Target food proves evolution wrong

page: 55
6
<< 52  53  54   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Then you need to let wiki know they made so many mistakes, and call them out on it.




posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Simply more straw man arguments, rejecting without consideration of merit, appeal of personal ignorance,


They are more than inane.

The issue was Pye. Glad to hear you say Pye is more than inane.

Falsehood stated: Evolution changes DNA

Still no evidence for the suggestion of target foods. I doubt at this point that anyone will post anything in support of target foods.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Nothing in this post either other than more logical fallacy already posted and continued denial of the evidence against target foods already posted. Logical fallacies used include straw man arguments, fallacy of personal ignorance, and the fallacy of options.

What is needed is at least one piece of evidence that target foods are more than a fantasy, or conjecture, or a pipe dream. Where is the first piece of evidence in support of target foods?
Just because you found a website that claims deer eat tree bark doesn't mean target food is false. I had only originally given that as a metaphor.

Besides I found a link that claims they only eat tree bark when they are starving, so how do you not know that to be true.

Species CANT survive without the idea of target food. A species cant just eat what ever like evolutionists claim, they will die from malnutrition. A species has to eat and eat properly. Target food identifies this process, thats all.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to incredulity. It may also involve an appeal to personal ignorance.

Read what coprophagia is about. There are important reasons for it
So you have proof?



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
In the balance of evidence for and against the existence of target foods we see a huge disparity in the evidence to date. The following list provides a quick summary of the evidence.

Evidence for target foods:
Nothing.

Evidence against target foods:
1. No wikipedia article
2. No google search results
3. Wikipedia diet articles incomplete
www.fishtech.com...
www.maiaw.com...
www.theanimalspot.com...
www.factsaboutdeer.net...
4. Animals experiment with their eating
www.ceiba.org...
nationalzoo.si.edu...
www.cogs.indiana.edu... ehaviour%20in%20pigeons.pdf
www.bbc.co.uk...
www.sandiegozoo.org...
www.animalcorner.co.uk...
extension.usu.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
5. Widely spread species
elephants, white tail deer, moose
6. introduced species
gypsy moths, white moth, foxes, rabbits, nutria, rats
7. Filter feeders
en.wikipedia.org...
8. Opportunistic feeding
www.geology.ucdavis.edu...
www.mendeley.com...
academic.research.microsoft.com...
9. Lifecycle feeding changes
10. Evolution
en.wikipedia.org...
11. Animals eating rocks and dirt
12. Homeostasis
13. Specialized senses in the mouth to test potential food
14. DNA
15. coprophagia
en.wikipedia.org...
16. adaptation to environment
en.wikipedia.org...

The evidence is overwhelmingly against target foods.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



We have already been through what you consider as being obvious does not constitute evidence.

Your claim was 'we rarely hear about animals dying of malnutrition.' My reply shows you are very wrong

Then you should have no problem producing pages of links if its really the epidemic you claim it to be.
If I did then I would be in breach of the T&C's of this site. I provided you with all I needed to and proved your claim incorrect.

If you are really interested in finding out more information then google is the place YOU should be researching.


Just because you find one or even a few links supporting your idea that all species are taught what to eat, is not proof that they all learn in this manner.
I provided supporting evidence showing you to be wrong when you claimed animals do not learn what to eat from their parents and/or experimentation. You have provided nothing in your own support so I have the high ground.

The attempt to try to imply I wrote ALL animals teach their young is quite simply an act of desperation on your part.


Evolution can be called a creator, who created evolution? I don't know.
Go on, you’re just baiting. Fishing for a response aren’t you


Evolution is a word that has been given to a theory that explains small changes over time, selected for by the environment. This must now take us into the 100's of times you have been told this



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Just because you found a website that claims deer eat tree bark doesn't mean target food is false. I had only originally given that as a metaphor.

Besides I found a link that claims they only eat tree bark when they are starving, so how do you not know that to be true.

Species CANT survive without the idea of target food. A species cant just eat what ever like evolutionists claim, they will die from malnutrition. A species has to eat and eat properly. Target food identifies this process, thats all.

It wasn't a metaphor. That is not true.

No one but you discusses starvation. Your link did not either.

Please provide evidence for target foods. None has been offered so far.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
That's enough of this childishness.

Closed.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 52  53  54   >>

log in

join