Science against evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth

Everything is suppose to have intended food, is the best way to explain this

Nope. The best way to explain it is to supply the evidence you base your nonsense on

Most species are eating food that was NOT intended for them.

Oh so you are reverting to intended to avoid a challenge to debate. Failed

Most of this has to do with the fact that they have all been moved from their homes, and their food is not with them.

So you have dropped the claim their target food was brought with them. Oh how your claimed facts change to suit your current lie

As a result, most things are eating food that was no intended for them. What this means is that most species have had to adapt, including humans.

Nope. It shows you know target food is a fail and now you revert to intended food to try to continue spamming this nonsense.

Target Food was never here to begin with, so thats where I'm no understanding your question.

So pages of your nonsense claiming that because man had no target food, (rebranded as intended food) he suffered far more sickness than all the other animals that did have target food. In fact no one would live past puberty without medical intervention, your words.

You never answered me before on this point but with the revelation above. Why don’t the other animals suffer the same as us as they do not have target food? How do they live past puberty?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

There you go again, business as usual, making false claims about me. I never claimed that crockoduck was real. I am however concearned about you believing that a field mouse baited to somones door with food, evolves into a door mouse.

You're so predictable.

Original post

And here is your answer This post which you followed with pages of denial

You showed you had no understanding of evolution then and that you still do not.

As for your silly mouse you have used that many times as troll bait. You have had this claim discredited just as many times. It is an often used ploy by you. You make a really stupid example and then claim others believed it. It fails every time yet you continue with it. A pathetic failed ploy from a pathetic failed guy.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Have you lost your marbles, AGAIN? It was a copy and paste from a wiki column so I have no idea how you can claim that it was a mistake of mine. Did you not see the link I posted for the copy and paste?

Didn’t you read my reply that I cannot find a reference to Alopathic speciation in that thread.

What’s more the closest word I can find to Alopathic is THIS Allopathic medicine but why that would be on a wiki definition of evolution beats me.

Cut and paste from the link you supplied where it stated that, I mean I could have missed it.

reply to post by colin42

Didn’t you read my reply that I cannot find a reference to Alopathic speciation in that thread.

What’s more the closest word I can find to Alopathic is THIS Allopathic medicine but why that would be on a wiki definition of evolution beats me.

Cut and paste from the link you supplied where it stated that, I mean I could have missed it.

AllopatricMain article: allopatric speciation
During allopatric (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā, "fatherland") speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes.

speciation wiki And don't try to say the link doesn't work, I just tested it and it works fine.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by JameSimon

 

But domestic animals are only a definition. I see you took the bait. In European cultures Dogs and Cats are the most common domestic animals, but you can have almost any kind of specie as your in house company. Turtles, Pigs, Weasels, Foxes, etc. So tell me, if in a determined culture the Fox is considered a domestic animal, does it mysteriously vanish from your target food list?

On the same page, the wild hog eats pretty much everything you present to him, even if it is well fed. These one species invalidates your whole target food nonsense, which has more holes than swiss cheese.

I'm not understanding your question. The part where your asking does it mysteriously vanish from my target food list.

Everything is suppose to have intended food, is the best way to explain this. Most species are eating food that was NOT intended for them. Most of this has to do with the fact that they have all been moved from their homes, and their food is not with them. As a result, most things are eating food that was no intended for them. What this means is that most species have had to adapt, including humans.

Target Food was never here to begin with, so thats where I'm no understanding your question.

No. By YOUR definition, all animals have target food. I provided an example of an animal that does not have target food. By your definition too, domestic animals don't have target food, but the concept of domestic animal varies from region to region, and therefore Target food is, by one simple animal and one simple word definition, proven wrong.

reply to post by colin42


I never said NO ONE would live past puberty, thats what you get for not paying attention and I have already been over this with you. What I said is there are defects in our genes that don't allow you to make it past puberty. There is a big difference.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I told you that if I was wrong, you should have no problem explaining why species are never found in a documented experiemntal stage, and you gave no answer.

