Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 30
21
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 





oh dear - which part of :


completely opportunistic omnivores.
do you fail to comprehend ?

you have even admitted that bear diets vary with season and local recources
True, but by no means does this mean they experiment with food. If species experimented with food, we would never see what we call a concise diet. The fact is that even when they are starving, they are driven to stay as close to the original target as they can.

Just like how birds have a pecking order, all species have a motivation to Target Food. The facts that prove this are redundant.

For starters, species all eat the same food when its available to all of them.
Next, all species will only leave a diet when they are starving, but they actually go back to the original diet if it ever comes available. It's proo that they are driven to a specific food. It's complicated, but it is clear.
A good example is the squirrel diet. He has a phase one diet to start, this is easily identified as he pretty much eats everything within a food group. Out of season and he starves so has to resort to an alternate diet of eating insects and small rodents. However, he always manages to go back to the original diet once it comes back into season.

Now if his Target Food was available, it would be in abundance and ALL that he needs to eat, and of course it would be year round. So there would be no phase one or phase two. He will always strive to reach his target food but its not available so he is stuck in a phase one diet and swings to phase two diet off season.

You can read the squirrel wiki for yourself and see that they even indicate that he changes his diet off season because he is hungry. Never does a species change diet unless they are hungry, its proof that there is NEVER any type of experimentation with food. Some people might assume when they are starving that they are experimenting with food but the fact is they actually have a specific food they are looking for. This is why you never see experimentation listed with any diet, it doesn't exist.




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



My theory has already been proven on other threads, the onus is on you to prove its a folly.

Wrong. Your Tooth's Folly has been shown to wrong in all threads. The onus is always on the proponent to support their claims. Your TF is still a well debunked folly.


So you have pointed out a lot of things that were false, I'm not looking to have things pointed out, I'm looking for facts.

So why don't you post some facts, some evidence to support TF, aka Tooth's Folly?


That would be false again because you never produced any proof of the diet on the bear and I told you that my claim was that all units of a species eat the same. IE male units and female units.

You never asked me about the bear diet. I have no need to produce the diet of a bear.

What you need to do is provide some evidence to support TF, your folly, aka Tooth's Folly.


I wasn't looking for your opinionated claims, I'm looking for proof in a documentated diet.

It doesn't matter. I answered your question.


Dont insult my intelligence.

You did it yourself. Demographics is about humans.


Please share the amazing facts you have that prove its useless gibberish and a folly.

You can't figure it out? Please try again.


You will have to go back and read the threads that explain it all. It's in the section where I'm talking about how a species always reverts back to its original diet once its available again.

You've made claims without proof. Please prove that any of that happens. These are just assumptions on your part that have been debunked.


Do you have something that proves its all nonsense or are you just trolling?
Species venture off menu when they are starving, as shown in the squirrel diet as an example and the link that I sent you that you refuse to believe in based on no reason.

The onus is on you to support your own claims. Please provide proof of any of these rather inane claims of yours.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



If species experimented with food, we would never see what we call a concise diet/quote]
According to your own definition of diet that is false.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Wrong. Your Tooth's Folly has been shown to wrong in all threads. The onus is always on the proponent to support their claims. Your TF is still a well debunked folly.
Sorry Jack, its already been proven, perhaps you were sleeping or missed it. Sorry your going to have to go fish as I'm no going to restate everything and play the repeat game with you. If you fell for some reason that I haven't supported my claims, there are far to many other people that feel differently. I also know your trolling because you have been arguing with me for months about this, so I find it hard to believe you don't know what the subject is about.




So why don't you post some facts, some evidence to support TF, aka Tooth's Folly?
But I don't have anything called tooths folly.




You never asked me about the bear diet. I have no need to produce the diet of a bear.

What you need to do is provide some evidence to support TF, your folly, aka Tooth's Folly.
Nope, sorry, I don't have any folly.




It doesn't matter. I answered your question.
I obviously don't use opinions to back up facts, like you apparently do.







You can't figure it out? Please try again.

