It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 29
6
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Please, just stop. Humans are the best hunters on the planet because we are smart and crafty with our hands.
But you don't instinctivly know how to hunt, you have to be taught how. In addition, you can't even hunt accuratly with your bare hands, because its not what you were designed for, you have to first manufacture dangereous tools, then you have to lean how to use the tools correctly.


Does it really sound natural?





We are naturally good planners and creative problem solvers. Designing tools is part of that. Once again, for the 12039410923840912th time, intellect is our primary survival strength. You ignore this every single time it's brought up.
Ok so let me get this straight, your saying that is our calling, its what we were designed to do. Our whole purpose was to get around problems that plague us with existance. I'm sorry, thats not rigth.





That alone proves you wrong, because humans ARE PERFECTLY adapted to earth based on intelligence. Everything we do is based on knowledge and understanding of how things work.
Your right, and it has to be because none of it is natural to us.




Because of this, we OWN this planet and manipulate everything exactly how we want it.
In an unnatural way, yes.




We are the most successful and well adapted species on the planet by far. How could you possibly deny this? How can you say that teaching is not natural, when it plays to our greatest strength as a species?
Anytime you have to adapt, it reduces your quality of life. You have having to spend more time and energy woking around a problem. Now thats the best definition I can give you, woking around a problem.




Intelligence. Think about it. Also chimps, Dolphins and many other creatures use tools as well. I guess no intelligent mammals are from earth?
It's obvious that adaptation is going on elsewhere as well. Your comparing some very small scale things to what chimps do. We build skyscrapers for christs sake, don't EVEN compare us to them. We build atomic weapons, long range missiles, Jet air planes and your tyring to make a connection with chimps, give me a break man.




So intellect is unnatural? Again, animals teach their young to hunt, most don't just instantly pick it up
Again there could be some examples of adaptation. Adaptation has to occur when something else has gone wrong. In our case it was getting dumped here.




Another blatant lie. Humans have more connections to this planet, than target food does. You have been given several things that links us to this planet, but you instantly dismiss them all.
The only two things I have been able to identify humans with this planet is the fact that we drink water, but even at that it still has to be processed or you have to go to select areas, or the fact that we breath air.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
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') Where is that proof?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Let's look where we are so far.

1. Target food must be natural. (All food is so it makes no sense)
If you seriously don't understand what the definition of natural is, and you haven't bothered to look it up by more than one source, your seriously in no position to be debating over these topics.


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".


Natural




2. Target food must not be after the result of many processes to get it unless you are not a human then its OK
Depends on how many and what exactly the processes are. If your talking about simple steps, the probably don't count, and that could depend on the species and how well equipped they are to carry out that step.




3. Not having target food means you are definitely not from here
If you have first ruled out extinctions, yes.




4. You may be from here but have lost your target food due to extinctions. So #4 contradicts #3
You must always rule out extinctions after you determine there is no target food.




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.
Correct.




6. Target food contains all the nutrients needed but you may need one more or many target foods
Not more than a few is a better phrase.




7. If a target food loses its target food and becomes less nutritious it is still target food despite #6
Species don't have the ability to test their food for nutrition content like we do in a labatory, so they would continue to eat it as though nothing is wrong, but ultimately they would go through a reduced quality of life.




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
Well if its just as good, then its just as good. Your original question reflected whether or not it would remain natural and that depends on what you had to do to it to cultivate it. DUH!




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') Where is that proof?
There are plenty of answers, all one must do is ask.And open thier eyes.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


And Barcs, just to prove you wrong and show you that you really don't know what your talking about, here is a list of menus from random species...



Diet
A young European hedgehogAlthough traditionally classified in the now abandoned order Insectivora, hedgehogs are not exclusively insectivores but are almost omnivorous. Hedgehogs feed on insects, snails, frogs and toads, snakes, bird eggs, carrion, mushrooms, grass roots, berries, melons and watermelons. Berries constitute a major part of an Afghan hedgehog's diet in early spring after hibernation.

