Target food proves evolution wrong

reply to post by stereologist

Either way, no matter what you believe, there must be intelligence behind it.

When you begin with the closed minded approach that this intelligence exists, then you make a lot of bad mistakes as is so clear. This intelligence does not exist and it is trivial to think of examples where your claims are just plain wrong.

And again, you are obviously wrong. Pick a species, any species, and look it up in wiki. You will be supplied with a concise diet, on rare occasions you get a broad diet like with the deer. The fact that even just one species is able to conform to the same diet, is proof, based on common sense, that there is intelligence programmed into their choice of diet.

They aren't deviating from the diet, they aren't trying new things, they aren't eating different things individually, they are all eating the same food. You can try to claim its just instinct, that tells them what to eat, but what programmed the instinct, and how did this program come to know exactly what foods are avaiable?

There is no confusion about target food...

Yes there is. The confusion is with you. There is no such thing.

Target food is assumable based on the fact that species have an obviously assigned diet.

We all know target food exists based on the fact that there are to many species that have obvious scheduled diets, they all eat the same diet, they don't test the diet, and its a solid rule. Humans again are an exception for obvious reasons.

You can always tell when you have a creationist in the crowd. They want to make humans special.

Actually that isn't why humans are special, its because it was made obvious in the bible that all species and plants and herbs, are placed on our planet, but things from our home were not brought here. Which means that the normal things we would have to live, including food, are not here. In other words the food we eat is NOT OUR FOOD

This is why none of the food that humans eat, are target foods. This is why we have such trouble with diet, and we are always trying to fotify our food as what we have was not made for us. We are doing the best we can with what we have.

Remember that species don't test their food, they don't venture off diet, and what really odd is they seem to know what they are eating suits their needs. Again humans are an obvious exception.

Species test their food. They do. From fish to insects to mammals to reptiles to all animals, humans included, they test their food.

Here is another example. Escaped zoo animals such as monkeys can forage in North American forests and remain healthy despite never having encountered these plants before. Parrots have established colonies in other areas. Snakes from Asia are taking over the Everglades. If you read the newspapers you will be able to find all sorts of animals, think frankenfish, that have taken up residence in other areas. All of these violate your target food claim.

Your talking about species being removed from their element then you don't understand why they arne't eating their intended food. Come on man.

If your going to critique my theory, at least do it fairly.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Again tooth, that's complete and utter nonsense. Species change their diet as their ecosystem changes, and have been doing so for billions of years.

reply to post by Barcs

Do they eat any meat they can catch? I rest my case.


Of course they eat the meat they can catch! What kind of question is that? Scavengers wait for other creatures to kill and then feed on the scraps when they are done.

My point is they are scavengers, they will eat any type of meat they can get ahold of. It could be a sign of desperation, and like I have stated many times, I'm on the fence about their diets.

As if anyone has produced any hardships.

In the video I posted of the family of lions, they could barely survive. The entire family almost died because the pride lost their best hunter. Nah, that's definitely not a hardship. Eating no food for almost a week isn't a hardship? You are a proven fraud. Please just stop

I don't buy it, you, either you strayed from the original comment or I lost what the actuall meaning was but your going to have to repost it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My point is they are scavengers, they will eat any type of meat they can get ahold of. It could be a sign of desperation

Yes, living beings tend to get hungry...but why do you call that desperation. Who's to say they don't like that food source? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not tasty for those beings.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, living beings tend to get hungry...but why do you call that desperation. Who's to say they don't like that food source? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not tasty for those beings.

That seems to be eratic behavior. You would think they stick to a tighter diet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

So your basically telling me at this point that you haven't read the OP, or the prior posts. Do me a favor man, come back when you at least have the common courtesy of at least reading the OP.

Had you of read it you would know that its just not as simple as an available food.

I read the OP and the thread and it is you that keeps altering your position to adjust to the failures which are being pointed out.

Well then there is just a little problem here Fred, who is it that is programming the species so that they know what to eat.

There is no programming. If you think there is then you need to point to some evidence. Actually, I have provided a wealth of evidence against this notion of yours.

As I have proven beyond a doubt with links to various species diets, they have a directed diet. We never read about them trying new foods, we never read about individuals of a species trying out new food, all we read about is how they all eat the same thing.

In the post you responded to I pointed out how often species test new food. I have seen it and it happens constantly. Had you read any of the post you'd know that this thread is an utter failure. Actually, you're the only one that does not recognize the silliness of your claims.

