Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by Barcs

So you tell me. What precisely would prove relationship to you? Just because you refuse to study science and understand how they have reached their conclusions, doesn't make it wrong. I bolded precisely because I already know you will respond and say, "well anything that proves it", but you don't accept anything that proves it, so tell me exactly what it would be that would convince you.

Well I honestly haven't been provided anything that proves evolution. I think its going to be pretty hard to prove because I have doubts about it being identified to begin with. In other words just because we are finding changes, how do we know conclusivly that it is in fact evolution.

I have a hard time accepting people just saying, look there were changes so you know its evolution. No we don't know, we are guessing. Changes alone don't prove evolution just like a species not wanting to breed with its original species doesn't prove specieation, all it proves is that they don't want to breed.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think its going to be pretty hard to prove because I have doubts about it being identified to begin with.

So, you don't believe it therefore it's wrong?

In logical parlance, we call that "wishful thinking" and an argument from ignorance.

reply to post by itsthetooth
Part 2

Redundant adaptation is the same way.
re·dun·dant/riˈdəndənt/Adjective: 1.No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2.(of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.
Synonyms: superfluous - unnecessary - needless - excessive - spare

Redundant is an adjective therefore it's describing the following word adaptation.
Adaptation...
ad·ap·ta·tion/ˌadapˈtāSHən/Noun: 1.The action or process of adapting or being adapted.
2.A movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.
Synonyms: accommodation - adjustment - arrangement

When reading your insane replies I often wonder if you ever read them yourself? If you do, dont you ever get embarrassed?

Lets kick off with an adaption. No television, theatrical play, film adaptation has been called a redundant adaption. Hell with the remakes of Dickens stories you could say there are excessive adaptions but redundant? who are you trying to kid?

Obviously I'm not referring to a movie so the only thing left is that its an action or process of adapting. Almost every one of the synonyms will work in place of redundant as an example.
Superfluous adaptation explains it.
Unnecessary adaptation explains it as well, from us being out of our element.
Needless adaptation explains it again from being out of our element.
Excessive adaptation also explains it as it is excessive as well.
Spare could explain it as well if you look at additional processes as being spares.

You can't be illiterate to the degree that you honestly don't understand this, and you need so much direction on it.

And again you have been shown and had explained why you cannot add any of those words in front of adaption and have instant understanding of the terms meaning and definitely not within a scientific context. Do you remember this that you also chose to ignore.

Ok. Trouble is this shows your complete ignorance of the process described by evolution. Evolution is random change selected for by the enviroment. These come in three flavours:
1. Benificial change. Change that gives the organism an advantage that allows it a better chance to breed and pass on that advantage. This is then spread throughout the group. The smaller the group the quicker it is established. That is why isolation is cited as a factor in the process described by evolution.
2. Disadvantage. Change that means the chance to breed and pass on that change is reduced.
3. Neutral change. Has no effect but may become a disadvantage/advantage if the environment changes. The reason why some changes to the enviroment causes extinction or population explosions. Neutral change is like an investment. You can win or loose and it is the chance all life takes.

You should be able to see from the above there is no such thing as redundant adaption. All adaptions fit into the above 3 flavours. Nothing is redundant.

The use of the word natural carrys strict guidlines.

Oh does it? Why because you say so? Because in this case it suits your argument? If these guildlines are so strict for the use of natural alone then supply the link. Show those guidlines?

While wiki claims that it may have no meaning in some areas, its true depending on when and where its used. There are areas that are strictly forbidden to use the term lightly.

What garbled nonsense are you trying to peddle now? Strictly forbidden to use the word 'natural' lightly? What is the punishment, a flogging? The truth is this is for the FOOD LABELING LAWS and has nothing to do with the word natural in science.

We don't even use natural food, we use organic food.

Really, but you can use unnatural food without worry of a penalty. How does that work with what you just wrote?

Oddly enough it has the same meaning, with the only acception to it referring to the processes that handled the food and not the food itself.

Oddly enough, your wrong again and you have the barefaced cheek to call me illiterate when you repeatedly show such a low level of education.

The processes or the lack of, is what makes it natural, even though its food and most would think its automatically natural. In other words, foods that have certain types of processes can be considered not natural even though they started out that way.

