Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by itsthetooth

Oh I see, it doesn't fit into your religion, so no need to read on. I'm glad you can be so narrow minded. It's people like you that make others question the credentials of forums.

Nope. It is as I wrote. You failed to answer the question I asked again. That is what I required from you but you failed after numerous requests from me for an answer. You obviously made up your baseless statement as you do in all things.

Ok lets say I'm wrong, someone on this thread thew some bad advice out at me, and it's not exactly what evolution says.

Nope. We don’t have to say you are wrong, you have been proven wrong. Don’t believe you blaming others misleading you. Show the quote.

Tell us exactly what evoltuion claims a species will eat when it is the first of its kind, and what a species is supposed to eat when its food goes extinct? I'm all ears...

I see your back to spelling evolution wrong again as you always seem to do when losing the argument.

You just don’t get how this goes do you. You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You provide the evidence. You have supplied zilch, nadda, nothing.

I'm all ears...

I could care less if your ears are the size of dumbo. Supply the evidence for YOUR claim.

Well that was another warning flag about target food. When you see a species that eats a large variety of things, it could be a red flag that they are missing some target food.

What .............. What..................

The problem is if it were true we would not see the same things being eaten within a species. Aside you still have no answer about how the human is not fine tuned for anything specifically.

The problem you have is there is a huge variation in diet with a species and a quick search will show that that very fact One example

So you tell me my original reply would be true if diet varied within species. I provide the evidence and you then move the goal posts and your definition of target food changes with it.

As for the rest. How uneducated are you?

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't remember seeing that magical answer anywhere. Let me guess it has something to do with evolution. Evolution determines what we eat rigth? I don't see why not it is also supposedly responsible for creating new species, extinctions, and everything inbetween. LOL

All these pages here, almost 500 in the other thread and you show that level of ignorance. No wonder you make up and believe such tosh as target food. With your level of understanding I would guess you would believe a man can live inside a whale.

There is nothing ignorant about how the anteater functions,

Your reading ability fails again. It is you that bases your opinions on your own ignorance.

It's more than a flagship for target food, he also proves intention behind design, which evolution is unable to account for.

You sank your 'target food flagship' with this comment:

There is also the possibility that a secondary food item that is required by the anteater is not available in those other areas.

As for your other baseless claims I have asked you many times to supply your supporting evidence. You never have as you cannot. Your opinion counts for nothing and that is all you have.

When asked why humans haven't also evolved in the same way, I'm not hearing anything back.

Why would a human evolve to eat ants?

When you comapre humans to anteaters, you get to very different understandings.

That's a shocker

The fact that he has a target food shows he is in his element, that fact that we don't shows that we aren't.

Show the evidence for those two facts

The fact that he displays an obvious purpose in life and we don't is also proof that we are not where we are suppose to be.

His only purpose in life is to survive long enough to breed and pass on his genes exactly the same purpose we have. You fantasise about a higher purpose and make up stories to calm your fears around the one thing we know that he does not. One day we ALL die and you cannot handle that.

Actually after readin up about it, its clear that it only applies to certain ants.

You cannot even tell me what a leaf cutter ant eats. You show no knowledge of the ant at all so why do you expect me to swallow this latest trash.

Nope I never claimed much less eluded to the idea that a target food would stand alone, its just turning out to be a commonly missunderstood problem.

Yep. You have claimed many times target food will contain all the nutrients needed. If there is any misunderstanding it is because you change it to fit your current argument. This is why I constantly asked you for a concise and accurate definition. Something you still have not provided.

You claimed the anteater is an ant eating machine that only eats ants. Suddenly you find a question you cannot answer and boom he eats ants and other supplements to his diet.

I see because a creator couldn't possibly make to close variations of the same species right?

The question was:

Nope. You claim the anteater was created, the fossil record shows you are wrong. You claim the anteater may not be from here. The fossil record shows you are wrong. The onus is on you to show why the fossil record is wrong. To do that you need evidence not your lame opinion.

Answer that.

