Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by idmonster

Just to get this straight in my own head.

You accept fossils of evidence of extinctions but not of evolution?

As I have always maintained, simularity doesn't prove relation.

OK, what you are sugessting is that every fossil found that has no living exact match, was on this planet at the same time as every species currently residing here, is that correct?

Yep.

So at one time the entire lineage of what science recognise as "homo" were all wandering about this planet together at some point, again I ask, is my understanding of what you believe correct?

Thats right, we not the ony humanoids to have walked this earth.

[i

]Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist

 

Evolution is the changes we observe. If there are changes then there is evolution.

Well the changes we observe are prematuraly called evolution with nothing to back them. There is no proof that evolution is causing those changes, as was the case with ADHD changing genes.

Really? after all these pages on this and other thread you still havnt grasped that EVOLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE ANYTHING. Evolution describes a process.

We've been over this.....many, many times.

By admitting that changes are occurring you are stating that evolution is happening.

This just proves to me that you are easily taken by the fallacy that any and all changes are caused from evolution. As I had allready proven back in the thread can you prove evolution wrong, ADHD changes our genes and could give us the false idea that evolution is causing this..

Really? after all these pages on this and other thread you still havnt grasped that EVOLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE ANYTHING. Evolution describes a process.

We've been over this.....many, many times.

reply to post by idmonster

Really? after all these pages on this and other thread you still havnt grasped that EVOLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE ANYTHING. Evolution describes a process.

We've been over this.....many, many times

I know I know and evolution has created over a billion species but you also claim its not a creator.

The only difference is I'm claiming intent. Without you knowing for sure what the mechanism is that guides evolution, you really have no way or proving or disproving intent. I'm just making an assumption that anything that creates over a billion species, didn't do it by accident.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sure any food could be bad if its bad. The difference is that species are directed to the food prior to tasting it,

What by? Where is the evidence for your assumption?

we know this because they don't randomly pick up inedible things like random rocks and random dirt in foods place.

What we really know is the complete opposite of your unfounded claim. A chick will peck at anything until it learns what is food and what is not food. There are countless examples of this that have been observed and documented.

So something not only tells them what to eat, but this also tells them what not to eat.

What is this 'something' and show evidence that this something even exists.

The taste might tell them food is bad but not untill after a decision had first been made to eat it.

So you ignore the taste also tells the animal what is good and what is enjoyable to eat and you still have not explained why a section of the tongue recognises the taste of salt.

The tounge is not the first of the senses to locate food, I'm sorry but your wrong.

And I have written many times now that taste is not used to locate the food source sight and smell do that so not only are you wrong but you have shown no evidence proving me wrong. Sorry

Proof is obvious in that something directs species to the food before it is even bitten.

Proof is not supplied by something being obvious. Pond water is obviously green. Research will show you that the water has no colour it is the algae that is green.

You cannot even supply the name of the 'something' that directs. Do that.

I allready shared the link and paste of what things the bible claims to have shared with us.

As you commonly reply. I did not and have never seen any links by you providing that information. Please do so.

Then what is it that directs species to choose the food they do prior to eating it?

Availability, hunger, teaching and experience. You have had this explained many times now and all with links.

Yes I allready explained that target food is ideal to the consumer.

Then salt in that diet is not insignificant

First why would all individuals in a species choose the same foods, as though they have a collective mind?

See my post on the anteater. They are taught by their parents another common theme we share with ALL higher animals.

If you were correct in your observation we would still see individuality in species, and we do not.

What like this shark There are many examples you just will not look.

The have a known diet and it matches for all of them in the species. Something has programmed them.

Show your evidence for that claim.

The know exactly what they are looking for as the food also matched their needs. We rarely hear about animals dying from malnutrition, at least that its not common.

What do you base that on. Here is just one link that shows how wrong you are Wiki -Plains Zebra

Even with parental protection, up to 50% of zebra foals are taken by predation, disease, and starvation each year

As your link indicates there are examples of the parents teaching the young how to eat. This is a form of adaptation which means that instinct has failed either due to extinctions or being moved out of the element.

Nope. My link shows that parents teach their young what to and what not to eat. The rest of your reply is based on nothing but your preconceived opinion and as usual you have nothing to support that opinion.

When you see a species teaching young how to eat, its only because instinct will no longer work which proves target food is no longer there.

That is not what has been observed and documented many times with countless species so unless you have any supporting evidence your answer is again based soley on your predetermined opinion and is therefore not acceptable.

