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: 44
6
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Tooth, Still waiting on why the shape of DNA is the same in MAN, apes, chimps cats and fish..kinda blows the whole off planet theory.

unless of course we brought it all with us (excepting the "target food") [and I think the target food you are seeking or implying was manna from heaven, right?]

Oh and I'm not sure but there so far has been no Abject proof of the supernatural, least none that I have found so far...


physic ability possibly but super or preternatural causality, not so much.

in any case, please do enlighten me on the DNA enigma..............that can be proven, like DNA has....




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





They are testing your ability to find/research a simple question and you are failing in epic proportions. For a guy obsessed with food that is astounding
I don't see what the testing is needed for since I have allready produced countles pages of information to back up target food.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Target foods are a fantasy.

Species are not supposed to eat anything in particular. The physical structure of an animal makes certain feedings difficult or easy. An elephant would find it difficult to eat meat. Not impossible, but not easy.
It would be a sign that target food is missing.




Species can and do feed on things that are not good food or even toxic. The deer eat rhododendron, iris, daisies, and other toxic plants.
When you see a species target a large variety within a food group, its a sign that they are missing something from that food group.




Species are not programmed to eat something in particular. Animals released into unfamiliar environments find foods.
The only time we see this activity is when target food is missing. Obviousy taking a species out of its enviroment, can also mean taking away his food.




Your assumption that intelligence is required is simply not true. Trial and error works. Is trial and error intelligence? Maybe. Depends on what you mean by intelligence
Trial and error, has NEVER been a recognized M.O. of any species.




A single species can be distributed over a wide geographical area where different foods are available. A single species also eats different things at different times of the year.
If a target food is missing for any reason, the species will seek out that same food though same food group.




You have not given a plethora of links about diets. That is a lie.
Oh yes I have, and guess what, we know what they are all eating.




You have shown at least 1 diet list for a squirrel and found out that depending on region the squirrels ate a different diet. Squirrels eat many different things.
Even by your own admission, the deer was another, now you lie and say otherwise.




I choose not to believe it. It is more reasonable to assume that this is just another lie.

It's a really daft idea and it has no supporting evidence.
Well then please enlighten us all with your understanding on how it is that all individuals in a species eat the same food, and how they just so happen to know that its good for them.

Just magic I guess right?



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





What a shame Tooth was told what the rock was. What a disgrace he had to be told.

You are being very harsh on the group known as tooth. He has been told he is a borderline genius and has let it be known he is a science major, the discoverer of an arcane virus no less.

Tooth

You have been very quite on the subject of the rock otherwise known as salt but seeing as though every animal on this planet would die without it, then it must be part of the mythical 'target food'.

Can you explain why the tongue has areas that specifically identify salt?

Can you now explain why every animal on this planet would die if they get too much salt?

Can you explain why you had to be told the answer?
I didn't have to be told the answer, I didn't care.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by idmonster
 





I need to clear something up, it has been bugging me for quite a while and it is quite petty, but:

Tooth, are you aware that when you refer to people as incredulous, its not an insult?

A credulous person believes without evidence, on hearsay, are deemed to be gullible.

An incredulous person is the opposite, refusing to believe without evidence, requiring proof, skeptical.

As I say, a minor thing and probably another F on the report card for language comprehension, but I only mention it because you use it often and in a context that makes me believe that you think it is an insult


in·cred·u·lous/inˈkrejələs/Adjective: (of a person or their manner) Unwilling or unable to believe something: "an incredulous gasp".

incredulous
I'm sorry but I found nothing that claimed it had to be something without proof.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 





That's the problem when using evidence to try to prove something. It's impossible to completely explain things in one post. I could max out five posts character limits just partially explaining the diet of a deer and what it eats to neutralize the effects of other things it eats. To do it right it would bore everyone to death. And I don't even know hardly anything compared to a guy who has studied deer with a passion all his life.
It is drawn out. Then you run into problems like I did where stereo is claiming that different plants are in a different catagory, but not according to the deer.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



All this tells me is that you know little to nothing about Pye's star child, as this is the medical claim is is presenting based on actuall findings from it's DNA and mtDNA.