I guess I'm having a problem understanding what your trying to get to here. It's entirly possible that there is more than one target food, in case you missed that.

So the meaning of target food changes again. So now an organism can have more than one target food You cannot identify one and now you claim it may be many per species

So why could our target food not be all the foods we eat?

Ants farming aphids appeas to be a mutualistic relationship for food. It's obviously a target food.

You ignore the processes the ant must go through to get the honeydew. You previously stated in your OP

If you have to go through a plethora of steps to acquire this food, its not a target food.

The ant goes through a plethora of steps. According to you honeydew is not its target food. Explain the contradiction.

Once again, for the 8th time, because those processes are natural.

Once again you supply a link to a quote that takes you to Google search. Your quote has no meaning because I cannot verify if you have cherry picked from it or even just made it up.

You have used this ploy before. It did not work then and it does not work now. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your dishonesty.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Are you sure you don't have a learning dissability of some sort, I must of shared this link with you over 3 dozen times now.

Your link is to Googles front page. Your ploy never worked before, it has failed again. The only person that shows an inability to learn is you.

Just like the term in the wild. you always ask me what it means and I share the link for the term wild to show exactly how in the wild is used as a noun. You just don't get it. Pathetic.

Here is a point in case. A definition of WILD does not explain your use of IN THE WILD. You need to put it in context but you do not have the intelligence to understand that or the education to do that.

To late man, the abalone is out of the water.

If the abalone is out of the water it is already dead. Answer my question (which you obviously cannot).

Sure, here it is again...

What a broken link to hide your dishonesty. Told you, that ploy does not work with me.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well sure, the anteater and ants are the ideal example.

Nope. Answer my questions just as I answered yours:

Me: 'Milk is not intended food. The cow is a source of nourishment that we make use of. Go to any supermarket for the proof.'

So now I would like you to prove any food is intended food.

Redundancy doesn't have to mean useless, it can also mean excessive..

your definition that is also linked to googles front page does not say that

1. No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

'Again your pi$$ poor use of English is evident. Homogenization, pasteurization and fortifying the milk serve a purpose so it is not redundant. GET AN EDUCATION.'

In this case however it does mean exactly what you think it does but only from the persepctive that it wouldn't be needed if the target food was present.

Absolute rubbish. You claimed that the above were redundant steps. They clearly are not and no matter what nonsense you spin to show otherwise that remains a fact.

So you think that by spending a few days to eventually come up with one that omitts the human factor, that your all straight.

I did a 2 second search whilst writing my reply to you. I supplied the link to the definition so you could verify it not a link to Google to hide what you claim was the definition in full.

So now because that definition I supplied does not support your lie. Because you cannot control what is seen you trump up an excuse to ignore it. You reek of dishonesty and the use of your dishonest approach shows you have no real argument at all.

Google definitions is going to be the most accepted one there is, and BTW, just because you found one that omitts the human intervention , doesn't mean your right. Look at 10 of them and see what they all say.

Oh I see you have re discovered how to provide links. You supplied 5 and I cannot see the one you quoted. Do that.

But any humans actions are not considered natural, as proven in the last 6 links I have shared with you.

Not one definition say's that and the context you use that information in is a vital part but you have no understanding of what context means. GET AN EDUCATION

If they are acts that don't normally occur without mans intervention, then no your wrong.

That's your opinion. Now provide proof.
'If having target food cannot prove you are from here then not having it does not prove anything either unless you can show the evidence why.'
Your reply:

Well colin, maybe this is your calling, you can come up with a way to explain how the involvement of evolution has taken away our food. I'm sure you will come up with something, every other evolutionist has.

Evolutionist is another meaningless term Your thread. Your nonsense claim. Your idiotic calling. You supply your evidence

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?

When did I say that.

Here

A fossil record doesn't prove conclusivly that there was even a relationship. Thats all in your mind and those types of assumptions are subjective.

Now answer my question.

