Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

As do a lot of other species.

We have been there a done it. You was thrashed, your story destroyed so you changed the subject.

I am willing to see you list even a sample of other animals that farm. That grow crops. That herd and milk live stock. That build cities, go to war, take slaves.

You failed last time and I dont see you being anymore succesful now as you demonstrate a total inability to learn anything.

Well he is in his element for sure, but thats not to say that his element couldn't have been moved here as well.

And so your argument fails as usual.

Well sure it would, because they still have target food and we don't.

Tut tut. You claim that Man having no target food means he is not from here. Now you say that the anteater who you claim has target food also may not be from here.

Now tell me what your nonsense based term 'target food' proves.

There are two possibiliteis for this.

One is that the anteater can't endure the climate differences that this planet offers, so stays in a local area.

The other is that being eaten by an ant eater is obviously not the only role for the ant.

It's just ANOTHER clue that they may not be from here.

What utter tripe.

There are many areas that share the same weather patterns as the America's where the anteater is found. Why is he not found in these areas?

And again if the ant/anteater may not be from here what relevance does your stupidity based term have?

Of course there is another option to explain both the points above and does not need a fantasy to explain it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Humans don't instinctivly drink milk from a cow, it has to be processed several times, and there is nothing natural about it.

Picture of an African man committing suicide by drinking unprocessed milk
www.africaimagelibrary.com...

reply to post by colin42

As do a lot of other species.

We have been there a done it. You was thrashed, your story destroyed so you changed the subject.

What are you talking about, just off the top of my head I know some spiders keep zombie pets as a heat source and food for the end.

I am willing to see you list even a sample of other animals that farm. That grow crops. That herd and milk live stock. That build cities, go to war, take slaves.

I fail to see what this has to do with proving humans are or aren't from earth.

You failed last time and I dont see you being anymore succesful now as you demonstrate a total inability to learn anything.

The only thing I have learned is that you constantly bring unrelated material to the table. Aside from that you still haven't issued any target food, and I'm guessing that you never will. Your admitting to target food being a reality as proven by aphids and ants, but not willing to accept the fact that humans should be privy to the same rules.

Well he is in his element for sure, but thats not to say that his element couldn't have been moved here as well.

And so your argument fails as usual.

Nope my argument succeeded, as you failed to prove why.

Well sure it would, because they still have target food and we don't.

Tut tut. You claim that Man having no target food means he is not from here. Now you say that the anteater who you claim has target food also may not be from here.

Now tell me what your nonsense based term 'target food' proves.

Well it proves if or not you have intended food silly.
Having target food may not prove that your not from here, but ruling out extinctions will prove your not in the right place.

What utter tripe.

No both utter and tripe come from the cow, not the ant.

There are many areas that share the same weather patterns as the America's where the anteater is found. Why is he not found in these areas?

This question is not related to anything with target food so I'm not sure what you were hoping to find.

And again if the ant/anteater may not be from here what relevance does your stupidity based term have?

It's simple. If you don't have target food here, and you have ruled out extinctions, your not from here. However having target food here doesn't mean you are from here, as your food could have been brought here as well.

Of course there is another option to explain both the points above and does not need a fantasy to explain it.

There is not another option that explains these points as evolution has never been proven or witnessed, its just a fantasy, besides, we have documentation that tell us I have this right.

reply to post by mastermindkar

Picture of an African man committing suicide by drinking unprocessed milk

So since your so smart, how do you not know we were suppose to be drinking out of the other nozzel?

If it was intended for humans to consume animal milk the teats would be on the top of the animal, plain and simple.

reply to post by itsthetooth


The short answer is that the stuff that comes out of one nozzle is nutritious, the stuff that comes out of the other one isn't. The same way the bark of a tree is not nutritious, but the round red things hanging from the branches are.

