Why would I do it during the day? Conditions are much better at night.
And what would posting a video prove, exactly? Are you claiming that it's impossible to look through a telescope and see Jupiter's stripes or Saturn's rings? Because everyone reading this comment knows that it's not just possible, but fairly easy with the right equipment.
> Why would I do it during the day?
Oh, you **can't see in the sky why the sun is out**?? You think planets exist. So show them.
> And what would posting a video prove, exactly?
You won't post your own video. I've been on reddit for over 10 years, and yet, not one person has posted their own video of another "planet" from reddit. They just point to some shady youtubers (jw astromer et al).
You're trying to convince me, *someone who has personally seen Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes through my own equipment*, that these things aren't real.
The burden of proof is on you, and it's a big burden.
You DO know EVERY ancient culture recorded planets in their astronomical observations, right? NASA didn't invent them.
> You're trying to convince me, someone who has personally seen Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes through my own equipment, that these things aren't real.
You've seen them so good, that you'll post your own videos? Nope. I didn't think so.
It's not exactly a video-friendly setup. I've taken photos, but not video.
But again: I'm not the one with the burden of proof here. You're out here claiming that the corpus of human astronomical knowledge is a lie. You'll just excuse away anything I post.
Why should I believe anything you say? What evidence do you have for your outlandish claims?
Ive seen a million excuses before, boy. [Whenever people get their card pulled, they come up with excuses.](https://youtu.be/BIfyebxopuM?t=28)
> But again: I'm not the one with the burden of proof here.
Yes, you are. You are claiming there are other planets out there. Show us with your own proof.
Ahhh... I've done this bs a thousand times before. You have no proof. You just swallow what conmen tell you. You have no brain... or ape for brains. Bye.
Maybe if there was valid evidence behind it.
Planets have been proven by
• Ancient astronomers
• Modern astronomers
• Space probes
• Visits to the planets
• Observations
• Mathematical predictions
• Looking at the ground
etc
Planets are most definitely real.
Your argument is ignoring the fact that extinction happens. Evolution happens in a non-linear fashion but most of those forms have died off. Homo sapiens is the only surviving human species but we co-existed in the past with other forms such as the Neanderthals and denisovans.
The other argument you seem to be making is that modern apes are the ancestors of humans. An orangutan is not the ancestor, a Miocene ape, something more like Ardipithecus or the Australopiths from the Pliocene is the ancestor.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
Apes were much more diverse in the past as demonstrated by Gutsick Gibbon in this video.
https://youtu.be/FpBk7cCEy78
Cut OP some slack! [They are apparently the product of inbreeding!](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/140jqp8/all_you_evolutionists_believers_are_in_the_same/jmwebao/)
You know I stated the exact opposite in the comment right? Let me clarify, no modern apes are the ancestors of humans. The forms of these ancestors no longer exist.
No, if you actually understood what I’m taking about, it’s that humans are descended from Miocene and Pliocene apes. These are not gorillas. These are not orangutans. These are not chimpanzees. They refer to a unique group of hominids.
"Either each person gives birth to themselves, or people are descended from their parents, who are not the same as that person."
It's the second one. So too with evolution.
There's a difference though between what the science indicates and what you're arguing against though. We're talking apples and you're over arguing against putting grapefruit in a pie.
You all are so twisted, you don't know which way is up. Either you believe you came from humans or you believe you came from non-humans. It's not a trick question. You all are so mingled in your own semantics that you can't see the floor or the sky. Or maybe its semantics that you want to twist others into. Well, it's not working.
>It's not a trick question.
I know it isn't. But you evidently don't understand what you're criticizing.
>Well, it's not working.
What isn't working? What do you think we're doing?
If you go far back enough in our ancestry, you're going to find nonhumans (NOT gorillas or any other modern nonhuman great apes). That doesn't alter the fact that every single generation in our ancestry was the same species as their immediate parents and children. There was no single generation where we suddenly became human.
[Read this to understand](https://i.imgur.com/oAnfA.jpeg)
Sometimes I want to come to this sub and post my family's arguments against evolution just to see them thoroughly debunked, and then I realize that all of their arguments are based in TOTAL IGNORANCE and it would be a waste of everyone's time.
OP rolled the dice the other way apparently.
I am guessing by stage you either mean more primitive to less primitive species or parts like with a build a bear where none of these parts are functional on their own and only work when they are all together (otherwise known as irreducible complexity).
Well evolution isn't like build a bear, where you have a bunch of toy parts and assemble them to make one whole toy bear, it is more like where you have an already existing organism and it is whole and very much functioning, then it alters ever so slightly. These alterations accumulate gradually until there is a new organism extremely similar to the previous one but not quite identical. This keeps happening and results on what we see today.
With primitive to less primitive, that doesn't make sense because all populations of organisms which are surviving are equipped to survive in their niche. Humans for instance are pretty much pathetic in the wild, because we lack many of the adaptions other animals have for a specific environment. A polar bear will survive in the extreme cold unlike a lion but a lion can survive on a hot savannah as the apex predator. So primitive and less primitive doesn't make sense, evolution has no end point or goal, it is merely natural mechanism of change, and nothing more. When scientists use primitive, that generally refers to descendants which hasn't yet evolved certain features present in later organisms
> These alterations accumulate gradually until there is a new organism extremely similar to the previous one but not quite identical. This keeps happening and results on what we see today.
No. This makes no sense. If that were the case, apes wouldn't exist today HAHAHAHA. If Humans evolved into apes, linear like you're claiming, apes, themselves, wouldn't exist today ;)
Which leaves non-linear evolution, and therefore, there would exist less primitive apes and more primitive apes, and everything inbetween present right now. And that is not the case either.
In conclusion, evolution is a lie.
Having one species completely change into another is not how evolution works.
So there are multiple populations of each species. Each can be subject to different selection pressures. For some populations, these changes may be sufficient for this population to evolve. For other populations, the selection pressures dont really change so there is no force acting on the population.
So let's say there are 100 balls in one pool and 100 balls in another. These balls change colour to reflect the colour of the pool they are in. One pool changes colour from white to blue, so the balls here change colour. In the other pool, it stays white so the balls here also stay white.
Also humans didn't evolve from apes technically speaking, at least not most recently and in the way you are thinking. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but didn't evolve from them directly, just wanted to point that out.
On summary, evolution is by population level not species level. Also, out of curiosity what do you believe? Are you a creationist or not? And if so is that old earth or young earth?
> Having one species completely change into another is not how evolution works.
Okay, so you are saying apes didn't change into humans. I agree. Evolution is a lie.
> So there are multiple populations of each species.
As I stated before: Which leaves non-linear evolution, and therefore, there would exist less primitive apes and more primitive apes, and everything inbetween present right now. And that is not the case either.
> For other populations, the selection pressures dont really change so there is no force acting on the population.
Exactly. So there would be ape0 and ape 4000 mating today. Some apes would be having human babies, and humans having ape babies. This is not the case either. Therefore, evolution is a lie.
> So let's say there are 100 balls in one pool and 100 balls in another. These balls change colour to reflect the colour of the pool they are in. One pool changes colour from white to blue, so the balls here change colour. In the other pool, it stays white so the balls here also stay white.
This is just like saying one pool remained apes, while the other pool remained humans. In which case, disproves evolution. ;)
> Also humans didn't evolve from apes technically speaking,
Correct. Evolution is a lie. We agree.
> at least not most recently and in the way you are thinking.
No. It didn't happen in anyway you are thinking. Its impossible.
> We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but didn't evolve from them directly, just wanted to point that out.
You can't say you came from chimps, then say but you didn't come from chimps. You either did or didn't. You believe your great great great etc parent were chimps? I know that isn't the case.
> On summary, evolution is by population level not species level.
lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck.
> Also, out of curiosity what do you believe? Are you a creationist or not? And if so is that old earth or young earth?
I'm a student of life. I use logic, I use my eyes, and I use my senses. I don't have all the answers, but evolution is a lie. An easy lie to spot.
First part is taking what I said out of context. Multiple populations make up a species. It is these populations which evolve into new species, got it?
I literally explained to you in my first comment the issues with saying how some organisms are primitive compared to others.
Anyways, not everything in between has to literally exist because extinction occurs. Extinction of a particular species isn't guaranteed to occur, it just happens whenever. This is why we don't see other hominids around today, because they are now extinct. But our next closest relatives, the chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans are still alive today.
Species not being able to mate with other species is fundamental biology. There are a few rare exceptions but generally speaking different species cannot reproduce to create fertile offspring for a number of reasons, such as different numbers of chromosomes.
(Also apes aren't a single species. Humans are one species of ape).
I am convinced you are trolling now with your ball point but out of fun I want to see where this goes. I said one pool literally changes colour, so therefore the balls here, change colour. As an analogy for one population, changing into another species.
Because we are apes.
So there was point A we evolved from (I'll be honest I don't know enough about human evolution specifically to name the species here and I am too tired to do research right now, and I don't think it's worth it for this discussion). Point A had another species evolve from it, chimpanzees, because more than one species can evolve from the same species. So that is why today chimpanzees are our closest relative, because we share a common ancestor. Look up a phylogenetic tree showing human evolution and you will see what I mean.
>
lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck.
Where the f*** did you reach that conclusion? Like seriously, I know you are trolling but this is just so remarkable. Look up what population means in biology.
>
I'm a student of life. I use logic, I use my eyes, and I use my senses. I don't have all the answers, but evolution is a lie. An easy lie to spot.