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?

reply to post by itsthetooth
Original comment: How uneducated are you? The written word has not been around that long and even when it was history is recorded by the observer and is usually opinion. So there is no way of knowing if man lost this fabled target food so you are stuffed again. But really, seriously. GET AN EDUCATION.

Your reply:

Your just trying to tell me that after too many years, we would automatically forget what we are suppose to eat.

Do you even live on this world? Your level of ignorance never fails to amaze me.

There are pages even on ATS discussing lost history. Pages discussing lost and forgotten civilisations. I can’t say it enough. GET AN EDUCATION

Here is where the problem is colin. You need to first identify the mechanism that does in fact tell an individual species what its suppose to and not suppose to eat.

Nope. That is your problem, not mine. So get off your lazy fat ass and go do some research. Come back when you have some answers.

Only after you identify that mechanism, will you be able to see how a species might be able to forget what its suppose to eat.

Er, that's your job not mine. Your claim so you provide the evidence. See above

That mechanism is target food BTW.

Show your evidence for that claim

Tooth completely avoided the subject when asked to actually explain his theory. I still want to know when humans were brought to earth. There is no logical possibility based on fossil history, in fact there's no evidence whatsoever. He still has not provided any proof, posted his bible quotes that claim we are not from earth, or shown how evolution is false. Anyone else notice that each and every response he gives take you further and further away from the subject being discussed.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Are humans natural inhabitants of your forest?

And your forest doesn't have grasses? That is what grains are....grasses.

Sure but I'm not seeing any natural cereal around here.

Raw oats are not processed. That is what cereal is: raw grains. You can process it if you want....but the nutrition stays the same.

What do you mean, like oatmeal?

Sure i did. You just choose to ignore that grains are the superior source of calcium, which is where cows get the calcium for their HUGE bones plus all that milk that people drink.

I doubt very seriously if grains pack a punch of calcium. Show me proof please.

I have shown you enough.

Enjoy your arguing. You can see that just about everyone thinks your way off base. But "everyone" has been wrong before.

This isn't one of those times....but whatever.

tooth can only read what agrees with his fantasy. Makes up words, misuses English and peddles dishonesty as his main defence.

The guy is a cracked pot but I agree with you. Time for this nonsense thread to die.

Originally posted by Barcs
Tooth completely avoided the subject when asked to actually explain his theory. I still want to know when humans were brought to earth. There is no logical possibility based on fossil history, in fact there's no evidence whatsoever. He still has not provided any proof, posted his bible quotes that claim we are not from earth, or shown how evolution is false. Anyone else notice that each and every response he gives take you further and further away from the subject being discussed.

You and me both know his brain-dead ploy's. The Texan has hit the pain barrier and has made the mistake he is debating with a person that has a brain and an honest approach. tooth is not that person.

He demands answers to his questions but never answers anyone else’s with anything more than his ignorant opinion and assumptions whilst claiming he will not accept opinion and assumptions.

I pulled his strings and suggested he make this thread. He fell for it so the onus is now firmly on him to provide the evidence of his claim.

Any further posts should ignore his questions and demand he either provides evidence or admits he has none. We all know he does not have one jot to support his claim. 'Target food proves evolution wrong'

I am now waiting to see him start a thread as he threatened. 'Baking bread is not natural' That would be fun, his only value is that of a court jester

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I have shown you enough. Enjoy your arguing. You can see that just about everyone thinks your way off base. But "everyone" has been wrong before.

This isn't one of those times....but whatever

Well thats the problem, its not my input thats in question, its the backed up proof from dozens of other websites.

Are you saying they are all wrong?

reply to post by colin42

Oh I see, it doesn't fit into your religion, so no need to read on. I'm glad you can be so narrow minded. It's people like you that make others question the credentials of forums.

Nope. It is as I wrote. You failed to answer the question I asked again. That is what I required from you but you failed after numerous requests from me for an answer. You obviously made up your baseless statement as you do in all things

Then quit sulking and reask the question

Ok lets say I'm wrong, someone on this thread thew some bad advice out at me, and it's not exactly what evolution says.