That would be because they are still eating within the outline of their diet, as you can see from above. Sometimes the studys in these don't reveal exactly what plants they feast on just that its about any type in the forrest. Your Fawn is not deviating from the diet.

So when a North American fawn eats a toxic plant from the Middle East it is within the diet? Your claim is an utter and ridiculous failure.

And as I have clearly explained, when you see this type of activity, its a sign that something is missing from their diet.

Such as anything the animals have ever seen before. This is what happens when insects are spread from continent to continent. It leads to the destruction of plant species the animals have never before encountered.

There is no assumption in any of this, its clear and proven that species have a concise diet.

When you repeat this it simply reveals how limited your knowledge is. It is an opinion of yours based on your personal lack of education. I know it. You probably know it, too.

Your elephant example eating corn that isn't even native to that area, could be because he was missing something from his diet to begin with. Either way hes not living on corn, and its not a normal part of his diet, and in addition to that, it was introduced to him which is also why he was trying it. When you domesticate animals, it totally changes the understanding of everything I'm shareing here.

Again you are not reading the post. The corn is eaten by the wild elephant because they can invade fields. Corn is not a part of their so-called concise diet. It can't be. It comes from a different continent. A wild elephant feeding on corn shows that elephants do NOT have a concise diet. It cannot be programmed into them.

There is no other explanation for the sharing of intelligent diet information. I say intelligent because the food also seems to always fit their needs for nutrition. It's obvious that its intelligent.

There is no such thing as "sharing of intelligent diet information." If you think so you must prove it. So far you've done nothing at all, but make many mistakes.

Species that have a clear concise and short diet are obvously using target food.

There is no such thing. If you think there is you must provide evidence.

The sort of ill thought out claims based on your personal proclamations sounds like the sort of rubbish I see pumped out by creationist lecturers that can do little on stage but lie to their audiences.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And again, you are obviously wrong. Pick a species, any species, and look it up in wiki. You will be supplied with a concise diet, on rare occasions you get a broad diet like with the deer. The fact that even just one species is able to conform to the same diet, is proof, based on common sense, that there is intelligence programmed into their choice of diet.

This glittering generality you claim is nothing more than an example of your lack of understanding of the issues. I am unaware of any species in my area that has a concise diet as you call it. That goes for ground squirrels, arboreal squirrels, raccoons, o'possums, deer, black bear, coyotes, humans, mice, voles, lemmings, accipiters, flycatchers, saddleback caterpillars, etc.

They aren't deviating from the diet, they aren't trying new things, they aren't eating different things individually, they are all eating the same food. You can try to claim its just instinct, that tells them what to eat, but what programmed the instinct, and how did this program come to know exactly what foods are avaiable?

Again you are arguing from a position of ignorance. The animals do deviate from their diets. The animals do experiment with new foods. You might lack that knowledge but others do not. I see deer eating nonidigenous plants. I find bear, raccoon and coyote scat indicating a wide range of foods from insect larva to small rodents to berries and nuts and fruit.

Target food is assumable based on the fact that species have an obviously assigned diet.

You assuming this using a form of argument called arguing from ignorance. You are basing this assumption on your own ignorance of the facts.

Actually that isn't why humans are special, its because it was made obvious in the bible that all species and plants and herbs, are placed on our planet, but things from our home were not brought here. Which means that the normal things we would have to live, including food, are not here. In other words the food we eat is NOT OUR FOOD

I hope you realize that makes no sense at all.

This is why none of the food that humans eat, are target foods. This is why we have such trouble with diet, and we are always trying to fotify our food as what we have was not made for us. We are doing the best we can with what we have.

Since part 1 is illogical, part 2 is also illogical.

Your talking about species being removed from their element then you don't understand why they arne't eating their intended food. Come on man.

If your going to critique my theory, at least do it fairly.

It is fair to show how how extremely bad this idea is. There is no such thing as intended food or target food. These animals are not programmed to only eat a concise diet.

reply to post by itsthetooth

My point is they are scavengers, they will eat any type of meat they can get ahold of. It could be a sign of desperation, and like I have stated many times, I'm on the fence about their diets.

We are discussing the real world. In the real world lion are predators. They hunt. They kill. The consume. I've seen it happen in the wild.

