Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by wittgenstein

“The fact that their food is predictable, and they don't venture off their menu is proof that intelligence was involved.”
Itsthetooth

Take two foods 1. Optimum nutrition for the needs of a particular species. 2. Minimal nutrition for the needs of that particular species. Those animals that eat 1 will on average live longer and therefore have a greater chance of reproduction. Their offspring will inherit a propensity to prefer food 1.
Target foods are not necessarily the best foods for a particular species. We evolved when food ( fat, calories) were scarce. That is why we crave high fat, high calorie foods, foods that are not best for us.

As the creator of the phrase Target food, I can tell you that you have it all wrong. A target food is always a food that is considered high in nutrition to the consumer. There is no propensity to prefer food. As a child or growing up, the food you desire, all depends on what you have been exposed to, not what your parents were exposed to. Aside, that same rule seems to not apply to all the other species as they stay on a strict diet.

reply to post by Varemia

Trial and error over generations is not complicated. Maybe for you it is.

And that would be the problem right there, there is no trial and error. We never hear about a species trying a different food, let alone that it liked it so switched. There is not trial and error, what we have is clear concise instruction.

You can test this theory by googling any species and asking what that species eats. The results are clear, we know what species are eating.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

You have a thread for discussing your views on target food. Just because you are being slaughtered there does not mean you can move that discussion here.

What your really saying is that your not happy with your own attempts to try to slaughter my thread, so as a result you try to resort to some other tactic like telling me to stay our of YOUR thread.

First off Target food started on this thread LOL.

YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC

*REJECTED*

reply to post by itsthetooth

1. Your infantile attitude in this thread is not welcome
2. Your off topic posts are not welcome
3. your dishonest tactics are not welcome
4. Your insults and attempts to troll this thread WILL get you reported. I will break a personal rule to ensure it happens.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Target food and its existence has allready been proven from the ant and the anteater, kelp and the abalone, millet seed and the parakeet.

Studys would show that these choices of food for these specific species are highly important to their diet. At any rate they qualify as being the majority of the diet.

Target food wasn't just made up, as you claim, as you can see there is actually a lot behind it, and a lot that supports the theory.

Please post your scientific references and studies for "target food". Your own personal opinion doesn't qualify. Post facts. Stop avoiding it.

The only proof that supports evolution is the fact that there is always change. You can believe that that change comes in the form of unguided randomness, that can't be proven, while I'm looking at culprits like ADHD that is causing change and could be mistaken as evolution.

Evolution is 100% proven process that happens in nature. There's always change but not evolution? C'mon man. What do you think evolution is? Saying that it might have an intelligence guiding it, doesn't prove it wrong. Read about it, stop trolling. Everything you just brought up was already addressed.

The fact that humans don't follow these rules is proof that we are either designed differently or not in our element, where as most other species would have to be.

And another blatant lie. So you make up a rule, claim that species have to follow it in order to be from earth and then claim humans don't follow it while other creatures do and it has something to do with being from earth. Prove it. Prove any part of your logic. ANY PART.

1. Prove that target food exists
2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth
3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of evolution rather than scientific studies

You need evidence or your claims are false. It's that simple. You've provide nothing but speculation.

Sure its natural for a dog to drink dogs milk.
Its natural for a cow to drink cows milk.
Its natural for a goat to drink goats milk
Its even natural for a human to drink human milk.
Its not natural for humans to drink any of the others.

Do you not even know what the word natural means? If it occurs in nature without human intervention, it's natural. Cows producing milk is natural. This proves you wrong. There is no such thing as, "it's natural for A but not B. It's either natural or its not. Since it occurs in nature and has been on the planet before humans, it's 100% natural. End of story.

Claiming its not natural for humans to drink milk is like claiming its not natural for them to eat a banana, the egg from a chicken, or drink coconut milk. We get essential nutrients from milk, which is naturally produced. Therefor, you are wrong.

The fact that their food is predictable, and they don't venture off their menu is proof that intelligence was involved.