Your own example of B&J disputes what you wrote above pointed out to you by Idmonster

Lanaguage and words can be used how you like in common usage as long as the group using it understands its meaning, It has been defined.

In science, the law and medicine you need to be precise. Your words and terms need to be defined and fully understood. Your terms do not even come close. Even you dont understand them which is why you cannot define them

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

So you tell me. What precisely would prove relationship to you? Just because you refuse to study science and understand how they have reached their conclusions, doesn't make it wrong. I bolded precisely because I already know you will respond and say, "well anything that proves it", but you don't accept anything that proves it, so tell me exactly what it would be that would convince you.

Well I honestly haven't been provided anything that proves evolution. I think its going to be pretty hard to prove because I have doubts about it being identified to begin with. In other words just because we are finding changes, how do we know conclusivly that it is in fact evolution.

I have a hard time accepting people just saying, look there were changes so you know its evolution. No we don't know, we are guessing. Changes alone don't prove evolution just like a species not wanting to breed with its original species doesn't prove specieation, all it proves is that they don't want to breed.

So in other words, nothing would prove it for you. At least you admit your biasness finally.

Also you should know that SCIENTIFIC sources are best for describing SCIENCE, while creationist sources are best for describing CREATIONISM (faith). Asking for a neutral source on something is laughable. Obviously a scientist that has studied the stuff would be a more credible person to speak to about the subject. Don't get me wrong creationist sites are full of lies, but that's what it takes to justify faith I suppose. I'd love for you to point out a single lie perpetrated by a scientific study. I already know you won't so I guess it's moot though.

reply to post by HappyBunny

So, you don't believe it therefore it's wrong?

In logical parlance, we call that "wishful thinking" and an argument from ignorance.

No, its that nothing has given me reason to believe its accurate, doing so is what I would call wishfull thinking.

reply to post by colin42

And again you have been shown and had explained why you cannot add any of those words in front of adaption and have instant understanding of the terms meaning and definitely not within a scientific context. Do you remember this that you also chose to ignore.

There is no reason I have ever head of that prevents someone from placing an adjetive in front of a noun.

Oh does it? Why because you say so? Because in this case it suits your argument? If these guildlines are so strict for the use of natural alone then supply the link. Show those guidlines?

There is also no such thing as hot water but I'm sure it exists.
hot/hät/Adjective: 1.Having a high degree of heat or a high temperature.
2.Feeling or producing an uncomfortable sensation of heat.
Synonyms: warm - fervent - fiery - spicy - burning

What garbled nonsense are you trying to peddle now? Strictly forbidden to use the word 'natural' lightly? What is the punishment, a flogging? The truth is this is for the FOOD LABELING LAWS and has nothing to do with the word natural in science.

But it does when pertaining to ingredients so your wrong.

Really, but you can use unnatural food without worry of a penalty. How does that work with what you just wrote?

Actually our food is assumed to be unnatural unless otherwise noted.

Oddly enough, your wrong again and you have the barefaced cheek to call me illiterate when you repeatedly show such a low level of education.

Nope, I'm actually correct and they even explain that its the process that can make it unnatural.

Your own example of B&J disputes what you wrote above pointed out to you by Idmonster

Not at all because they were specificially referring to whats been added to the ice cream. Where the ice cream itself is not natural unless its organic.

Lanaguage and words can be used how you like in common usage as long as the group using it understands its meaning, It has been defined.

In science, the law and medicine you need to be precise. Your words and terms need to be defined and fully understood. Your terms do not even come close. Even you dont understand them which is why you cannot define them

I understand them all to clear.

reply to post by Barcs

So in other words, nothing would prove it for you. At least you admit your biasness finally.

Also you should know that SCIENTIFIC sources are best for describing SCIENCE, while creationist sources are best for describing CREATIONISM (faith). Asking for a neutral source on something is laughable. Obviously a scientist that has studied the stuff would be a more credible person to speak to about the subject. Don't get me wrong creationist sites are full of lies, but that's what it takes to justify faith I suppose. I'd love for you to point out a single lie perpetrated by a scientific study. I already know you won't so I guess it's moot though.

Just like you can't prove anything in the realm of creation to be a lie either.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no reason I have ever head of that prevents someone from placing an adjetive in front of a noun.