The DNA report was clear. The skull and both parents were human.

What this tells us is that you know nothing about the DNA findings.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Calling on me isn't going to accomplish anything, when its just your opinion. What you need to do is start proving me wrong.

I've repeatedly shown you to be wrong:
1. Animals do eat rocks and dirt
2. Labels do not tell you what you are eating
3. You posted an incorrect diet for deer
4. You were wrong that fungi are plants
5. You were wrong to say forb is not a word

That's a really short list.


Go back and read for yourself, and you will see.

I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar. You think reading what you wrote is going to change the fact that you are a liar? No. I do not believe you.


And for the 5th time, from the perspective of the deer, yes.

That is just plain stupid, meaningless, rubbish.

You are wrong.


Prove it!

Done thoroughly.


From the perspective of the deer, it can be.

If I'm wrong, prove it!

I don't have to you prove you wrong. You have to prove this really stupid statement. The onus is on the claimant.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



That was based on mtDNA as nuclear testing was not available at that time, and he had to wait until it was. You seriously need to do more research on this subject.

You need to do some research because the results were that it was human with human parents. You need to stop telling lies.


If pye was so bent on passing of a regular skull as being alien, and the DNA proved it to be human, he simply wouldn't have published those findings. Which is not the case. You need to do more research.

Pye is a liar, charlatan, a fraud, a hoaxer, a doofus. That is why he continued on his kick after the tests showed that it was human and human parents.


Prove it.

If you were not able to figure out a second grade issue that animals do eat rocks, then how could I ever expect you to get a third grade problem solved which is the name of the animal used to make marshmallows.


I don't use yahoo, I told you, I use google, and it is not a word in google, sorry your wrong.

Sounds to me like you are saying that you won't learn. There is a term for that: stupid. It is the sign of a closed mind. Notice that I gave you the means for 2 search engines. If you use another one then learn how to use it so you don't say asinine things like forbs is not a word. Just trying to help you out, but you have nastily avoided learning anything.


It was the definition of a concise diet, NOT A PRECISE diet like your assuming. So in that was the defintion for concise, that you seem to be overlooking.

Please learn to use English. The word is accurate, not precise. I meant concise.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



But you got the point, they are both plants. Do you honeslty believe the deer would know the difference?

Of course deer know the difference between grasses and twigs. They are eaten in different manners.

You should look up browsers and grazers and learn the difference.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



As I have proven what happens when a speices loses target food as well.

You've proven nothing. You haven't even provided evidence for the existence of this fantasy you call target foods.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't see what the testing is needed for since I have allready produced countles pages of information to back up target food.

Still waiting for the first piece of evidence. Nothing has been provided.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It would be a sign that target food is missing.

Pointless and irrelevant comment. What an animal consumes is in part due to the physical structures available for feeding. Has nothing to do with your fantasy.


When you see a species target a large variety within a food group, its a sign that they are missing something from that food group.

Prove this.


The only time we see this activity is when target food is missing. Obviousy taking a species out of its enviroment, can also mean taking away his food.

This is meaningless rubbish based on your fantasy.


Trial and error, has NEVER been a recognized M.O. of any species.

You are again arguing from ignorance.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If a target food is missing for any reason, the species will seek out that same food though same food group.

Meaningless rubbish. There is no such thing as a target food.


Oh yes I have, and guess what, we know what they are all eating.

We do not know what they are eating. The squirrel is a perfect example of finding out that we do not know what animals eat. This showed that squirrels can be predatory. You should look up plethora. You obviously do not know what the word means.


Even by your own admission, the deer was another, now you lie and say otherwise.

Plethora is not 2. And you could not and still cannot get the deer diet correct. You have recently claimed twigs and fruit are forbs and grasses. You even tried to claim forbs was not a word.


Well then please enlighten us all with your understanding on how it is that all individuals in a species eat the same food, and how they just so happen to know that its good for them.

Please prove to us that animals know that food they eat is good for them.

Individuals within a species do not eat the same foods.

These are bad assumptions on your part.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I didn't have to be told the answer, I didn't care.

You simply could not figure out what a 7 year old knows. How pathetic.

You also lie since you begged for the answer and I would not tell you.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It is drawn out. Then you run into problems like I did where stereo is claiming that different plants are in a different catagory, but not according to the deer.

Prove it.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





The DNA report was clear. The skull and both parents were human.

What this tells us is that you know nothing about the DNA findings.
You have to watch a different video to get the findings after that.

Those were earlier DNA tests that were later proven to be wrong.




I've repeatedly shown you to be wrong:
1. Animals do eat rocks and dirt
2. Labels do not tell you what you are eating
3. You posted an incorrect diet for deer
4. You were wrong that fungi are plants
5. You were wrong to say forb is not a word

That's a really short list
prove it, prove it, no I didn't, it was close enough to the full diet, not in the eyes of the deer, I never did, I said forbs is not a word.




I've repeatedly shown you to be a liar. You think reading what you wrote is going to change the fact that you are a liar? No. I do not believe you.
Your opinion doesn't mean much.




That is just plain stupid, meaningless, rubbish.

You are wrong.
Prove it.




Done thoroughly.
Prove it.




I don't have to you prove you wrong. You have to prove this really stupid statement. The onus is on the claimant.
And I have, just because you lack the intelligence to understand it doesn't mean its not true.




You need to do some research because the results were that it was human with human parents. You need to stop telling lies.
The following test later proved that to be wrong.




Pye is a liar, charlatan, a fraud, a hoaxer, a doofus. That is why he continued on his kick after the tests showed that it was human and human parents.
Again you will have to do more research, as later tests proved that to be wrong.




If you were not able to figure out a second grade issue that animals do eat rocks, then how could I ever expect you to get a third grade problem solved which is the name of the animal used to make marshmallows.
I never tried, because I don't care, there is a difference but I'm sure in your aimless beliefs, and waddle, it probably means the world to you.




Sounds to me like you are saying that you won't learn. There is a term for that: stupid. It is the sign of a closed mind. Notice that I gave you the means for 2 search engines. If you use another one then learn how to use it so you don't say asinine things like forbs is not a word. Just trying to help you out, but you have nastily avoided learning anything.
Google is all I need.




Please learn to use English. The word is accurate, not precise. I meant concise.
I was going to tell you the same thing.




Of course deer know the difference between grasses and twigs. They are eaten in different manners.

You should look up browsers and grazers and learn the difference.
They might, and they might not.




You've proven nothing. You haven't even provided evidence for the existence of this fantasy you call target foods
Thats because you will never see anything with closed eyes.




Still waiting for the first piece of evidence. Nothing has been provided.
With closed eyes, you will miss everything, which so far has been the case. Your so busy trying to catch me slipping up that your stumbling over the proof of target food and not even realising it.

My father taught me something very important when I was a kid. I asked him, dad, do UFO's exist, and he turned to me with the straighest face and said let me tell you something, if you look up in the sky long enough, you just might see something.




Pointless and irrelevant comment. What an animal consumes is in part due to the physical structures available for feeding. Has nothing to do with your fantasy.
If that were true, species would experiment on food and we never see that.




Prove this.
I was able to prove this argument based on the fact of the human diet, how we eat so many things from so many food groups, and most of them aren't nutritious to humans in any signficiant way.




This is meaningless rubbish based on your fantasy.
Actually this isn't a pop quiz, anytime you remove someone from their food, they will either have to adapt by eating something else or starve.




You are again arguing from ignorance.
Actually you are, prove it.




Meaningless rubbish. There is no such thing as a target food.
Then you must be illiterate as I have spelled it out many times in the prior pages.




We do not know what they are eating. The squirrel is a perfect example of finding out that we do not know what animals eat. This showed that squirrels can be predatory. You should look up plethora. You obviously do not k



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





We do not know what they are eating. The squirrel is a perfect example of finding out that we do not know what animals eat. This showed that squirrels can be predatory. You should look up plethora. You obviously do not know what the word means.
Well then let me sum it up for you...
squirrel

They are predominantly herbivorous, subsisting on seeds and nuts, but many will eat insects and even small vertebrates





Plethora is not 2. And you could not and still cannot get the deer diet correct. You have recently claimed twigs and fruit are forbs and grasses. You even tried to claim forbs was not a word
For the 5th time forbs is not a word, would you look at the wiki you sent me listed as forb. Of course plethora means more than 2, you just don't know how to count. The deer diet is close enough.




Please prove to us that animals know that food they eat is good for them.

Individuals within a species do not eat the same foods.

These are bad assumptions on your part.
Tests would match the idea that species that seem to be eating target food, would be found to be eating healthy. Those that aren't would be trying to pursue that which is missing by eating in the food group of the missing food.




You simply could not figure out what a 7 year old knows. How pathetic.

You also lie since you begged for the answer and I would not tell you
I never begged for the answer, I believe you don't have the answer.





Prove it.
don't be shy, come on now.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist
 




Forb and forbs are words in the standard English language. You are once again arguing from ignorance.
dictionary.reference.com...

Here is another hint for you. In Yahoo type define in front of a word. In Google type define: in front of a word.
I don't use yahoo, I told you, I use google, and it is not a word in google, sorry your wrong.


Really!! REALLY!

You dont understand that adding an "s" to the end of the singular pluralizes it?

Here is the Wiki article on Forbs.

And this is the list of contents.



Contents

1 Etymology
2 Forbs and guilds
3 Forbs in informal classification
4 See also
5 References
6 External links


I've emboldened the appropriate parts for you. to revert to one of you more childish tactics: "Maybe you should contact the people at Wiki and let them know they're not using words"

Anyway, this distraction technique of yours is becoming tiresome as you always revert to it when you are in an unsure position. Now you could just "man up" and admit that you made an error around the pluralisation of the word, but I really don't have high expectations for that.

you do realize that every time you get into a p155ing contest regarding grammar, you lose.
edit on 6-9-2012 by idmonster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster
 





I need to clear something up, it has been bugging me for quite a while and it is quite petty, but:

Tooth, are you aware that when you refer to people as incredulous, its not an insult?

A credulous person believes without evidence, on hearsay, are deemed to be gullible.

An incredulous person is the opposite, refusing to believe without evidence, requiring proof, skeptical.

As I say, a minor thing and probably another F on the report card for language comprehension, but I only mention it because you use it often and in a context that makes me believe that you think it is an insult


in·cred·u·lous/inˈkrejələs/Adjective: (of a person or their manner) Unwilling or unable to believe something: "an incredulous gasp".

incredulous
I'm sorry but I found nothing that claimed it had to be something without proof.



Thats fine, I expected nothing more form you than a quick Google search and a link to the first piece of information that you thought corroborated what you believe.

However, bear this in mind, incredulous (first synonym - Skeptical) is the opposite of credulous and the main synonym for credulous is gullible.

Either way Incredulity is no insult, On a forum such as ATS, (Motto "Deny Ignorance") I would urge all people to maintain their incredulity and and not fall into the insane gullibility of advance credulity demonstrated by yourself.

Anyway, it was just an observation. Didnt really expect you to come back with "Oh yeah, I didn't realize that".

Then again, I could have it wrong, there is always the possibility that you are/were fully aware of the correct meaning of the term and think that credulity is something to aspire to.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join