Please support your unsubstantiated claims.




You've made claims without proof. Please prove that any of that happens. These are just assumptions on your part that have been debunked.
Thats because you must read, and understand what I write, which I can see you don't have the ability. But your ignorance does not mean I don't have proof.




he onus is on you to support your own claims. Please provide proof of any of these rather inane claims of yours.
You are the only one on here not backing up your claims.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Sorry Jack, its already been proven, perhaps you were sleeping or missed it. Sorry your going to have to go fish as I'm no going to restate everything and play the repeat game with you. If you fell for some reason that I haven't supported my claims, there are far to many other people that feel differently. I also know your trolling because you have been arguing with me for months about this, so I find it hard to believe you don't know what the subject is about.

It's too late. It will always be Tooth's Folly. After being debunked in countless posts in so many ways it will always be Tooth's Folly. It's a nonsensical idea with no supporting evidence that has one adherent that spends the entire time arguing from a position of ignorance.

All we have is your opinion and laughable claims. Actually, there are also you lies and purposeful misrepresentations.

It all adds up to Tooth's Folly. It's yours. You earn it. You made it up.

You can change that of course by posting evidence. Where is the first piece of evidence?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


How is anyone going to reconcile the bible with the world we see around us?

Example. There are 2 creation myths in genesis. Each myth describes a different order of the creation of life. Neither myth has an order that matches the order seen in the fossil record.


the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries.

How are the two creation myths in genesis ever going to be reconciled with the fossil record?

Are you suggesting that harmony can be brought about by changing the bible so that it is in harmony with scientific discoveries?


The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.


I posted this earlier. Did you see it?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



I posted this earlier. Did you see it?

Yes. What's the problem?

Did you think I was agreeing with or disagreeing with your statement?



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


And I responded here, yet no reply was forthcoming...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





It's too late. It will always be Tooth's Folly. After being debunked in countless posts in so many ways it will always be Tooth's Folly. It's a nonsensical idea with no supporting evidence that has one adherent that spends the entire time arguing from a position of ignorance.
I don't have a folly, but it appears you sure do. If your referring to Target Food, which I created, it has tons of supporting evidence. Your seriously arguing about already written diets, and the patterns they produce.

As an example, you have still failed to produce a single diet that claims a species experiments with food. The only time that a species ventures from its known diet is when its starving, and thats not experimentation. Experimentation would be evident even if the species has its known food, but it never is.

You also claim that I have never shared Target Food with you, so how would you know one way or the other that I'm arguing from ignorance if you don't understand what I'm arguing about? Your lack of knowledge and understanding is not MY ignorance.

You clearly suffer from delusions of grandeur. The good news is there is help for Schizophrenia, all you need to do is seek help. The first step is admitting you have a problem and seek help. Anyone that is able to argue without knowing what it is they are arguing about clearly has some screws loose.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





All we have is your opinion and laughable claims. Actually, there are also you lies and purposeful misrepresentations.
The observation of patterns as well as events that are lacking from looking at over 50 diets is not an opinion. It's a well calculated observation. Species appear to have a direction in the food that they eat, and there is never a sign of experimentation, and those are observed facts.

You need to put up or shut up. Put your money where your mouth is and grow a pair, and find that plethora of diets that claim species experiement with food. No more of this based on your personal opinion or personal observation, you have no credibility.

Anyone that continues to claim species experiment with food while failing to provide proof of it in a diet is clearly wrong.


Deer wiki

Observe the wiki diet of the deer as an example, there is nothing here that claims deer experiment with food. It would appear that they only way you could believe they are experimenting with food, is to somehow be pulling that out of the current diet. Where you failing here is that currect diet is a concise diet that proves that we know what they eat. To experiment with food, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY EAT. So, your once again wrong.

In addition to this, no diet ever explains that a species experiments with food, so your once again wrong.




It all adds up to Tooth's Folly. It's yours. You earn it. You made it up.
If this is how you do resoning to believe in evolution, your calculation is false. I have no folly, I have never written a folly, and in fact you claimed to be jealous of my find with Target Food a few threads back, and I even copy and pasted proof of that.