Animals don't have detectors to tell them where these things can be found, and they are never seen searching for them. At least its not documented.

Oh dear oh dear. The detectors are sight, smell and in some instances sound. Animals searching for food is probably the number one documented habit so how you can write the above is beyond me.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Just to get this straight in my own head.

You accept fossils of evidence of extinctions but not of evolution?

As I have always maintained, simularity doesn't prove relation.

OK, what you are sugessting is that every fossil found that has no living exact match, was on this planet at the same time as every species currently residing here, is that correct?

Yep.

So at one time the entire lineage of what science recognise as "homo" were all wandering about this planet together at some point, again I ask, is my understanding of what you believe correct?

Thats right, we not the ony humanoids to have walked this earth.

Maybe you have an explantion for why we never find fossils of modern species.

Realistically, If all species co-habited, the we should be finding modern human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, Probably even modern human bones in dinosaur coprolites (fossil dino poo, its one of the methods we use to find out what they ate, and what other animals were around at the same time), but heres the kicker, we never, ever do!

Fossilisation takes a looooooooooong time, and most modern species just havnt been around long enough to fossilize.

Also, while on here, people have been banding around a figure akin to 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Current estimates for variety of species currently alive is at between 5 and 100million if we go for the median and settle on a figue of 50 million possible different species currently on the planet, that means that before the first mass extinction event, there had to have been somewher in excess of 50,000 million different species all crammed onto this planet together.

Even if each individual was part of a very small group, say 1000 individuals in any single species group, were now at 50,000,000 individuals, and some of these were quite big.

I believe my figure are probably on the conservative side. How did they all fit?

reply to post by itsthetooth

Nope it is a sign of a varied diet for it to be anything else you need to supply the evidence. I am still waiting.

Its simple, species eating randomly in a food group .................................. No evidence

I asked for evidence in support of your claim not your opinion. Try doing that.

as I have stated that the bible clearly explains that earth is not our home. You have never justified why this historical document should not be taken seriously aside from the fact that it conflicts with the idea that we evolved here on earth.

You have indeed made that statement many times, alas you have never provided the evidence that backs it up. You have also never supplied the quotes from the bible.

This thread is about target food proving evolution wrong not the conflict between the bible and evolution. Please stay on topic.

There is nothing that stands out about salt that makes any difference with target food.

Nothing but the death of any species whose diet does not include it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There are many things that prove evolution wrong, which one would you like?

The ones you made a claim for in your thread title

Target food proves evolution to be wrong. There is no way that a species could know beforehand what its suppose to be eating without intelligence telling it so.

And you believe that above proves evolution wrong????? Really?????

You cannot show one example of target food so again another fact claimed by you that is not a fact.

There have been many examples of target food. The anteater ............... All proven false, dont you recall?

Still no example then.

Again your egocentric argument that revolves around humans has not been proven. Has no supporting evidence and flies in the face of the observable evidence that is well documented and there for all to see.

So you think that sickness diabetes, IBS, colon cancer, and every food disorder you can imagine, obesity, supplements, dieticians, diets, fortified food, genetically modified food, are all signs that our food is perfect for us?

Nope. It’s a sign life is not as it is written about in fairy tales.

I am still waiting for your first post that contains evidence of proof

Proof has allready occured in the thread, you will have to read it again.

I already agreed that loads of proof has been posted in this thread, all showing target food false and none from you in support of it.

Of course they are different species and if you are now claiming the fossil record does not show relation how in the hell can it show diet?

It doesn't, I never claimed it could.

Then how can the fossil record show extinctions of target food?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by idmonster

 

Really? after all these pages on this and other thread you still havnt grasped that EVOLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE ANYTHING. Evolution describes a process.

We've been over this.....many, many times

I know I know and evolution has created over a billion species but you also claim its not a creator.

How many times. Evolution is a word it creates nothing. The theory of evolution describes change over time selected for by the environment. It does not describe creation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Just so that there is no confusion, when I was talking about species eating rocks, I was referring to them randomly, not though choice of say, knowing it was salt or calcium or anything specific. to digest them and have them end up in their stomach as though they were food.

That is not what you originally stated. You were very specific saying that deer do not eat rocks or dirt.

Moving the goal posts is an attempt to weasel out of being wrong. You are still wrong.

No I only checked about 50 but I'm content with 100%.

So in fact you have checked virtually nothing. You also only checked articles from a source which contains introductory material and has been shown to be incomplete. Animals do experiment with their eating as has been observed by myself and others that have posted in this thread. Your claim is based on limited research and has been shown to wrong.

Now where did this come from, have you single handedly disproven all religion? Please share.

Go back and read the thread.

Well the changes we observe are prematuraly called evolution with nothing to back them. There is no proof that evolution is causing those changes, as was the case with ADHD changing genes.

Evolution are changes. If there are changes then there has been evolution. It's that simple. Evolution are not the changes, not the cause of the changes.

The fact that all species eat the same diet and don't experiement or deviate, prior to tasting the food is evidence that there is much more to this picture and it can only be intelligent.

It is not a fact that all members of a species eat the same diet. Animals do experiment with their eating. Animals do use taste and other senses to find food and test whether or not eat when experimenting.

This just proves to me that you are easily taken by the fallacy that any and all changes are caused from evolution. As I had allready proven back in the thread can you prove evolution wrong, ADHD changes our genes and could give us the false idea that evolution is causing this.

You are mistaken about what evolution is. Evolution is the changes. Evolution is not the mechanism. Nothing has been proved by you in this thread. In fact no evidence has been supplied for the notion of target foods. It seems to be just a fantasy with no connection to reality.

The fact that mechanism has not been identified blows the whole theory out of the water, especially since ADHD has been identified as changing our genes. How do we not know that it is ADHD we are witness to or some other type of disorder?

The mechanism that explains evolution has been identified and is well tested.

Where was it ever proven that my understanding is odd or silly? I would like proof please, or is this just your opinion?

You might take it personal. So be it. Many people think they are open minded because they believe in odd and silly concepts such as believing that aliens interbred with humans. Believing in notions where there is no evidence for and a wealth of information against simply means the individual is gullible rather than open minded.

I'm sorry, but I never got your links, and I did go back and look for them as well. I would enjoy reading them if I ever get to see them.

Go back and find them in the thread.

I had no reason to believe it was failing me, it had never failed me before.

I told you its was failing you. I and another poster even told you how to get use Google to find what you want.

If there was any shortcoming on my end, what I meant was random rocks and dirt.

Random is a word that is often misused. To me this sentence has no actual meaning. In what sense do you mean here when you write random. Is it random location, random content, random detection, random dimension, random weight, or something else. What would be random?

Then I will leave this at the fact that no one ever proved that animals eat random rocks, just that they eat mineral licks, which is not my point. My point was random rocks on the ground. They would have to go through a lot of rocks to find salt, and we don't see that either

Trying to move the goal posts is not working. You made a mistake. You have probably learned something. Instead of thanking others you waste time trying to pretend that you meant something other than what you repeatedly stated and that was clearly that animals do not eat rocks. But they do.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So that's how you define it. "Intent", of course, is an attribute of consciousness. A completely natural process cannot have an intent. So by starting with intent, you already proclaim the existence of a supernatural intelligence, which you then proceed to prove via this concept "target food" anyhow.

I never said it had to be supernatural.

So according to you there is a sapient being here on Earth (or maybe beyond), who nevertheless has the capacity to create what you call "target food" for every species on the planet, and also to entice all sorts of animals to deliberately consume that food. Well such $ki11z are clearly in the supernatural realm, but if you call it perfectly natural, this makes that whole thing all the more fantastical.

Anyhow evolution fails to explain how it is that species are smart enough to target proper food, and smart enough to not target things that aren't food

Anyhow? I pointed out a fundamental fallacy in your logic, and you go "anyhow"? You invent a fantastical concept of "target food", and then gladly conclude that evolution "fails" to explain this nonsense. Newsbreak: modern chemistry, for all its wonders, can't explain the "philosopher's stone".

You see, if you postulate "A is true", it is very, very silly to go around in circles and pretend that you are proving that "A is true", to then triumphantly arrive to "A is true". All the food labels and nutrients are really beside the point.

In fact they are not. In those rare cases where a species appears to be eating one or more target foods, it appears that food just so happens to fill the need in nutrition in a great way.

You missed the point in a spectacular way. What I pointed out was a clear starting point, and the "intent" that you declare as the source and explanation of nutrition sources.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Thus the term "evolving diet."

You realize that this statement makes it clear that a species eats different diets in different places. A moose in Maine and a moose in Wyoming do not encounter the same plant species. A deer in Virginia and a deer in South Dakota do not encounter the same plant species. A deer living in a place after a wildfire does not eat the same plants as a deer in a wooded zone.

The only thing that is tested is whether or not there is change, it is assumed that all changes are from evolution, which is not proof.

Evolution is the changes. Changes are not from evolution. You are mistaken about the meaning of evolution.

reply to post by colin42

What by? Where is the evidence for your assumption?

Simple, if taste was the determining factor in food selection, there would be a varied acceptance, and there isn't.

What we really know is the complete opposite of your unfounded claim. A chick will peck at anything until it learns what is food and what is not food. There are countless examples of this that have been observed and documented.

Now thats a good observation, but is there anything that proves they actually eat everything they peck at, and then after trying it, make a decistion.

What is this 'something' and show evidence that this something even exists.

Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

So you ignore the taste also tells the animal what is good and what is enjoyable to eat and you still have not explained why a section of the tongue recognises the taste of salt.

If you are correct, please explain how it is that humans have such a varied diet mostly on personal taste while animals seem to all agree on liking the same food?

There is a section of the tounge that is better able to detect salt, a section that is better able to detect sour, and a section that is better able to detect sweets.

The tounge is not the first of the senses to locate food, I'm sorry but your wrong.

And I have written many times now that taste is not used to locate the food source sight and smell do that so not only are you wrong but you have shown no evidence proving me wrong. Sorry

So you admitt that somehow eyesight and smell must be the determining factor, especially since thats all thats left. The only problem is that within that, you are still leaving the personal factor of choice in the equation, which is obviously a fail. We just don't see animals making personal choices about food, or if they are, they all just so happen to match within a species.

Proof is not supplied by something being obvious. Pond water is obviously green. Research will show you that the water has no colour it is the algae that is green.

But if the algae is green, it in turn makes the water appear green. So your not seeing the water your seeing the algae, but its still green.

You cannot even supply the name of the 'something' that directs. Do that.

That is the million dollar question.

As you commonly reply. I did not and have never seen any links by you providing that information. Please do so.

Then you must have been on vacation.

I'm sorry you will have to look back to catch up.

Availability, hunger, teaching and experience. You have had this explained many times now and all with links.

Your weak answer fails to explain why they aren't eating random things like rocks and dirt, why they are never witnessed trying new food, and why they all eat the same foods.

Yes I allready explained that target food is ideal to the consumer.

Then salt in that diet is not insignificant

It's not any more signigicant than calcium, water, or air either.

First why would all individuals in a species choose the same foods, as though they have a collective mind?

See my post on the anteater. They are taught by their parents another common theme we share with ALL higher animals.

There is nothing, no proof to support the idea that all species do in fact do this. You are assuming first off that all animals have a complex communication structure, your also assuming that all species have the ability to learn in complex ways, do you have something that proves this to be true?

What like this shark There are many examples you just will not look.

This link is an example of something being wrong with a species. I don't know if human intervention caused it, but due to the fact that this shark is not eating what its supposed to, it can die. If you think this example is proof that animals not only can learn but that this one was taught wrong, then you need to explain how the rest of the planet knows that the food its eating is the correct food.

Show your evidence for that claim.

The fact that all species have a known diet that can't be explained, is proof enough.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Exactly, what is this something that seems to be sharing intelligent information with species that tells them what they are suppose to be eating.

I fail to see the point of this statement. For all the fantastical "target food", how it is created and then animals are informed to eat exactly that, I don't see a shred of a semblance of evidence, proof or anything at all.

reply to post by colin42

Sure any food could be bad if its bad. The difference is that species are directed to the food prior to tasting it,
What by? Where is the evidence for your assumption?

The evidence is in the fact that they are never found eating random things to come to his finding.

we know this because they don't randomly pick up inedible things like random rocks and random dirt in foods place.

What we really know is the complete opposite of your unfounded claim. A chick will peck at anything until it learns what is food and what is not food. There are countless examples of this that have been observed and documented.

I reviewed the wiki about chickens and found nothing to support your claims, not that wiki is god, but there seems to be no proof about chickens pecking at anything, if they do, they could be starving.

So something not only tells them what to eat, but this also tells them what not to eat.
What is this 'something' and show evidence that this something even exists.

It's an unknown, that seems to share intelligence. We know it exists because there is no evidence of species randomly experimenting with food or having seperate personal choice in the foods they allegedly try.

The taste might tell them food is bad but not untill after a decision had first been made to eat it.

So you ignore the taste also tells the animal what is good and what is enjoyable to eat and you still have not explained why a section of the tongue recognises the taste of salt.

Taste is not the determining factor in the choice of food as there would be personal differences and there is none.

The tounge is not the first of the senses to locate food, I'm sorry but your wrong.

