Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 499
31
<< 496  497  498    500 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Extinctions you cannot show evidence for as usual.

Still it has no meaning as it has been shown ALL life on this planet requires salt in its diet and you have stated salt has nothing to do with target food.

The anteater requires salt in its diet and is therefore on the list as NOT having a target food.
As we are approaching our 6th largest mass extinction, I think it speaks records for what the possibilities are.

Sure all life requires salt, they also require air, and water, and nitrogen, and many other things.
Go tell your granny about your silly stories. I am not interested

You stated that salt has nothing to do with target food. The anteater needs salt to live. You claim he has target food then salt is part of target food. If salt has nothing to do with target food then the anteater is no longer the example you claim it to be.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Your still wrong, they spend most of their time looking for food, not eating food. Extinctions could be the cause of why they need to spend so much time. It's possible that many different ant species have gone extinct that would explain why its not so available to them.


No, I'm not wrong. I quoted a direct source about ant eaters.


I still haven't read anything that claims the anteater spends most of his day eating. All I read is that he eats twice a day.

Your exact quote. I proved you wrong, 100%. Now that you have been proven wrong that the anteater does not have a target food, you again make the extinction excuse which you cannot prove. No creatures in the history of earth have "target food", despite you constantly changing the definition. It's all just one big illogical guess. Nothing more.

Still waiting for facts on your end. No creature spends its entire day actually eating, but he sure dedicates a lot of time to it. Humans dedicate 8 hours and they only eat for an hour or so.
edit on 8-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Go tell your granny about your silly stories. I am not interested

You stated that salt has nothing to do with target food. The anteater needs salt to live. You claim he has target food then salt is part of target food. If salt has nothing to do with target food then the anteater is no longer the example you claim it to be.
Salt has nothing to do with target food.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





No, I'm not wrong. I quoted a direct source about ant eaters.
You claimed that spends all day eating, which is false, the article clearly explains he spends all day looking for food, there is a big difference.




Your exact quote. I proved you wrong, 100%. Now that you have been proven wrong that the anteater does not have a target food, you again make the extinction excuse which you cannot prove. No creatures in the history of earth have "target food", despite you constantly changing the definition. It's all just one big illogical guess. Nothing more.

Still waiting for facts on your end. No creature spends its entire day actually eating, but he sure dedicates a lot of time to it. Humans dedicate 8 hours and they only eat for an hour or so.
The only thing you have proven is that you don't understand how to read. Just because its taking him time to find food doesn't mean that its not his target food. It could however mean that his target food isn't as thick as its suppose to be.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Go tell your granny about your silly stories. I am not interested

You stated that salt has nothing to do with target food. The anteater needs salt to live. You claim he has target food then salt is part of target food. If salt has nothing to do with target food then the anteater is no longer the example you claim it to be.
Salt has nothing to do with target food.

Then target food has nothing to do with reality. End of



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
You claimed that spends all day eating, which is false, the article clearly explains he spends all day looking for food, there is a big difference.

I didn't claim that. I said he spends all day getting his food. No animal spends their entire day eating. He spends the whole day looking and he eats whenever he finds it. One of your beefs with humans was that they go through all these redundant processes to eat. The truth is the ant eater spends way more time hunting and obtaining food than a lot of other creatures. No target food for anteater. Find me a creature that spends its entire day eating and show me how that proves target food (not that I'm actually expecting you to actually back anything up because you usually just ignore what you don't like and pretend it never happened).




The only thing you have proven is that you don't understand how to read. Just because its taking him time to find food doesn't mean that its not his target food. It could however mean that his target food isn't as thick as its suppose to be.


The ant eater spends his entire day looking for food because he needs to eat around 30,000 insects to survive. He has to gorge himself just to get the RDA. This proves you are wrong about your concept of target food. It really is that simple because of your milk example. Stop ignoring that and pretending like I never said it.
edit on 9-9-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Page 500 coming up.

Progress made -----ZERO



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by idmonster
Page 500 coming up.

Progress made -----ZERO


We now know that the anteater isn't from here........



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Then target food has nothing to do with reality. End of
While sat is an important part of any diet, there is nothing specifically about it that has ties to the way that target food works.