Target Food is the observation of obvious patterns in what species eat, and how they come to their decisions. Those patterns not only present the fact that all species are directed to a specific food, but that, that decision had intelligence behind it durring what could be nothing other than creation.

Evolution has never made any claims as to why species choose what they do, and if your assuimg that all species just eat what ever, like you are, then it also failed to explain why they all choose the same food as a unit..

Now here is your folly, it would be best if you actually did some research next time before you open your mouth and insert your other foot.


Mosquitoes do not feed on blood. The female mosquito requires a blood meal for development of her eggs.


mosquitoes



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



I don't have a folly, but it appears you sure do. If your referring to Target Food, which I created, it has tons of supporting evidence. Your seriously arguing about already written diets, and the patterns they produce.

As an example, you have still failed to produce a single diet that claims a species experiments with food. The only time that a species ventures from its known diet is when its starving, and thats not experimentation. Experimentation would be evident even if the species has its known food, but it never is.

You also claim that I have never shared Target Food with you, so how would you know one way or the other that I'm arguing from ignorance if you don't understand what I'm arguing about? Your lack of knowledge and understanding is not MY ignorance.

You clearly suffer from delusions of grandeur. The good news is there is help for Schizophrenia, all you need to do is seek help. The first step is admitting you have a problem and seek help. Anyone that is able to argue without knowing what it is they are arguing about clearly has some screws loose.

Yes you do have a folly, a folly you created and continue to maintain.

1. You provide no evidence to support it ... making it a folly
2. You make only unsubstantiated claims and call them facts ... making it a folly
3. You employ logical fallacies in nearly every post ... making it a folly
4. You employ non sequiturs ... making it a folly
5. You fail to understand simple terms used in science ... making it a folly.
6. You misuse words to the point of being nonsensical ... making it a folly
7. You lie about what you have done ... making it a folly
8. You constantly argue from personal ignorance ... making it a folly
9. You employ straw man arguments ... making it a folly
10. You employ ad hominems ,,,, making it a folly

Examples:
1. Nonsensical statement: "failed to produce a single diet that claims a species experiments with food"
2. Unsubstantiated claim: "The only time that a species ventures from its known diet is when its starving"
3. Ad hominem " The good news is there is help for Schizophrenia, all you need to do is seek help."

TF is a folly. It is your folly and will be known as Tooth's Folly unless of course you decide to provide evidence for your claims.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by definity
Too Good, I'm crying.



wow,....a jar of peanut butter should evolve?...because combining matter and energy should turn peanut butter into a new life form?...even forrest gump would say BS to that.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



The observation of patterns as well as events that are lacking from looking at over 50 diets is not an opinion. It's a well calculated observation. Species appear to have a direction in the food that they eat, and there is never a sign of experimentation, and those are observed facts.

Animals consume food usually in an opportunistic way. They are limited by physical and anatomical features as to the food they consume. Animals experiment with food all of the time.


You need to put up or shut up. Put your money where your mouth is and grow a pair, and find that plethora of diets that claim species experiement with food. No more of this based on your personal opinion or personal observation, you have no credibility.

It's a nonsensical statement to say that a diet should list experimenting with food. You should learn why it is a nonsensical statement. Review the definition you gave for diet.


Anyone that continues to claim species experiment with food while failing to provide proof of it in a diet is clearly wrong.

You've been given many examples of experimentation and then you come up with some far fetched unsubstantiated reason to dismiss it. The fact is that deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance.

[qote]Observe the wiki diet of the deer as an example, there is nothing here that claims deer experiment with food.
It took you almost a year to understand that deer are browsers, something you vehemently denied because you refused to read the article.


Where you failing here is that currect diet is a concise diet that proves that we know what they eat. To experiment with food, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KNOW WHAT THEY EAT. So, your once again wrong.