And I have written many times now that taste is not used to locate the food source sight and smell do that so not only are you wrong but you have shown no evidence proving me wrong. Sorry

Again if taste was a factor there would be personal differences.

Proof is obvious in that something directs species to the food before it is even bitten.

Proof is not supplied by something being obvious. Pond water is obviously green. Research will show you that the water has no colour it is the algae that is green.

Of course, if there is something green in the water, it will appear green.

You cannot even supply the name of the 'something' that directs. Do that.

This something must be intelligent, can you prove its not?

I allready shared the link and paste of what things the bible claims to have shared with us.

As you commonly reply. I did not and have never seen any links by you providing that information. Please do so.

You must have been on vacation, you will have to read back.

Then what is it that directs species to choose the food they do prior to eating it?

Availability, hunger, teaching and experience. You have had this explained many times now and all with links.

That isn't possible as they also know what is NOT food, and you have had this explained to you as well.

Yes I allready explained that target food is ideal to the consumer.

Then salt in that diet is not insignificant

It is no more significiant than anything else.

First why would all individuals in a species choose the same foods, as though they have a collective mind?

See my post on the anteater. They are taught by their parents another common theme we share with ALL higher animals.

But how did the first species learn if no one was there to teach them, and how did they come to realize that the food chosen is also the best for them?

If you were correct in your observation we would still see individuality in species, and we do not.

What like this shark There are many examples you just will not look.

If this shark was taught to eat the wrong things, he could die. If you think this proves that species are always taught diet, then why is there no proof of this in wiki? Your also claiming with this that all animals have a complex communication structure in order to be able to teach others, in addition to them having to be able to learn.

The have a known diet and it matches for all of them in the species. Something has programmed them.

Show your evidence for that claim.

The fact that they eat a diet any don't dieviate from it, and all eat the same thing is proof.

reply to post by colin42

What do you base that on. Here is just one link that shows how wrong you are Wiki -Plains Zebra
Even with parental protection, up to 50% of zebra foals are taken by predation, disease, and starvation each year

They are obviously missing target food.

As your link indicates there are examples of the parents teaching the young how to eat. This is a form of adaptation which means that instinct has failed either due to extinctions or being moved out of the element.

Nope. My link shows that parents teach their young what to and what not to eat. The rest of your reply is based on nothing but your preconceived opinion and as usual you have nothing to support that opinion.

Well sure I do, the absence of your claims from any diet I have found.

When you see a species teaching young how to eat, its only because instinct will no longer work which proves target food is no longer there.

That is not what has been observed and documented many times with countless species so unless you have any supporting evidence your answer is again based soley on your predetermined opinion and is therefore not acceptable

Who taught them the first time?

Oh dear oh dear. The detectors are sight, smell and in some instances sound. Animals searching for food is probably the number one documented habit so how you can write the above is beyond me.

Which all results in the the species coming to a final conclusion of what it likes to eat. Again the problem with the idea of personal choice, is that none of them are making it. They are all making the same decision, how is that for magic?

reply to post by idmonster

Maybe you have an explantion for why we never find fossils of modern species.

Realistically, If all species co-habited, the we should be finding modern human fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs, Probably even modern human bones in dinosaur coprolites (fossil dino poo, its one of the methods we use to find out what they ate, and what other animals were around at the same time), but heres the kicker, we never, ever do!

Which is more proof that we were added to this planet after the dinosaurs were destroyed.

Fossilisation takes a looooooooooong time, and most modern species just havnt been around long enough to fossilize.

Also, while on here, people have been banding around a figure akin to 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Current estimates for variety of species currently alive is at between 5 and 100million if we go for the median and settle on a figue of 50 million possible different species currently on the planet, that means that before the first mass extinction event, there had to have been somewher in excess of 50,000 million different species all crammed onto this planet together.

Even if each individual was part of a very small group, say 1000 individuals in any single species group, were now at 50,000,000 individuals, and some of these were quite big.

I believe my figure are probably on the conservative side. How did they all fit?

Thats a good question, what is your take on this, that it never really happened?

reply to post by colin42

Nope it is a sign of a varied diet for it to be anything else you need to supply the evidence. I am still waiting.

Its simple, species eating randomly in a food group .................................. No evidence

I asked for evidence in support of your claim not your opinion. Try doing that.

The observations are the strongest evidnece. Species all eat the same food, as though they know what they are suppose to be eating.

as I have stated that the bible clearly explains that earth is not our home. You have never justified why this historical document should not be taken seriously aside from the fact that it conflicts with the idea that we evolved here on earth.