Hedgehog



Rattlesnakes consume mice, rats, small birds, eggs, and other small animals. They subdue their prey quickly with a venomous bite as opposed to constricting. The venom will immediately stun or kill typical prey. Rattlesnake venom can kill in 20 seconds, but a rattlesnake will follow prey that does not quickly succumb to the venom and attempts to escape. Rattlers are known to strike at distances up to two-thirds their body length.
diamond back rattle snakes eat,mic, rats,and other small animals they squeeze them to stop them from moving so they can eat them whole
Rattlesnake are Carnivores. They consume Mice, Rats, Small Birds and other small rodents that inhabit the habitats they live in. They play an important ecological role by limiting the size of rodent populations in their ecosystems. Rattlesnakes lay motionless for their prey and kill it quickly with a venomous bite. Even if the prey is lucky enough to run off, it will die soon and the Rattlesnake will follow the scent and then swallow it. They are on top of their food chain, but they have some animals like the King Snake on top of it.
either a live bird or mouse
Rats, Gerbils, and puppies. (note the puppy part is sarcasm but don't let a puppy go near one!)
A Rattlesnake's diet mainly consists of small rodents such as mice and rats. Victims are usually bitten once and released to allow the venom to act. After a few seconds, the snake will seek out the victim through its scent trail. Once found, the body is swallowed whole - usually eaten head-first.
Rodents make up the bulk of a rattlesnakes diet, such as: squirrels, mice and rabbits. Rattlesnakes usually lie and wait for there prey to walk by and then they strike. They do not eat their prey right away though. They have venomous fangs which pierce their prey and they wait for the animal to succumb to the venom.





edit on 21-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Rattlesnakes consume mice, rats, small birds, eggs, and other small animals. They subdue their prey quickly with a venomous bite as opposed to constricting. The venom will immediately stun or kill typical prey. Rattlesnake venom can kill in 20 seconds, but a rattlesnake will follow prey that does not quickly succumb to the venom and attempts to escape. Rattlers are known to strike at distances up to two-thirds their body length.
diamond back rattle snakes eat,mic, rats,and other small animals they squeeze them to stop them from moving so they can eat them whole
Rattlesnake are Carnivores. They consume Mice, Rats, Small Birds and other small rodents that inhabit the habitats they live in. They play an important ecological role by limiting the size of rodent populations in their ecosystems. Rattlesnakes lay motionless for their prey and kill it quickly with a venomous bite. Even if the prey is lucky enough to run off, it will die soon and the Rattlesnake will follow the scent and then swallow it. They are on top of their food chain, but they have some animals like the King Snake on top of it.
either a live bird or mouse
Rats, Gerbils, and puppies. (note the puppy part is sarcasm but don't let a puppy go near one!)
A Rattlesnake's diet mainly consists of small rodents such as mice and rats. Victims are usually bitten once and released to allow the venom to act. After a few seconds, the snake will seek out the victim through its scent trail. Once found, the body is swallowed whole - usually eaten head-first.
Rodents make up the bulk of a rattlesnakes diet, such as: squirrels, mice and rabbits. Rattlesnakes usually lie and wait for there prey to walk by and then they strike. They do not eat their prey right away though. They have venomous fangs which pierce their prey and they wait for the animal to succumb to the venom.

Read more: wiki.answers.com...
Rattlesnakes



Diet and eating habitsRabbits are herbivores that feed by grazing on grass, forbs, and leafy weeds. In consequence, their diet contains large amounts of cellulose, which is hard to digest. Rabbits solve this problem by passing two distinct types of feces: hard droppings and soft black viscous pellets, the latter of which are immediately eaten. Rabbits reingest their own droppings (rather than chewing the cud as do cows and many other herbivores) to digest their food further and extract sufficient nutrients.[16]

Rabbits graze heavily and rapidly for roughly the first half hour of a grazing period (usually in the late afternoon), followed by about half an hour of more selective feeding. In this time, the rabbit will also excrete many hard fecal pellets, being waste pellets that will not be reingested. If the environment is relatively non-threatening, the rabbit will remain outdoors for many hours, grazing at intervals. While out of the burrow, the rabbit will occasionally reingest its soft, partially digested pellets; this is rarely observed, since the pellets are reingested as they are produced. Reingestion is most common within the burrow between 8 o'clock in the morning and 5 o'clock in the evening, being carried out intermittently within that period.

Hard pellets are made up of hay-like fragments of plant cuticle and stalk, being the final waste product after redigestion of soft pellets. These are only released outside the burrow and are not reingested. Soft pellets are usually produced several hours after grazing, after the hard pellets have all been excreted. They are made up of micro-organisms and undigested plant cell walls.