I've already shot down this outright lie.

Deer are a prime example of an animal that experiments with food. Other foods experimenters are insects, primates, carrion consumers, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.

Take your wacko failure to the debate forum.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No one has ever witnessed a species evolving, and anyone that claims to have, needs to have their credentials revoked.

A logical fallacy called an appeal from personal ignorance.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Everything is suppose to have intended food, is the best way to explain this. Most species are eating food that was NOT intended for them. Most of this has to do with the fact that they have all been moved from their homes, and their food is not with them. As a result, most things are eating food that was no intended for them. What this means is that most species have had to adapt, including humans.

Any evidence for these wacko claims?

reply to post by itsthetooth


Sorry Target Foods will always be Target superstore foods. Your idea doesn’t hold up to scrutiny and you have admitted that by refusing to debate it.

I have a serious question for you. Did you finish high school because I know they teach evolution but you don’t demonstrate an understanding of it? Did your teachers fail you?
add

I don’t think you have even debated because you refer to it as the repeat game. Do you know how to debate? You need to try sooner or later. What makes you think your thread will be closed they wouldn’t close it so now you don’t have any reason not to debate. Your thread is dead anyway for lack of credibility if you debate then you can prove yourself.

reply to post by stereologist

Any evidence for these wacko claims?

Most people have missed this mark, which I'm sure you have as well.

If you believe that evolution is responsible for diversity, I guess thats fine, provided you can find any truth in it, I know I can't.

On the other hand you have creation. It's a pretty safe assumption that if someone or something, including evolution, was smart enough to create new life, that it's creator, again, evolution or a creator, would also be smart enough to think about the fact that this new life would also need food.

It might be easy to overlook based on the way that things are working on this planet at this time. What I mean by that, is while there is pattern and order to what gets chosen as food, that list is often times rather large and gives the looker the false impression that anything can just eat anything and thats just how it is. This lack of order does not support life, as its obviously not healthy for species to just eat whatever. You might fall somewhere in the middle and believe that while humans as an example will eat just about anything, that most species have a wide ranged diet, and you would pretty much be correct, but that isn't proof that things are suppose to be that way.

I however question that diet, and claim that each species has an intended food. Most of which aren't connected, either through extinction or due to the fact that we were all moved here, minus our food perhaps. The reason I know this to be fact is actually quite simple, its the ONLY way life can progress on any planet.

You can't have unbalanced life on a planet and expect them to live a normal and healthy life, most likely they will die out as a species. This can be from both adding species to a planet they don't belong on as well as removing species from a planet they belong on. Which is the case with earth. In case you didn't know, earth is now in the 6th mass extinction looking at a loss of 98% of all life, and thats a quote from wiki.

Now I understand that evolution claims that this is all part of the complex network package known as evolution, but thats just bunk. Species aren't suppose to be born either from creation or evolution just to find out they have no food. When a species has no target food, they will go through the phases of hunger like I have already explained, and in our case there is even processed food that we make for ourselves. Making food is a form of adaptation and anytime you have to adapt, its not only not natural, but its another clue that your not from here.

An excellent example is how we have no natural source for calcium. We need 1000mg per day and thats if your not a teenager and not pregnant. Fruits and veggies are far from hitting those needs and the best thing to date is Sardines but you will still need 5.4 servings a day, or 16oz. Cows milk is NOT natural for human consumption, and must be processed to even be safe. Drinking raw milk your taking a chance on getting sick from parasites and the slight chance of death. Seaweed is 7-14 times the value of milk but it too has to be processed.

This is why we have super supplement stores because our diet needs are in dire. We also suffer from many food related illnesses, and food isn't suppose to make you sick its suppose to make you healthy, providing your eating what your supose to. There is no such thing as a perfect diet, simply because our food isn't here.