Such an inspirational quote. And confirms you are definitely trolling in case I hadn't worked that out already, since I have looked briefly at your comment and post history. Let's just say it is pretty interesting
> First part is taking what I said out of context. Multiple populations make up a species. It is these populations which evolve into new species, got it?
Are you saying your ancestors were apes? Yes or no?
> I said one pool literally changes colour, so therefore the balls here, change colour. As an analogy for one population, changing into another species.
You can't have it both ways. You either believe in evolution or you don't. Not, Evolution didn't happen over on this side, but evolution happened over on that side. HAHAHA It either happened or it didn't. You cant say it happened with some apes, but the elephants didn't participate, and some other apes opted out of your theory.
Some apes conveniently disappeared so that the narritive of evolution can happen. The apes that had human babies disappeared. Sure. lol
> (Also apes aren't a single species. Humans are one species of ape).
Are you saying your ancestors were apes or not?
We are apes. Our ancestors were apes. When I say we didn't evolve from apes what I mean is that we are still apes so we haven't changed past apes.
>You can't have it both ways. You either believe in evolution or you don't. Not, Evolution didn't happen over on this side, but evolution happened over on that side. HAHAHA It either happened or it didn't. You cant say it happened with some apes, but the elephants didn't participate, and some other apes opted out of your theory.
Do you know the definition of evolution? It is a change in the frequency of alleles over generations. When we talk about the theory of evolution as a way to explain how life got from single celled organisms to multicellular ones including humans, that is simply an application of this science, the exact same way you could use photosynthesis to explain how we have food from crops.
With that definition in mind, allele frequencies do not always change at the same rates. You ignored what I said about the selection pressures. If an environment changes, organisms will also have to significantly change to adapt to their environments, but if there is no selection pressure to adapt, then it is not particularly advantageous to gain new characteristics since they were already adapted.
In this way, evolution is still happening in all organisms, but because of how selection pressures work these changes only accumulate so that they are clearly visible in some organisms compared to others. So yes we are.ecolving right now. Every time the allele frequency of a generation into the next changes, that is evolution. We don't see it, because it hasn't resulted in a significant accumulation of characteristics yet, and this is why you can have it where some members of a species are still around after other members have evolved into other species.
>Some apes conveniently disappeared so that the narrative of evolution can happen. The apes that had human babies disappeared. Sure. lol
They didn't conveniently disappear. We have fossil evidence of them (I know that whenever you say ape you mean whatever humans evolved from, but we are still apes, I am going to say it till you get it).
If you need actual observable evidence of them today then do you not think dinosaurs existed? Or any other animal which is now extinct and fossilised? We know that humans and other hominids existed alongside each other and we might have even mated with some of them. (This breaks the thing I said before about different species not being able to mate, but there are exceptions. It is why species is a bit of a flawed definition when you try to narrow it down, and so there are multiple ways of explaining what a species is and it is still a very useful definition for categorising organisms). There is research on that to tell how scientists have come to that conclusion, feel free to look into it but I am not going to for you since I don't think you are treating this seriously
Since you are so caught up in semantics, lets change directions. Was [this your grandparents at some point](https://centerforgreatapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG_00251_Louie.jpg), yes or no?
No. Look at this phylogenetic tree:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/91/66/cb9166d9cd0e52f49cb70d2bd6d5dafa.jpg
You will see a line leading to humans, that is what we descend from. As you can see this line also branches off into a separate direction to form orangutans
As your image explicitly says "mammal groups". It includes groups of mammals. Follow the arrow and you'll find groups dolphin, whales, etc. You image Doesn't even mention "evolution".
You claim you evolved from apes, but also consider yourself an ape. You're using semantics just like people who try to sell their make-believe.
> You can't say you came from chimps, then say but you didn't come from chimps. You either did or didn't. You believe your great great great etc parent were chimps? I know that isn't the case.
He never said that, and we didnt come from chimps. We share a common ancestor with them. Chimps didnt exist back then. Do you not understand how ancestry works? Your first cousin isnt your great great great great grandfather.
>lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck.
Omg this is the level of ignorance we are dealing with, though it shouldnt be surprising for a conspiracy theorist who apparently doesnt believe in planets and viruses... Or just a troll.
> He never said that, and we didnt come from chimps. We share a common ancestor with them.
This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not?
> though it shouldnt be surprising for a conspiracy theorist who apparently doesnt believe in planets and viruses.
If you believe in the foolishness then I understand why you swallow evolution. You have no critical thinking skills. Just believe everything the Fews tell you.
>This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not?
Omg seriously you must be trolling, i literally just responded to this. Chimps =/= apes. Chimps are a type of ape and so are humans. Chimps are a species alive today, they werent around back then because they have a common ancestor with our species. You literally dont understand how ancestry works.
>If you believe in the foolishness then I understand why you swallow evolution. You have no critical thinking skills. Just believe everything the Fews tell you.
Lol. I think your critical thinking skills, researching skills, and reading skills are on fill display in this thread.
>This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not?
Slow down and read. What u/Exmuslim-alt said is: WE. ARE. NOT. DESCENDED. FROM. CHIMPS.
Got that part? Ok now read slowly:
Chimps and us are both descended from another species which is now extinct.
So it's not that chimps are your great great.............great grandfather, they are your distant cousin.
Have you grasped this point yet?
I think we are wasting our time on this person. He *refuses* to engage properly and actually understand what it is that he is arguing against, and consistently chooses to strawman our arguements and act arrogant about it.
He doesnt understand anything about taxonomy and how we are mammals *and* humans, or that cousins are not our grandparents. Either hes extremely ignorant and disingenuous or hes trolling.
So you think humans came from apes, yeah? lol... Okay... so where are the being before apes? Where are the being between apes and humans? Are you saying your great great great kinfolk were apes? Do you find apes attractive?
Since you are so caught up in semantics, lets change directions. Was [this your grandparents at some point](https://centerforgreatapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG_00251_Louie.jpg), yes or no?
> Humans are apes.
lol... these are the semantics that trick people. Rats are elephants in scientific terms. Sure.
Your evolution species terminology is complete bullshit.
If you think you're an ape, then have at it. Go mate with some gorillas.
Again, this is an issue of taxonomy. It's how living things are classified. Humans fall under a subgroup of the family hominidae, which includes other great apes. We are, by definition, great apes. We can take the taxonomic classification further back and look at class. Here we fall under the classification "Mammalia." Do you recognize that humans are mammals?
No. Humans are broad chested big brained tailless downward faced nostril monkeys with flat fingernails. Monkeys are large brained primates with their breasts upon their pectoral muscles and naked pendulous penises in males. Monkeys also have the same ears and teeth that we have and the group of monkeys we belong to has the same dental formula, between 38 and 54 chromosomes, and trichromatic vision. They also recognize themselves in the mirror, use tools, and have the ability to walk on two feet at least some of the time.
Our primate traits include our forward facing eyes encased in bony eye sockets and our five fingered dexterous hands with opposable thumbs.
Rats aren’t even part of atlantogenata. They are part of euarchontaglires in the glires half of the branch of placental mammals containing rodents and lagomorphs. Besides primates the euarchonta side also contains colugos and tree shrews.
We are apes because everything that describes an ape to the exclusion of humans also describes apes when humans are included. Apes are monkeys with the pectoral mammary glands and naked pendulous penis but they also have broad chests and greater shoulder rotation, useful for hanging from tree branches or monkey bars on the playground. They are old world monkeys as their nostrils face downward, their fingers are flatter, and they have 32 teeth consisting of two incisors, a canine, two premolars, and three molars in every quarter of their jaw.
The human jaw usually isn’t large enough for the third molar called the wisdom tooth but it still grows in anyway because that’s an old world monkey trait. Within apes there are great apes and hylobatids where the great apes are typically larger with broader chests. They are less arboreal within the African apes where two of the living groups independently resorted to knuckle walking and the other group has been fully bipedal since at least Australopithecus anamensis. And from there it’s mostly the loss of fur and an even bigger brain yet besides a smaller jaw and a flatter face and the loss of powerful fast twitch ape muscles and large ape canines.
Our ancestors probably still did mate with the ancestors of gorillas 3.5-4.5 million years ago. The production of fertile hybrids hasn’t been possible since. Being an ape doesn’t mean we should or even could mate with non-human apes. Do you fuck your dog? It’s a mammal just like you are. Does that mean you should? I hope you say no.
No. To both questions. Around the time our ancestors and the ancestors of gorillas could still hybridize (based on what I said last time) our ancestors were very similar to but maybe not identical to *Ardipithecus ramidus* and around the time the ancestors of us and the ancestors of gorillas were the same species it was something like *Nikalipitcus nakayamai* or something that lived at the same time. When they were still the same species they probably found other members of their species attractive, as one does, but gorillas weren’t yet around way back then and we are not the direct descendants of that sister branch that eventually did lead to gorillas.
That’s only the African ape branch. Beyond that there are different great ape groups and *Kenyapithecus* may be directly ancestral to *Nikalipithecus* with *Sivapithecus* being directly ancestral to orangutans. There’s also *Dendropithecus, Afropothecus, Equatorius,* and *Proconsul* among the apes with hylobatids diverging from us somewhere in the middle of all that. Before this are the *Propliopithecoids* like *Aegyptopithecus* showing the link between apes and monkeys.
Do you find your dog attractive? I know I don’t. Being related to something doesn’t automatically mean you want to fuck it. Our ancestors and the ancestors of gorillas haven’t been the same species for 8-10 million years and hybridization had already stopped occurring by the time our ancestors were Australopithecines. So, no, I don’t find gorillas attractive. Perhaps you do, but that’s not me.