The chewed plant material collects in the large cecum, a secondary chamber between the large and small intestine containing large quantities of symbiotic bacteria that help with the digestion of cellulose and also produce certain B vitamins. The pellets are about 56% bacteria by dry weight, largely accounting for the pellets being 24.4% protein on average. These pellets remain intact for up to six hours in the stomach; the bacteria within continue to digest the plant carbohydrates. The soft feces form here and contain up to five times the vitamins of hard feces. After being excreted, they are eaten whole by the rabbit and redigested in a special part of the stomach. This double-digestion process enables rabbits to use nutrients that they may have missed during the first passage through the gut, as well as the nutrients formed by the microbial activity and thus ensures that maximum nutrition is derived from the food they eat.[2] This process serves the same purpose within the rabbit as rumination does in cattle and sheep.[17]

Rabbits are incapable of vomiting.[

Rabbit



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Adaptations for huntingAll owls are carnivorous birds of prey and live mainly on a diet of insects and small rodents such as mice, rats and hares. Some owls are also specifically adapted to hunt fish. They are very adept in hunting in their respective environments. Since owls can be found in nearly all parts of the world and across a multitude of ecosystems, their hunting skills and characteristics vary slightly from species to species, though most characteristics are shared among all species.


owl


Feeding and dietThe majority of food consumed by bats includes insects, fruits and flower nectar, vertebrates and blood.[54] Almost three-fourths of the world’s bats are insect eaters. Insects consumed by bats include both aerial and ground-dwelling insects. Each bat is typically able to consume one-third of its body weight in insects each night, and several hundred insects in a few hours. This means a group of one thousand bats could eat four tons of insects each year. If bats were to become extinct, the insect population is calculated to reach an alarmingly high number.

bat


Vultures seldom attack healthy animals, but may kill the wounded or sick. When a carcass has too thick a hide for its beak to open, it waits for a larger scavenger to eat first.[4] Vast numbers have been seen upon battlefields. They gorge themselves when prey is abundant, until their crop bulges, and sit, sleepy or half torpid, to digest their food. They do not carry food to their young in their claws, but disgorge it from the crop. These birds are of great value as scavengers, especially in hot regions. Vulture stomach acid is exceptionally corrosive, allowing them to safely digest putrid carcasses infected with Botulinum toxin, hog cholera, and anthrax bacteria that would be lethal to other scavengers.[5] New World vultures have the ability to use their corrosive vomit as a defensive projectile when threatened. New World vultures also urinate straight down their legs; the uric acid kills bacteria accumulated from walking through carcasses, and also acts as evaporative cooling

Vulture



Ferrets are obligate carnivores.[11] The natural diet of their wild ancestors consisted of whole small prey, i.e., meat, organs, bones, skin, feathers, and fur.[12] Ferrets have short digestive systems and quick metabolism, so they need to eat frequently. Prepared dry foods consisting almost entirely of meat provide the most nutritional value and are the most convenient

Ferret


Sheep are exclusively herbivorous mammals. Most breeds prefer to graze on grass and other short roughage, avoiding the taller woody parts of plants that goats readily consume.[31] Both sheep and goats use their lips and tongues to select parts of the plant that are easier to digest or higher in nutrition.[31] Sheep, however, graze well in monoculture pastures where most goats fare poorly.[31] Like all ruminants, sheep have a complex digestive system composed of four chambers, allowing them to break down cellulose from stems, leaves, and seed hulls into simpler carbohydrates. When sheep graze, vegetation is chewed into a mass called a bolus, which is then passed into the rumen, via the reticulum. The rumen is a 19 to 38-liter (5 to 10 gal) organ in which feed is fermented.[32] The fermenting organisms include bacteria, fungi, and protozoa.[33] (Other important rumen organisms include some archaea, which produce methane from carbon dioxide.[34]) The bolus is periodically regurgitated back to the mouth as cud for additional chewing and salivation.[32] Cud chewing is an adaptation allowing ruminants to graze more quickly in the morning, and then fully chew and digest feed later in the day.[35] This is safer than grazing, which requires lowering the head thus leaving the animal vulnerable to predators, while cud chewing does not


sheep

So as you can see, you were dead wrong, we know what a species eats, down to the detail, and even what they ate before they were domesticated. I found nothing in any of these about diets changing over time. All I found was clear concise information about what they eat, and on occasion how they eat it or obtain it. Of all the searches I did the only time I had no reference given was when I didn't narrow it down to an exact sub species. So again, you were very wrong. We know what animals are eating, and you know whats funny, so do they.
edit on 22-8-2012 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Now there is obviously a pattern when looking at the diet of animals, at least in the sense that we know what they eat.

Now lets compare this to humans...


Humans are omnivorous, capable of consuming a wide variety of plant and animal material.[90][91] Varying with available food sources in regions of habitation, and also varying with cultural and religious norms, human groups have adopted a range of diets, from purely vegetarian to primarily carnivorous. In some cases, dietary restrictions in humans can lead to deficiency diseases; however, stable human groups have adapted to many dietary patterns through both genetic specialization and cultural conventions to use nutritionally balanced food sources.[92] The human diet is prominently reflected in human culture, and has led to the development of food science.