I don't buy it, you, either you strayed from the original comment or I lost what the actuall meaning was but your going to have to repost it.

The problem is that your idea is a failure. You feel tripped up because there is a realization that this idea of ours is not panning out.

Here we are dealing with such laughable statements as the following:

Target food is assumable based on the fact that species have an obviously assigned diet.

Why is it laughable? Because it assumes that diets are assigned. In other words, it is true because we assume it is true.

They aren't deviating from the diet, they aren't trying new things, they aren't eating different things individually, they are all eating the same food.

This is the repeated mantra. It is only true if the diet includes everything growing in the area. That is the case for deer. They eat everything and anything that fits into their mouth and can be reached. They might be able to, but I am unaware of deer climbing trees to eat leaves in the canopy. Otherwise they eat anything they can reach. Are they all eating the same things? No. The younger deer are eating more of the toxic plants including iris and rhododendrons. The younger deer are also the ones eating the dogwoods. How do I know? Because I can observe the browsing levels.

Animals thrust into new environments eat anything. Species introduced into new areas can become invasive. Insects in particular can be troublesome. In this article we learn how well a North American moth has been in feeding in Asia. Do they have a concise diet. Only if you restrict the diet to all of the different leafy trees of the world!
www.china.org.cn...

In North America we have the problem with the gypsy moth caterpillar.
ento.psu.edu...

There are some native predators and parasitoids that attack life stages of this key pest. Several introduced species of fly and wasp parasitoids of the gypsy moth are established in Pennsylvania.

Some species are experimenting because they are eating this introduced pest. The pest capitalized on the available food and the other animals are consuming the introduced species. Experimentation has gone both ways.

Is there really any need to continue to show that the OP is wrong? No. This target food idea is easy to show wrong, because it is wrong in countless ways.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
My point is they are scavengers, they will eat any type of meat they can get ahold of. It could be a sign of desperation, and like I have stated many times, I'm on the fence about their diets.

1. They are not scavengers they are hunters. In the video it showed a clear example of a scavenger, the hyena, who lurks and feeds on animals that the lions killed when they are done and take advantage of the misfortune of others. They do hunt as well, but they are only effective in high numbers.
2. That's how nature works. Creatures eat what they can get a hold of. If they are having a difficult time getting food, they look for alternatives. It's a constant battle for survival out there, yes they become desperate at times.

Yes, animals go through hardships and their diet changes. Same with humans.

As if anyone has produced any hardships.

In the video I posted of the family of lions, they could barely survive. The entire family almost died because the pride lost their best hunter. Nah, that's definitely not a hardship. Eating no food for almost a week isn't a hardship? You are a proven fraud. Please just stop

I don't buy it, you, either you strayed from the original comment or I lost what the actuall meaning was but your going to have to repost it.

You don't buy it? So what, scientists are all lying now? You said you watched the video on the lions, but right after said that nobody has shown animals going through hardships. My video showed exactly that and proved you wrong. I'll take a wild guess here. Another lie?

Basically what this guy is saying is that all animals have a diet and if they eat something off the diet it's actually part of the diet and they didn't know it. It's word games. The definition has slowly changed to fit the facts that WE are providing. It was originally, creatures that have one food that provides full nutrients in large quantities. And of course he still hasn't listed a single creature that fits that category. Even ant eaters don't just eat ants. He doesn't understand that its not the type of food that matters, it's the nutrients contained within.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Yes, living beings tend to get hungry...but why do you call that desperation. Who's to say they don't like that food source? Just because you don't doesn't mean it's not tasty for those beings.

That seems to be eratic behavior. You would think they stick to a tighter diet.

Says who? "You would think" isn't proof

reply to post by stereologist

I read the OP and the thread and it is you that keeps altering your position to adjust to the failures which are being pointed out.

I don't alter anything, what are you talking about?

There is no programming. If you think there is then you need to point to some evidence. Actually, I have provided a wealth of evidence against this notion of yours.

I would love to see some of your evidence that proves scheduled diets are not thorugh intelligence.

In the post you responded to I pointed out how often species test new food.

You can point it out all you want, I'm not finding it from any legitimate sources.

I have seen it and it happens constantly. Had you read any of the post you'd know that this thread is an utter failure. Actually, you're the only one that does not recognize the silliness of your claims.

No one on any thread has produced anything that proves random eating habbits of any species. In fact the only attempt was the example of a fawn eating leafs or shrubs, and after I looked up his diet, thats what he is suppose to eat.