Employing a string of non sequiturs again. Sheesh. Does the wiki state that deer eat heather? Does the diet state that they eat meat? Does the diet state that they eat dirt and rocks? Well then the diet is incomplete.


In addition to this, no diet ever explains that a species experiments with food, so your once again wrong.

Still spouting a nonsensical statement. No surprise there.


If this is how you do resoning to believe in evolution, your calculation is false. I have no folly, I have never written a folly, and in fact you claimed to be jealous of my find with Target Food a few threads back, and I even copy and pasted proof of that.

Now you are lying again. I would never be jealous of something as stupid as your folly.

With all of the lies, non sequiturs, illogical statements, and lack of understanding of even basic terms no wonder evolution confuses you.


Evolution has never made any claims as to why species choose what they do, and if your assuimg that all species just eat what ever, like you are, then it also failed to explain why they all choose the same food as a unit..

But they don't. Animals do not choose the same food. They are in general opportunistic feeders.


Now here is your folly, it would be best if you actually did some research next time before you open your mouth and insert your other foot.

I didn't ask about mosquitoes feeding on blood. I asked why you claimed that females wanted a warm meal. You need to read the question and answer the question.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
you cannot convince religous extremists, no matter if they are christians, jews, muslims, hindis, taoists, buddists...you can only contain them so they do not hurt others...it's called "faith"...it's their one solid fallback word that endures with them and ends all logical and reasonsable discussion with others. "IT" NEVER fails them, no matter what the cost to others. the older the religion, the longer they have had to calm down, soften their relationships with others, and realize the destuctive power of their belief. the longer the religion has been around, the more they understand that it is up to each individual to make their own choice...if it is forced in any way, it causes harm.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Yes you do have a folly, a folly you created and continue to maintain.
Seeing how you have never been able to prove that I have a folly let alone share exactly what it is, remains a mystery. It appears to all be in your mind.




1. You provide no evidence to support it ... making it a folly
2. You make only unsubstantiated claims and call them facts ... making it a folly
3. You employ logical fallacies in nearly every post ... making it a folly
4. You employ non sequiturs ... making it a folly
5. You fail to understand simple terms used in science ... making it a folly.
6. You misuse words to the point of being nonsensical ... making it a folly
7. You lie about what you have done ... making it a folly
8. You constantly argue from personal ignorance ... making it a folly
9. You employ straw man arguments ... making it a folly
10. You employ ad hominems ,,,, making it a folly


Again observing patterns in diets is not a folly. It really looks like your going to have your hands full disproving every diet that is out there, good luck.




. Nonsensical statement: "failed to produce a single diet that claims a species experiments with food"
2. Unsubstantiated claim: "The only time that a species ventures from its known diet is when its starving"
3. Ad hominem " The good news is there is help for Schizophrenia, all you need to do is seek help."

TF is a folly. It is your folly and will be known as Tooth's Folly unless of course you decide to provide evidence for your claims.
The patterns have already been listed, the onus is ON YOU to prove all the diets wrong. Good luck.

You have done nothing but rant and rave about your opinions, offering no proof to back them up. I'm no interested in your opinion. I understand you think or believe Target Food is false, but you fail at every chance to disprove it. Like your recent attempt using mosquitoes. The sad part is that I believe you already knew mosquitoes don't consume blood, but decided to lie because you felt it made a good argument.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





Animals consume food usually in an opportunistic way. They are limited by physical and anatomical features as to the food they consume. Animals experiment with food all of the time.
FALSE... There is nothing opportunistic about species having a concise diet, there is nothing opportunistic about all units of a species eating the exact same food, there is nothing opportunistic about species reverting back to an original diet when it comes back into reach. It's anything but opportunistic.

By your belief every species would be very sick from eating things that its not supposed to eat, but call me silly for realizing that simple fact.

Species can apppear to have an opportunistic direction when they are starving, but the bottom line is they are looking fo a specific food, this is why they will always revert back to an original diet. Don't fail to realize that the goal is target food, and if that was in reach its all that anyone would eat.