You have indeed made that statement many times, alas you have never provided the evidence that backs it up. You have also never supplied the quotes from the bible.

Oh of course I have...
Earth is not our home

And that comes out of the hearts and hands of people who realize that earth is not our home.

This thread is about target food proving evolution wrong not the conflict between the bible and evolution. Please stay on topic.

Just because it happens to indicate the same thing in the bible doens't mean I'm off topic.

There is nothing that stands out about salt that makes any difference with target food.

Nothing but the death of any species whose diet does not include it.

Not anymore than there would be from not having air or water.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Sure any food could be bad if its bad. The difference is that species are directed to the food prior to tasting it, we know this because they don't randomly pick up inedible things like random rocks and random dirt in foods place. So something not only tells them what to eat, but this also tells them what not to eat. The taste might tell them food is bad but not untill after a decision had first been made to eat it.

The tounge is not the first of the senses to locate food, I'm sorry but your wrong.

That is not true. I provided a peer reviewed article in which it was clear that the snail takes random bites. The first encounter with the food is random. The snail is not directed to the food.

Your assumption that something exists must be supported with evidence. At best this is a guess on your part. In the case of the snail you are completely wrong when you suggest a decision had been made to eat it since the snail is randomly biting at its environment.

Proof is obvious in that something directs species to the food before it is even bitten.

There can be no proof since all you've done is make guesses as to animal behavior which we know is not right. Other examples of this being obvious wrong are filter feeders.

Then what is it that directs species to choose the food they do prior to eating it?

It might be randomness. In other words there is nothing directing the organism to locate the food. The food comes to the organism. This often happens with predators. Lions for example are often opportunistic feeders.

Yes I allready explained that target food is ideal to the consumer.

First you have to provide at least one piece of evidence to support the notion of target foods. So far it appears to be nothing more than a fantasy.

First why would all individuals in a species choose the same foods, as though they have a collective mind? If you were correct in your observation we would still see individuality in species, and we do not. The have a known diet and it matches for all of them in the species. Something has programmed them.

When you make a list of falsehoods expect to get nothing meaningful out of it. Animals do eat differing diet within a species depending on their location. A deer in Arizona does not eat the same foods as a deer in Vermont. Diets are guessed out - not completely known. The guess of programming is an unwarranted assumption based on false ideas.

Animals don't have detectors to tell them where these things can be found, and they are never seen searching for them. At least its not documented.

What you are really saying is that your limited research based on checking a few things using a search engine has yielded nothing. Animals are constantly searching out new food types and redistributing themselves as they are able to.

Its simple, species eating randomly in a food group could starve because not all food has the same nutrients, some could even be toxic, and they have no way to know or guage that either. Its another clue that target food is obviously real.

I have pointed out that deer eat toxic foods. They eat lantana. Animals do have ways to determine if the food is toxic. Animals do have ways to determine if food is nutritious. These concepts were explained in the links I provided.

reply to post by colin42

There are many things that prove evolution wrong, which one would you like?

The ones you made a claim for in your thread title

Target food proves evolution to be wrong. There is no way that a species could know beforehand what its suppose to be eating without intelligence telling it so.

And you believe that above proves evolution wrong????? Really?????

All living things are programmed with what they would consider food, as to quickly identify with what is food and what is not. It's intelligence that shares that information.

Still no example then.

Abalone with kelp and seaweed is a good one.

Nope. It’s a sign life is not as it is written about in fairy tales.

You haven't provided anything that explains why a species eats what it does, or why they all agree on the same thing as a species, or how they tell what not to eat withot trial and error.

I already agreed that loads of proof has been posted in this thread, all showing target food false and none from you in support of it.

Your not doing to bad your just epically failing at proving what the mechanism is that is choosing food, or how it knows what to choose, or how it knows what not to choose, or how they are all choosing it as a species.

Then how can the fossil record show extinctions of target food?

Food could be plants, or other species, but when something goes extinct, the fossil record could reveal that we have one missing. There is no way to know if that missing food was a target food for anything. The only way that extinctions could tell us that we might be missing target food is if that species goes extinct durring our observation and if we just so happen to also observe the fact that it was a target food as well.

How many times. Evolution is a word it creates nothing. The theory of evolution describes change over time selected for by the environment. It does not describe creation.

I think its hilarious how you are able to consider something that has created over a billion species to not be a creator.

tooth

One simple question. What is the target food of the common rat?

Wiki Rat