By the logic, if ants were the intended food of anteaters, they would make larger holes in their nests so the anteaters didn't have to bother digging in to them. Then you'd point out that they don't need to, because anteaters were made with strong claws especially for digging into ant nests. Then I'd say that humans were made with knees that bend so they can easily reach things lower down than they are. Then you'd spout some bologna about how our target food shouldn't require that much effort to get to, or that milk can't be a target food because you say so. You'll never accept that a theory developed without any actual objective evidence will never be able to prove anything. I doubt you'll ever figure how to properly use the word "proof."


By the way, although I have read the bible, I must have missed the part which covered alien abduction prevention. I am genuinely curious as to why speaking the name of Jesus Christ would stop an alien abduction.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just for fun:

It's clear to me that evolution is real at least on the specieation level regarding some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses, - Itsthetooth, pg. 10 of this thread

There is not another option that explains these points as evolution has never been proven or witnessed, its just a fantasy, - Itsthetooth, pg. 19 of this thread

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Humans don't instinctivly drink milk from a cow, it has to be processed several times, and there is nothing natural about it.

Humans DO instinctively drink milk from a human. The idea of drinking milk is 100% natural and its the first thing a newborn baby eats. It just happens that cows are large and produce way more milk, so it is efficient to harvest it from them. Again you confuse capitalism with natural behavior. Milk is pasteurized to increase shelf life, and profit, not to make it healthier. In fact, pasteurized milk is actually not as healthy as natural milk because many of the helpful nutrients are boiled away. If you've never tried unpasteurized milk, you should. It tastes.. well.. like milk, not watered down synthesized shlep.

Basically your incorrect. We need more calcium as we get older.

www.niams.nih.gov...

Only with spikes in the teens.

Do you even read what you post? I specifically said the biggest time in life for needing calcium is when you are growing. Your chart agrees with that. How can you possibly say I'm incorrect when your facts agree with me. You only need 1000 mg of calcium for most of your life (age 19-70). After 70 you increase it slightly because your bones are OLD. You take the most during teen years because your bones are growing.

I would also like to know what foods exactly your claiming will afford you good calcium on this nutty salad.

Spinach, carrots, almonds, walnuts, broccoli, beans arugula. Oh btw, news flash. Milk is natural!

reply to post by itsthetooth

What are you talking about, just off the top of my head I know some spiders keep zombie pets as a heat source and food for the end.

I did not ask for you to tell me what you carry around on the top of your head. You replied to 'I showed you The Ant who farms both crops and live stock to get his food. Expanded it to show he builds cities with air conditioning, refuse control, nurseries for their young. Their society mirrors ours in many ways.

As do a lot of other species.

Supply that list.

fail to see what this has to do with proving humans are or aren't from earth.

It does not. It asks the question if ant and anteaters now may also not be from earth then what the hell does target food show us?

The only thing I have learned is that you constantly bring unrelated material to the table. Aside from that you still haven't issued any target food, and I'm guessing that you never will.

Nope I have addressed the points you made but you never can answer mine just as you are not doing here.

You are correct that I will never show you an example of target foods just as I will never show you an example of a man actually living inside a whale. Neither exists

Your admitting to target food being a reality as proven by aphids and ants,

Again you have failed to demonstrate any improvement in your reading and comprehension skills. How can aphids be a target food when it is the honeydew the ant is after using the aphid. That means the ant has to go through many processes to get the honeydew. Explain.

but not willing to accept the fact that humans should be privy to the same rules.

Ants milk aphids, man milks cows. It is you that denies the same rules apply.

Nope my argument succeeded, as you failed to prove why.

Your idiotic claim, you provide the proof not me. Where is your proof?

Well sure it would, because they still have target food and we don't.

Tut tut. You claim that Man having no target food means he is not from here. Now you say that the anteater who you claim has target food also may not be from here.

Now tell me what your nonsense based term 'target food' proves.

your latest reply is

Well it proves if or not you have intended food silly.

Exactly. Your intended food claim is very silly.