Really? Then one of your problems is definitely lack of education. The other is the ignorance in what context you are using the terms you make up

There is also no such thing as hot water but I'm sure it exists.
hot/hät/Adjective: 1.Having a high degree of heat or a high temperature.
2.Feeling or producing an uncomfortable sensation of heat.
Synonyms: warm - fervent - fiery - spicy - burning

Oh boy. Not such thing as hot water? really. Hot water is now a belief system.

But it does when pertaining to ingredients so your wrong.

As I and others tell you constantly. Context is everything. The laws around labeling food are quite clear and are not the same when using the same word in a scientific context.

Actually our food is assumed to be unnatural unless otherwise noted.

And where did you pull that little gem from? Link me. It also does not explain why it is forbidden to use natural in any other way than the prescribed guidlines yet you use UNNATURAL with abandon as you just have. Why dont the laws around natural cover unnatural?

Nope, I'm actually correct and they even explain that its the process that can make it unnatural.

They being the food industry, they being the food industry labeling authorities. The same is not be true for natural from a scientific perspective. Does none of this ever sink in?

Not at all because they were specificially referring to whats been added to the ice cream. Where the ice cream itself is not natural unless its organic.

Go back and read Id's response to you.

I understand them all to clear.

Then supply those definitions, clearly.

Edit: I have just noticed that not only have you completely by-passed part one of the reply you have ignored ......... again half of the post you are replying too. How very rude

reply to post by colin42

There is no reason I have ever head of that prevents someone from placing an adjetive in front of a noun.

Really? Then one of your problems is definitely lack of education. The other is the ignorance in what context you are using the terms you make up

I noticed how you didn't explain why you think that is, so in other words I'm correct.

There is also no such thing as hot water but I'm sure it exists.
hot/hät/Adjective: 1.Having a high degree of heat or a high temperature.
2.Feeling or producing an uncomfortable sensation of heat.
Synonyms: warm - fervent - fiery - spicy - burning

Oh boy. Not such thing as hot water? really. Hot water is now a belief system.

It's not in any dictionary I'm finding so by going by Colins terms it can't possibly exist.

But it does when pertaining to ingredients so your wrong.

As I and others tell you constantly. Context is everything. The laws around labeling food are quite clear and are not the same when using the same word in a scientific context.

And you lie again because your trying to claim that there is nothing scientific about food labeling. How shameful is that?

Actually our food is assumed to be unnatural unless otherwise noted.

And where did you pull that little gem from? Link me. It also does not explain why it is forbidden to use natural in any other way than the prescribed guidlines yet you use UNNATURAL with abandon as you just have. Why dont the laws around natural cover unnatural?

If the food is a natural food like vegitation then the term organic would apply. Its a fact that other food is considered to be non natural unless otherwise posted.

Nope, I'm actually correct and they even explain that its the process that can make it unnatural.

They being the food industry, they being the food industry labeling authorities. The same is not be true for natural from a scientific perspective. Does none of this ever sink in?

Actually no, I was speaking about wiki.

Not at all because they were specificially referring to whats been added to the ice cream. Where the ice cream itself is not natural unless its organic.

Go back and read Id's response to you.


I understand them all to clear.

Then supply those definitions, clearly.

My definitions have allready been supplied, and I allready answered IDS take on this. He failed to consider that they are talking about the ingredients which is different then just calling something as a whole, natural.

reply to post by colin42


From all the dishonest things you share Colin I'm learning that you also don't follow your own made up rules.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I noticed how you didn't explain why you think that is, so in other words I'm correct.

And again your very poor reading skill, if you have any at all has lead you astray again. Read my reply to this from you.

There is no reason I have ever head of that prevents someone from placing an adjetive in front of a noun.

My reply was

Really? Then one of your problems is definitely lack of education. The other is the ignorance in what context you are using the terms you make up

Clearly explaining why I think that is.

It's not in any dictionary I'm finding so by going by Colins terms it can't possibly exist.

There are many terms in common usage you may not find in a dictionary which is meant to show you how the word is spelt and define its meaning. The use of terms must be understood by those using them. If a doctor tells you that you are sick it means you are not well. If a teenager tells you that you are sick they are paying you a compliment. Do you see how context works yet?

And you lie again because your trying to claim that there is nothing scientific about food labeling. How shameful is that?