It's a nonsensical statement to say that a diet should list experimenting with food. You should learn why it is a nonsensical statement. Review the definition you gave for diet.
Only because your making wrong assumptions about what it is exactly that experimentation means, and how it would be observed. If all species experimented with food, there would be no solid known diet for any of them, but instead what we have is a knowledge base about every diet fo every living thing on this planet.

This is why you fail every time you think that finding female mosquitoes don't eat the same thing, its not about that, its about knowing that we know what they eat, that alone proves they are not experimenting.. I made these observations unbaised by the way, so your completly wrong.




You've been given many examples of experimentation and then you come up with some far fetched unsubstantiated reason to dismiss it. The fact is that deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance.
The fact is that species can appear to be experimenting with food, but it would only happen when they are starving. A good example is my birds, If I forget to feed them, they end up at the bottom of the cage eating poo. It's not because poo is part of their diet either, its because there is nothing else in the cage that they could eat, so they are forced.




It took you almost a year to understand that deer are browsers, something you vehemently denied because you refused to read the article.
Or being an herbivore, does not prove expermentation. Again, we know what they are eating, get it. They are clearly in a phase 2 diet which is why they are eating such an array of different things. Now if they were just an herbivore, then it would be a phase one diet, but you indicated ( I don't know if you were lying) that they sometimes eat meat, is an indication of a phase two diet.

This specifically tells you that their target food (what ever that would be) would be in the catagory of the herbivore, but just a main one, not the entire group. On the flip side if he normally ate every meat there was like dog, chicken, cow, pig and so on, then his target food would naturally be a meat product, and he picked up the browsing as a back up.

This might sound interesting because I'm at least able to tell you what food group a target food would be in, but its obviously not here, which is a total problem in itself.




Employing a string of non sequiturs again. Sheesh. Does the wiki state that deer eat heather? Does the diet state that they eat meat? Does the diet state that they eat dirt and rocks? Well then the diet is incomplete.
It's simple really, if we know what they eat, then there is no way they are experimenting.




Still spouting a nonsensical statement. No surprise there.
You have failed countless times to try to produce a single diet that claims animals experiment with food, and you would need many for it to be accepted as the norm. And the best you came up with so far is the deer, but as I have proven, hes not experimenting, nor does it indicate that he is for that matter.




Now you are lying again. I would never be jealous of something as stupid as your folly.
You were jealous to the point that you even claimed that you couldn't believe I came up with the theory, would you like to see repeat of the copy and past again?




With all of the lies, non sequiturs, illogical statements, and lack of understanding of even basic terms no wonder evolution confuses you.
Ive never claimed that evolution confuses me.



But they don't. Animals do not choose the same food. They are in general opportunistic feeders.
Then they wouldn't be able to write a diet about them.




I didn't ask about mosquitoes



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 





I didn't ask about mosquitoes feeding on blood. I asked why you claimed that females wanted a warm meal. You need to read the question and answer the question.
It's because its for laying eggs, not for consuming. This is why cats and dogs get worms, thier body temperature is perfect for incubation and our bodies isn't. So we never get worms from mosquitoes even if they lay eggs in us



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Seeing how you have never been able to prove that I have a folly let alone share exactly what it is, remains a mystery. It appears to all be in your mind.

1. You provide no evidence to support it ... making it a folly
2. You make only unsubstantiated claims and call them facts ... making it a folly
3. You employ logical fallacies in nearly every post ... making it a folly
4. You employ non sequiturs ... making it a folly
5. You fail to understand simple terms used in science ... making it a folly.
6. You misuse words to the point of being nonsensical ... making it a folly
7. You lie about what you have done ... making it a folly
8. You constantly argue from personal ignorance ... making it a folly
9. You employ straw man arguments ... making it a folly
10. You employ ad hominems ,,,, making it a folly


Again observing patterns in diets is not a folly. It really looks like your going to have your hands full disproving every diet that is out there, good luck.

You've never demonstrated a pattern to diets. All you've done is made unsubstantiated claims which have been quickly shown to be false.