Having target food may not prove that your not from here, but ruling out extinctions will prove your not in the right place.

Given your latest statement that ants and anteaters may not be from here what does target food tell us?

This thread is about target food proving evolution wrong. Address that.

This question is not related to anything with target food so I'm not sure what you were hoping to find

It is very simple and even at your low level.

You claim ants are the anteaters 'target food'. Ants are found all over the world. Why are anteaters not found in all the places that contain it's target food?

It's simple. If you don't have target food here, and you have ruled out extinctions, your not from here. However having target food here doesn't mean you are from here, as your food could have been brought here as well.

how pathetic is that answer

So we have established that 'target food' does not show if you are a native of this planet or not. So what is it again that target food proves?

There is not another option that explains these points as evolution has never been proven or witnessed, its just a fantasy, besides, we have documentation that tell us I have this right.

The other option was that you are just plain wrong. Now you come to mention it both me and you know evolution explains it perfectly.

reply to post by colin42
Let’s have a bit of fun and pose a scenario.

Scenario 1

You are in a group whose target food is wing nuts. So let’s call you a wing nutter.
Let’s say a terrible storm killed all the wing nut trees and wing nuts disappear.
If you as a wing nutter were to plant the last ever remaining wing nut and now farm it. Tending , watering, weeding it and harvesting the wing nut as it can now grow no other way.

Question:

Does the cultivated wing nut stop being ‘target food’?

Scenario 2

You are a male goat on the Isle of Silly. You are a Silly Billy. The target food of Silly Billy’s is an animal called Silly Nit’s. An indigenous insect, part of the nit family.

Silly Nits being a ‘target food’ for Silly Billy’s must in fact have a target food of their own. Unfortunately the target food of the Silly Nit becomes extinct. Good news is the Silly nit finds another source of food but not being target food it does not contain the things a Silly Nit needs to be healthy

Question

As a Silly Billy your target food the Silly Nit now does not contain the full list of nutrients. Is the Silly Nit still a ‘target food’ for Silly Billy’s?

reply to post by mastermindkar

The short answer is that the stuff that comes out of one nozzle is nutritious, the stuff that comes out of the other one isn't. The same way the bark of a tree is not nutritious, but the round red things hanging from the branches are.

Or it could be that one simply smells or tastes better than the other, thus telling the species what not to eat. Of course that idea that there was some type of intelligence behind this to begin with is utter nonsense isn't it, therefore you have to chalk it up to pure instinct, which again would require some intelligence.

By the logic, if ants were the intended food of anteaters, they would make larger holes in their nests so the anteaters didn't have to bother digging in to them. Then you'd point out that they don't need to, because anteaters were made with strong claws especially for digging into ant nests. Then I'd say that humans were made with knees that bend so they can easily reach things lower down than they are. Then you'd spout some bologna about how our target food shouldn't require that much effort to get to, or that milk can't be a target food because you say so. You'll never accept that a theory developed without any actual objective evidence will never be able to prove anything. I doubt you'll ever figure how to properly use the word "proof."

Redundancy could be proof of adaptation, and adaptation could be proof that something is not natural.

By the way, although I have read the bible, I must have missed the part which covered alien abduction prevention. I am genuinely curious as to why speaking the name of Jesus Christ would stop an alien abduction.

Thats right, prevention is NOT in the bible, as its not a religious deal to begin with.

I don't know if you watched a few things about it, but basically what happened is durring the point of the attempted abduction, there was a mind link between the victim and the alien. So what ever he was feeling or thinking, the alien was aware of it. The many truly believed that Jesus would save him, of course you know thats just not going to happen.