Yet again you are reading what you want to see and not what was written. The food industry works along its own guidlines. This is to control the use of words to advertise what the food is. Organic does not mean the same in science. Here is another link for you to ignore ORGANIC Do you see how when defining it they put it in context. Jeeze this is elementry knowledge I am amazed you are not educated enough to understand it.

If the food is a natural food like vegitation then the term organic would apply. Its a fact that other food is considered to be non natural unless otherwise posted.

This still does not explain the rules that govern the use of natural not seeming to apply to unnatural. Please explain that.

Food like VEGETATION in the food industry is not automatically classed as organic. To make that claim the soil crops are grown in and the pesticides used on them are clearly defined. The use of non natural is just as poor as your use of unnatural but you already have enough things to define, why add to the list.

Actually no, I was speaking about wiki.

And wiki link you supplied was describing what? I'll tell you. The food labelling legislation.

My definitions have allready been supplied, and I allready answered IDS take on this. He failed to consider that they are talking about the ingredients which is different then just calling something as a whole, natural.

Your definitions have not been supplied, not even close and your answer shows you cannot because your made up terms are meaningless as I explained to you which you have ignored twice now. Three times if you include this.

Your answer to ID's post was as usual dismissive nonsense. You did not honestly address one point he made.

You also ignored the first part of my answer to you a page back. Very rude. Whats wrong couldnt think of a lie, surely not you.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

From all the dishonest things you share Colin I'm learning that you also don't follow your own made up rules.

Coming from you, a person who has been shown to be dishonest in his approach to this thread and those on it. Who has been discredited so many times your opinion of me means nothing at all.

reply to post by colin42

Coming from you, a person who has been shown to be dishonest in his approach to this thread and those on it. Who has been discredited so many times your opinion of me means nothing at all.

So you probably think I'm just suppose to take your word for it, that I'm a dishonest person when you have done nothing but lie your way thorugh pages of this thread.

I have been totally honest and all you have done is call me dishonest. You must have been lied to a lot as a child and have a complex for it. I'm sure there is a medication you can take to help you. It's not my fault you don't believe in the word natural, or civilization, or unnatural, or in the wild. Much less pretending to not understand the words Most, redundant, adaptation, and food, and natural.

But I'm just suppose to take your word that I'm being dishonest right, sure dude, your epic.

reply to post by colin42

Your definitions have not been supplied, not even close and your answer shows you cannot because your made up terms are meaningless as I explained to you which you have ignored twice now. Three times if you include this.

Your answer to ID's post was as usual dismissive nonsense. You did not honestly address one point he made.

You also ignored the first part of my answer to you a page back. Very rude. Whats wrong couldnt think of a lie, surely not you.

And you seriously look like a fool every time you lie and claim that I have never provided my definitions. I have and multiple times. If your not accepting them, thats your problem, they are what they are, and they are not going to change.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Coming from you, a person who has been shown to be dishonest in his approach to this thread and those on it. Who has been discredited so many times your opinion of me means nothing at all.

So you probably think I'm just suppose to take your word for it, that I'm a dishonest person when you have done nothing but lie your way thorugh pages of this thread.

I have been totally honest and all you have done is call me dishonest. You must have been lied to a lot as a child and have a complex for it. I'm sure there is a medication you can take to help you. It's not my fault you don't believe in the word natural, or civilization, or unnatural, or in the wild. Much less pretending to not understand the words Most, redundant, adaptation, and food, and natural.

But I'm just suppose to take your word that I'm being dishonest right, sure dude, your epic.

So you are not going to answer why the strict rules that govern the use of NATURAL do not seemingly apply to UNNATURAL. I know why and your answer to try to avoid it is obvious.

I understand the word natural, unnatural, civilisation, redundant, adaption. You apparently do not. You have refused to put your use of 'in the wild' into context so dont blame me for asking you too. I admit I dont understand your use of redundant adaption, unnatural food or target food to name a few. Why not educate me and let me into the secret? Define those terms.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Your definitions have not been supplied, not even close and your answer shows you cannot because your made up terms are meaningless as I explained to you which you have ignored twice now. Three times if you include this.

Your answer to ID's post was as usual dismissive nonsense. You did not honestly address one point he made.

You also ignored the first part of my answer to you a page back. Very rude. Whats wrong couldnt think of a lie, surely not you.