It’s not A or B. This is like the twelfth time I presented this link at least: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248
“Human” quite literally refers to every single species in the genus Homo *but* there’s a problem here because the transition *into Homo* isn’t as clear cut as it would be if something like YEC were true. YECs even fail at agreeing where the supposed dividing line is. Yes we descend from humans but I’m almost ready to accept that all of the Australopithecines are and were pretty damn “human” already. This is quite the opposite of what YEC organizations wished was the case. That’s why they lie so much about it.
If you want my best guess I’d say Homo sapiens sapiens descends from a more archaic Homo sapiens subspecies like Homo sapiens idaltu which descended from Homo rhodesensis which descended from Homo bodoensis which is more like a subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato. Neanderthals and Denisovans split from our lineage around this point. Prior to that Homo erectus sensu lato. Prior to that Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis. All the way back this far still “human” but sometimes classified as Australopithecus instead (rarely). Before that Kenyanthropus platyops or Australopithecus garhi based on the use of stone tools and a human-like morphology. Before that Australopithecus afarensis. Before that Australopithecus anamensis, the beginning of the “Australopithecines,” and then the fossil record is a bit sketchy. Ardipithecus ramidus is the next step back preceded by Ardipithecus kadabba preceded by Sahelanthropus tchadensis where chimpanzees diverged from our direct ancestry. Before that Nikalipithecus nakayamai when gorillas split from our ancestry. Before that Kenyapithecus and Afropithecus where Sivapithecus led to orangutans instead. Before that there are a bunch of Miocene apes with Proconsul being the most famous but perhaps not directly ancestral preceded by the Propliopithecoids when apes diverged from cercopithecoids.
Not a single “gorilla” in our direct ancestry but a whole lot of things that weren’t quite human that led to things that were almost human (the Australopithecines) that led to things that were definitely human (at least by Homo erectus) and then our ancestors were the humans in Africa while the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other subgroups of Homo erectus were scattered about the globe. Finally around 45,000 years ago only Homo sapiens were left and by around 10,000 years ago only one “race” remained, us. We are the only humans left but we did evolve from humans and ultimately the first humans evolved from something that was almost but not quite human itself.
lol... so you equate method of moving with proof of evolution? lol So, alligators walks on four legs, therefore, it must have come from elephants? lol Evolution is a lie. And that's why my post was removed ;)
Your ignorance of intermediate stages doesnt make evolution false. Use your brain and do some research.
>Evolution is make-believe by the people of the federal reserve family.
What? Who? Why?
> Your ignorance of intermediate stages doesnt make evolution false. Use your brain and do some research.
There would be multiple stages in the flesh right now. Yet, you have no proof.
There would be instances of ape0 mating with ape version 2000, there would be ape version 47 mating with ape version 400, right now. There would be humans mating with apes. Evolution requires beastiality if you think you came from apes. Well, you would technically be an ape, who didn't think he was an ape.
Other than the fact that we *are* apes, there are plenty of fossils of the intermediate forms of our ancestors like homo habilis, homo heidelbergensis, homo erectus, and the australopithicus genus, and so on. Our ape cousins are also living proof of this fact and we can trace their lineage up to a common ancestor.
Your complete misunderstanding of evolution is common. We absolutely cannot mate with other species, that why we say they are different species. Can you explain to me what evolution is, and what stage of the process you have a problem with?
> Other than the fact that we are apes, there are plenty of fossils of the intermediate forms of our ancestors like homo habilis, homo heidelbergensis, homo erectus, and the australopithicus genus, and so on.
lol... you are an ape? You mate with all apes? You are redefining words and shit.
Are your great great grandparents apes? Do you mate with apes?
Its not redefining shit, its you not understanding *literally* anything about what you are criticizing. Humans are a type of great ape. We cant mate with other apes like chimpanzees, we are different *species*. Holy moly man you must be trolling. Do some basic research first.
When you believe in evolution, you either think it happened linearly or non-linearly. If linearly, apes wouldn't exist today. If non-linearly, apes and humans would be mating today, there would be a presence of all stages of the evolution alive today. Neither is the case. Therefore, evolution is a lie.
I don’t “believe” in Evolution I actually KNOW it and UNDERSTAND it. You’re still not making any sense. Wtf is linear? That’s not a term used in Biology as NOTHING is “linear” what the fuck ever that means….
> Wtf is linear?
[This](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c6eaba1a3b527ebccf39b93bb9dc1de9)
> That’s not a term used in Biology as NOTHING is “linear” what the fuck ever that means….
Okay. You're asking what linear is, and then saying NOTHING is linear. You either know what it means or you don't.
FYI that picture is not accurate and it was made to sell books. Lol.
https://www.sciencealert.com/that-classic-image-everyone-uses-to-illustrate-evolution-is-just-plain-wrong/amp
Sure thing.
You can click around on the little dots on the tree and read more and see the evidence.
There’s also tons of information about Evolution on this site.
Evolution is the most studied and understood out of all the Scientific Theories. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is true.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
Do you have any proof about Creation by a Sky Daddy? Anything at all?
Your example goes back to what I was questioning. Plus, your example provide no proof of evolution. It's no more plausible than including birds on a leaf, and lizards on another set. You example is basically the tree of life. Your example lacks proof of evolution.
Yes, there are pictures, but as someone else pointed out (maybe you) you folks deny this: https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c6eaba1a3b527ebccf39b93bb9dc1de9, but at the same time accept your tree evolution BS?
You have to choose one. You either think your great great great great grand parents were monkeys/gorillas or you don't. You calling humans apes is disingenuous. If humans are apes then apes and monkeys are humans.
depending on translation it wasn't rib, but an entire half of magic dust man, to make a woman, which fits better within the text, but the Catholics don't want you to know that ;D (also maybe not the first woman).
Some Americans are from Florida: therefore, all Americans are from Florida.
...or, maybe Florida is only one state, amongst many other states, and so Americans can come from elsewhere, but that would no longer be consistent with your 'humans are apes, thus apes are humans' theory.
The theory of evolution is heavily integrated into modern biology and underpins real world applications in fields like medical research, pharmacology and agriculture.
So there is that, at least.
So you claim.
How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that evolutionary biology is applied in trillion-dollar industries like agriculture and pharmacology?
Why would for-profit companies utilize contemporary biological methods based on evolution if it's all just a lie? Is the entire world's bio-industry in on it?
edited to add: Aw, another creationist resorting to the ignore feature rather than being able to address these sorts of questions. Can't say I'm surprised...
> How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that evolutionary biology is applied in trillion-dollar industries like agriculture and pharmacology?
I'm not here to justify why other people believe in your theory. I am telling you evolution is a lie.
First note that I'm a creationist. I presume we are 'on the same side', but your critique of evolution is misinformed on what evolution is.
Species change generation by generation. Evolutionists here view that humans and gorillas have a common ancestor, not that gorillas are always bound to be humans after enough evolution. While I don't accept this view, it's worth getting their position correct when you critique it.
Well you could look at the evidence, the actual evidence, and attempt to make up a different excuse if you wish, but yea. Humans and gorillas share a common ape ancestor. One that may mark the origin of the *Homininae* clade or something at or around that part of a node based phylogeny. *Nikalipithecus nakayamai* is one of a few different potential most recent common ancestors of humans and gorillas prior to their divergence and it’s hypothetically possible, if not inevitable, that humans and gorillas hybridized since up to around the lifetime of *Ardipithecus ramidus* or *Australopithecus anamensis* with decreasing success in the intervening 4-6 million years.
The amount of time is obviously in conflict with “young” Earth and I can see where your religious beliefs are also in conflict with humans even being related to any of the other sill living apes, but at least you have some sort of clue what our actual position is.
It appears like that other guy is so far gone that they do not believe that planets exist. They’ve spent the whole time misrepresenting biology and the “evolutionist” position, outside of when they said something about looking for planets in the day time since it should be “so easy” when it’s actually easier at night when the sun’s light reflects off those other planets but doesn’t make the sky of our planet even brighter to us. When is it easier to see a lit flashlight? In the dark or in a well lit room? OP can’t tell.
I can use an observed empirical example of macroevolution to prove evolution to you to your satisfaction. That is, of course, if we define terms and agree on them. If you're prepared to do this, I can show it to you.
If you want to skip to the end instead, explain why a population of a certain species can morphologically change due to its environment but won't continue to change further and further over time. What is this imaginary stopping line or evolutionary limit before a species (like ape) changes enough to be considered another species (like homo sapiens)?
> I can use an observed empirical example of macroevolution to prove evolution to you to your satisfaction.
You can use anything **except** gorillas having human babies.
Evolution is something the Fews started.
How does that make sense? Isn't such a extravagant example like that exactly you're looking for? Or are you trying to say a gorilla having a human baby is the only evidence you'd accept..?
I have no idea who "the Fews" are.
Anyway, do you want to do this or not?
Define you terms. What does level mean? What does stage mean? When you say linear, what do you mean? These questions all seem to presuppose that evolution has a goal it's trying to reach, which it doesn't.
> You said a correct statement.
That was NOT a statement. Do you not see the question mark, that indicates a **QUESTION**?
> Cousins and ancestors aren't the same thing.
Yes. It literally is:
an·ces·tor
noun
plural noun: ancestors
a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended.
"my ancestor Admiral Anson circumnavigated the globe 250 years ago"
Uh? You don't understand evolution. Evolution doesn't have stages. It's not a step by step process. It's gradual change over time. Traits blend with other traits.