Almost everything that we eat seems to be backed with some type of warrning that eating to much of it, is certainly not good for you, or that you would be lacking in other things as a result.

In Target Food, it's ideal and the best for the consumer. Target Food provides all the nutrients needed and is ideal to the consumer. I know it sounds like magic, and considering what we have to go through, I understand why its looked at like that, but the fact of the matter is, if evolution is capeable of the diversity or if you believe in creation, it only stands to reason through commen sense that there would also be food for that species

reply to post by stereologist

A logical fallacy called an appeal from personal ignorance.

No one has ever witnessed a species changing into another species. I know for a fact that the only things that have been witnessed are adaptation, which has nothing to do with evolution.

I think your confusing adaptation with evolution.

Adaptation was allowed to have have a spot in the wiki as being part of evolution but the fact is there is no proof that it has anything to do with the process of evolution, just like many other things that are all a part of the process there is no proof.

Adaptation is an ability and has NOTHING to do with changes happening on a molecular level, just more proof that your silly religion is total bunk.

reply to post by stereologist

I've already shot down this outright lie.

Deer are a prime example of an animal that experiments with food. Other foods experimenters are insects, primates, carrion consumers, mollusks, crustaceans, etc.

Take your wacko failure to the debate forum.

And I have asked you to prove this, and all you ever claim is that you already did, but you didn't.

So I'll do it for you.

Deer are selective feeders. They are usually browsers, and primarily feed on leaves. They have small, unspecialized stomachs by ruminant standards, and high nutrition requirements. Rather than attempt to digest vast quantities of low-grade, fibrous food as, for example, sheep and cattle do, deer select easily digestible shoots, young leaves, fresh grasses, soft twigs, fruit, fungi, and lichens.

Deer Wiki

As you can see for yourself, this diet gives no clue about deer being experimental with food, in fact they appear to have a clear concise diet. A browser tab explains he is an herbivore, again, we know what he eats.

Now I'm not sure if your getting confused with the fact that he does have a large varied diet, and your taking that to mean that he experiments with food, but that is false. The only time that animals experiment with food is when they are starving. Of course it's only common sense, why would they be experimenting with food if they have food avaiable to eat that is tried and true in the past? So you sort of walked into that one.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I came up with a golden theory that shames evoluton and you have to ask me if I completed high school?

What do you think?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I know for a fact that the only things that have been witnessed are adaptation, which has nothing to do with evolution.

I think your confusing adaptation with evolution.

Adaptation has everything to do with evolution. In fact it is one of the main drivers of evolution..

reply to post by itsthetooth


You must be kidding to say there is no proof in the Fossil records. We have recovered MANY different stages of Human Development and I have already given you the example of how we can visually see a species evolving into another species in front of ones eyes.

Split Infinity

reply to post by itsthetooth


ADAPTATION IS AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

Why are you saying it is seperate as it is not.

The thing I find amusing is that you will not admit to something such as Evolution which is easily proven yet you talk about a GOD as being a fact.

Split Infinity

reply to post by itsthetooth

I came up with a golden theory that shames evoluton and you have to ask me if I completed high school?

What do you think?

Sorry you do not know what theory means. It's not a theory. It was easily shown to be false numerous times.

When you get to high school you can take basic courses to help you learn these things.

reply to post by itsthetooth

As you can see for yourself, this diet gives no clue about deer being experimental with food, in fact they appear to have a clear concise diet. A browser tab explains he is an herbivore, again, we know what he eats.

Your argument is again an appeal to personal ignorance.

Now I'm not sure if your getting confused with the fact that he does have a large varied diet, and your taking that to mean that he experiments with food, but that is false. The only time that animals experiment with food is when they are starving. Of course it's only common sense, why would they be experimenting with food if they have food avaiable to eat that is tried and true in the past? So you sort of walked into that one.

False. Deer experiment with food all of the time and in all seasons and independent of the abundance of food. Only a liar and a fool state otherwise.

Books/info to read:

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?

More info

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution