Target food proves evolution wrong

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

To quote Lewis Black, when I hear something like this, I reach for a fossil, and I go like, "Fossil!".

It's not all theories and hypotheses, there are dead animals to be found and pegged to a particular period in Earth history. And I thought everyone knew that. I guess I'm not very evolved after all.

Again what I have read, and what I read from other ATS members differs about this, but ATS members are telling me that evolution has a point not only in the creation of new species, but also in some of their destruction.

Why do you deflect? The point was about that you tried to discredit the science of evolution right off the bat by saying that is it

large evolution bundle of theories and hypothesis.

...and I pointed out to factual evidence that really mean that it's not a "hypothesis" anymore, evidence being remains of various animals that can be approximately dated using geological strata etc.

Boy, what a logic fallacy. "Intended" by who exactly? By God our Lord? How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same? Weak mind. Very weak.

It's only a fallacy if you ignored the obvious points about diet.
Something has programmed all this life to somehow know what they are supposed to be eating.

Why do you bother to start a thread, and PRETEND that you want to PROVE something, whereby the very thing that you PRETEND you want to prove is PART of your "PROOF"?

reply to post by itsthetooth

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.

Not true. The only tests done were conclusive and correct. Pye simply did not like the answer. He rejected the results because they showed what Pye did not want to see. That's like you and this fantasy of target foods. There is no evidence that the work was done a second time. We have a repetitive liar claiming that unnamed and unknown people have validated his fantasy.

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.

And I showed forbs is a word. I don't believe English is a second language for you. There is no excuse not knowing that adding an 's' to the end of a word makes it plural. And I did prove all of those including forb and forbs.

I repetitively proved you have lied and I have repetitively showed you are wrong. I am astonished at anyone getting nearly 100% of things wrong.

And I have, just because you lack the intelligence to understand it doesn't mean its not true.

And this from someone unable to figure out a second grade question about the rock animals eat.

The following test later proved that to be wrong.

Prove that the test ever took place.

Again you will have to do more research, as later tests proved that to be wrong.

Name the lab and the people that did the test. It's a lie by Pye.

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.

You are being untruthful. You whined. You begged for the answer and finally someone had to tell you the answer to a second grade question.

Learn the difference between accurate and precise.
Learn the difference between grazers and browsers.

Target food is still no more than a fantasy, a product of a closed mind that is unable and unwilling to see evidence.

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.

I remember people pointing out a so-called UFO. As they tracked it across the sky I announced that it was going to disappear now. It did because it was a circumpolar satellite going into the Earth's shadow and the position of the shadow was easy to estimate. The close minded fools that night refused to believe it was just a satellite.

If that were true, species would experiment on food and we never see that.

Again arguing from your personal ignorance. Animals do and evidence has been supplied by multiple posters. You are wrong - completely wrong.

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.

That's not proof. It is an argument based on your personal ignorance of the subject.

Ruminants die if they eat highly nutritious food. They develop a disease called acidosis.
www.ehow.com...

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.

So they do experiment. You know that animals experiment.

Then you must be illiterate as I have spelled it out many times in the prior pages.

You've stated what this fantasy is, but nothing more. Not a drop of evidence has been offered.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well then let me sum it up for you...

That is a rough summary. It is not complete. The wikipedia entry for deer did not include bark. That was not complete.

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.

You are a liar I already provided a link to forbs. It is in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The deer diet is close enough? Are you referring to your mistaken posting? What are you referring to?

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.

So you don't know. You suggest that tests could be done, but nothing has been done. So now you have some guesses here. Any evidence to support these guesses?

Probably hard to run a test on a fantasy.

I never begged for the answer, I believe you don't have the answer.

The answer was already given for the rock that animals eat. Did you miss that part? It is salt. That is why connector put up an image of popcorn. You responded to his post. It was a great hint. Did you beg? Yes you did.

So here we are still working on the report card. It's getting longer.
The point of a report card is to assist the student in learning and to pointout areas where they need to improve. Here we have some rather basic issues that need to be improved.

Good luck and let's get these issues resolved in the next day or so. Easy to do.

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change
4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change
5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change
6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no change
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change
9. D - For stating that deer have a concise diet no change
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change
11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change
12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change
13. F - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes no change
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen no change
15. F - For not understanding forbs is the plural of forb. Most English words are made plural by adding an s to the end of the word. no change
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence. no change
17. F - not understanding the term incredulous
18. F - Not understanding the difference between precise and accurate
19. F - for stating Pye is a scientist
20. F - for believing Pye's lies

Unanswered questions from others
www.abovetopsecret.com...

IF TARGET FOOD EXISTS, HOW DOES THIS DISPROVE EVOLUTION?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How can you prove a point by using arguments based on same?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

reply to post by idmonster

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.

Being that I had never head of it, I didn't know it was plural.

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"

It's nice to see that you have eventually learned how to use the system tags.

Google still doesn't pick up a tag for searching forbs. It will locate forb however. Sorry not my faut and I'm not sure if its wikis faults for the absent of the tag.

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.

That would depend on who it was that made the error, you still never showed me a definition of forbs, so it wasn't me.

reply to post by idmonster

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.

Now what the hell is wrong with google?

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

Oh cool, that makes sense.

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.

And I would agree with you if only one single person was able to prove that I'm credulous.

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.

No, even after you pointed it out, from what I can tell, I was using it in the context that I expected it to work in.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Why do you deflect? The point was about that you tried to discredit the science of evolution right off the bat by saying that is it

I don't discredit the science, I agree with it. It's just I think there is a big stretch between growing mutations in bacteria or viruses, and claiming that humans have a common ancestor shared with apes.

...and I pointed out to factual evidence that really mean that it's not a "hypothesis" anymore, evidence being remains of various animals that can be approximately dated using geological strata etc

The section I quoted wasn't referring to evolution as a whole, it was referring to parts of evolution.

Why do you bother to start a thread, and PRETEND that you want to PROVE something, whereby the very thing that you PRETEND you want to prove is PART of your "PROOF"?

You mean why do you want to try to dismiss the facts as just me pretending to believe in them? The facts are the facts, species are all eating the same diet within a species group. They also appear to know that what they are eating is healthy as they aren't doing the same thing with rocks and dirt. There is intelligence involved, and no matter how you slice it, there is intelligence behind that as well to programm the diets. No pretending here.

still waiting on an explanation for the double Helix of DNA tooth, I guess you missed or just passed over my last post, why is that??


could it be because you cannot explain it away? just wondering..........



(but it does make one wonder if it's because it proves your entire premise incorrect)

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Why do you deflect? The point was about that you tried to discredit the science of evolution right off the bat by saying that is it

I don't discredit the science, I agree with it. It's just I think there is a big stretch between growing mutations in bacteria or viruses, and claiming that humans have a common ancestor shared with apes.

Whoa. You are saying that you agree with the science only to disagree with it in the next sentence. If this is the way you think, this is pretty hopeless, in every regard. It's like saying that you agree with the Constitution 100%, but citizens should never be allowed to gather in groups more than three.

Why do you bother to start a thread, and PRETEND that you want to PROVE something, whereby the very thing that you PRETEND you want to prove is PART of your "PROOF"?

You mean why do you want to try to dismiss the facts as just me pretending to believe in them? The facts are the facts, species are all eating the same diet within a species group. They also appear to know that what they are eating is healthy as they aren't doing the same thing with rocks and dirt. There is intelligence involved, and no matter how you slice it, there is intelligence behind that as well to programm the diets. No pretending here.

There you have, thanks for proving my point. Basically you start by saying "there is intelligence involved", than after a few detours you say "now I have proven that there is intelligence involved".

DERP.

reply to post by stereologist

Not true. The only tests done were conclusive and correct. Pye simply did not like the answer. He rejected the results because they showed what Pye did not want to see. That's like you and this fantasy of target foods. There is no evidence that the work was done a second time. We have a repetitive liar claiming that unnamed and unknown people have validated his fantasy.