You shouldn't lie and call something a fact when its not. Most diets in the wild change on a MONTHLY basis. You are claiming that because 3 creatures in the history of the planet eat the food they are well equipped to eat that it's this magical target food. Sorry. That would mean 99% of all species on earth were not from earth, which doesn't make any sense.

FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a lie because he won't even explain it. His agenda is to attack evolution and nothing more.

reply to post by Barcs

FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a lie because he won't even explain it. His agenda is to attack evolution and nothing more.

He is a failed troll then as he has not shown anything that challenges evolution even though his thread title claims he can.

I see no evidence of that there or here. I have not even seen a concise definition of what target food is meant to be yet which I would have thought would be the very first thing to do even before making his thread.

Let's look where we are so far.

1. Target food must be natural. (All food is so it makes no sense)
2. Target food must not be after the result of many processes to get it unless you are not a human then its OK
3. Not having target food means you are definitely not from here
4. You may be from here but have lost your target food due to extinctions. So #4 contradicts #3
5. Not having a Target food means automatically you are not from here (see #4) but having it does not mean you are from here as your target food may have been brought here too.
6. Target food contains all the nutrients needed but you may need one more or many target foods
7. If a target food loses its target food and becomes less nutritious it is still target food despite #6
8. If you cultivate a target food it may or may not still be a target food even though it is just as good if not better quality than the non cultivated target food. See #7

And finally
9. Don’t expect tooth to give any answers you have about target food. He does not have them. (see whole thread 'target food proves evolution wrong')

Over the last few days I have been reading this thread

Ant: what the hell are these things anyway

It is a top post in my view and has fast become an ideal resource for information on this tiny and very successful insect whose society mirrors ours in so many ways.

If you have not read this thread yet I highly recommend it.

reply to post by colin42

YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC

*REJECTED*

Proving evolution wrong is not off topic. Besides, the moderators would have removed me if it were true. Your such a fibber Colin. WAAA

reply to post by colin42

1. Your infantile attitude in this thread is not welcome
2. Your off topic posts are not welcome
3. your dishonest tactics are not welcome
4. Your insults and attempts to troll this thread WILL get you reported. I will break a personal rule to ensure it happens.


YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Your threats don't worry me. I can see that you sucked at the debate, and have attempted just about every shotty trick in the book to get me off the thread. Target food proves evolution wrong, and the funny part is I have a feeling that you know this, so you are trying to hide from it.

reply to post by Barcs

Please post your scientific references and studies for "target food". Your own personal opinion doesn't qualify. Post facts. Stop avoiding it.

Well I can't post google searches, but you could look them up for yourself. Just pick a handfull of different species and type in "what does the XXXXX eat" and you will always get an accurate answer.

The fact that we know what a species eats, and that they all eat the same thing within the species, proves intelligence is behind the mechanism of how they eat. Target food is the correct food by that response.

Evolution is 100% proven process that happens in nature.

No its not, no one has ever witnessed or proven that one species turns into something else. No one has ever witnessed macroevolution. Before you answer, it couldn't be witnessed even if it were real, but its not.

There's always change but not evolution? C'mon man. What do you think evolution is? Saying that it might have an intelligence guiding it, doesn't prove it wrong. Read about it, stop trolling. Everything you just brought up was already addressed.

As an example I recently shared a link that proved that scientists just found out that ADHD has the ability to change genes. What this means is prior to them realizing this, evolutionists were looking at those changes as though they were evolution, they in fact werent. All I'm saying is there is probably a simular excuse for ALL of the changes. In other words none of it is from evolution.

And another blatant lie. So you make up a rule, claim that species have to follow it in order to be from earth and then claim humans don't follow it while other creatures do and it has something to do with being from earth. Prove it. Prove any part of your logic. ANY PART.

It doesn't prove we are not from earth, it proves our food isn't here, which in turn proves we are not from here. While other species in part do have their target food.

1. Prove that target food exists

Target food exists due to three basic reasons. The first is that we are able to confidently announce what each species eats.
Second we don't see scattered eating amongst species, they all eat the same thing.
Third that diet is always a very nutritious one for that consumer, and has natural processes.