Until the development of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago, Homo sapiens employed a hunter-gatherer method as their sole means of food collection. This involved combining stationary food sources (such as fruits, grains, tubers, and mushrooms, insect larvae and aquatic mollusks) with wild game, which must be hunted and killed in order to be consumed.[93] It has been proposed that humans have used fire to prepare and cook food since the time of Homo erectus).[94] Around ten thousand years ago, humans developed agriculture,[95] which substantially altered their diet. This change in diet may also have altered human biology; with the spread of dairy farming providing a new and rich source of food, leading to the evolution of the ability to digest lactose in some adults.[96][97] Agriculture led to increased populations, the development of cities, and because of increased population density, the wider spread of infectious diseases. The types of food consumed, and the way in which they are prepared, has varied widely by time, location, and culture.

In general, humans can survive for two to eight weeks without food, depending on stored body fat. Survival without water is usually limited to three or four days. About 36 million humans die every year from causes directly or indirectly related to hunger.[98] Childhood malnutrition is also common and contributes to the global burden of disease.[99] However global food distribution is not even, and obesity among some human populations has increased rapidly, leading to health complications and increased mortality in some developed, and a few developing countries. Worldwide over one billion people are obese,[100] while in the United States 35% of people are obese, leading to this being described as an "obesity epidemic".[101] Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than are expended, so excessive weight gain is usually caused by a combination of an energy-dense high fat diet and insufficient exercise

Human

Now as you can see here, there is just no comparison compared to animals. They can't even narrow down the type of food we eat, its very broad information because we have such a diverse diet. This is all because of our ability to adapt. The only reason we adapted is because our food was missing to begin with.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





A target food would be a food source that was intended for that species.


I think I spotted the main flaw in your argument here. You're putting the cart before the horse. There are no foods that we are intended to eat, rather we evolved to take our nutrients from various foods. Our digestive systems as humans are actually fairly robust, or at least robust enough to get us classified as omnivores. This means that both plant and animal matter can provide us with crucial nutrients we need to survive.

You're idea is wrong-headed because you are stuck thinking of the whole system as something set up, the way a developer might set up a video game where NPCs go about their daily actions.



its obvious that cows milk was not meant for us to drink, and no one is ever going to convince me otherwise.


See, you're thinking about it backwards again right here. There aren't foods we weren't "meant" to consume. Our bodies can digest a whole lot of things and through trial and error we humans have discovered that some of us can digest and get benefits from cows milk. It's not the environment being set up for us, it's our survival being dependent upon the environment. Animals that survive pass on their genes, so naturally whatever survives likely has options as to what it eats.




Now if you believe in god, its not hard to see that there is obviously a love for making new life, and the plethora of life here on earth definitely fits that bill.


Given the existence of wasps which lay their eggs inside paralyzed spiders that they have just stung... I'd say God's pretty weird and sadistic if he exists.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I see your point clearly,what made us dessert our target food willingly and thereby subvert natures popullation control??

We must have had a reason to change targets so many times while all along keeping a mental log book as we added,never loseing just adding and re-targeting,until we could target intellectually with a future vision and plant crops for the next yera.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If you seriously don't understand what the definition of natural is, and you haven't bothered to look it up by more than one source, your seriously in no position to be debating over these topics.
How pathetic and how dishonest are you? Your link is AGAIN to the Google front page yet in your post below other links show you can provide links when you want too.

Your comments on what the definition is

Rejected due to your dishonest and trolling actions



I remind you now. Your opinion will be rejected and your answer without evidence will be taken as you accepting defeat on each point you fail to do this and the same goes for points you avoid.


2. Target food must not be after the result of many processes to get it unless you are not a human then it’s OK

Depends on how many and what exactly the processes are. If your talking about simple steps, the probably don't count, and that could depend on the species and how well equipped they are to carry out that step.
It is your nonsense so define how many processes is too much? Give examples of what processes are not allowed or what ‘equipped to carry out the step’ means. As usual all you have provided is nondescript nonsense.

Failed to provide evidence. REJECTED


3. Not having target food means you are definitely not from here

If you have first ruled out extinctions, yes
You still have not explained how one would do that given your views on the fossil record. Time you did that.


4. You may be from here but have lost your target food due to extinctions. So #4 contradicts #3

You must always rule out extinctions after you determine there is no target food.
See my answer to #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.

Correct.
How do you know it is target food? Answer with evidence only.


