reply to post by peter vlar
And while I'm at it let me leave you with the immortal words of Richard P Feynman
"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell
you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm
going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that
[scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential
question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is
philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes
Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe
Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).
Evolution is not a scientific theory, it fails the litmus test that judges if an experiment is scientific.
First off there is no proof that any or all changes ever observed are all part of the same process known to be evolution.
Second, its never been witnessed. No one has ever observed an ape evolving into a human.
Third there has never been any verification that after speciation, more or even other specieation can occur, its just assumed to be possible.
Anything can be assumed possible, that doesn't make it real.
Target Food on the other hand proves intent in creation.
Through observation of numerous diets of random species there are some rather odd things discovered.
First is that the species always chooses the same food as a whole. In other words we don't have some of the species eating this and others eating
other things, unless location plays differences in diet choice.
Species never experiment with food, unless they are starving of course, but we never see or hear about this experimental phase where they try to eat a
rock to determine that its not good tasting, or try dirt to find out they don't like it.
You can't even pretend that its a choice thats made because it appears more that a choice has been pre determined.
Species in Target food will only eat between one and three items for life. This food will provide the absolute nutrients for that species. As in the
case of the abalone and kelp. When Target food is no longer available for what ever reason, that species can be found eating just about everything
from the food group of the Target food, as though they are trying to find it. This is phase one of hunger. After neither of those are available they
might pick up an additional food group, as in the case of the squirrel. This is phase 2. Phase three is total starvation, eating rocks and dirt and
Domesticated animals are not bound to all of this as we determine what they eat.
So the more items a species eats, the farther aways they are from anything related to the original Target Food. Humans are a good example of this.
As the bible states, we were given everything, every plant, every herb, every animal, but none of these things are from our home, and also that earth
is not our home. So this is why we don't have our intended food.