He would have had thoughs and visions of jesus saving him from this cruel event, and in the process the alien didn't like what he was seeing and fled the scene. I'm sure they completly believe that Jesus saved them but thats not what happened.

reply to post by mastermindkar

Just for fun:



It's clear to me that evolution is real at least on the specieation level regarding some aquatic life, bacteria and viruses, - Itsthetooth, pg. 10 of this thread




There is not another option that explains these points as evolution has never been proven or witnessed, its just a fantasy, - Itsthetooth, pg. 19 of this thread

I have no idea why your sharing this.

reply to post by Barcs

Humans DO instinctively drink milk from a human. The idea of drinking milk is 100% natural and its the first thing a newborn baby eats.

Sure, human milk, not cows milk. Cows milk is for cows.

It just happens that cows are large and produce way more milk, so it is efficient to harvest it from them.

I like how you worded this here because you totally skipped over the real problem as if you never knew it existed. It just happens that cows are large and produce way more milk, I'm assuming your comparing to humans anyhow. So the complaint here is that humans don't produce enough milk to fill our needs. Did you ever wonder why that might be? It's because there is something lacking in our diets that would allow us to produce what we need.

Again you confuse capitalism with natural behavior. Milk is pasteurized to increase shelf life, and profit, not to make it healthier. In fact, pasteurized milk is actually not as healthy as natural milk because many of the helpful nutrients are boiled away. If you've never tried unpasteurized milk, you should. It tastes.. well.. like milk, not watered down synthesized shlep.

The adaptation of comercialized milk is not proof that we are supposed to be drinking it, just that we either choose to or can't find another reasonable suppliment.

Do you even read what you post? I specifically said the biggest time in life for needing calcium is when you are growing. Your chart agrees with that. How can you possibly say I'm incorrect when your facts agree with me. You only need 1000 mg of calcium for most of your life (age 19-70). After 70 you increase it slightly because your bones are OLD. You take the most during teen years because your bones are growing.

It's typically thought by most, as I assumed you were thinking that babies need more milk, but thats false.

Spinach, carrots, almonds, walnuts, broccoli, beans arugula. Oh btw, news flash. Milk is natural!

First of all have you looked at a chart to see how much those offer, because when I last posted a chart, it said that these things could not offer the RDA unless you gorged yourself on them.

News flash back at ya, Cows milk is NOT natural for human consumption, like I said earlier, if it were there would be teats on the top of the cow.

Second news flash. The redundant processes that the milk goes through also don't allow it to be natural.

nat·u·ral/ˈnaCHərəl/Adjective: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.


Noun: A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.


Adverb: Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

www.google.com...=en&q=natural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=B9wrUMW2NrDXiALU5ICIAg&ved=0CE4QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362cbb1 a&biw=1115&bih=541

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I like how you worded this here because you totally skipped over the real problem as if you never knew it existed. It just happens that cows are large and produce way more milk, I'm assuming your comparing to humans anyhow. So the complaint here is that humans don't produce enough milk to fill our needs. Did you ever wonder why that might be? It's because there is something lacking in our diets that would allow us to produce what we need.

Actually, cows produce a little more milk, but they do so because calves require a little more milk. Humans produce as much milk as we need to nourish our children, just like every other Earth mammal.

The reason cows seem to produce so much is that we induce it, either through hormone injections or through keeping the cows perpetually pregnant.

Your points are really, really stupid.

reply to post by colin42

What are you talking about, just off the top of my head I know some spiders keep zombie pets as a heat source and food for the end.

I did not ask for you to tell me what you carry around on the top of your head. You replied to 'I showed you The Ant who farms both crops and live stock to get his food. Expanded it to show he builds cities with air conditioning, refuse control, nurseries for their young. Their society mirrors ours in many ways.

So what exactly is your claim here, that ants are so much like humans that we must be related? LOL Colin there are a lot of different things that we share with so many species, its not proof of relation.

As do a lot of other species.

Supply that list

Hamsters, rats, mice, dogs, cats, all have areas that they prefer as living quarters and all have designated areas to use the bathroom.

fail to see what this has to do with proving humans are or aren't from earth.

It does not. It asks the question if ant and anteaters now may also not be from earth then what the hell does target food show us?