So when a North American fawn eats a toxic plant from the Middle East it is within the diet? Your claim is an utter and ridiculous failure.

He's suppose to eat ...

Deer

The majority of large deer species inhabit temperate mixed deciduous forest, mountain mixed coniferous forest, tropical seasonal/dry forest, and savanna habitats around the world. Clearing open areas within forests to some extent may actually benefit deer populations by exposing the understory and allowing the types of grasses, weeds, and herbs to grow that deer like to eat. Additionally, access to adjacent croplands may also benefit deer. However, adequate forest or brush cover must still be provided for populations to grow and thrive.

So I'm sharing this again in hopes that you read it this time. As per your argument, as you can see, the deer is still within his diet.

When you repeat this it simply reveals how limited your knowledge is. It is an opinion of yours based on your personal lack of education. I know it. You probably know it, too.

Anyone can test the education of this by looking up any animal species on wiki. We know what species are eating, there is no guessing game and there is no testing habbits. In addition the species always eats the same things individually. It's as though they know what they are eating. Whats even odder is that if a human wants to eat healthy, he first have to use a labratory to to identify what foods would be best, then use a labratory again to see what the foods offer. Species obviously don't have this luxery, yet from what science is able to figure out, they seem to be eating what would be best for them.

Now you can call this instinct, instinct that we were not awarded. Again I'm an equal opportunity believer, and say it should be fair for all. Even if it were instinct, who programmed the instinct?

Again you are not reading the post. The corn is eaten by the wild elephant because they can invade fields. Corn is not a part of their so-called concise diet. It can't be. It comes from a different continent. A wild elephant feeding on corn shows that elephants do NOT have a concise diet. It cannot be programmed into them.

And like I said, he is obviously missing one or more target foods just from what your saying. It sounds like he has none. Eating a new food like the corn is an example of a species that is either missing one or more target foods.

There is no such thing as "sharing of intelligent diet information." If you think so you must prove it. So far you've done nothing at all, but make many mistakes.

Sharing is the ONLY way that a spcecies could be programmed with knowing what food they are suppose to be eating. Now you might say its all included in the evolution package, but even then, there still has to be the sharing of information at some point. They don't have labratorys to teach them what to eat, and the don't hold classes to teach all the individualls within a species to eat the same thing. You could just say its instinct, which is probably the best answer, but how did instinct know what foods would be available? There is only one possible answer, there is intelligence in the scenerio.

There is no such thing. If you think there is you must provide evidence.

The sort of ill thought out claims based on your personal proclamations sounds like the sort of rubbish I see pumped out by creationist lecturers that can do little on stage but lie to their audiences.

Read above.

reply to post by itsthetooth


TARGET FOOD DOESN'T EVEN EXIST

reply to post by stereologist

This glittering generality you claim is nothing more than an example of your lack of understanding of the issues. I am unaware of any species in my area that has a concise diet as you call it. That goes for ground squirrels

squirrels

Squirrels cannot digest cellulose, so must rely on foods rich in protein, carbohydrates, and fats. In temperate regions, early spring is the hardest time of year for squirrels, because buried nuts begin to sprout and are no longer available for the squirrel to eat, and new food sources have not become available yet. During these times, squirrels rely heavily on the buds of trees. Squirrels' diets consist primarily of a wide variety of plants, including nuts, seeds, conifer cones, fruits, fungi and green vegetation. However, some squirrels also consume meat, especially when faced with hunger.[6] Squirrels have been known to eat insects, eggs, small birds, young snakes and smaller rodents. Indeed, some tropical species have shifted almost entirely to a diet of insects.[11]

Predatory behavior has been noted by various species of ground squirrels, particularly the thirteen-lined ground squirrel.[12] For example, Bailey, a scientist in the 1920s, observed a thirteen-lined ground squirrel preying upon a young chicken.[13] Wistrand reported seeing this same species eating a freshly killed snake.[14] Whitaker examined the stomachs of 139 thirteen-lined ground squirrels and found bird flesh in four of the specimens and the remains of a short-tailed shrew in one;[15] Bradley, examining white-tailed antelope squirrels' stomachs, found at least 10% of his 609 specimens' stomachs contained some type of vertebrate, mostly lizards and rodents.[16] Morgart observed a white-tailed antelope squirrel capturing and eating a silky pocket mouse.[17]

As you can see, your wrong, Mr squirrel has a diet, however, you are right in that he may not have a target food. When you see such a large assortment of eating, its a clue that something is wrong.