6. Target food contains all the nutrients needed but you may need one more or many target foods

Not more than a few is a better phrase.
Yeah I know how that works. You define how many target foods is a few because you don’t deserve to have wiggle room gifted to you.


7. If a target food loses its target food and becomes less nutritious it is still target food despite #6

Species don't have the ability to test their food for nutrition content like we do in a labatory, so they would continue to eat it as though nothing is wrong, but ultimately they would go through a reduced quality of life.
Oh course they can tell if they are hungry. What a stupid statement to make and one of many you make. Humans have not had the ability to identify the nutritional values of their foods until very recently.

If you were correct there is an easy test to show what animals have target food. If ALL the species examined are mal nourished that would be evidence. Guess what, that is NOT what we see. Explain with evidence.


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

Well if its just as good, then its just as good. Your original question reflected whether or not it would remain natural and that depends on what you had to do to it to cultivate it. DUH!
Nope. The question I asked was as above. You have made a dishonest statement to hide the fact you failed to answer last time. Give a list of things you are not allowed to do when growing the target food. Explain why to each and supply the evidence that backs up your claim for each.


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') Where is that proof?

There are plenty of answers, all one must do is ask.And open thier eyes.
Rubbish. You have not answered one question and what I see with my eyes does not fit any of the nonsense you spout.

You still seem to NOT understand how this works. You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You have the responsibility to provide the evidence to back up your claim. You have provided nothing but your opinion with large helpings of your dishonesty.

Up to now you have proven nothing that backs up your titles claims. My guess is that will not change when you answer this post as you do not have any evidence.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
I have realised something. Science is a waste of time as all you need to do is make up a term and you have all the proof you will ever need. So I have done just that

TARGET AIR PROVES TARGET FOOD WRONG. THIS IS OUR PLANET

Tooth claims with nothing but opinion to back up those claims (see my post above) that humans and many other species are not from here as they do not have a ‘target food’.

Given that the human population stands at around 7 billion target food does not seem that essential. Add to this the average age we now live to which is still increasing I maintain even if target food existed which is still unproven, target food is an inconsequence. With or without target food life thrives on this planet.

Now consider Target Air.

1. If we were to remove target air any animals that breathe would die within minutes. FACT.

2. The plants and algae of this world provide the correct mixture of gases to allow us target air breathers to survive in comfort. FACT

3. The lungs of target air breathers are just the correct capacity to allow us to breathe steadily and even instinctively knows when to increase the rate we breathe at as we take exercise or do strenuous work and continues even when we sleep. FACT

4. Our lungs are just the correct capacity to transfer the oxygen to the blood and our blood is in the correct quantity to allow our hearts to provide all our organs with the correct levels of oxygen and so the atmosphere we breathe is perfect for us. Us being ALL the air breathing animals on this planet.

5. What do we have in common with all those air breathers? The answer is THIS PLANET and its atmosphere.

6. One of tooths stipulations for target food is that it is everywhere and easily gained with little effort. Our target air fulfils that requirement 100% with no need for supplements or additional types of air . No creature that breathes target air has to do anything more than breath and there it is.

7. We even have a parallel system that adds proof to all the above. Aquatic animals target atmosphere is water. When that is removed they also die within minutes and also where there is not target air or target water there is no life

8. If target air breathers try to breath in water we die so the aquatic atmosphere in not ours. The only known atmosphere is this panets and we are confined to the target air we evolved to breathe. WE ARE FROM HERE

So there it is. My logical argument backed up with repeatable evidence proving

WE ARE FROM HERE, TARGET FOOD IS AN INCONSEQUENCE




edit on 22-8-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
But you don't instinctivly know how to hunt, you have to be taught how. In addition, you can't even hunt accuratly with your bare hands, because its not what you were designed for, you have to first manufacture dangereous tools, then you have to lean how to use the tools correctly.


Does it really sound natural?

Irrelevant red herring. Please prove that teaching is not natural.



Ok so let me get this straight, your saying that is our calling, its what we were designed to do. Our whole purpose was to get around problems that plague us with existance. I'm sorry, thats not rigth.
I'm sorry but you are an ignoramus. I didn't say any of that, but once again you twist words around to make them mean what you want. Humans weren't designed, sorry. Unless you can prove they were, you have nothing.



Anytime you have to adapt, it reduces your quality of life.

Prove it.



It's obvious that adaptation is going on elsewhere as well. Your comparing some very small scale things to what chimps do. We build skyscrapers for christs sake, don't EVEN compare us to them. We build atomic weapons, long range missiles, Jet air planes and your tyring to make a connection with chimps, give me a break man.

