

The means has been explained many times beginning with morphological considerations to digestive considerations. Discussions have also lit upon the mobility of the animals.

I think its hilarious how you are able to consider something that has created over a billion species to not be a creator.

You argument is based on arguing from incredulity and arguing from ignorance, two logical fallacies. In the case of evolution it is a process. Billions of species have existed. Probably true. But evolution isn't a creator. It is the change observed. The search for a mythical creator is not needed. Evolution is a process that produces a variety of lifeforms and the process does so without intelligence or guidance.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Tooth will simply write that he knows what food is best, and that what he perceives as "target food" would allow humans to live forever with no diseases. It's completely ridiculous and founded on zero logic.

It's like he's never seen a sick animal before. He thinks that if an animal eats only what he thinks it should eat, then it will never have a health problem.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm just explaining in more detail the purpose. I was speaking in a total random sense of them eating rocks, not specifically targeting salt, which is different anyhow. I can see why you would try to claim that I'm moving the goal posts, its the only thing that will keep your head above water at this point.

You did move the goal posts after days and days of posting in which none of these arguments appeared until it sunk in that animals do eat rocks and animals do eat dirt. Now you want to pretend that you meant something else. No one here is accepting this baloney story of retelling the thread. You are at this point telling another lie instead of simply admitting a mistake.

No one has proven they are incomplete, as a matter of fact they also don't indicate in the article that they are incomplete.

I produced links showing that the diet of deer and abalone and squirrels was larger than what was found in the wikipedia. To say that did not happen is another lie.

Delusions of grandure don't count.

Go back and read the thread. You've admitted several times that you have not.

That was allready proven to be a false claim many times over. The best was the link I provided back on colins thread about ADHD being witnessed as changing our genes. Since it was a new find this means that prior to this, people would have assumed those changes to be evolution when in fact they are ADHD. I strongly feel that any and all changes can be accounted for in a simular way, its just a matter of time before science actually figures this out.

You've proved nothing in this thread. You have lied for the third time in your post.

Evolution does not change genes. Evolution is the changes, not the cause or a force, or a creator, or any of the other numerous misrepresentations you have claimed. Read the first sentence from the wikipedia - your favorite resource.
en.wikipedia.org...

And what do you have that backs up that fantasy?

I've already posted a link to a peer reviewed article on snails. There are links to chicks already posted and abalone, and deer.

We know what a species eats, they know what they eat, there is no proof of them experimenting, there is no proof of choice, they all eat the same thing. its target food.

This is the fourth lie in this post. The experimentation evidence has been produced numerous times.

There is no proof that it is anything more than your opinion.

You claimed to be open minded because you believe in something inane. That is not what being open minded means.
www.ukskeptics.com...

An open-minded person is someone who is willing to consider ideas, opinions and arguments purely on their merit.

Are you sure they just wearn't links about opinion, as I never found any that debunked his claims. I also wasn't aware he was willing to loan the skull out to anyone so that they could do their own tests. I think your lying.

It is clear that you did not go back and check the thread. You also did not read the links on the first time. You are free to believe in a liar like Pye. It takes very little research to find out what a liar Pye is.

One thing is clear out of all of this, if it doens't come up in a google tag, its obviously not a popular term.

Google does not use tags.

Well you would notice in the way it was used, was to describe the word right after it, which was rock. So random rocks mean just any old rock with nothing specific in the choice.

In other words you used random with in a vague and meaningless way. Thanks.

reply to post by itsthetooth

dont have to move the goal posts, we never see them eating random rocks as though they are looking for something.

The only 1 making this odd and seemingly pointless assertion is you. It has nothing to do with anything to date other than an invalid excuse to cover a mistake. You were and continue to be wrong that animals do not eat rocks. They do.