*I'm not going to quote each species your questioning, what you need to do is stop being lazy and just wiki all of these species your commenting about so you can see for yourself that you are wrong.

Again you are arguing from a position of ignorance. The animals do deviate from their diets. The animals do experiment with new foods. You might lack that knowledge but others do not. I see deer eating nonidigenous plants. I find bear, raccoon and coyote scat indicating a wide range of foods from insect larva to small rodents to berries and nuts and fruit.

Now your contradicting yourself as your saying that target food doesn't exist, yet your also admitting they deviate from there diet.
In your research which I suggest you do with looking up various animals on wiki, you will also notice that they never indicate a species going out of a known diet, we always know what they are eating, and they also never mention that diet depends on the individual either. So as you can see, your once again wrong.

You assuming this using a form of argument called arguing from ignorance. You are basing this assumption on your own ignorance of the facts.

No I'm basing my facts on the facts that wiki has presented about all species having an obvious diet.

I hope you realize that makes no sense at all.

Sorry, nothing from our home was brought here to be with us, with means that our food is not here, which is also why we have no target food.

It is fair to show how how extremely bad this idea is. There is no such thing as intended food or target food. These animals are not programmed to only eat a concise diet.

Well some do have target food and some don't, it all boils down to extinctions and not being from here.

reply to post by stereologist

We are discussing the real world. In the real world lion are predators. They hunt. They kill. The consume. I've seen it happen in the wild.

My point is that because they eat any type of meat it could be a sign that their target food is missing.

The problem is that your idea is a failure. You feel tripped up because there is a realization that this idea of ours is not panning out.

No you just didn't repost the conversation.

Why is it laughable? Because it assumes that diets are assigned. In other words, it is true because we assume it is true.

It's only assumed true because there is no other explanation that explains how they all know what they are eating.

This is the repeated mantra. It is only true if the diet includes everything growing in the area. That is the case for deer. They eat everything and anything that fits into their mouth and can be reached. They might be able to, but I am unaware of deer climbing trees to eat leaves in the canopy. Otherwise they eat anything they can reach. Are they all eating the same things? No. The younger deer are eating more of the toxic plants including iris and rhododendrons. The younger deer are also the ones eating the dogwoods. How do I know? Because I can observe the browsing levels.

And just like the lion, when you see such a diverse diet like this, where they eat almost anything in that food group, its a sign that target food might be missing.

Animals thrust into new environments eat anything. Species introduced into new areas can become invasive. Insects in particular can be troublesome. In this article we learn how well a North American moth has been in feeding in Asia. Do they have a concise diet. Only if you restrict the diet to all of the different leafy trees of the world!

One thing is very clear amongst the confusing mess of figureing this out, species don't just eat whatever, like you are saying they do. If they did, they all would and we wouldn't have any sections in wiki called diet, as all spcecies would just eat what ever.

Some species are experimenting because they are eating this introduced pest. The pest capitalized on the available food and the other animals are consuming the introduced species. Experimentation has gone both ways.

Is there really any need to continue to show that the OP is wrong? No. This target food idea is easy to show wrong, because it is wrong in countless ways.

Domesticated situations don't apply here. Of course a dog eats dog food, we feed it to him.

The gypsy moth was moved out of his element, of course hes going to eat something else, but that is not proof that its his intended food. Again humans can eat toilet paper, it doesn't mean its our intended food.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Chippies and squirrels will eat all sorts of berries, I have caught them in the act. They can't hide their red faces and deny it. Squirrels eat breads, french fries, and a lot of other foods that are cooked. Maybe they need squirrel ovens

reply to post by Barcs

1. They are not scavengers they are hunters. In the video it showed a clear example of a scavenger, the hyena, who lurks and feeds on animals that the lions killed when they are done and take advantage of the misfortune of others. They do hunt as well, but they are only effective in high numbers.
2. That's how nature works. Creatures eat what they can get a hold of. If they are having a difficult time getting food, they look for alternatives. It's a constant battle for survival out there, yes they become desperate at times.

You don't understand. What I'm tyring to say is they have become scavengers within that type of diet. They are obviously suppose to eat meat, they are equipped to hunt and kill, and shred raw meat. The problem is that they eat any type of meat, which leads me to believe they have become scavengers within their own food group.