The only thing that target food is going to show you, is that you are not from here if its missing and you have first ruled out extinctions.

The only thing I have learned is that you constantly bring unrelated material to the table. Aside from that you still haven't issued any target food, and I'm guessing that you never will.

Nope I have addressed the points you made but you never can answer mine just as you are not doing here.

You are correct that I will never show you an example of target foods just as I will never show you an example of a man actually living inside a whale. Neither exists

And by doing so your admitting that humans are missing their target food, so I was right.

Your admitting to target food being a reality as proven by aphids and ants,

Again you have failed to demonstrate any improvement in your reading and comprehension skills. How can aphids be a target food when it is the honeydew the ant is after using the aphid. That means the ant has to go through many processes to get the honeydew. Explain.

Well what this all comes down to, is if or not your going to be able to prove that those process were new or brought on through adaptation. In other words not natural. Maybe I missed something I thought the ants were extracting the honeydew from the aphids.

but not willing to accept the fact that humans should be privy to the same rules.

Ants milk aphids, man milks cows. It is you that denies the same rules apply.

Ah yes, well its a lot easier to identify redundant processes with humans then it is with other life. Your going to have look deeply at the steps and determine if they are natural or not.

Given your latest statement that ants and anteaters may not be from here what does target food tell us?

All that tells you is that he has his food, like I have explained, due to the fact that many things were brought here, you have to weigh in that fact. The only thing your going to be able to identify with is when a target food is missing, but even then you have to first rule out extinctions.

This question is not related to anything with target food so I'm not sure what you were hoping to find

It is very simple and even at your low level.

You claim ants are the anteaters 'target food'. Ants are found all over the world. Why are anteaters not found in all the places that contain it's target food?

Well there could be two different reasons for this, either the anteater can't live in all those climates or being food for the anteater is not the ants only role in life.

It's simple. If you don't have target food here, and you have ruled out extinctions, your not from here. However having target food here doesn't mean you are from here, as your food could have been brought here as well.

how pathetic is that answer

So we have established that 'target food' does not show if you are a native of this planet or not. So what is it again that target food proves?

It can only prove that your not, unless you have figured out a way to prove the species is indiginious.

There is not another option that explains these points as evolution has never been proven or witnessed, its just a fantasy, besides, we have documentation that tell us I have this right.

The other option was that you are just plain wrong. Now you come to mention it both me and you know evolution explains it perfectly.

Evolution will remain an unproven threory probably for millions of years, until people start wondering why there hasn't been any way to identify it in such a long time.

reply to post by colin42

You are in a group whose target food is wing nuts. So let’s call you a wing nutter.
Let’s say a terrible storm killed all the wing nut trees and wing nuts disappear.
If you as a wing nutter were to plant the last ever remaining wing nut and now farm it. Tending , watering, weeding it and harvesting the wing nut as it can now grow no other way.

Question:

Does the cultivated wing nut stop being ‘target food’?

That all depends, on if or not natural measures were taken in the set up and propagation.

The definition of natural would normally not allow it but I believe if the right steps were taken, you could still end up with a natural product. For example are you replanting it in a different enviroment, or is it the same. Is the dirt the same, how about the nutrients that feed the plant.

Scenario 2

You are a male goat on the Isle of Silly. You are a Silly Billy. The target food of Silly Billy’s is an animal called Silly Nit’s. An indigenous insect, part of the nit family.

Silly Nits being a ‘target food’ for Silly Billy’s must in fact have a target food of their own. Unfortunately the target food of the Silly Nit becomes extinct. Good news is the Silly nit finds another source of food but not being target food it does not contain the things a Silly Nit needs to be healthy

Question

As a Silly Billy your target food the Silly Nit now does not contain the full list of nutrients. Is the Silly Nit still a ‘target food’ for Silly Billy’s?

That depends, on if or not that loss of nutrients effects the goat.