2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth

The only thing it can do is prove if you are NOT from here. Obviously if your food is not here and you have ruled out extinctions, something is very wrong.

3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of evolution rather than scientific studies

That proof lies in the understanding of the fact that every species, aside from humans, have either a direction though intelligence, or are intelligently programed by evolution so that they know what they are supposed to eat.

Do you not even know what the word natural means? If it occurs in nature without human intervention, it's natural. Cows producing milk is natural.

Of course but that doens't mean its natural for humans to consume it.

This proves you wrong. There is no such thing as, "it's natural for A but not B. It's either natural or its not. Since it occurs in nature and has been on the planet before humans, it's 100% natural. End of story.

So what you are saying is that it would be perfectly natural for you to drink milk from say a cat, a grasshopper, a turtle, a fish, and just about any other species on the planet, all milk was meant for us to drink because it started out natural.

Claiming its not natural for humans to drink milk is like claiming its not natural for them to eat a banana, the egg from a chicken, or drink coconut milk. We get essential nutrients from milk, which is naturally produced. Therefor, you are wrong.

Milk from any species is intended to feed the offspring of that same species, not every species on the planet.

Your obviously wrong.

You shouldn't lie and call something a fact when its not. Most diets in the wild change on a MONTHLY basis. You are claiming that because 3 creatures in the history of the planet eat the food they are well equipped to eat that it's this magical target food. Sorry. That would mean 99% of all species on earth were not from earth, which doesn't make any sense.

Some species have target food, and some don't. But just because they don't still doesn't prove they are from here. Their food could have been brought here with them. It's only the absence of target food that proves something is not from here. Humans, dogs, cats, etc...

FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a l

reply to post by Barcs

FACT: Tooth is a creationist troll, nothing more. Him claiming that he represents intervention is clearly a lie because he won't even explain it. His agenda is to attack evolution and nothing more.

Well I wasn't aware that target food attacked evolution, but I'm glad to make progress in any direction. Also it wasn't intentional either, it's just the truth.

reply to post by colin42

Over the last few days I have been reading this thread

Ant: what the hell are these things anyway

It is a top post in my view and has fast become an ideal resource for information on this tiny and very successful insect whose society mirrors ours in so many ways.

If you have not read this thread yet I highly recommend it.

I skimmed through it, its a lot of material. They are smart as hell for sure, and very innovative.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Well I can't post google searches, but you could look them up for yourself. Just pick a handfull of different species and type in "what does the XXXXX eat" and you will always get an accurate answer.

The fact that we know what a species eats, and that they all eat the same thing within the species, proves intelligence is behind the mechanism of how they eat. Target food is the correct food by that response.

Google searches are not scientific research and do not prove your fantasy concept. We know animal's diets because WE STUDY THEM, not because target food exists and shows who's from earth and who's not. Red herring.

No its not, no one has ever witnessed or proven that one species turns into something else. No one has ever witnessed macroevolution. Before you answer, it couldn't be witnessed even if it were real, but its not.

Speciation has been witnessed in a lab. Already posted it. Genetic mutations have been witnessed and linked to morphological changes. It doesn't matter if a disease can effect genes. Technically, that disease would be causing genetic mutations, which causes evolution, just like cosmic radiation can cause genetic mutations. It doesn't matter what causes the change in genes. The change happens, and natural selection sorts it out. Nobody has ever claimed that evolution doesn't have causes. Evolution is just a word that describes these mutations and creatures adapting to them. It's not some external magical process.

Intervention / creationism: Now THAT'S what's NEVER been witnessed and has no objective evidence behind. Evolution has and does.

It doesn't prove we are not from earth, it proves our food isn't here, which in turn proves we are not from here. While other species in part do have their target food.

You named a total of 3 species that have target food. It proves absolutely nothing since humans can eat naturally and healthily here on earth.

Target food exists due to three basic reasons.

This should be good.

The first is that we are able to confidently announce what each species eats.