You said that using tools & teaching was not natural. You lied. Why do you think humans build sky scrapers while chimps only make basic tools? Because humans are more intelligent. Read the friggin posts man, stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You are making every argument up on fly and given no evidence. I've already answered every single point you made, and you resort to repeating the same argument over and over.




Again there could be some examples of adaptation. Adaptation has to occur when something else has gone wrong. In our case it was getting dumped here.

Nope. Intelligence is natural and you can't prove otherwise. Adaptation has nothing to do with that point. Nice fallacy.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 





I think I spotted the main flaw in your argument here. You're putting the cart before the horse. There are no foods that we are intended to eat, rather we evolved to take our nutrients from various foods. Our digestive systems as humans are actually fairly robust, or at least robust enough to get us classified as omnivores. This means that both plant and animal matter can provide us with crucial nutrients we need to survive.
Well the possibility that we ventured out to become omnivores, could actually be proof that something has gone wrong. We haven't evolved into accepting the food we eat, if we had, we wouldn't have made supplements, and we wouldn't suffer from so much sickness and disease related to food. We also wouldn't be genetically modefying so much food like we are to fit us better, as like you said, we supposedly evolved.




You're idea is wrong-headed because you are stuck thinking of the whole system as something set up, the way a developer might set up a video game where NPCs go about their daily actions.
I think the fact that all species have identifiable diets, its proof it was set up.




See, you're thinking about it backwards again right here. There aren't foods we weren't "meant" to consume. Our bodies can digest a whole lot of things and through trial and error we humans have discovered that some of us can digest and get benefits from cows milk. It's not the environment being set up for us, it's our survival being dependent upon the environment. Animals that survive pass on their genes, so naturally whatever survives likely has options as to what it eats.
If you were corerct, then all species would just eat whatever was in front of them, including things that werent food, and there would be no way to identify a diet with any of them. It would be total chaos for the word diet. But thats not what we see, there is clear concise direction.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





If you seriously don't understand what the definition of natural is, and you haven't bothered to look it up by more than one source, your seriously in no position to be debating over these topics.

How pathetic and how dishonest are you? Your link is AGAIN to the Google front page yet in your post below other links show you can provide links when you want too
Look at how dishonest you are. I went back and clicked and it works for me. Not to mention your the only one that ever complains about my links not working. You must be using a dinosaur or something.




It is your nonsense so define how many processes is too much? Give examples of what processes are not allowed or what ‘equipped to carry out the step’ means. As usual all you have provided is nondescript nonsense.

Failed to provide evidence. REJECTED
Depends on the action. One thing for sure is if its not a natural action, then its not good.




You still have not explained how one would do that given your views on the fossil record. Time you did that.
I see what happened here, you totally missed the fact that our understanding of when the species was brought here might not ever be able to be proven. This planet could have been in existence for one day, then it could have been wiped out and filled with new life for all we know.




Yeah I know how that works. You define how many target foods is a few because you don’t deserve to have wiggle room gifted to you.
Well that wiggle room as you call it, in terms of having to many foods on a menu could be a sign that the species is supplementing their diet because something is missing.




Oh course they can tell if they are hungry. What a stupid statement to make and one of many you make. Humans have not had the ability to identify the nutritional values of their foods until very recently.
And as a result we have suffered though the reduced quality of life.




If you were correct there is an easy test to show what animals have target food. If ALL the species examined are mal nourished that would be evidence. Guess what, that is NOT what we see. Explain with evidence.
Well they would only be malnourished if they were unable to replace what is missing. They can still bring up the nutrition but they will have to eat a lot more of foods that weren't meant to be eaten by them, ultimately its another reduction of the quality of life scenerio.




Nope. The question I asked was as above. You have made a dishonest statement to hide the fact you failed to answer last time. Give a list of things you are not allowed to do when growing the target food. Explain why to each and supply the evidence that backs up your claim for each.
And just as I said before, anything that would be deemed unnatural.




Rubbish. You have not answered one question and what I see with my eyes does not fit any of the nonsense you spout.

You still seem to NOT understand how this works. You made the claim 'Target food proves evolution wrong'. You have the responsibility to provide the evidence to back up your claim. You have provided nothing but your opinion with large helpings of your dishonesty.