Nope. We don’t have to say you are wrong, you have been proven wrong. Don’t believe you blaming others misleading you. Show the quote.

I don't accept others opinions as proof that I'm wrong, now if you could find a website with something, thats going to get my interest, but I'm not seeing you with to many links.

Tell us exactly what evoltuion claims a species will eat when it is the first of its kind, and what a species is supposed to eat when its food goes extinct? I'm all ears...

I see your back to spelling evolution wrong again as you always seem to do when losing the argument.

You just don’t get how this goes do you. You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You provide the evidence. You have supplied zilch, nadda, nothing.

I figured its as obvious as the nose on your face, if we arent from here, there is obviously no way we could have evolved here.

Well that was another warning flag about target food. When you see a species that eats a large variety of things, it could be a red flag that they are missing some target food.

What .............. What..................

Just what I said, and I actually stated this a long time ago, did you miss class that day?

So you tell me my original reply would be true if diet varied within species. I provide the evidence and you then move the goal posts and your definition of target food changes with it.

As for the rest. How uneducated are you?

Depends on what you mean by varied within a species. What you mean by that is that a species can eat different things in a diet. What I mean by it is that a diet would be so varied that each individual would not be conforming to a diet. In other words no one would be able to answer the question of what that species eats. A good example of that is humans, because we eat everything but the choices are going to vary from one individual to another.

I don't remember seeing that magical answer anywhere. Let me guess it has something to do with evolution. Evolution determines what we eat rigth? I don't see why not it is also supposedly responsible for creating new species, extinctions, and everything inbetween. LOL

All these pages here, almost 500 in the other thread and you show that level of ignorance. No wonder you make up and believe such tosh as target food. With your level of understanding I would guess you would believe a man can live inside a whale.

As I explained before and many times yet, your scientific understanding of things will not work with the supernatural.

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.


Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.


Synonyms: preternatural - unearthly - weird - miraculous

www.google.com...=en&q=supernatural&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=SRwxUJ-fH-GViALgnYC4Aw&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp =dc835c07362cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Now I have explained this before but you continue to want to make a fool of yourself. Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. You seriously need to get an education.

His only purpose in life is to survive long enough to breed and pass on his genes exactly the same purpose we have. You fantasise about a higher purpose and make up stories to calm your fears around the one thing we know that he does not. One day we ALL die and you cannot handle that.

LOL you don't know if there is a higher purpose or not, prove that there is not. Evolution doesn't explain everything.

You cannot even tell me what a leaf cutter ant eats. You show no knowledge of the ant at all so why do you expect me to swallow this latest trash.

And I don't need to, this isn't the discovery channel. I have allready given three very good examples of species that have target food. You still choose to ignore abalone and kelp. Whats the matter, cat got your tounge.

reply to post by colin42

Yep. You have claimed many times target food will contain all the nutrients needed.

I never claimed that, that would be insane to even think of such a claim. The possibilities are right up there with the idea of evolution. What I claimed is that a target food would be very high in nutrition for that specific species.

You claimed the anteater is an ant eating machine that only eats ants.

I never said he only eats ants. Are you sure your not confusing me with someone else you have been debating with?

Nope. You claim the anteater was created, the fossil record shows you are wrong.

Fossil records can't prove or disprove creation or evolution, sorry.

You claim the anteater may not be from here. The fossil record shows you are wrong. The onus is on you to show why the fossil record is wrong. To do that you need evidence not your lame opinion.

Unless your claiming that there are fossils that prove to be 4.3 billion years old, you are wrong.

So the meaning of target food changes again. So now an organism can have more than one target food You cannot identify one and now you claim it may be many per species

So why could our target food not be all the foods we eat?

It could be, as in the case of the abalone, but I never said it had to be, that would be an evolution find, very narrow, unthought of, and unproven.

The ant goes through a plethora of steps. According to you honeydew is not its target food. Explain the contradiction.

Well the ant has a mutualistic relationship with the aphid, so it depends on what you were thinking of. HIs target food is obviously the honeydew but his relationship is with the aphid.