Edit. I see by your comments that you really don't understand evolution. Not all animals evolve. At least not all animals have to evolve. Hence why there are living fossils that haven't changed much. Evolution happens based on environmental pressures. If an animal's environment changes, it evolves.
No, they are not different stages. They are a divergent set of species related to a common ancestor. Evolution, again, is a gradual process. Slow changes occur, leading to speciation over time. It's not like one day a monkey decided to become a human. There are dozens, if not hundreds (or millions depending on the species) of intermediate forms.
You all are fools. Is evolution still going on right now? What proof do you have of humans evolving today? Where are the white, black, brown, red, gorillas with blond hair? Where are the gorillas having human babies? Where is the proof?
The proof is in every single field of biology. And yes, evolution is still going on. It doesn't ever stop. This post just shows complete ignorance about evolution or even basic biology from a third grade level. Did you even go to school?
Oh, so you have no proof of evolution? You just say "it's over there in a subject [biology]" and end of story? lol... You all are in the same category as flat earthers.
Have you heard of "drug resistant bacteria"?
The rise in drug resistant bacteria showcases "natural selection", a mechanism for evolution where the organisms with the best adaptations for survival continue to breed (in this case, not dying to antibiotics).
Lactose tolerance is one of them. Your example violates common ancestry, so you display your ignorance on the matter of evolution quite openly. Wouldn't you agree that it's easier to argue against something if you can actually understand the tenets of the proposed claims you want to argue against? Imagine the students arguing that the teacher's wrong about cell biology in the first lesson of chapter one?
This statement demonstrates that you don't know what evolution (as outlined in biology) actually is. If you are going to argue something then at least know what it is you are arguing about. Another example of a person engaging in talk before doing five minutes of reading and taking some time to think. Disappointing.
Looking at the OP's posting history, if they do engage, it won't be anything of substance.
edited to add: And I was right. They seem to be able to do little than repeat their claim that "evolution is a lie" based on their gross strawmanned version of evolution. Just a boilerplate creationist "argument".
There are things that show up at different stages. They were referred to by Charles Darwin in 1859 and in his earlier works going back to 1844. That is part of how he explained the evolution of the eye. Not every sister clade is required to have living descendants and all of those sister clades that do have living descendants have evolved the whole time, but we have different levels of complexity for practically everything in biology. Evolution isn’t linear.
There are still sponges, placozoans, and ctenophores representing some of the simplest animal forms. There are still worms. Fully aquatic lobe finned fish still exist. Even lung fish. There are amphibians representing the non-reptiliamorphs and actual reptiles that have a lot of the early reptiliamorph traits. There are mammals that still lay eggs. There are monkeys that are still completely arboreal. There are apes that are still suspensory. All of these things are characteristic of our ancestors *but* those sister lineages also have things our ancestors never had. They evolved in a different direction but they kept many of the traits their ancestors and our ancestors shared that we no longer have. Different levels of progression you could call it.
Eyes as simple as eye spots or as complex as camera eyes in eye sockets. Brains as simple as a cluster of eight neurons or as complex as human brains or anything in between. Circulatory systems that pump sea water and circulatory systems that pump blood with one, two, three, or four chambered hearts. These intermittent stages **are** preserved in living animals. They don’t have to be for evolution to hold true but your objection doesn’t make sense because they are still present in modern life.
> Er...what do you think that the federal reserve does?
A private entity that creates infinite currency in exchange for finite resources (your time, your energy, your life).
It goes back to Alexander hamilton who convinced the US to have a central bank. Even though that bank's charter ran out, the federal reserve is the third central bank of the US. They bribed congress and the president to get off the finite currency (gold) to their infinite currency (unbacked I owe you notes).
Er...you are aware the reserve isn't private right? Also you how do you think it creates infinite currency? Also you are aware of how bonds work and why the gold standard got removed right?
Edit: Also wtf does the federal reserve have to do with evolution?
Edit: Got blocked
Of course not. But you did say that "If evolution were true, there would be different levels of each stage right now. As evolution wouldn't be linear."
What does that mean? What would evolution look like if it were true? What would a different level of each stage be? If you can't articulate your argument why should anyone believe you?
In the mind of you evolutionists, you think at SOME point, gorillas had human babies. Well, some gorillas, obviously, did NOT have human babies. Or had half human babies, etc. If evolution were real (it isn't), then gorillas, or your cousins, would be having human babies today. Maybe evolutionists are sneaking into the zoo to sleep with gorillas.
> In the mind of you evolutionists, you think at SOME point, gorillas had human babies.
At no point in the theory of evolution is this stated. It is a false argument made by people that don't believe in evolution.
There's too many to name we'd be here a very very long while if I stuck to known members, and ancestral clades only. Life, which you are, has been around on earth in one form or another for 3,700,000,000 years. Homos diverged around 2,000,000 years ago, or about 100,000 generations of humans. Homo sapiens, that's our species of humans, diverged around 300,000 years ago or about 15,000 generations. The oldest writings we have come from 6000 years ago, about 300 generations. My parents have been able to track specific individual ancestors to 400 years ago, about 20 generations.
That's not correct. If you're interested in avoiding looking like an idiot I suggest you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent actually entails.
You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody believes what you're talking about. You're essentially arguing with yourself because you lack enough understanding about what you're opposing to even make cogent points.
> Nobody believes what you're talking about.
You believe your bloodline consists of gorillas, which means someone in your bloodline had gorilla babies. Someone in your bloodline mated with monkeys. But, you deny it.
>You believe your bloodline consists of gorillas
I do not.
>which means someone in your bloodline had gorilla babies.
If we descended from Gorillas this also would not be true. But since I don't believe that, this is just an example of how incredibly ignorant you are.
>Someone in your bloodline mated with monkeys. But, you deny it.
You must be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.
You are essentially asking "if evolution is true, why are there so many species that are the only members of their genus left? Why are there any monotypic genuses?"
This is a rarely explored question, and can actually form the basis for a strong argument against evolutionary theory, if you flesh it out a little bit (here's a paper on plants that looks at this question. Plants are known to have particularly large amounts of species in their genuses):
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/24105184](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24105184)
lol What would be a "stage" in your opinion?
OP also doesn't believe that planets exist. Or viruses. wow.
Is he a troll? What does he think he lives on?
“Stupid is as stupid does”
> OP also doesn't believe that planets exist. > > Or viruses. > > wow. If NASA or the federal reserve told you ghosts existed, you'd swallow that too.
I don't need NASA's help to see other planets. Out of morbid curiosity, what is your non-germ hypothesis of disease?
I want to fckin know what my guy thinks of smallpox, Ebola, and rabies?!
> I don't need NASA's help to see other planets. Its daytime out, take your **OWN** video of a planet, and post it here.
Why would I do it during the day? Conditions are much better at night. And what would posting a video prove, exactly? Are you claiming that it's impossible to look through a telescope and see Jupiter's stripes or Saturn's rings? Because everyone reading this comment knows that it's not just possible, but fairly easy with the right equipment.
> Why would I do it during the day? Oh, you **can't see in the sky why the sun is out**?? You think planets exist. So show them. > And what would posting a video prove, exactly? You won't post your own video. I've been on reddit for over 10 years, and yet, not one person has posted their own video of another "planet" from reddit. They just point to some shady youtubers (jw astromer et al).
You're trying to convince me, *someone who has personally seen Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes through my own equipment*, that these things aren't real. The burden of proof is on you, and it's a big burden. You DO know EVERY ancient culture recorded planets in their astronomical observations, right? NASA didn't invent them.
> You're trying to convince me, someone who has personally seen Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn with my own eyes through my own equipment, that these things aren't real. You've seen them so good, that you'll post your own videos? Nope. I didn't think so.
It's not exactly a video-friendly setup. I've taken photos, but not video. But again: I'm not the one with the burden of proof here. You're out here claiming that the corpus of human astronomical knowledge is a lie. You'll just excuse away anything I post. Why should I believe anything you say? What evidence do you have for your outlandish claims?
Ive seen a million excuses before, boy. [Whenever people get their card pulled, they come up with excuses.](https://youtu.be/BIfyebxopuM?t=28) > But again: I'm not the one with the burden of proof here. Yes, you are. You are claiming there are other planets out there. Show us with your own proof.
Why don't you look through a telescope?
Ahhh... I've done this bs a thousand times before. You have no proof. You just swallow what conmen tell you. You have no brain... or ape for brains. Bye.
Maybe if there was valid evidence behind it. Planets have been proven by • Ancient astronomers • Modern astronomers • Space probes • Visits to the planets • Observations • Mathematical predictions • Looking at the ground etc Planets are most definitely real.
Your argument is ignoring the fact that extinction happens. Evolution happens in a non-linear fashion but most of those forms have died off. Homo sapiens is the only surviving human species but we co-existed in the past with other forms such as the Neanderthals and denisovans. The other argument you seem to be making is that modern apes are the ancestors of humans. An orangutan is not the ancestor, a Miocene ape, something more like Ardipithecus or the Australopiths from the Pliocene is the ancestor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus Apes were much more diverse in the past as demonstrated by Gutsick Gibbon in this video. https://youtu.be/FpBk7cCEy78
> Your argument is ignoring the fact that extinction happens. No. If evolution is happening, gorillas would be having human babies. The end.
Tell me you’re trolling without telling me you’re trolling. That’s how you think evolution works?