Up to now you have proven nothing that backs up your titles claims. My guess is that will not change when you answer this post as you do not have any evidence.
The fact that all species have an identifiable diet is proof that evolution is false.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





I have realised something. Science is a waste of time as all you need to do is make up a term and you have all the proof you will ever need. So I have done just that

TARGET AIR PROVES TARGET FOOD WRONG. THIS IS OUR PLANET

Tooth claims with nothing but opinion to back up those claims (see my post above) that humans and many other species are not from here as they do not have a ‘target food’.

Given that the human population stands at around 7 billion target food does not seem that essential. Add to this the average age we now live to which is still increasing I maintain even if target food existed which is still unproven, target food is an inconsequence. With or without target food life thrives on this planet.
That is correct, as we increase the way we fortify our food, because its obviously not made for us, our life span and production will increase.




1. If we were to remove target air any animals that breathe would die within minutes. FACT.

2. The plants and algae of this world provide the correct mixture of gases to allow us target air breathers to survive in comfort. FACT

3. The lungs of target air breathers are just the correct capacity to allow us to breathe steadily and even instinctively knows when to increase the rate we breathe at as we take exercise or do strenuous work and continues even when we sleep. FACT

4. Our lungs are just the correct capacity to transfer the oxygen to the blood and our blood is in the correct quantity to allow our hearts to provide all our organs with the correct levels of oxygen and so the atmosphere we breathe is perfect for us. Us being ALL the air breathing animals on this planet.

5. What do we have in common with all those air breathers? The answer is THIS PLANET and its atmosphere.

6. One of tooths stipulations for target food is that it is everywhere and easily gained with little effort. Our target air fulfils that requirement 100% with no need for supplements or additional types of air . No creature that breathes target air has to do anything more than breath and there it is.

7. We even have a parallel system that adds proof to all the above. Aquatic animals target atmosphere is water. When that is removed they also die within minutes and also where there is not target air or target water there is no life

8. If target air breathers try to breath in water we die so the aquatic atmosphere in not ours. The only known atmosphere is this panets and we are confined to the target air we evolved to breathe. WE ARE FROM HERE

So there it is. My logical argument backed up with repeatable evidence proving


WE ARE FROM HERE, TARGET FOOD IS AN INCONSEQUENCE


The problem is that the other 5 million species will attest to the fact that there is nothing special about breathing air, or living in water.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Irrelevant red herring. Please prove that teaching is not natural.
Well its natural to humans, but not typically to other animals, and if you do ever see animals doing it, I would seriously question what and why they are teaching because it could be an unnatural form of adaptation.




I'm sorry but you are an ignoramus. I didn't say any of that, but once again you twist words around to make them mean what you want. Humans weren't designed, sorry. Unless you can prove they were, you have nothing.
Well even if evolution designed, us, there is still a design going on. We are different from all other species, so we have a different design.




Prove it.
Simple, you could spend all of your time adapting and never get anything done, therefore you have a reduced quality of life.




You said that using tools & teaching was not natural. You lied. Why do you think humans build sky scrapers while chimps only make basic tools? Because humans are more intelligent. Read the friggin posts man, stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You are making every argument up on fly and given no evidence. I've already answered every single point you made, and you resort to repeating the same argument over and over.
There is nothing about our bodys, or our make up that proves we are cut out for making sky scrapers. In fact we have to use a hell of a lot of tools to make it happen, and they are big tools at that. Anytime you have to make tools to get something accomplished, its not natural.




Nope. Intelligence is natural and you can't prove otherwise. Adaptation has nothing to do with that point. Nice fallacy.
Adaptation appears where there is a weakness. That weakness stems from something not being natural to begin with.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Look at how dishonest you are. I went back and clicked and it works for me. Not to mention your the only one that ever complains about my links not working. You must be using a dinosaur or something.
Your link does not work. All your other links work except that one so that makes you the dishonest troll. If you supplied a working link I would rip your argument apart as I always do. Go peddle you crap elsewhere.


Depends on the action. One thing for sure is if its not a natural action, then its not good.
You failed to show any evidence. You can no longer claim processes rule food out when replying to me.


I see what happened here, you totally missed the fact that our understanding of when the species was brought here might not ever be able to be proven.
So you expect me to believe you with no evidence
I have to take your word for it
I decline that offer. You have no evidence then you have no argument


This planet could have been in existence for one day, then it could have been wiped out and filled with new life for all we know.
Here you confirm that you have no evidence. You cannot refer to the fossil record due to your previous statements and now you admit you cannot do a fundamental action you demand that of ensuring the animals target food has not become extinct. Your whole stupid argument just fell to pieces



Yeah I know how that works. You define how many target foods is a few because you don’t deserve to have wiggle room gifted to you.

