![Life at poal [334x750 - 40KB]](https://poal.co/static/images/MjGBNH.jpg){kind=link}
This isn't a realization , this is merely speculation and assumption. (theory)
A theory doesn't mean best guess.
by the microevolution argument you've presented
It was hughely dumbed downv (one purely based on observation), but essentially if you can conceive micro-evolution taking place then macroevolution is exactly that but over a really long time period.
Also, if the idea of monkey to man were true, we wouldn't see primates today
We didn't evolve from monkeys. Homo sapiens sapiens (a primate) share a common ancestor with other primates. There is evidence in the fossil record.
It would've been mimicked throughout the entire animal kingdom to the point where they would've phased themselves out of the primate state.
Evolution has happened through the entire animal kingdom, take a look at what ancient aquatic life forms used to look like, even more recently all Bovines, they are direct ancestors of the Auroch. There is a project to bring back the Auroch so we can further selective breed cattle for better meat, dairy or as a keystone species to fallow unused farmland back into forest to increase natural biodiversity.
Then there are other animals that haven't changed due to having a strong evolutionary strategy and niche in the eco-system like horseshoe crabs and nautilus for example.
Lesser primates didn't phase themselves out of existence because they had the evolutionary advantage at the time of divergence. Their evolutionary strategy was strong. However, our ancestors got kicked out of their arboreal home and were forced to inhabit a terrestrial domain and change their diet, which coincidentally greatly benefited us in the long term.
"A theory doesn't mean best guess" Except that's exactly what it means.
"micro-evolution taking place then macroevolution is exactly that but over a really long time period." Micro then macro isn't a real thing. They're 2 separate sets of characteristics that don't intertwine. They exist outside one another.
"We didn't evolve from monkeys. Homo sapiens sapiens (a primate) share a common ancestor with other primates. There is evidence in the fossil record." You're so lost in your delusion you no longer understand the basis of your argument.
You're talking about a missing link, which doesn't exist...because there is none. Unless you're talking about shared genetic (DNA) in which case we're also bananas since humans share 40% of dna with them as well (this is snark based in factual reality. You're pretty dense and I feel like I need to point this out for you.)
"Evolution has happened through the entire animal kingdom" Overreaching using the word. I'd agree that micro evolutionary changes are abundant. That doesn't support your opinion, nor does it show an evolution of species to another. Just small changes that adapt to temp, sun, population, or food.
"Lesser primates didn't phase themselves out of existence because they had the evolutionary advantage at the time of divergence. " The advantage was to remain primates...despite the world around them getting smaller, their food source diminishing, and the threat of a more dominant version of themselves being more assertive and aggressive.
I'm wondering if you've ever understood a single course in any scientific area or if you are just yet another millennial who has talked their instructors into submission of a grade and have confused that with learning. (I kid though, i don't wonder at all. I know to well)
"Their evolutionary strategy was strong." This counters ever fact in human history , it's also not support for an argument but some kind of weird admiration. I bet you'd let niggers fuck your wife (if you weren't gay and had one) wouldn't you ? Or wait, maybe you dream of fucking some silverback and it dominates your psyche so hard that this is how you expose yourself online to it (hopes of attracting one) hahahahaha holy shit.
" However, our ancestors got kicked out of their arboreal home and were forced to inhabit a terrestrial domain and change their diet, which coincidentally greatly benefited us in the long term." This is quite possibly the most laughable, and extensive, lie (masked as fact) that you've presented here. Bravo in your ignorance. I'm now excited to see if you'll be able to top this one.
"A theory doesn't mean best guess" Except that's exactly what it means.
Incorrect, if in future you care to argue against the status quo, please do 5min of reading beforehand.
The laymans term for theory means untested hunch, this is the opposite of what the word actually means.
A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
Terms (oregonstate.edu)
When you get your vaccine, which I'm sure you will, many remark at getting the 'needle', but it is actually a syringe. A completely different implement. When you don't understand the terminology you obfuscate its original meaning. It happens often with people that have nigger brain.
You're so lost in your delusion you no longer understand the basis of your argument.
You are asserting we evolved from monkeys.
Only religious people make that observation because they fail terminology. It has always been maintained humans have evolved from a common hominin ancestor.
The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae. Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (man) and Pan (chimp) whom share 98.6% of our DNA. Are you postulating there is no such thing as DNA? Or was that a divine creator designed it that way?
This counters ever fact in human history
Changes in diet made our ancient ancestors' brains bigger. I gather you are supposedly coming from a notion of young earth theory to surmise otherwise.
It seems that the line blurring between the scientific method and theory is now gone. Also, "status quo" .... is always nothing more than the most violent pushing for their bias to be seen as fact. (again, not science). I see you're wanting to turn this into a semantics argument and it's one you'll continue having with yourself.
"The Hominini form a taxonomic tribe of the subfamily Homininae. Hominini includes the extant genera Homo (man) and Pan (chimp) whom share 98.6% of our DNA.
Your response also includes.. "You are asserting we evolved from monkeys." How very interesting. You're both trying to state that we evolved from monkeys, while simultaneously trying to suggest that "common ancestor" doesn't mean derivative. How peculiar and troubling.
"Only religious people make that observation because they fail terminology." "terminology" as in a course ? Or did you mean to type "in their terminology" which then is again an argument for semantics.
"It has always been maintained humans have evolved from a common hominin ancestor." This is hilariously and historically false....and a largely flawed one. In fact your basis ,"chimps share 98.6% of our DNA" , is confusing because humans don't even share 98% of DNA between themselves. "https://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news38"
"Are you postulating there is no such thing as DNA? Where did you read that ? In fact I'm pretty sure I showed just how relevant and reliable "science" uses DNA in the comparative statement I referred to regarding bananas.
"Or was that a divine creator designed it that way?" The creation exists, it's patterns exist, those measurable physical characteristics ...one might call the theory. Wouldn't it be more presumable to acknowledge that with creation that there must be a creator ?
Unless you're talking about shared genetic (DNA) in which case we're also bananas since humans share 40% of dna with them as well
I missed this one and it was too good to pass up.
(this is snark based in factual reality.)
You know I was talking civilly to you until you went all leftard nigger faggot from a few replies ago.
Maybe you are half banana, but again to clarify, no one said we share 40% of our DNA with a Banana. This is important and a mistake you are repeatedly making, stay with me.
Bananas have 44.1% of genetic makeup in common with humans.
Read it a few times, I believe you can get there eventually. You are highly emotional and easily confused and regularly conflate basic statements.
Read it one more time.
Bananas have 44.1% of their genetic makeup in common with humans, not humans in common with bananas. The human DNA sequence is much much much much much much much much much longer than that of a banana.
Banana: 32,456 predicted protein-coding genes. (Also bananas are triploid, wild ones are diploid) Human: 2 chromosomes, 4 nucleotides (AGTC), 27.27 million DNA sequence reads.
You claim "You know I was talking civilly to you until you went all leftard nigger faggot from a few replies ago"... and don't grasp the irony of this following statement. " You are highly emotional and easily confused" .
You're angry that you're not able to simply speak at me with a snobbish manor. Therefore, every time I poke open the obvious holes into your flawed belief system, you feel compelled to attack and lash out like the primates you desperately wish you were.
Instead of worshiping me or yourself, you should stick to the discussion and delve into the aspect of the argument where you bring up genomes and their role. The ad hominem you enjoy is basically just admittance that you're wrong and you're not sure how to handle yourself because of it.
(post is archived)