The sequencing of nucleotides in genes makes it possible to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms to trace them back to common ancestors.
Albeit incomplete, evolution is supported by the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and molecular biology.
Meanwhile 'Intelligent design' is supported by emotion, opinion, and blind faith.
Observing natural selection in fossils doesn't make evolution true
Observing natural selection and genetic dimorphism is also evidence of microevolutionary changes and adaptations that are made to adapt to the environment. If Microevolution can be observed then there is also evidence for large scale macroevolution.
We can even see changes in selective breeding with finch's because they have short life spans and we can greatly change their behaviour, colours, shape and beak types. These changes may make them more successful, if so those adaptive traits will continue on naturally in their offspring without us humans being involved in selective breeding to artifically create a breed based purely on aesthetics.
. If Microevolution can be observed then there is also evidence for large scale macroevolution.
This isn't a realization , this is merely speculation and assumption. (theory). The jump from monkey to man (by the microevolution argument you've presented) isn't supported by being to another being but a more advanced version of being from itself. Huge distinction.
Also, if the idea of monkey to man were true, we wouldn't see primates today..let alone the dozens of species of it. It would've been mimicked throughout the entire animal kingdom to the point where they would've phased themselves out of the primate state.
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.
Dude, you are trying to reason with someone that doesn't understand that evolution is just natural selection over a long ass period of time. I applaud the effort but there's easier ways to self harm.
Maybe it's masochism, I continue to post with that grub avatar next to my name as well.
Meanwhile 'Intelligent design' is supported by emotion, opinion, and blind faith.
This is the trashy-tattoo-above-the-ass-crack of internet comments. Now I know not to waste my time.
Oh no not a downvote. Fucking retard.
Here have another
"blind faith" is the purposeful disillusion that ignoring facts that disagree with ones bias prevents those facts from existence (cancel culture is built upon this idea) exists in the leftist echo chambers more so than others.
Case in point is complete disregard for the properties within intelligent design and how they are seen both on a molecular level as well as the expansive universe (in galaxies) around us.
It's perplexing how much studying one can do and yet remain so snarkily ignorant.
(post is archived)