Once again you supply a link to a quote that takes you to Google search. Your quote has no meaning because I cannot verify if you have cherry picked from it or even just made it up.

You have used this ploy before. It did not work then and it does not work now. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your dishonesty.

No I allso supplied 6 other sites for definition that also concur that the term natural will not involve anything that is caused or made by human kind.

So I'm sorry but your obviously very wrong.

reply to post by colin42

Here is a point in case. A definition of WILD does not explain your use of IN THE WILD. You need to put it in context but you do not have the intelligence to understand that or the education to do that.

I did better than that, I gave you an example of it being used in a definition.

Nope. Answer my questions just as I answered yours:

Me: 'Milk is not intended food. The cow is a source of nourishment that we make use of. Go to any supermarket for the proof.'

So now I would like you to prove any food is intended food.

I allready have, the ant to the anteater, the millet to the parakeet, and the kelp to the abalone.

your definition that is also linked to googles front page does not say that

1. No longer needed or useful; superfluous.
2. (of words or data) Able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

www.google.com...=en&biw=1115&bih=541&sclient=psy-ab&q=redundant+definition&oq=redundant+definition&gs_l=hp.3...2844.7469.0.7719.20.7.0.3 .3.0.266.889.0j1j3.4.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.gXOjM78tCQg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362cbb1a

Its under the synonyms.

'Again your pi$$ poor use of English is evident. Homogenization, pasteurization and fortifying the milk serve a purpose so it is not redundant. GET AN EDUCATION.'

They don't serve a purpose if we had our target foods.

Oh I see you have re discovered how to provide links. You supplied 5 and I cannot see the one you quoted. Do that.

www.google.com...=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&cp=18&gs_id=4&xhr=t&q=natural+definition&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=natural+definiti on&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=dc835c07362cbb1a&biw=1115&bih=541

Not one definition say's that and the context you use that information in is a vital part but you have no understanding of what context means. GET AN EDUCATION

They are all in context and some verbatim that it applys to things that are not caused or made by human kind.

That's your opinion. Now provide proof.
'If having target food cannot prove you are from here then not having it does not prove anything either unless you can show the evidence why.'

Thats because your not weighing in the fact that there were things brought to earth.

Its all in the bible.

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?


When did I say that.

Here


A fossil record doesn't prove conclusivly that there was even a relationship. Thats all in your mind and those types of assumptions are subjective.

As you can see, my answer had nothing to do with extinctions, maybe you should read it again.

Now answer my question.

1. How do you rule out extinctions if you cannot depend on the fossil record?

I would think it would be the best way.

Original comment: How uneducated are you? The written word has not been around that long and even when it was history is recorded by the observer and is usually opinion. So there is no way of knowing if man lost this fabled target food so you are stuffed again. But really, seriously. GET AN EDUCATION.

Your reply:


Your just trying to tell me that after too many years, we would automatically forget what we are suppose to eat.

Do you even live on this world? Your level of ignorance never fails to amaze me.

There are pages even on ATS discussing lost history. Pages discussing lost and forgotten civilisations. I can’t say it enough. GET AN EDUCATION

But never anything about lost food right? Your also making another assumption that just because there were lost civilizations there would automatically be lost food to go with them.

Here is where the problem is colin. You need to first identify the mechanism that does in fact tell an individual species what its suppose to and not suppose to eat.

Nope. That is your problem, not mine. So get off your lazy fat ass and go do some research. Come back when you have some answers.

I don't blame you for not wanting to touch that one. Scary it is. Something that evolution is not able to explain, it looks like your religion is finally coming up short for you.

reply to post by colin42

Only after you identify that mechanism, will you be able to see how a species might be able to forget what its suppose to eat.

Er, that's your job not mine. Your claim so you provide the evidence. See above


That mechanism is target food BTW.