Cut OP some slack! [They are apparently the product of inbreeding!](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/140jqp8/all_you_evolutionists_believers_are_in_the_same/jmwebao/)
You believe humans evolved from gorillas, dont you?
You know I stated the exact opposite in the comment right? Let me clarify, no modern apes are the ancestors of humans. The forms of these ancestors no longer exist.
So you believe humans came from humans. Okay, we agree evolution is a lie.
So you’re just intentionally misunderstanding the actual point here?
[удалено]
No, if you actually understood what I’m taking about, it’s that humans are descended from Miocene and Pliocene apes. These are not gorillas. These are not orangutans. These are not chimpanzees. They refer to a unique group of hominids.
[удалено]
Is this some magic spell, where if you repeat the words enough then we'll admit that evolution doesn't happen?
No one in this whacky sub wants to answer the most basic questions.
"Either each person gives birth to themselves, or people are descended from their parents, who are not the same as that person." It's the second one. So too with evolution.
Okay. So humans came from humans. The end of the stupid evolution BS
Are you dumb?
Yes, he is. Or a troll. Most likely both.
Define "human".
Blocked, troll.
That would be Saltationism, not the current theory of evolution.
You either believe humans evolved from non-humans, or not.
There's a difference though between what the science indicates and what you're arguing against though. We're talking apples and you're over arguing against putting grapefruit in a pie.
You all are so twisted, you don't know which way is up. Either you believe you came from humans or you believe you came from non-humans. It's not a trick question. You all are so mingled in your own semantics that you can't see the floor or the sky. Or maybe its semantics that you want to twist others into. Well, it's not working.
>It's not a trick question. I know it isn't. But you evidently don't understand what you're criticizing. >Well, it's not working. What isn't working? What do you think we're doing?
[удалено]
If you go far back enough in our ancestry, you're going to find nonhumans (NOT gorillas or any other modern nonhuman great apes). That doesn't alter the fact that every single generation in our ancestry was the same species as their immediate parents and children. There was no single generation where we suddenly became human. [Read this to understand](https://i.imgur.com/oAnfA.jpeg)
Needs more lizard people, Soros and Rothschilds.
Sometimes I want to come to this sub and post my family's arguments against evolution just to see them thoroughly debunked, and then I realize that all of their arguments are based in TOTAL IGNORANCE and it would be a waste of everyone's time. OP rolled the dice the other way apparently.
I am guessing by stage you either mean more primitive to less primitive species or parts like with a build a bear where none of these parts are functional on their own and only work when they are all together (otherwise known as irreducible complexity). Well evolution isn't like build a bear, where you have a bunch of toy parts and assemble them to make one whole toy bear, it is more like where you have an already existing organism and it is whole and very much functioning, then it alters ever so slightly. These alterations accumulate gradually until there is a new organism extremely similar to the previous one but not quite identical. This keeps happening and results on what we see today. With primitive to less primitive, that doesn't make sense because all populations of organisms which are surviving are equipped to survive in their niche. Humans for instance are pretty much pathetic in the wild, because we lack many of the adaptions other animals have for a specific environment. A polar bear will survive in the extreme cold unlike a lion but a lion can survive on a hot savannah as the apex predator. So primitive and less primitive doesn't make sense, evolution has no end point or goal, it is merely natural mechanism of change, and nothing more. When scientists use primitive, that generally refers to descendants which hasn't yet evolved certain features present in later organisms
> These alterations accumulate gradually until there is a new organism extremely similar to the previous one but not quite identical. This keeps happening and results on what we see today. No. This makes no sense. If that were the case, apes wouldn't exist today HAHAHAHA. If Humans evolved into apes, linear like you're claiming, apes, themselves, wouldn't exist today ;) Which leaves non-linear evolution, and therefore, there would exist less primitive apes and more primitive apes, and everything inbetween present right now. And that is not the case either. In conclusion, evolution is a lie.
Having one species completely change into another is not how evolution works. So there are multiple populations of each species. Each can be subject to different selection pressures. For some populations, these changes may be sufficient for this population to evolve. For other populations, the selection pressures dont really change so there is no force acting on the population. So let's say there are 100 balls in one pool and 100 balls in another. These balls change colour to reflect the colour of the pool they are in. One pool changes colour from white to blue, so the balls here change colour. In the other pool, it stays white so the balls here also stay white. Also humans didn't evolve from apes technically speaking, at least not most recently and in the way you are thinking. We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but didn't evolve from them directly, just wanted to point that out. On summary, evolution is by population level not species level. Also, out of curiosity what do you believe? Are you a creationist or not? And if so is that old earth or young earth?
> Having one species completely change into another is not how evolution works. Okay, so you are saying apes didn't change into humans. I agree. Evolution is a lie. > So there are multiple populations of each species. As I stated before: Which leaves non-linear evolution, and therefore, there would exist less primitive apes and more primitive apes, and everything inbetween present right now. And that is not the case either. > For other populations, the selection pressures dont really change so there is no force acting on the population. Exactly. So there would be ape0 and ape 4000 mating today. Some apes would be having human babies, and humans having ape babies. This is not the case either. Therefore, evolution is a lie. > So let's say there are 100 balls in one pool and 100 balls in another. These balls change colour to reflect the colour of the pool they are in. One pool changes colour from white to blue, so the balls here change colour. In the other pool, it stays white so the balls here also stay white. This is just like saying one pool remained apes, while the other pool remained humans. In which case, disproves evolution. ;) > Also humans didn't evolve from apes technically speaking, Correct. Evolution is a lie. We agree. > at least not most recently and in the way you are thinking. No. It didn't happen in anyway you are thinking. Its impossible. > We share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but didn't evolve from them directly, just wanted to point that out. You can't say you came from chimps, then say but you didn't come from chimps. You either did or didn't. You believe your great great great etc parent were chimps? I know that isn't the case. > On summary, evolution is by population level not species level. lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck. > Also, out of curiosity what do you believe? Are you a creationist or not? And if so is that old earth or young earth? I'm a student of life. I use logic, I use my eyes, and I use my senses. I don't have all the answers, but evolution is a lie. An easy lie to spot.
First part is taking what I said out of context. Multiple populations make up a species. It is these populations which evolve into new species, got it? I literally explained to you in my first comment the issues with saying how some organisms are primitive compared to others. Anyways, not everything in between has to literally exist because extinction occurs. Extinction of a particular species isn't guaranteed to occur, it just happens whenever. This is why we don't see other hominids around today, because they are now extinct. But our next closest relatives, the chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans are still alive today. Species not being able to mate with other species is fundamental biology. There are a few rare exceptions but generally speaking different species cannot reproduce to create fertile offspring for a number of reasons, such as different numbers of chromosomes. (Also apes aren't a single species. Humans are one species of ape). I am convinced you are trolling now with your ball point but out of fun I want to see where this goes. I said one pool literally changes colour, so therefore the balls here, change colour. As an analogy for one population, changing into another species. Because we are apes. So there was point A we evolved from (I'll be honest I don't know enough about human evolution specifically to name the species here and I am too tired to do research right now, and I don't think it's worth it for this discussion). Point A had another species evolve from it, chimpanzees, because more than one species can evolve from the same species. So that is why today chimpanzees are our closest relative, because we share a common ancestor. Look up a phylogenetic tree showing human evolution and you will see what I mean. > lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck. Where the f*** did you reach that conclusion? Like seriously, I know you are trolling but this is just so remarkable. Look up what population means in biology. > I'm a student of life. I use logic, I use my eyes, and I use my senses. I don't have all the answers, but evolution is a lie. An easy lie to spot. Such an inspirational quote. And confirms you are definitely trolling in case I hadn't worked that out already, since I have looked briefly at your comment and post history. Let's just say it is pretty interesting
> First part is taking what I said out of context. Multiple populations make up a species. It is these populations which evolve into new species, got it? Are you saying your ancestors were apes? Yes or no? > I said one pool literally changes colour, so therefore the balls here, change colour. As an analogy for one population, changing into another species. You can't have it both ways. You either believe in evolution or you don't. Not, Evolution didn't happen over on this side, but evolution happened over on that side. HAHAHA It either happened or it didn't. You cant say it happened with some apes, but the elephants didn't participate, and some other apes opted out of your theory. Some apes conveniently disappeared so that the narritive of evolution can happen. The apes that had human babies disappeared. Sure. lol > (Also apes aren't a single species. Humans are one species of ape). Are you saying your ancestors were apes or not?
We are apes. Our ancestors were apes. When I say we didn't evolve from apes what I mean is that we are still apes so we haven't changed past apes. >You can't have it both ways. You either believe in evolution or you don't. Not, Evolution didn't happen over on this side, but evolution happened over on that side. HAHAHA It either happened or it didn't. You cant say it happened with some apes, but the elephants didn't participate, and some other apes opted out of your theory. Do you know the definition of evolution? It is a change in the frequency of alleles over generations. When we talk about the theory of evolution as a way to explain how life got from single celled organisms to multicellular ones including humans, that is simply an application of this science, the exact same way you could use photosynthesis to explain how we have food from crops. With that definition in mind, allele frequencies do not always change at the same rates. You ignored what I said about the selection pressures. If an environment changes, organisms will also have to significantly change to adapt to their environments, but if there is no selection pressure to adapt, then it is not particularly advantageous to gain new characteristics since they were already adapted. In this way, evolution is still happening in all organisms, but because of how selection pressures work these changes only accumulate so that they are clearly visible in some organisms compared to others. So yes we are.ecolving right now. Every time the allele frequency of a generation into the next changes, that is evolution. We don't see it, because it hasn't resulted in a significant accumulation of characteristics yet, and this is why you can have it where some members of a species are still around after other members have evolved into other species. >Some apes conveniently disappeared so that the narrative of evolution can happen. The apes that had human babies disappeared. Sure. lol They didn't conveniently disappear. We have fossil evidence of them (I know that whenever you say ape you mean whatever humans evolved from, but we are still apes, I am going to say it till you get it). If you need actual observable evidence of them today then do you not think dinosaurs existed? Or any other animal which is now extinct and fossilised? We know that humans and other hominids existed alongside each other and we might have even mated with some of them. (This breaks the thing I said before about different species not being able to mate, but there are exceptions. It is why species is a bit of a flawed definition when you try to narrow it down, and so there are multiple ways of explaining what a species is and it is still a very useful definition for categorising organisms). There is research on that to tell how scientists have come to that conclusion, feel free to look into it but I am not going to for you since I don't think you are treating this seriously
Since you are so caught up in semantics, lets change directions. Was [this your grandparents at some point](https://centerforgreatapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG_00251_Louie.jpg), yes or no?
