![Life at poal [334x750 - 40KB]](https://poal.co/static/images/MjGBNH.jpg){kind=link}
Observing natural selection in fossils doesn't make evolution true
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.
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.
It doesn't that is true.
(post is archived)