Show your evidence for that claim

No colin, evolution was made long before target food was made. And evolution supposedly has a theory on how a species chooses its food. It's your turn.

reply to post by Barcs

Tooth completely avoided the subject when asked to actually explain his theory. I still want to know when humans were brought to earth. There is no logical possibility based on fossil history, in fact there's no evidence whatsoever. He still has not provided any proof, posted his bible quotes that claim we are not from earth, or shown how evolution is false. Anyone else notice that each and every response he gives take you further and further away from the subject being discussed

I have posted all that stuff a plethora of times.

A quick Google search past the first item on abalone diet shows that these marine herbivores graze a variety of marine plant life but tend to subsist mainly on Kelp and Algae...that's kelp AND algae.

Also interestingly, further research shows that this "target food" may not be all its cracked up to be as scientist farming abalone are getting much higher yields using food pellets formulated in the lab.

Maybe his original "target food" became extinct and scientists have stumbled upon a closer match to his target food that Mr and Mrs Abalone did by themselves.


Anyways, that aside, you have still failed to meet your thread title of proving evolution wrong with target food. At what point do you intend to supply the evidence to back up your claim?

I repeat, regardless of whether an animal has a very specific diet or not....HOW DOES THIS PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG?

Please either supply the proof, or admit that you have made a mistake and "target food" real or imagined has no bearing on evolution.

P.S. Dont bother with replying about whether or not "target food" proves the lack of this planet origination for us, this is not your claim, just in case you forgot:

YOUR CLAIM IN THIS THREAD IS NOT THAT TARGET FOOD PROVES WE ARE NOT FROM EARTH>>>>>>YOUR CLAIM IS SPECIFICALLY THAT TARGET FOOD PROVEs EVOLUTION WRONG.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Then quit sulking and reask the question

Four times is enough. You use the back button like everyone else. as for sulking, quite the reverse. Every time you avoid, refuse or change the subject you prove me right and you wrong. I love it

I don't accept others opinions as proof that I'm wrong,

I noticed yet you expect everyone else to accept your opinions. Double standards or ignorance? Who am I kidding it is both

now if you could find a website with something, thats going to get my interest, but I'm not seeing you with to many links.

Yeah right. Try this one tooths favourite when in trouble

I figured its as obvious as the nose on your face,

From a guy so closely related to Pinocchio you should avoid noses on faces. Just saying.

if we arent from here, there is obviously no way we could have evolved here.

Evidence showing we are not from here, where is it?

Just what I said, and I actually stated this a long time ago, did you miss class that day?

Supply the quote and page.

Depends on what you mean by varied within a species.

I supplied a link to a science paper 30 years in the making, the same amount of time it took you to become an expert in the supernatural. Read that. Comment on that.

As I explained before and many times yet, your scientific understanding of things will not work with the supernatural.

Which has what to do with understanding the basics of what evolution explains.

I see below you have again lost the ability to provide links to your quote. That makes it meaningless and you a dishonest clown.

Now I have explained this before but you continue to want to make a fool of yourself.

Really? At least I can supply a link to the information I quote. So at worst I am an honest fool unlike you who is just dishonest.

LOL you don't know if there is a higher purpose or not, prove that there is not.

I base my opinion on evidence, not the lack of it. Your claim, you prove it

Evolution doesn't explain everything.

Who said it does? Evolution explains the diversity we see and how it evolved. Only you want to award it god like powers of creation.

And I don't need to, this isn't the discovery channel. I have allready given three very good examples of species that have target food.

So you really cannot tell me what leaf cutter ants eat. your powers of denial have no match.

You still choose to ignore abalone and kelp. Whats the matter, cat got your tounge.

I told you why. You have a very long list of unanswered questions to address, why make it longer. Answer those.

In fact as you have stated there is confusion on the definition of target food do that. A concise, accurate and full definition. I really should not do this as I know how this will go already.

Hint: use a spell checker

reply to post by idmonster

A quick Google search past the first item on abalone diet shows that these marine herbivores graze a variety of marine plant life but tend to subsist mainly on Kelp and Algae...that's kelp AND algae.