Shame on you for being a lazy fool. Pye did not publish his book about star child because it was a human skull. Your so wrong. You need to do more research like I have. While you at it produce some people that disagree with him since he is such a fraud.

And I showed forbs is a word. I don't believe English is a second language for you. There is no excuse not knowing that adding an 's' to the end of a word makes it plural. And I did prove all of those including forb and forbs.

Then shame on you again for presenting it to me in plural when you probably knew google wouldn't search it that way.

I repetitively proved you have lied and I have repetitively showed you are wrong. I am astonished at anyone getting nearly 100% of things wrong.

The only thing wrong in any of this is YOU. You constantly lie, then have the guts to call me the liar. You are the one that haven't backed up all of your claims, so at this point its still opinion.

And this from someone unable to figure out a second grade question about the rock animals eat.

There is a difference between trying and failing.

Prove that the test ever took place.

Thats on a different thread, this one is about Target food.

Name the lab and the people that did the test. It's a lie by Pye.

The new lab that determined it to be alien nuclear dna with human mtdna was listed in another thread.

You are being untruthful. You whined. You begged for the answer and finally someone had to tell you the answer to a second grade question.

I'm not begging for answers, I'm begging for you to back up any and all claims with some type of proof rather than inundating my thread with your opinions.

Learn the difference between accurate and precise.
Learn the difference between grazers and browsers.

Target food is still no more than a fantasy, a product of a closed mind that is unable and unwilling to see evidence.

Sure, such a closed mind that you couldn't believe that I came up with it. The difference between accurate and precise is irrelivent as concise was the proper word I used, you need to look that one up. Gazers and browsers could be the same to a deer is all I'm concearned about. You have to realise that deer do not conform to the confines of what humans understand.

I remember people pointing out a so-called UFO. As they tracked it across the sky I announced that it was going to disappear now. It did because it was a circumpolar satellite going into the Earth's shadow and the position of the shadow was easy to estimate. The close minded fools that night refused to believe it was just a satellite.

Once again because you will never get anywhere with just your opinion.

Again arguing from your personal ignorance. Animals do and evidence has been supplied by multiple posters. You are wrong - completely wrong

I have yet to find a wiki that agrees with you.

There is a good project for you, find a wiki that agrees with you.

That's not proof. It is an argument based on your personal ignorance of the subject.

Ruminants die if they eat highly nutritious food. They develop a disease called acidosis

Then in a way, that food would not be healthy for them.

So they do experiment. You know that animals experiment.

Nope, they browse the same food group of what ever is missing.

You've stated what this fantasy is, but nothing more. Not a drop of evidence has been offered

Just because your incredulous doesn't make it a fantasy.

reply to post by stereologist

That is a rough summary. It is not complete. The wikipedia entry for deer did not include bark. That was not complete.

Whats the matter, in denial much ?? I have told you and told you and you don't listen, I even shared a link proving that deer only eat bark when they are starving. It's not a NORMAL part of their diet. Just as I have also told you that a starving species could eat rocks or dirt, you would turn around and say that I'm contradicting myslef. We are talking about normal diets, not starving diets. Get that through your head.

You are a liar I already provided a link to forbs. It is in this post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The deer diet is close enough? Are you referring to your mistaken posting? What are you referring to?

I'm sorry but google doesn't recognize the word forbs. The first deer diet that I found was close enough to the full diet.

So you don't know. You suggest that tests could be done, but nothing has been done. So now you have some guesses here. Any evidence to support these guesses?

Probably hard to run a test on a fantasy.

Not at all, the work is allready done, its just an issue of researching or searching diets to see who fits the bill. You would first have to identify species that are eating target foods only, and the only one that comes to mind for sure is abalone, then asking if he appears to be healthy. That however could be where the problem starts.

The answer was already given for the rock that animals eat. Did you miss that part? It is salt. That is why connector put up an image of popcorn. You responded to his post. It was a great hint. Did you beg? Yes you did

did you have a failing thread about eating rocks and decide to try it out here? Why don't you just start a thread about eating rocks.

1. F - For claiming that labels describe what we eat. no change
2. D - For claiming that animals do not eat rocks. no change
3. F - Unable to differentiate between a grazers and browsers diet. no change
4. F - For claiming target foods have been proved. no change
5. D - For claiming that fungi are plants. no change
6. F - For not understanding the difference between facts, proof, and evidence. no change
7. F - For not understanding gastroliths no change
8. F - For pretending that deer view lichens and fungi as being the same no change
9. D - For stating that deer have a concise diet no change
10. F - For making the logical error of inferring a general case from a specific case no change
11. C - For attempting straw man arguments no change
12. F - For claiming the diet claims are from the deer's perspective no change
13. F - Looking up the term forbs and not getting past Forbes no change
14. F - For suggestig that eating rocks is akin to air, water, and nitrogen no change
15. F - For not understanding forbs is the plural of forb. Most English words are made plural by adding an s to the end of the word. no change
16. F - for being close minded and unable to see the evidence. no change
17. F - not understanding the term incredulous
18. F - Not understanding the difference between precise and accurate
19. F - for stating Pye is a scientist
20. F - for believing Pye's lies

To bad I don't think your qualified to grade anyone else. Anyone that actually thinks that nutrition facts actually don't share nutrition information, or anyone that doesn't back up their opinions with proof.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I'm sorry but google doesn't recognize the word forbs

that's because google thinks you mean forbes( very popular seach term)....and auto suggests that. If will then say "search for forbs instead". The simple tricks of using google correctly.....

google forbs

Notice on the link I provided....it is now suggesting "forbes". Learn how to use google properly....

Question: do you realize that google results are different for everyone? It is based not only based on popularly of search, but paid promotion, geographical region and previous search / browsing history.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Being that I had never head of it, I didn't know it was plural.

This is another argument from ignorance. Are you actually claiming that you do not know how to make plurals in English?

Google still doesn't pick up a tag for searching forbs. It will locate forb however. Sorry not my faut and I'm not sure if its wikis faults for the absent of the tag.

That is wrong. You don't know how to use google. That's the problem. It is your fault.

That would depend on who it was that made the error, you still never showed me a definition of forbs, so it wasn't me.

I did. So you are caught telling another lie.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Shame on you for being a lazy fool. Pye did not publish his book about star child because it was a human skull. Your so wrong. You need to do more research like I have. While you at it produce some people that disagree with him since he is such a fraud.

Pye wrote a book to take money from stupid people. He was successful. He fleeced the gullible. Good for him.

I have already produced a number of people that show Pye is a fraud.

Then shame on you again for presenting it to me in plural when you probably knew google wouldn't search it that way.

I didn't need to look up a common word in google. Shame on you for being unable to use google.

The only thing wrong in any of this is YOU. You constantly lie, then have the guts to call me the liar. You are the one that haven't backed up all of your claims, so at this point its still opinion.

You lie every chance you get it seems.

No one trusts anything yu say because of your record. You and Pye are the same. You both lie as often as possible.

Thats on a different thread, this one is about Target food.

Since you have no effort at providing even one piece of evidence about this fantasy called target foods why would I expect any different about any of your other absurd claims?

The new lab that determined it to be alien nuclear dna with human mtdna was listed in another thread.

Not asking you what lie Pye told I asked the name of the lab and the person that ran the test.

I'm not begging for answers, I'm begging for you to back up any and all claims with some type of proof rather than inundating my thread with your opinions.

1. Learn the difference between evidence and proof
2. Provide even 1 piece of evidence that target food exist

Sure, such a closed mind that you couldn't believe that I came up with it. The difference between accurate and precise is irrelivent as concise was the proper word I used, you need to look that one up. Gazers and browsers could be the same to a deer is all I'm concearned about. You have to realise that deer do not conform to the confines of what humans understand.

You are telling yet another lie. You used the word precise. You should have used the word accurate since precise was meaningless in the situation you used it.

Not gazers, it's grazers and deer are browsers, not grazers. You have to realize that the real world differs from your fantasies.

Once again because you will never get anywhere with just your opinion.

The point is that your story was an anecdote that leads people into wacko ideas. it was lacking something important that you clearly lack.

I have yet to find a wiki that agrees with you.

You are again arguing from your personal ignorance. You couldn't determine that animals eat rocks. You couldn't find forbs. Just 2 examples of how your lack of ability has clouded your thinking.

There is a good project for you, find a wiki that agrees with you.

Did it. You even supplied the information that squirrels experiment with predation. Invasive species move to new foods. Hawaiian moths have evolved to consume the recently introduced banana plants.

Then in a way, that food would not be healthy for them.

But the cattle do not know that. They will eat and die.

Nope, they browse the same food group of what ever is missing.

Please provide evidence of your fantasies.

Just because your incredulous doesn't make it a fantasy.

You get a good grade for using a word properly. Well done. Now let's work on the other failing marks in yur report card.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Whats the matter, in denial much ?? I have told you and told you and you don't listen, I even shared a link proving that deer only eat bark when they are starving.

Thought we were seeing improvement and it is back to being a liar. Deer eat bark whenever. You are the only 1 that has discussed starving. No one else.

It's not a NORMAL part of their diet. Just as I have also told you that a starving species could eat rocks or dirt, you would turn around and say that I'm contradicting myslef. We are talking about normal diets, not starving diets. Get that through your head.

Now you are continuing to lie. A normal diet includes eating rocks.

I'm sorry but google doesn't recognize the word forbs. The first deer diet that I found was close enough to the full diet.

More lies. Google does recognize forbs, but you were too lazy to look beyond the first page of search results. The first list of food was not the diet of a browser and deer are browsers. You are a childish liar.

Not at all, the work is allready done, its just an issue of researching or searching diets to see who fits the bill. You would first have to identify species that are eating target foods only, and the only one that comes to mind for sure is abalone, then asking if he appears to be healthy. That however could be where the problem starts.

So you have provided no evidence. In the case of the abalone the diet listed in the wiki is incomplete as I already pointed out. Still no evidence.

did you have a failing thread about eating rocks and decide to try it out here? Why don't you just start a thread about eating rocks.

You continue to deny being wrong and your response to errors is not learning, but to lie repeatedly. I and others are trying to help out here by getting you up to snuff. You resist. Can't learn with your fingers in your ear and screaming.

reply to post by itsthetooth

To bad I don't think your qualified to grade anyone else. Anyone that actually thinks that nutrition facts actually don't share nutrition information, or anyone that doesn't back up their opinions with proof.

Here we go with yet another lie. The issue is that you claimed that the labels told you what you were eating and I easily identified a common product where the labels do not tell you what you are eating.

Twist and squirm and whine and you still cannot name the animal used to make marshmallows. The reason is that the labels do not tell you what you are eating.

There are as many different manners in which animals eat and here are a few:
en.wikipedia.org...

These methods evolved. At one time there were no animals on land. Now there are animals that consume each other.

Science studies the varied issues of animal behavior. An intro can be found here
www.nature.com...

Appetites — perceptions of need — usually link directly to physiological control systems and fall into a general category called behavioral homeostasis.

The area is well studied and certainly has nothing to do with fantasies such as target food.

The abalone has been mentioned as a possible case of something seeking a target food. About all that has happened is that an incomplete diet has been listed.

Snails experimentally feed. Here is a paper on Aplysia.
brembs.net...

The situation for studying operant conditioning of Aplysia feeding behavior is almost ideal: 1. In search for food, the animals display seemingly random bites for food, even without any external stimuli triggering the bite (Kupfermann, 1974).

Thus the snail is experimentally searching and consuming food in its environment.

reply to post by Connector

that's because google thinks you mean forbes( very popular seach term)....and auto suggests that. If will then say "search for forbs instead". The simple tricks of using google correctly.....

Yes the auto correction I get is forbes.

Notice on the link I provided....it is now suggesting "forbes". Learn how to use google properly....

Question: do you realize that google results are different for everyone? It is based not only based on popularly of search, but paid promotion, geographical region and previous search / browsing history

So If I'm not using it correctly please tell me how I'm suppose to get forbs out of forbes?