That doesn't prove target food exists. Sorry. The fact that we study animals and observe their diets, proves that we study and observe their diets. Not that target food is real as it applies to almost none of them.

Second we don't see scattered eating amongst species, they all eat the same thing.

Blatant lie. Most diets in the wild change monthly.

Third that diet is always a very nutritious one for that consumer, and has natural processes.

Also can apply to humans. Besides you are wrong. Most animals don't worry about eating nutrients, they eat what they can to survive. Creatures that eat one type of food exclusively are extremely rare. Point #1, still not proven.

2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth

The only thing it can do is prove if you are NOT from here. Obviously if your food is not here and you have ruled out extinctions, something is very wrong.

I asked you to prove it, not repeat your original claim. If you have proof, post it. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth like I asked. Point #2, still not proven.

3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of evolution rather than scientific studies

That proof lies in the understanding of the fact that every species, aside from humans, have either a direction though intelligence, or are intelligently programed by evolution so that they know what they are supposed to eat.

And the proof of that is where? Point #3, still unproven. Anteaters eat ants rather than trees because ants rather than trees, will sustain them, not because they are programmed. Plus they taste and smell good to the ant eaters.

My 3 points that I have asked you to prove, have still not been addressed. You are wrong. There's no way around it. If you have proof, post it. Stop beating around the bush and talking in circles.

So what you are saying is that it would be perfectly natural for you to drink milk from say a cat, a grasshopper, a turtle, a fish, and just about any other species on the planet, all milk was meant for us to drink because it started out natural.

Yes it would be natural, technically, although probably silly. But again, nothing is ever "meant" for anything. You don't understand the basics of survival in nature. It's not about what creatures are "meant" to eat. It's about what they CAN eat. If they survive from a certain food, even if its not the best nutrient-wise, the creature will eventually adapt to it. Milk is natural, regardless of who eats or drinks it. Eating a grasshopper = natural. Eating a turtle or fish (they don't produce milk btw LOL) IS NATURAL. Eating ANYTHING IN NATURE is natural.

I'll add this as point #4 that you can't prove. Prove that any given food was INTENDED for a species to eat. Claiming drinking milk is not natural is the same as claiming eating a banana is not natural. A banana was intended to spread banana tree seeds, not to be food for humans. You could say that for ANYTHING.

Well I wasn't aware that target food attacked evolution, but I'm glad to make progress in any direction. Also it wasn't intentional either, it's just the truth.

Target food isn't attacking evolution. You are. You have been caught lying several times, and even made the thread called "target food proves evolution wrong" with no proof posted. You are clearly attacking evolution, but aren't giving any sources or credible evidence to support your ridiculous claims.

So to review here are the 4 points you must prove:

1. Prove that target food exists
2. Prove that target food determines whether or not a creature is from earth
3. Prove that target food determines the accuracy of the theory of evolution rather than the scientific studies
4. Prove that any food was ever consciously intended to be consumed by something else.

Not a single one has been backed by evidence by Tooth, despite multiple requests. We know your personal opinion and your closet creationism. Please post evidence now.

evolution was created by the same thing that created everything else. look at it like a seed when the conditions are right it turns into something else sometime the seeds are bad and they dont change, or can't change resulting in extinction its survival of the fittest the world is always changing and so does all the species who occupie it so evolution is correct in a certian sence but its better off called adaption.

i dont want to believe i evolved from a monkey i want to believe i evolved from a T-rex

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC

*REJECTED*

Proving evolution wrong is not off topic. Besides, the moderators would have removed me if it were true. Your such a fibber Colin. WAAA

Proof needs evidence. You have none evident by the fact you have never produced any.

Is your thread going so badly for you that you intend to take your revenge and plague this thread for your failure to prove evolution with a mythical 'target food'? Go back there and do that.

If you intend to post here then the topic to discuss is diversity without referring to evolution (see the OP) Do that.

Yes i ca.

Evolution is a constant micro change that should be able to be documented piece by piece to be proven. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and therefore 10.