And you seriously look like a fool every time you lie and claim that I have never provided my definitions. I have and multiple times. If your not accepting them, thats your problem, they are what they are, and they are not going to change.

But I dont understand? You say there are strict rules for the use of natural. You go as far as to claim use of natural outside these rules is forbidden yet cannot explain to me why UNNATURAL is not governed by the same strict rules.

Or why these rules only apply to natural and not adaption, or evolution or even food? Do I need to campaign for equal rights for all words?

Please explain this to me and stop me from making a fool of myself.

reply to post by itsthetooth
And while your about it. Respond to this that you have chosen to ignore

Suppose to be cold rain.

This may be in common use where you live. Where I am we have rain, sleet or snow. If I was interested in your answer I would ask you to explain cold rain (added: You can have cold rain but not hot water )

But my point is, pretending you had no prior knowledge of the term, what would you think it is? You would probably be correct.

Your point is not a valid point. You can use words pretty much how you like in common usage and within groups that understand the slang.

You are making up terms to explain things within science. They need to be understood and acurate. I should not have to explain this to somone who claims to be a science major.

To show how childish your babble appears. A person with fair hair is often decribed as a NATURAL BLONDE. A person who dyes their hair blonde is not known as an UNNATURAL BLONDE. Why because it is nonsense exactly as your term UNNATURAL FOOD. It is the babbling of a child mind.

You can break down my terms in the exact same way.

For the reasons given above, no I cannot break down the terms you made up. You are using them in a technical/science context. YOU need to describe their meaning or stop using them.

For example...
"in the wild" "In the" is directly placing the word wild into a location, making it a noun. One of the quick descriptions of the word wild was Not civilized, or to be in nature or the wilderness. So in the wild should mean in the wilderness. Notice how wild is a root word of the word wilderness.

I gave you a complete explanation why that is also the twittering of a booby. You chose to ignore it. Here it is again. Another chance for you to ignore it.

Again this is a flimsy meaningless description. Civilistation is an abstract. It needs mans buildings and social structure to give it meaning. The Romans thought of any people who were not Roman as uncivilised. A person with bad manners can be labeled uncivilised. Civilisation is NOT a place just as IN THE WILD does not exist as a place.

I know you will not accept that but this is the plain truth. A wild animal (untrained, not domesticated, not controlled) can and does live in our most advanced cities. In the wild needs a context to have any meaning and when you use it you do not put it in context which makes it meaningless.

Lets look at an easier one...
Most.
I had used in the context of describing a ratio of secies that do or don't have target food. A quick look into a dictionary explains that this word usually means majority, or a larger example of something, which is exactly how I had used it.

Exactly my point. You used it to describe a ratio yet refused to put a number to it. Why? Your happy to make up rediculous numbers for other things why not this?

Butthead...

Slang put into common usage by a cartoon. It has no significance to this discussion. Your made up terms in a scientific context.

Look too part 2 of this reply

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

If the food is a natural food like vegitation then the term organic would apply. Its a fact that other food is considered to be non natural unless otherwise posted.

just when i thought you had displayed the height of you ignorance you come out with this tripe. Organic does not refer to vegetation. "Organic" WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF FOOD PRODUCTION refers to the methods used in producing that food and can relate to all food products, animal and vegetable.

(Not to be confused with organic in a scientific sense which relates to all things with organs - another example of a word altering meaning dependant on context)

BTW - It is not a fact that food not labled as natural is considered to be un-natural. The lableing of foods such as this is, in part a marketing ploy to charge people more for the food they buy. Normaly when a food is labled as "natural", its in in the context of " all natural ingredients" meaning that no artificial ingredients have been included. So, no preservatives, no added vitamins, no artificial colourings and so on. This does not automaticaly mean that if you buy a banana that isnt labled as natural, it will contain all of the above.

Also in many places GM foods can be included as ingredients to foods that are allowed to claim " all natural"

Nope, I'm actually correct and they even explain that its the process that can make it unnatural.

Nope, your actualy wrong. The countries that do clearly define what can, and cannot be labled "natural" do not insist that processing food make it unable to be labled so. Things like adding vitamins and artificial colourings are what prevent them having the lable. Pastuerisation does not.