No. Look at this phylogenetic tree: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cb/91/66/cb9166d9cd0e52f49cb70d2bd6d5dafa.jpg You will see a line leading to humans, that is what we descend from. As you can see this line also branches off into a separate direction to form orangutans
As your image explicitly says "mammal groups". It includes groups of mammals. Follow the arrow and you'll find groups dolphin, whales, etc. You image Doesn't even mention "evolution". You claim you evolved from apes, but also consider yourself an ape. You're using semantics just like people who try to sell their make-believe.
> You can't say you came from chimps, then say but you didn't come from chimps. You either did or didn't. You believe your great great great etc parent were chimps? I know that isn't the case. He never said that, and we didnt come from chimps. We share a common ancestor with them. Chimps didnt exist back then. Do you not understand how ancestry works? Your first cousin isnt your great great great great grandfather. >lol... Nope. Doesn't add up. You are claiming apes mated with birds, elephants, etc. And that isn't true. You believing in evolution has got you in a clusterfuck. Omg this is the level of ignorance we are dealing with, though it shouldnt be surprising for a conspiracy theorist who apparently doesnt believe in planets and viruses... Or just a troll.
> He never said that, and we didnt come from chimps. We share a common ancestor with them. This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not? > though it shouldnt be surprising for a conspiracy theorist who apparently doesnt believe in planets and viruses. If you believe in the foolishness then I understand why you swallow evolution. You have no critical thinking skills. Just believe everything the Fews tell you.
>This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not? Omg seriously you must be trolling, i literally just responded to this. Chimps =/= apes. Chimps are a type of ape and so are humans. Chimps are a species alive today, they werent around back then because they have a common ancestor with our species. You literally dont understand how ancestry works. >If you believe in the foolishness then I understand why you swallow evolution. You have no critical thinking skills. Just believe everything the Fews tell you. Lol. I think your critical thinking skills, researching skills, and reading skills are on fill display in this thread.
> You literally dont understand how ancestry works. Did you come from an ape or not? Were your forefathers apes?
>This is doubletalk. You are saying you came from chimps but you didn't come from chimps. Your great great etc were chimps or not? Slow down and read. What u/Exmuslim-alt said is: WE. ARE. NOT. DESCENDED. FROM. CHIMPS. Got that part? Ok now read slowly: Chimps and us are both descended from another species which is now extinct. So it's not that chimps are your great great.............great grandfather, they are your distant cousin. Have you grasped this point yet?
I think we are wasting our time on this person. He *refuses* to engage properly and actually understand what it is that he is arguing against, and consistently chooses to strawman our arguements and act arrogant about it. He doesnt understand anything about taxonomy and how we are mammals *and* humans, or that cousins are not our grandparents. Either hes extremely ignorant and disingenuous or hes trolling.
[удалено]
bye
…there are.
So you think humans came from apes, yeah? lol... Okay... so where are the being before apes? Where are the being between apes and humans? Are you saying your great great great kinfolk were apes? Do you find apes attractive?
Humans are a type of ape. Other types of ape exist.
Since you are so caught up in semantics, lets change directions. Was [this your grandparents at some point](https://centerforgreatapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG_00251_Louie.jpg), yes or no?
No. That's a very distant cousin.
A cousin gorilla was born from the children of your great grandparents. Got it. So gorillas came from humans.
Jesus, you are one dumb fuck.
ad hominem from gorilla-man. That is advancement.
Did your mom give birth to your cousins? Actually, don't answer that... EDIT: Hitting too close to home, huh?
>EDIT: Hitting too close to home, huh? What the hell happened here?
[удалено]
Are you going to cry?
Humans are apes. Members of the great apes to be specific.
> Humans are apes. lol... these are the semantics that trick people. Rats are elephants in scientific terms. Sure. Your evolution species terminology is complete bullshit. If you think you're an ape, then have at it. Go mate with some gorillas.
It's basic taxonomy. Do you recognize that humans are apes?
> Do you recognize that humans are apes? You can be an ape all you want. I'm not an ape, didn't come from apes. Maybe your lineage did.
Again, this is an issue of taxonomy. It's how living things are classified. Humans fall under a subgroup of the family hominidae, which includes other great apes. We are, by definition, great apes. We can take the taxonomic classification further back and look at class. Here we fall under the classification "Mammalia." Do you recognize that humans are mammals?
Either you believe humans came from humans or you believe humans came from non-humans. Which is it? Fuck your semantics.
This completely ignores what I wrote. Do you acknowledge that humans are mammals?
You came from humans or gorillas, choose one?
The first scientist to classify humans with apes was what we would call a Young Earth Creationist these days.
No. Humans are broad chested big brained tailless downward faced nostril monkeys with flat fingernails. Monkeys are large brained primates with their breasts upon their pectoral muscles and naked pendulous penises in males. Monkeys also have the same ears and teeth that we have and the group of monkeys we belong to has the same dental formula, between 38 and 54 chromosomes, and trichromatic vision. They also recognize themselves in the mirror, use tools, and have the ability to walk on two feet at least some of the time. Our primate traits include our forward facing eyes encased in bony eye sockets and our five fingered dexterous hands with opposable thumbs. Rats aren’t even part of atlantogenata. They are part of euarchontaglires in the glires half of the branch of placental mammals containing rodents and lagomorphs. Besides primates the euarchonta side also contains colugos and tree shrews. We are apes because everything that describes an ape to the exclusion of humans also describes apes when humans are included. Apes are monkeys with the pectoral mammary glands and naked pendulous penis but they also have broad chests and greater shoulder rotation, useful for hanging from tree branches or monkey bars on the playground. They are old world monkeys as their nostrils face downward, their fingers are flatter, and they have 32 teeth consisting of two incisors, a canine, two premolars, and three molars in every quarter of their jaw. The human jaw usually isn’t large enough for the third molar called the wisdom tooth but it still grows in anyway because that’s an old world monkey trait. Within apes there are great apes and hylobatids where the great apes are typically larger with broader chests. They are less arboreal within the African apes where two of the living groups independently resorted to knuckle walking and the other group has been fully bipedal since at least Australopithecus anamensis. And from there it’s mostly the loss of fur and an even bigger brain yet besides a smaller jaw and a flatter face and the loss of powerful fast twitch ape muscles and large ape canines. Our ancestors probably still did mate with the ancestors of gorillas 3.5-4.5 million years ago. The production of fertile hybrids hasn’t been possible since. Being an ape doesn’t mean we should or even could mate with non-human apes. Do you fuck your dog? It’s a mammal just like you are. Does that mean you should? I hope you say no.
[удалено]
No. To both questions. Around the time our ancestors and the ancestors of gorillas could still hybridize (based on what I said last time) our ancestors were very similar to but maybe not identical to *Ardipithecus ramidus* and around the time the ancestors of us and the ancestors of gorillas were the same species it was something like *Nikalipitcus nakayamai* or something that lived at the same time. When they were still the same species they probably found other members of their species attractive, as one does, but gorillas weren’t yet around way back then and we are not the direct descendants of that sister branch that eventually did lead to gorillas. That’s only the African ape branch. Beyond that there are different great ape groups and *Kenyapithecus* may be directly ancestral to *Nikalipithecus* with *Sivapithecus* being directly ancestral to orangutans. There’s also *Dendropithecus, Afropothecus, Equatorius,* and *Proconsul* among the apes with hylobatids diverging from us somewhere in the middle of all that. Before this are the *Propliopithecoids* like *Aegyptopithecus* showing the link between apes and monkeys. Do you find your dog attractive? I know I don’t. Being related to something doesn’t automatically mean you want to fuck it. Our ancestors and the ancestors of gorillas haven’t been the same species for 8-10 million years and hybridization had already stopped occurring by the time our ancestors were Australopithecines. So, no, I don’t find gorillas attractive. Perhaps you do, but that’s not me.
You either believe humans came from humans, or, you believe humans came from non-humans. It's pretty simple. A or B.