You don't buy it? So what, scientists are all lying now? You said you watched the video on the lions, but right after said that nobody has shown animals going through hardships. My video showed exactly that and proved you wrong. I'll take a wild guess here. Another lie?

Not at all, I just lost track of this conversation and got lost.

I thought you were talking about something else because you didn't include the conversation.

Basically what this guy is saying is that all animals have a diet and if they eat something off the diet it's actually part of the diet and they didn't know it.

I have never said that.

It's word games. The definition has slowly changed to fit the facts that WE are providing. It was originally, creatures that have one food that provides full nutrients in large quantities. And of course he still hasn't listed a single creature that fits that category. Even ant eaters don't just eat ants. He doesn't understand that its not the type of food that matters, it's the nutrients contained within

Ok and what labratory are the animals using to learn about this?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Says who? "You would think" isn't proof

A scattered diet is a sign of desperation.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Here is what you wrote.

who is it that is programming the species so that they know what to eat.

I responded with

There is no programming. If you think there is then you need to point to some evidence. Actually, I have provided a wealth of evidence against this notion of yours.

Now you write

I would love to see some of your evidence that proves scheduled diets are not thorugh intelligence.

Since the basis for this recent question is based on your illogical constructs this question does not need to be addressed. The burden is still on you to support this notion that animals are programmed to know what to eat.

You can point it out all you want, I'm not finding it from any legitimate sources.

I pointed to the gypsy moth and the white moths as examples. So far you have not substantiated anything about your claim. It is a dismal failure.

No one on any thread has produced anything that proves random eating habbits of any species. In fact the only attempt was the example of a fawn eating leafs or shrubs, and after I looked up his diet, thats what he is suppose to eat.

Why would any species employ a random feeding habit? Can you provide a definition for random? Most people use the word and have no idea that there are many definitions for random. A fawn eating a Middle Eastern plant and eating toxic plants are examples of experimentation in eating. They are not part of a deer's diet.

He's suppose to eat ...

So you are claiming that deer are programmed to eat poisonous plants?
Are you claiming that deer are programmed to eat nonidigenous species?

So I'm sharing this again in hopes that you read it this time. As per your argument, as you can see, the deer is still within his diet.

The deer is within its diet according to the reality. According to you that cannot be since the deer is eating things that sicken it, and also nonindigenous plants that could not be programmed into it.

Not sure why you don't understand that this invalidates your odd claims in this thread.

Deer eat anything they can reach. They eat poisons. They eat plants in front of them no matter what they are.

We know what species are eating, there is no guessing game and there is no testing habbits.

No matter how often you repeat this lie it is still a lie. All of the invasive species test food. There are invasive species that are eaten by consumers. That requires testing.

It's as though they know what they are eating. Whats even odder is that if a human wants to eat healthy, he first have to use a labratory to to identify what foods would be best, then use a labratory again to see what the foods offer. Species obviously don't have this luxery, yet from what science is able to figure out, they seem to be eating what would be best for them.

This is nothing but your baseless ramblings about what you think is happening.

And like I said, he is obviously missing one or more target foods just from what your saying. It sounds like he has none. Eating a new food like the corn is an example of a species that is either missing one or more target foods.

More ramblings about a nonexistent situation. There are no target foods.

Sharing is the ONLY way that a spcecies could be programmed with knowing what food they are suppose to be eating. Now you might say its all included in the evolution package, but even then, there still has to be the sharing of information at some point. They don't have labratorys to teach them what to eat, and the don't hold classes to teach all the individualls within a species to eat the same thing. You could just say its instinct, which is probably the best answer, but how did instinct know what foods would be available? There is only one possible answer, there is intelligence in the scenerio.

More amusing ramblings. None of these ramblings supports the failed claim of target foods.

Your post about deer is wrong. You quoted the wrong part to get the diet. Deer are browsers.

Deer are selective feeders. They are usually browsers, and primarily feed on leaves. They have small, unspecialized stomachs by ruminant standards, and high nutrition requirements. Rather than attempt to digest vast quantities of low-grade, fibrous food as, for example, sheep and cattle do, deer select easily digestible shoots, young leaves, fresh grasses, soft twigs, fruit, fungi, and lichens.

I have been curious why you continued to quote the wrong part of the article on deer.

You actually should read the entire article before quoting the wrong part.