My definitions have allready been supplied, and I allready answered IDS take on this. He failed to consider that they are talking about the ingredients which is different then just calling something as a whole, natural.

I didnt fail to consider anything. The artical was quite clear that B&J were labling their whole product as "natural", which under the (rather loose) FDA guidlines was not allowed due to the inclusion of a single ingredient which could not be labled as "natural".

No reference was made to any of the processes the rest of the ingredients were subjest to. I metioned the pasturisation of the milk, but there is also a lot of refinement of the sugar that goes into icecream.

Niether of these highly processed food items would have resulted in the product from being disallowed to hold the lable "natural".

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

I have a hard time accepting people just saying, look there were changes so you know its evolution. No we don't know, we are guessing. Changes alone don't prove evolution just like a species not wanting to breed with its original species doesn't prove specieation, all it proves is that they don't want to breed.

Your biggest problem in understanding evolution is superbly shown within the above comment.

You see evolution is just a word for "change within species". It doesnt matter whether you agree with the mechanisms, or if you have your own ideas about how those changes occur, it is still evolution.

Some of us are happy with the current scientific explanations to explain evolution, such as natural or sexual selection while others cite genetic tampering by ET's.

Putting the mechanism for evolution to one side for a second, it still doesnt alter the FACT that evolution occurs. Even if you were correct and intervention were proven, the question of evolution would still arrise.

How did the interventionist become to be? How to explain the diversity from wherever it is you think we came from? (these are rhetorical questionmarks)

Which ever way you look at it, species change and that is evolution. Changes alone DO prove evolution.

The other problem (!!) you have is with speciation, but first I feel the need to address the Pilkingtonesque statement you make above.

Species do not decide they dont want to breed, and if even if they were able to make this choice, this would not have them defined as seperate species. You are not a different species to every woman you meet just because they dont want to breed with you. In fact, even if they were physicaly unable to breed due to physiological differences, this still would not make them seperate species. What defines them as seperate species is the inability to breed gameticaly. i.e. the sperm (tadpoles) and egg could not fuse and create an embryo. (all of this has been covered previously)

Species is a concept defined by man to explain the above. In reality we are all the same, every single living organism on the planet. We are merely replication factories for DNA.

If you think of this planet as having a single species on it, the species of DAN, it might help. Allow me to explain.

The "species" of DAN requires a few things in order to make copies of itself. The things it requires can be found in many forms all over the planet. In order to get and make use of the things it needs, the species of DAN changes, but no matter how drastic those changes appear to be, it remains a member of the species of DAN and is geneticaly compatable with all other members of the species of DAN regardless of their differences.

Some species of DAN change so radically, that although they are completly geneticaly compatable with their neighbours, they physically or chemically can no longer share their genetic material. All the time they remain the same same species, if the DAN could interact all would be good, but they cant.

Over vast ammounts of time, some members of the species of DAN change in such a way that enables them better access to the things they need in a particular habitat. These particular members of the species of DAN prosper in this area and produce many more of their type.

In a seperated habitat, other members of the species of DAN are taking advantage of the things they need utillising different changes that have occured to them. The two "tribes" of members of the species of DAN now look very, very different, but are still both members of the Species of DAN and would be compatable if they could only find a way for there genetic material to meet.

The species of DAN is a metaphore for DNA. All DNA on the planet is the same, the only thing that prevents your DNA from mixing with plant DAN is the way it is laid out. (although I do believe there might be many other things that prevent your DNA from mixing with another humans -- just kiddin' )s

reply to post by colin42

So you are not going to answer why the strict rules that govern the use of NATURAL do not seemingly apply to UNNATURAL. I know why and your answer to try to avoid it is obvious

I think it depends on what it refers to.

If they were ever to come out with unnatural potatoes, it would surly mean they were not natural.

I understand the word natural, unnatural, civilisation, redundant, adaption. You apparently do not. You have refused to put your use of 'in the wild' into context so dont blame me for asking you too. I admit I dont understand your use of redundant adaption, unnatural food or target food to name a few. Why not educate me and let me into the secret? Define those terms

Oh great big silly you. You know I allready gave you those definitions, they would be the ones you argued don't make any sense. How could they make no sense unless I gave you the definitions.

Which ones are you not understanding? I know in the wild is one as I allready issued you a quoted definition that contained it.