The patterns have already been listed, the onus is ON YOU to prove all the diets wrong. Good luck.

A non sequitur. The onus is on you to show evidence supporting your folly. You have not done that even once.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



FALSE... There is nothing opportunistic about species having a concise diet, there is nothing opportunistic about all units of a species eating the exact same food, there is nothing opportunistic about species reverting back to an original diet when it comes back into reach. It's anything but opportunistic.

Actually, almost all organisms are opportunistic feeders. A concise diet is listed for people such as yourselves that need a simple answer. Deer and mosquitoes and caterpillars and bears and squirrels and almost all life on Earth does not have species all eating the same food. There is no such thing as " reverting back to an original diet ". That's an instance of your folly.


By your belief every species would be very sick from eating things that its not supposed to eat, but call me silly for realizing that simple fact.

No. You are silly for stating something as inane as that.


Species can apppear to have an opportunistic direction when they are starving, but the bottom line is they are looking fo a specific food, this is why they will always revert back to an original diet. Don't fail to realize that the goal is target food, and if that was in reach its all that anyone would eat.

More unsubstantiated rubbish claims.


Only because your making wrong assumptions about what it is exactly that experimentation means, and how it would be observed. If all species experimented with food, there would be no solid known diet for any of them, but instead what we have is a knowledge base about every diet fo every living thing on this planet.

More non sequiturs. No wonder it's called Tooth Folly.


This is why you fail every time you think that finding female mosquitoes don't eat the same thing, its not about that, its about knowing that we know what they eat, that alone proves they are not experimenting.. I made these observations unbaised by the way, so your completly wrong.

Wrong. You made these unsubstantiated claims based on your personal ignorance. PS. You used the word unbiased which is not applicable.


The fact is that species can appear to be experimenting with food, but it would only happen when they are starving. A good example is my birds, If I forget to feed them, they end up at the bottom of the cage eating poo. It's not because poo is part of their diet either, its because there is nothing else in the cage that they could eat, so they are forced.

Almost all species experiment with food.That is normal. Your claims are based on an argument from personal ignorance.


Or being an herbivore, does not prove expermentation. Again, we know what they are eating, get it. They are clearly in a phase 2 diet which is why they are eating such an array of different things. Now if they were just an herbivore, then it would be a phase one diet, but you indicated ( I don't know if you were lying) that they sometimes eat meat, is an indication of a phase two diet.

More idiotic claims based on Tooth's Folly. You have yet to provide the first piece of evidence to support any of these inane claims.


This specifically tells you that their target food (what ever that would be) would be in the catagory of the herbivore, but just a main one, not the entire group. On the flip side if he normally ate every meat there was like dog, chicken, cow, pig and so on, then his target food would naturally be a meat product, and he picked up the browsing as a back up.

Just more unsubstantiated gibberish coming from your folly. Please provide evidence to support these nonsense fairy tales of yours.


It's simple really, if we know what they eat, then there is no way they are experimenting.

Another non sequitur.


You have failed countless times to try to produce a single diet that claims animals experiment with food, and you would need many for it to be accepted as the norm. And the best you came up with so far is the deer, but as I have proven, hes not experimenting, nor does it indicate that he is for that matter.

A nonsensical statement again revealing that your claims are a folly.


You were jealous to the point that you even claimed that you couldn't believe I came up with the theory, would you like to see repeat of the copy and past again?

A lie and a non sequitur combined.


Ive never claimed that evolution confuses me.

You are confused - completely confused.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



It's because its for laying eggs, not for consuming. This is why cats and dogs get worms, thier body temperature is perfect for incubation and our bodies isn't. So we never get worms from mosquitoes even if they lay eggs in us

Apparently you know nothing about mosquitoes. No surprise there. You are absolutely clueless about the issue of mosquitoes and blood.


I didn't ask about mosquitoes feeding on blood. I asked why you claimed that females wanted a warm meal. You need to read the question and answer the question.

I doubt you'll ever figure out why you are wrong to claim that female mosquitoes want a warm meal as you claimed.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join