Also interestingly, further research shows that this "target food" may not be all its cracked up to be as scientist farming abalone are getting much higher yields using food pellets formulated in the lab.

Well of course, its not natural.

Maybe his original "target food" became extinct and scientists have stumbled upon a closer match to his target food that Mr and Mrs Abalone did by themselves.


Anyways, that aside, you have still failed to meet your thread title of proving evolution wrong with target food. At what point do you intend to supply the evidence to back up your claim?

Well here is the claim, you are unable to produce any examples of target food for humans, so unless you haven't ruled out extinctions in our food, we are not from here. Now if we are not from here please tell me how it is that we supposedly evolved.

I repeat, regardless of whether an animal has a very specific diet or not....HOW DOES THIS PROVE EVOLUTION WRONG?

Please either supply the proof, or admit that you have made a mistake and "target food" real or imagined has no bearing on evolution.

Target food has a lot to do with evolution. It's the gaps of evolution that are bringing everything to light. How is it that some species supposedly evolved so well that they have food, and we don't?

P.S. Dont bother with replying about whether or not "target food" proves the lack of this planet origination for us, this is not your claim, just in case you forgot:

YOUR CLAIM IN THIS THREAD IS NOT THAT TARGET FOOD PROVES WE ARE NOT FROM EARTH>>>>>>YOUR CLAIM IS SPECIFICALLY THAT TARGET FOOD PROVEs EVOLUTION WRONG.

That fact that its obvious that every species is supposed to have assigned food, proves evolution wrong. There is no way that food can evolve unilatterly with every species and automatically know what that species is going to need after it evolves.

There is no way that a species can evolve into what food is available, as we have failed miserbly at that to the point that we had to adapt. Remember that evolution is a molecular change, and adaptation is not.

reply to post by colin42

Four times is enough. You use the back button like everyone else. as for sulking, quite the reverse. Every time you avoid, refuse or change the subject you prove me right and you wrong. I love it

I think its more that you are unable to comprehend the complexity of the subject, so you see it your way.

I noticed yet you expect everyone else to accept your opinions. Double standards or ignorance? Who am I kidding it is both

I don't offer my opinion on here, there is another thread for that, I only present things that can be backed up.

From a guy so closely related to Pinocchio you should avoid noses on faces. Just saying.

Clearly you feel this is a thread for you to share your opinions. Your not a serious guy.

Evidence showing we are not from here, where is it?

The fact we have no target food and have no effecient source of calcium is proof alone.

Supply the quote and page.

I'm not going to do the work for you lazy B just because you missed class that day.

I supplied a link to a science paper 30 years in the making, the same amount of time it took you to become an expert in the supernatural. Read that. Comment on that.

Oh dear, if it took you 30 years to make a science paper, you must have had problems.

Which has what to do with understanding the basics of what evolution explains.

Neither, it has to do with the documented proof that says earth is not our home.

I base my opinion on evidence, not the lack of it. Your claim, you prove it

I base mine on both, we have documentation telling us earth is not our home, and that our food was not brought here. What a coincidence, thats exactly what we are dealing with and supplements are proof.

Who said it does? Evolution explains the diversity we see and how it evolved. Only you want to award it god like powers of creation.

Not necessarily, I'm just saying you have to first rule that out.

So you really cannot tell me what leaf cutter ants eat. your powers of denial have no match.

They obviously eat fungus that is farmed by the leaves they cut.

But this isn't the discovery channel, I'm refraining from researching each and every species as this could take years.

I told you why. You have a very long list of unanswered questions to address, why make it longer. Answer those.

In fact as you have stated there is confusion on the definition of target food do that. A concise, accurate and full definition. I really should not do this as I know how this will go already.

Hint: use a spell checker

Well one thing is for sure colin, you are showing some signs of being able to learn. Just a month ago, you would refuse to repeat the phrase target food as though it were a bad word, not your having a better understanding of its meaning.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I noticed you don't talk much after I last pointed out and proved the fact that your idea of us using oatmeal as a main source would require us to only eat 6.6 cups of it in a day.