I think I'm gonna create a threat called "Pixie dust proves creationism/intervention wrong"

Because if from now on you can debunk stuff by making up random words and assigning random definitions...then well, EVERYTHING can be "disproven"

reply to post by MrXYZ


Every word that you have ever used, at some point was made up by someone for communication. That doesn't mean they are all false.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Every word that you have ever used, at some point was made up by someone for communication. That doesn't mean they are all false.

You can't just make up random words and definitions. And you can't just make random claims that this MADE-UP word is now suddenly somehow a prerequisite for a proven scientific theory

reply to post by itsthetooth

So what exactly is your claim here, that ants are so much like humans that we must be related? LOL Colin there are a lot of different things that we share with so many species, its not proof of relation.

LOL only an idiot could deduct from what I wrote that I am claiming we are related to ants. Now let’s see how you answered my point. Ooops oh dear.

Now supply the list of those other animals that both farm crops and livestock. You are doing exactly as before and avoiding putting evidence for your wild and frankly infantile claims.

Hamsters, rats, mice, dogs, cats, all have areas that they prefer as living quarters and all have designated areas to use the bathroom.

none of the above both farm crops and livestock let alone go to war, take slaves or build cities. Try again.

The only thing that target food is going to show you, is that you are not from here if its missing and you have first ruled out extinctions.

How does it show you are not from here if you have no target food when even if you do have target food you may also not be from here. Or you may be from here but your target food is extinct. Do you not see what garbled, groundless nonsense you are spouting?

And by doing so your admitting that humans are missing their target food, so I was right.

Nope. If you were able to read I wrote there is no such thing as target food. Quite a difference. So not only are you wrong you show you cannot read. Ever tried school?

Well what this all comes down to, is if or not your going to be able to prove that those process were new or brought on through adaptation. In other words not natural. Maybe I missed something I thought the ants were extracting the honeydew from the aphids.

You spout even more garbled nonsense. Ants extract honeydew from aphids. Humans extract milk from cows. We both go through processes to do so. Explain.

Ah yes, well its a lot easier to identify redundant processes with humans then it is with other life. Your going to have look deeply at the steps and determine if they are natural or not.

Nope. Your claim you supply the evidence that ants milking aphids and humans milking cows is somehow different. You still don’t know how to use the word redundant. Try exercising that lonely brain cell of yours.

All that tells you is that he has his food, like I have explained,

So if the above is all target food tells you. How does target food show evolution wrong? The title of your thread.

Well there could be two different reasons for this, either the anteater can't live in all those climates or being food for the anteater is not the ants only role in life.

So you cannot answer the question I posed. There could be another reason why we don’t see the anteater everywhere ants live.

It can only prove that your not, unless you have figured out a way to prove the species is indigenous.

By your own words target food cannot prove whether or not an animal is from here so the same is true if you do not have one. Your denial of logic is pathetic.

Evolution will remain an unproven threory probably for millions of years, until people start wondering why there hasn't been any way to identify it in such a long time.

That coming from a fellow that cannot show any proof of so called target food. Who cannot answer the simplest questions in support of it when challenged.

You made the claim in your title for this thread. Now show that target food proves evolution wrong.

reply to post by itsthetooth
My question was 'Does the cultivation of the wing nut stop it being ‘target food’?

That all depends, on if or not natural measures were taken in the set up and propagation.

The wing nut plant cannot live without the intervention of the Wing Nutter. The Wing Nutter now cultivates the wing nut. The question stands and is unanswered, as usual.

Does cultivating the wing nut mean it is no longer 'target food?'

Your non answer to the second scenario is just as lame as the response to the first.

That depends, on if or not that loss of nutrients effects the goat.

The Silly Billy's target foods, target food no longer exists. Your criteria for target food are no other food is as complete or good. So the Silly Nit is not getting the same nourishment yet the Silly Billy is still eating his target food, the Silly Nit.

Is the malnourished Silly Nit still the Silly Billy's target food?