Show me 1-10 in micro evidence of a microbe turning into a human. There isn't any that I've ever been shown. I should see a fish with flippers and half developed lungs and then the same fish with fully deveolped lungs in micro chnages... no hang on, a fish out of water dies... so how did the ones struggling for breath develop the ability to live while they were adapting?

It makes a smuch sense as putting 100 homosexulas on a island and expectign them to breed or adapt to breed. Death results. You cannot change except in micro steps or you die in or out of your environment.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Yes i ca.

Evolution is a constant micro change that should be able to be documented piece by piece to be proven. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and therefore 10.

Show me 1-10 in micro evidence of a microbe turning into a human. There isn't any that I've ever been shown. I should see a fish with flippers and half developed lungs and then the same fish with fully deveolped lungs in micro chnages... no hang on, a fish out of water dies... so how did the ones struggling for breath develop the ability to live while they were adapting?

It makes a smuch sense as putting 100 homosexulas on a island and expectign them to breed or adapt to breed. Death results. You cannot change except in micro steps or you die in or out of your environment.

There are a lot more steps and time involved. Your problem is that you don't comprehend the scale.

Evolution is generally caused by breeding pressures resulting from populations becoming smaller, and genes becoming more pronounced as they are bred in more. It often seems like there are no changes, but it's something where after long enough the changes become large. That's why the nerve ending which controls the throat goes down your neck, around your heart, and then back up the neck. It was a short path when it first developed in fish, but as necks developed, it simply stretched until it was a really silly "design."

The giraffe is probably the most interesting example of that, because their neck is so long that the nerve is extremely long.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Yes i ca.

Evolution is a constant micro change that should be able to be documented piece by piece to be proven. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and therefore 10.

Show me 1-10 in micro evidence of a microbe turning into a human. There isn't any that I've ever been shown. I should see a fish with flippers and half developed lungs and then the same fish with fully deveolped lungs in micro chnages... no hang on, a fish out of water dies... so how did the ones struggling for breath develop the ability to live while they were adapting?

It makes a smuch sense as putting 100 homosexulas on a island and expectign them to breed or adapt to breed. Death results. You cannot change except in micro steps or you die in or out of your environment.

I can show you plenty of species that change sex if either the male or female population is reduced. It is quite common actually.

Sex change in fish found common

Air breathing tropical fish

The Lung fish

Nothing 'changes' into something else; it evolves which is very different. An individual does not evolve in isolation. It passes on any advantage that it may have back into to their group.

So it is not going to sleep a cat and waking up a rat it is more like mixing paint, the more the colour changes as you add more pigment. Evolution describes how that pigment is added, breeding and passing on those genes stirs the paint until the whole pot has changed colour. There is no old pot of paint and a new pot of paint. Eventually you have a pot that is a completely different colour. At the same time we could have been adding sand so it would be a different colour and texture.

With evolution the environment chooses whether something is an advantage that allows the organism live long enough to breed. This is passed back into the group and slowly over time if that advantage remains valid the whole group will have it so your 1 to 10 analogy is not how it works at all.

Small changes, selected for by the environment over time. The reason why we see so much diversity even within a species let alone life on this planet.

The title of this thread was changed by the mods. If you read the op it is clear the topic is for those as yourself that say evolution is wrong to explain the diversity we see around us without referring to evolution.

So forget evolution. Explain the diversity we see today.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

Over the last few days I have been reading this thread

Ant: what the hell are these things anyway

It is a top post in my view and has fast become an ideal resource for information on this tiny and very successful insect whose society mirrors ours in so many ways.

If you have not read this thread yet I highly recommend it.

I skimmed through it, its a lot of material. They are smart as hell for sure, and very innovative.

I am glad you think so.

Definition of Inovation

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a better and, as a result, novel idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself. Innovation differs from improvement in that innovation refers to the notion of doing something different (Lat. innovare: "to change") rather than doing the same thing better.

So according to you ants are not natural

Proves my point that both ants and humans farm both crops and livestock so those actions are both either Natural on not Natural. Which is it?