It's no more important than say air, water, calcium or anything else is.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





I didn't claim that. I said he spends all day getting his food. No animal spends their entire day eating. He spends the whole day looking and he eats whenever he finds it. One of your beefs with humans was that they go through all these redundant processes to eat. The truth is the ant eater spends way more time hunting and obtaining food than a lot of other creatures. No target food for anteater. Find me a creature that spends its entire day eating and show me how that proves target food (not that I'm actually expecting you to actually back anything up because you usually just ignore what you don't like and pretend it never happened)
You clearly missunderstood, the fact that we spend x amount of time for food now, simply means we would be spending less time if we had our target food. Thats all. The time itself wasn't a guage to help you determine if an animal is eating its target food, although it is highly suspicious.

If he spends all day hunting for ants, that could be different if he were to end up in the middle a larget ant site, and just sit there for two hours eating.




The ant eater spends his entire day looking for food because he needs to eat around 30,000 insects to survive. He has to gorge himself just to get the RDA. This proves you are wrong about your concept of target food. It really is that simple because of your milk example. Stop ignoring that and pretending like I never said it
It still appears he is eating his target food. There is no question that he was designed to hear them, smell them, digg them out, and grab them with his tounge. The quanity avaialable could be the problem. It is possible that while ants and termites are his target food, that they are not in abundance like they could be, causing him the need to search longer for them.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Connector
 





We now know that the anteater isn't from here........
That would be a premature observation. I'm sure he is in his element, if thats what you mean, we know hes not from here.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Then target food has nothing to do with reality. End of
While sat is an important part of any diet, there is nothing specifically about it that has ties to the way that target food works.

It's no more important than say air, water, calcium or anything else is.
Are you getting your threads mixed up?

You have taken to a new mantra on your thread deciding what is not on topic. This thread is about explaining the diversity we see around us today without referring to evolution.

Post on topic or stop posting here. Your licence to wander has been revoked.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you getting your threads mixed up?

You have taken to a new mantra on your thread deciding what is not on topic. This thread is about explaining the diversity we see around us today without referring to evolution.

Post on topic or stop posting here. Your licence to wander has been revoked.
Not at all, your the one bringing up salt on a forum called target food proves evolution wrong, and your not supplying any proof that salt is a part of target food.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Are you claiming that a “target food” (your word and invention) is not necessary for a particular specie’s survival? Or are you saying that it is and that particular species do not stray from their “target food”? Your position is “A” and not “A” and therefore self-contradictory and therefore absurd!



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Are you getting your threads mixed up?

You have taken to a new mantra on your thread deciding what is not on topic. This thread is about explaining the diversity we see around us today without referring to evolution.

Post on topic or stop posting here. Your licence to wander has been revoked.
Not at all, your the one bringing up salt on a forum called target food proves evolution wrong, and your not supplying any proof that salt is a part of target food.
Salt is an essential part of a diet. The topic being target food that is a valid topic. Target food on a thread that is about explaining diversity without referring to evolution is not.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by wittgenstein
 





Are you claiming that a “target food” (your word and invention) is not necessary for a particular specie’s survival? Or are you saying that it is and that particular species do not stray from their “target food”? Your position is “A” and not “A” and therefore self-contradictory and therefore absurd!
They try not to stray. It is programmed within them to try to stay on target food.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Salt is an essential part of a diet. The topic being target food that is a valid topic. Target food on a thread that is about explaining diversity without referring to evolution is not.
It has no significiance.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42
 





Salt is an essential part of a diet. The topic being target food that is a valid topic. Target food on a thread that is about explaining diversity without referring to evolution is not.
It has no significiance.
For once you are correct. On this thread it has no significance because this is about explaining diversity without referring to evolution.

I suggest if you want to discuss target food you start a thread on that topic



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Salt is an essential part of a diet. The topic being target food that is a valid topic. Target food on a thread that is about explaining diversity without referring to evolution is not.
Its not hard for two illiterate people to get a thread closed. All you did was keep asking me to prove target food after it had clearly been proven in the OP and the thread.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Stop. Now.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 496  497  498    500 >>

log in

join