Well that wiggle room as you call it, in terms of having to many foods on a menu could be a sign that the species is supplementing their diet because something is missing.
So you also refuse to define how many target foods constitute a few. You lost again.


The fact that all species have an identifiable diet is proof that evolution is false.
All the rest of your replies up to and including the one above failed to provide any evidence at all.

Not only did it fall to pieces when you admitted you had no way to tell if a target food had gone extinct or was not here in the first place your whole target food nonsense crashed and burned as you failed to answer 100% not only of the questions in this post but the whole thread


Your title says 'target food proves evolution wrong' yet you have not shown anything that proves target food exists.

Now if you want a really good theory you should try 'Target Air'. Now that has evidence and everything


Other than that

TARGET FOOD IS DEAD RIP 22-08-2012




posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That is correct, as we increase the way we fortify our food, because its obviously not made for us, our life span and production will increase.
Hey haven’t you heard, target food is dead man. Well to tell you the truth it never existed but you know what I mean


The problem is that the other 5 million species will attest to the fact that there is nothing special about breathing air, or living in water.
So you never read what was written in that post either. If your parents are paying for your education you need to come clean and tell them they are wasting their money.


Target Air proves humans and the other 5 million animals are from here with evidence and everything. Target food is where its at man. Something smelly old target food could never do. Come on man get with it.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Look at how dishonest you are. I went back and clicked and it works for me. Not to mention your the only one that ever complains about my links not working. You must be using a dinosaur or something.

Your link does not work. All your other links work except that one so that makes you the dishonest troll. If you supplied a working link I would rip your argument apart as I always do. Go peddle you crap elsewhere.
It's probably because of your browser, no one else is complaining.




Depends on the action. One thing for sure is if its not a natural action, then its not good.

You failed to show any evidence. You can no longer claim processes rule food out when replying to me.
Thats ok as you seem to not understand the difference between natural process or otherwise.




So you expect me to believe you with no evidence I have to take your word for it I decline that offer. You have no evidence then you have no argument
You have no proof that they are from here to begin with, but I do have something in my favor, documentation that gives us a clue that they are not from here. Thats more than you have.




This planet could have been in existence for one day, then it could have been wiped out and filled with new life for all we know.

Here you confirm that you have no evidence. You cannot refer to the fossil record due to your previous statements and now you admit you cannot do a fundamental action you demand that of ensuring the animals target food has not become extinct. Your whole stupid argument just fell to pieces
What are you talking about, I have historical documentation which is a lot more than you have.




So you also refuse to define how many target foods constitute a few. You lost again
So thats why our debates have last more than a few months, LOL if you don't know what a few is, you really shouldn't be debating much less making demands about it the way you do. So because or your ignorance, I lose LOL, thats a new one.




All the rest of your replies up to and including the one above failed to provide any evidence at all.

Not only did it fall to pieces when you admitted you had no way to tell if a target food had gone extinct or was not here in the first place your whole target food nonsense crashed and burned as you failed to answer 100% not only of the questions in this post but the whole thread

Your title says 'target food proves evolution wrong' yet you have not shown anything that proves target food exists.

Now if you want a really good theory you should try 'Target Air'. Now that has evidence and everything

Other than that
TARGET FOOD IS DEAD RIP 22-08-2012



Its just like you colin, always jumpting to conclusions, and if the answers you seek don't satisfy you to the point that it answers all the non related questions in the world, it must be a false theory. Well guess what, evolution beat you to that. Eveolution is not able to explain how a species appears to be programmed with knowing what its supposed to eat. So evolution failed a long time ago as it was created much earlier than Target Food.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





That is correct, as we increase the way we fortify our food, because its obviously not made for us, our life span and production will increase.

Hey haven’t you heard, target food is dead man. Well to tell you the truth it never existed but you know what I mean
Target Food is dead in humans, dogs, cats, and some other life, but mostly it lives on in the rest of the species that are some how magically knowing what to eat, and what not to eat.

Evolution died a long time ago, but Target Food really puts the nails in the coffin.




The problem is that the other 5 million species will attest to the fact that there is nothing special about breathing air, or living in water.

So you never read what was written in that post either. If your parents are paying for your education you need to come clean and tell them they are wasting their money.

Target Air proves humans and the other 5 million animals are from here with evidence and everything. Target food is where its at man. Something smelly old target food could never do. Come on man get with it.
Well if I was to learn something from you, they would want their money back for sure.
Target air doesn't seem to explain anything aside from the fact that we all breath air.
Thats not proof we are from here, but the fact that other species have what appears to be designated food, and we don't proves we aren't from here.




top topics



 
6
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join