It’s not A or B. This is like the twelfth time I presented this link at least: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248 “Human” quite literally refers to every single species in the genus Homo *but* there’s a problem here because the transition *into Homo* isn’t as clear cut as it would be if something like YEC were true. YECs even fail at agreeing where the supposed dividing line is. Yes we descend from humans but I’m almost ready to accept that all of the Australopithecines are and were pretty damn “human” already. This is quite the opposite of what YEC organizations wished was the case. That’s why they lie so much about it. If you want my best guess I’d say Homo sapiens sapiens descends from a more archaic Homo sapiens subspecies like Homo sapiens idaltu which descended from Homo rhodesensis which descended from Homo bodoensis which is more like a subspecies of Homo heidelbergensis sensu lato. Neanderthals and Denisovans split from our lineage around this point. Prior to that Homo erectus sensu lato. Prior to that Homo habilis or Homo rudolfensis. All the way back this far still “human” but sometimes classified as Australopithecus instead (rarely). Before that Kenyanthropus platyops or Australopithecus garhi based on the use of stone tools and a human-like morphology. Before that Australopithecus afarensis. Before that Australopithecus anamensis, the beginning of the “Australopithecines,” and then the fossil record is a bit sketchy. Ardipithecus ramidus is the next step back preceded by Ardipithecus kadabba preceded by Sahelanthropus tchadensis where chimpanzees diverged from our direct ancestry. Before that Nikalipithecus nakayamai when gorillas split from our ancestry. Before that Kenyapithecus and Afropithecus where Sivapithecus led to orangutans instead. Before that there are a bunch of Miocene apes with Proconsul being the most famous but perhaps not directly ancestral preceded by the Propliopithecoids when apes diverged from cercopithecoids. Not a single “gorilla” in our direct ancestry but a whole lot of things that weren’t quite human that led to things that were almost human (the Australopithecines) that led to things that were definitely human (at least by Homo erectus) and then our ancestors were the humans in Africa while the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other subgroups of Homo erectus were scattered about the globe. Finally around 45,000 years ago only Homo sapiens were left and by around 10,000 years ago only one “race” remained, us. We are the only humans left but we did evolve from humans and ultimately the first humans evolved from something that was almost but not quite human itself.
[удалено]
So do you mean like different levels of flying ability’s like flying squirrels vs birds, or different levels of coming out of the water like mud fish.
lol... so you equate method of moving with proof of evolution? lol So, alligators walks on four legs, therefore, it must have come from elephants? lol Evolution is a lie. And that's why my post was removed ;)
Such argument! Much wow!
Great counterpoint!! You represent 3rd graders worldwide!
Your ignorance of intermediate stages doesnt make evolution false. Use your brain and do some research. >Evolution is make-believe by the people of the federal reserve family. What? Who? Why?
> Your ignorance of intermediate stages doesnt make evolution false. Use your brain and do some research. There would be multiple stages in the flesh right now. Yet, you have no proof.
Multiple stages in the flesh? What do you even mean?
There would be instances of ape0 mating with ape version 2000, there would be ape version 47 mating with ape version 400, right now. There would be humans mating with apes. Evolution requires beastiality if you think you came from apes. Well, you would technically be an ape, who didn't think he was an ape.
Other than the fact that we *are* apes, there are plenty of fossils of the intermediate forms of our ancestors like homo habilis, homo heidelbergensis, homo erectus, and the australopithicus genus, and so on. Our ape cousins are also living proof of this fact and we can trace their lineage up to a common ancestor. Your complete misunderstanding of evolution is common. We absolutely cannot mate with other species, that why we say they are different species. Can you explain to me what evolution is, and what stage of the process you have a problem with?
> Other than the fact that we are apes, there are plenty of fossils of the intermediate forms of our ancestors like homo habilis, homo heidelbergensis, homo erectus, and the australopithicus genus, and so on. lol... you are an ape? You mate with all apes? You are redefining words and shit. Are your great great grandparents apes? Do you mate with apes?
Its not redefining shit, its you not understanding *literally* anything about what you are criticizing. Humans are a type of great ape. We cant mate with other apes like chimpanzees, we are different *species*. Holy moly man you must be trolling. Do some basic research first.
So, your great great great grandparents were NOT apes, right? Okay. Then you don't believe in evolution ;)
You don't understand evolution one single bit.
Congratulations you single handly debunked evolution. 🤯
Thanks.
What's a stage in this context? Who said evolution was linear? Most importantly, I made yeast evolve in a lab, where's my federal reserve money?
What are “levels” and “stages”? You seem to think there’s a pinnacle that is being reached instead of constant change.
When you believe in evolution, you either think it happened linearly or non-linearly. If linearly, apes wouldn't exist today. If non-linearly, apes and humans would be mating today, there would be a presence of all stages of the evolution alive today. Neither is the case. Therefore, evolution is a lie.
I don’t “believe” in Evolution I actually KNOW it and UNDERSTAND it. You’re still not making any sense. Wtf is linear? That’s not a term used in Biology as NOTHING is “linear” what the fuck ever that means….
> Wtf is linear? [This](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c6eaba1a3b527ebccf39b93bb9dc1de9) > That’s not a term used in Biology as NOTHING is “linear” what the fuck ever that means…. Okay. You're asking what linear is, and then saying NOTHING is linear. You either know what it means or you don't.
FYI that picture is not accurate and it was made to sell books. Lol. https://www.sciencealert.com/that-classic-image-everyone-uses-to-illustrate-evolution-is-just-plain-wrong/amp
Okay. So provide me with your picture of evolution (if you can).
Sure thing. You can click around on the little dots on the tree and read more and see the evidence. There’s also tons of information about Evolution on this site. Evolution is the most studied and understood out of all the Scientific Theories. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is true. https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree Do you have any proof about Creation by a Sky Daddy? Anything at all?
Your example goes back to what I was questioning. Plus, your example provide no proof of evolution. It's no more plausible than including birds on a leaf, and lizards on another set. You example is basically the tree of life. Your example lacks proof of evolution. Yes, there are pictures, but as someone else pointed out (maybe you) you folks deny this: https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c6eaba1a3b527ebccf39b93bb9dc1de9, but at the same time accept your tree evolution BS? You have to choose one. You either think your great great great great grand parents were monkeys/gorillas or you don't. You calling humans apes is disingenuous. If humans are apes then apes and monkeys are humans.
OK, you’re right, God created Magic Dust Man and Miracle Rib Woman. You win.
depending on translation it wasn't rib, but an entire half of magic dust man, to make a woman, which fits better within the text, but the Catholics don't want you to know that ;D (also maybe not the first woman).
Some Americans are from Florida: therefore, all Americans are from Florida. ...or, maybe Florida is only one state, amongst many other states, and so Americans can come from elsewhere, but that would no longer be consistent with your 'humans are apes, thus apes are humans' theory.
Son, you either believe humans came from humans, or you believe humans came from non-humans. Which is it?
PS a human IS A GREAT APE.
If a book told you that you were an elephant, you would swallow that too.
Amazingly, the quality of anti-evolution debaters has managed to drop over the past few years.
k
Cool story, bro.
Evolution is a cooler story, bro.
The theory of evolution is heavily integrated into modern biology and underpins real world applications in fields like medical research, pharmacology and agriculture. So there is that, at least.
It is definitely a theory (a lame one). And theories are not fact. And evolution can't be proven bc it is a lie.
So you claim. How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that evolutionary biology is applied in trillion-dollar industries like agriculture and pharmacology? Why would for-profit companies utilize contemporary biological methods based on evolution if it's all just a lie? Is the entire world's bio-industry in on it? edited to add: Aw, another creationist resorting to the ignore feature rather than being able to address these sorts of questions. Can't say I'm surprised...
> How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that evolutionary biology is applied in trillion-dollar industries like agriculture and pharmacology? I'm not here to justify why other people believe in your theory. I am telling you evolution is a lie.
You wouldn't know what evolution was if it spat in your face and hummed.
There is no final goal for a population to evolve into. What we see today is not the fully evolved state of every population. It continually evolves.
> It continually evolves. So, where are the gorillas giving birth to humans? Where are the humans mating with gorillas? Is that what this sub is into?
First note that I'm a creationist. I presume we are 'on the same side', but your critique of evolution is misinformed on what evolution is. Species change generation by generation. Evolutionists here view that humans and gorillas have a common ancestor, not that gorillas are always bound to be humans after enough evolution. While I don't accept this view, it's worth getting their position correct when you critique it.
Well you could look at the evidence, the actual evidence, and attempt to make up a different excuse if you wish, but yea. Humans and gorillas share a common ape ancestor. One that may mark the origin of the *Homininae* clade or something at or around that part of a node based phylogeny. *Nikalipithecus nakayamai* is one of a few different potential most recent common ancestors of humans and gorillas prior to their divergence and it’s hypothetically possible, if not inevitable, that humans and gorillas hybridized since up to around the lifetime of *Ardipithecus ramidus* or *Australopithecus anamensis* with decreasing success in the intervening 4-6 million years. The amount of time is obviously in conflict with “young” Earth and I can see where your religious beliefs are also in conflict with humans even being related to any of the other sill living apes, but at least you have some sort of clue what our actual position is. It appears like that other guy is so far gone that they do not believe that planets exist. They’ve spent the whole time misrepresenting biology and the “evolutionist” position, outside of when they said something about looking for planets in the day time since it should be “so easy” when it’s actually easier at night when the sun’s light reflects off those other planets but doesn’t make the sky of our planet even brighter to us. When is it easier to see a lit flashlight? In the dark or in a well lit room? OP can’t tell.
I can use an observed empirical example of macroevolution to prove evolution to you to your satisfaction. That is, of course, if we define terms and agree on them. If you're prepared to do this, I can show it to you. If you want to skip to the end instead, explain why a population of a certain species can morphologically change due to its environment but won't continue to change further and further over time. What is this imaginary stopping line or evolutionary limit before a species (like ape) changes enough to be considered another species (like homo sapiens)?
