It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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
My theory has already been proven on other threads, the onus is on you to prove its a 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.
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.
I wasn't looking for your opinionated claims, I'm looking for proof in a documentated diet.
Dont insult my intelligence.
Please share the amazing facts you have that prove its useless gibberish and a folly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But I don't have anything called tooths folly.
So why don't you post some facts, some evidence to support TF, aka Tooth's Folly?
Nope, sorry, I don't have any 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.
I obviously don't use opinions to back up facts, like you apparently do.
It doesn't matter. I answered your question.
You can't figure it out? Please try again.
Please support your unsubstantiated claims.
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.
You've made claims without proof. Please prove that any of that happens. These are just assumptions on your part that have been debunked.
You are the only one on here not backing up your claims.
he onus is on you to support your own claims. Please provide proof of any of these rather inane claims of yours.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
All we have is your opinion and laughable claims. Actually, there are also you lies and purposeful misrepresentations.
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.
It all adds up to Tooth's Folly. It's yours. You earn it. You made it up.
Mosquitoes do not feed on blood. The female mosquito requires a blood meal for development of her eggs.
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.
Originally posted by definity
Too Good, I'm crying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The patterns have already been listed, the onus is ON YOU to prove all the diets wrong. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It took you almost a year to understand that deer are browsers, something you vehemently denied because you refused to read the article.
It's simple really, if we know what they eat, then there is no way they are experimenting.
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.
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.
Still spouting a nonsensical statement. No surprise there.
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?
Now you are lying again. I would never be jealous of something as stupid as your folly.
Ive never claimed that evolution confuses me.
With all of the lies, non sequiturs, illogical statements, and lack of understanding of even basic terms no wonder evolution confuses you.
Then they wouldn't be able to write a diet about them.
But they don't. Animals do not choose the same food. They are in general opportunistic feeders.
I didn't ask about mosquitoes
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
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.
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.
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.
The patterns have already been listed, the onus is ON YOU to prove all the diets wrong. Good luck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's simple really, if we know what they eat, then there is no way they are experimenting.
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.
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?
Ive never claimed that evolution confuses me.
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
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.