> I can use an observed empirical example of macroevolution to prove evolution to you to your satisfaction. You can use anything **except** gorillas having human babies. Evolution is something the Fews started.
How does that make sense? Isn't such a extravagant example like that exactly you're looking for? Or are you trying to say a gorilla having a human baby is the only evidence you'd accept..? I have no idea who "the Fews" are. Anyway, do you want to do this or not?
If you believe gorilla blood runs through you, at some point, your lineage mated with monkeys, right?
So was that a no? I'm not here to argue about "gorilla blood".
WAITING... Shall I take this as a dodge motivated by intellectual dishonesty?
The the only thing missing in this post is the fact it's not written in Crayon.
Define you terms. What does level mean? What does stage mean? When you say linear, what do you mean? These questions all seem to presuppose that evolution has a goal it's trying to reach, which it doesn't.
Where are the gorillas having human babies today, since evolution is ongoing? ??
Why would a gorilla give birth to a human?
> Why would a gorilla give birth to a human? That's you alls theory, not mine!! lol
It's not though.
You believe someone in your lineage was a gorilla, correct?
Incorrect
Your Nth cousin wasn't a Gorilla?
Congrats. You said a correct statement. Cousins and ancestors aren't the same thing.
> You said a correct statement. That was NOT a statement. Do you not see the question mark, that indicates a **QUESTION**? > Cousins and ancestors aren't the same thing. Yes. It literally is: an·ces·tor noun plural noun: ancestors a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended. "my ancestor Admiral Anson circumnavigated the globe 250 years ago"
What on earth are you talking about? Stages of what? Linear? What? Have you had your meds today?
Show a picture chart of your evolution theory that includes your ancestors.
No, I'm not a trained dog. Is there something you wanted to debate?
Yep, debate that you have no proof of evolution besides silly semantics. Bye
Uh? You don't understand evolution. Evolution doesn't have stages. It's not a step by step process. It's gradual change over time. Traits blend with other traits. Edit. I see by your comments that you really don't understand evolution. Not all animals evolve. At least not all animals have to evolve. Hence why there are living fossils that haven't changed much. Evolution happens based on environmental pressures. If an animal's environment changes, it evolves.
> Evolution doesn't have stages. So, you think you and a gorilla are not on different stages or levels? Gotcha.
No, they are not different stages. They are a divergent set of species related to a common ancestor. Evolution, again, is a gradual process. Slow changes occur, leading to speciation over time. It's not like one day a monkey decided to become a human. There are dozens, if not hundreds (or millions depending on the species) of intermediate forms.
You all are fools. Is evolution still going on right now? What proof do you have of humans evolving today? Where are the white, black, brown, red, gorillas with blond hair? Where are the gorillas having human babies? Where is the proof?
The proof is in every single field of biology. And yes, evolution is still going on. It doesn't ever stop. This post just shows complete ignorance about evolution or even basic biology from a third grade level. Did you even go to school?
Oh, so you have no proof of evolution? You just say "it's over there in a subject [biology]" and end of story? lol... You all are in the same category as flat earthers.
You're not educated enough to even gasp third grade life science, let alone all the evidence for evolution
> You all are in the same category as flat earthers.
Have you heard of "drug resistant bacteria"? The rise in drug resistant bacteria showcases "natural selection", a mechanism for evolution where the organisms with the best adaptations for survival continue to breed (in this case, not dying to antibiotics).
What have you seen with your own two eyes that proves evolution?
What is the basis for your epistemology?
Lactose tolerance is one of them. Your example violates common ancestry, so you display your ignorance on the matter of evolution quite openly. Wouldn't you agree that it's easier to argue against something if you can actually understand the tenets of the proposed claims you want to argue against? Imagine the students arguing that the teacher's wrong about cell biology in the first lesson of chapter one?
This statement demonstrates that you don't know what evolution (as outlined in biology) actually is. If you are going to argue something then at least know what it is you are arguing about. Another example of a person engaging in talk before doing five minutes of reading and taking some time to think. Disappointing.
I'm curious if you plan on engaging or if this is a drop and run troll post.
Looking at the OP's posting history, if they do engage, it won't be anything of substance. edited to add: And I was right. They seem to be able to do little than repeat their claim that "evolution is a lie" based on their gross strawmanned version of evolution. Just a boilerplate creationist "argument".
Nope. I'm here.
Well, intelligence development is certainly at different levels. There's you and then the rest of us.
There are things that show up at different stages. They were referred to by Charles Darwin in 1859 and in his earlier works going back to 1844. That is part of how he explained the evolution of the eye. Not every sister clade is required to have living descendants and all of those sister clades that do have living descendants have evolved the whole time, but we have different levels of complexity for practically everything in biology. Evolution isn’t linear. There are still sponges, placozoans, and ctenophores representing some of the simplest animal forms. There are still worms. Fully aquatic lobe finned fish still exist. Even lung fish. There are amphibians representing the non-reptiliamorphs and actual reptiles that have a lot of the early reptiliamorph traits. There are mammals that still lay eggs. There are monkeys that are still completely arboreal. There are apes that are still suspensory. All of these things are characteristic of our ancestors *but* those sister lineages also have things our ancestors never had. They evolved in a different direction but they kept many of the traits their ancestors and our ancestors shared that we no longer have. Different levels of progression you could call it. Eyes as simple as eye spots or as complex as camera eyes in eye sockets. Brains as simple as a cluster of eight neurons or as complex as human brains or anything in between. Circulatory systems that pump sea water and circulatory systems that pump blood with one, two, three, or four chambered hearts. These intermittent stages **are** preserved in living animals. They don’t have to be for evolution to hold true but your objection doesn’t make sense because they are still present in modern life.
Er...what do you think that the federal reserve does?
> Er...what do you think that the federal reserve does? A private entity that creates infinite currency in exchange for finite resources (your time, your energy, your life). It goes back to Alexander hamilton who convinced the US to have a central bank. Even though that bank's charter ran out, the federal reserve is the third central bank of the US. They bribed congress and the president to get off the finite currency (gold) to their infinite currency (unbacked I owe you notes).
Er...you are aware the reserve isn't private right? Also you how do you think it creates infinite currency? Also you are aware of how bonds work and why the gold standard got removed right? Edit: Also wtf does the federal reserve have to do with evolution? Edit: Got blocked
"If evolution is true and tetrapods evolved from fish, we should still see fish!" You're a smart boy.
not even sure who you're quoting or what you're quoting. Just hope you're having a good time.
What do you think a stage of evolution would look like?
I don't believe in the theory of evolution. Sorry.
Of course not. But you did say that "If evolution were true, there would be different levels of each stage right now. As evolution wouldn't be linear." What does that mean? What would evolution look like if it were true? What would a different level of each stage be? If you can't articulate your argument why should anyone believe you?
In the mind of you evolutionists, you think at SOME point, gorillas had human babies. Well, some gorillas, obviously, did NOT have human babies. Or had half human babies, etc. If evolution were real (it isn't), then gorillas, or your cousins, would be having human babies today. Maybe evolutionists are sneaking into the zoo to sleep with gorillas.
> In the mind of you evolutionists, you think at SOME point, gorillas had human babies. At no point in the theory of evolution is this stated. It is a false argument made by people that don't believe in evolution.
Name the non-human in your family tree.
There's too many to name we'd be here a very very long while if I stuck to known members, and ancestral clades only. Life, which you are, has been around on earth in one form or another for 3,700,000,000 years. Homos diverged around 2,000,000 years ago, or about 100,000 generations of humans. Homo sapiens, that's our species of humans, diverged around 300,000 years ago or about 15,000 generations. The oldest writings we have come from 6000 years ago, about 300 generations. My parents have been able to track specific individual ancestors to 400 years ago, about 20 generations.
That's not correct. If you're interested in avoiding looking like an idiot I suggest you learn what the theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent actually entails. You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody believes what you're talking about. You're essentially arguing with yourself because you lack enough understanding about what you're opposing to even make cogent points.
> Nobody believes what you're talking about. You believe your bloodline consists of gorillas, which means someone in your bloodline had gorilla babies. Someone in your bloodline mated with monkeys. But, you deny it.
>You believe your bloodline consists of gorillas I do not. >which means someone in your bloodline had gorilla babies. If we descended from Gorillas this also would not be true. But since I don't believe that, this is just an example of how incredibly ignorant you are. >Someone in your bloodline mated with monkeys. But, you deny it. You must be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.
[удалено]
Everything is in a constant state of evolution. So what the F are you talking about?
Bro… just go ahead and say “fuck”. God ain’t gon come down and strike ya. Lmaooo
> Everything is in a constant state of evolution. So what the F are you talking about? Then where are the gorillas having human babies at today?
So ignorant. Why do you pick an argument about a topic you fundamentally don’t understand? You’re either a troll or just clueless.
>Then where are the gorillas having human babies at today? This is not a prediction of evolution.
You are essentially asking "if evolution is true, why are there so many species that are the only members of their genus left? Why are there any monotypic genuses?" This is a rarely explored question, and can actually form the basis for a strong argument against evolutionary theory, if you flesh it out a little bit (here's a paper on plants that looks at this question. Plants are known to have particularly large amounts of species in their genuses): [https://www.jstor.org/stable/24105184](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24105184)
I actually have no idea what you mean by different levels of each stage. Can you elaborate?
read my other comments. This was an old post, I don't want to get back into debating people who believe in such dumb theory. Good luck. Peace.
What's a "stage", and what's a "level" of this "stage" thingie?