Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet every frame you find is a repeat of the same frame over and over. You should indeed marvel that that is the case!
Instead you imagine that all those missing frames are somehow different, when you only see the same frame from the very oldest one found to the last one found.
So frame 1 shows an A.
Frame 250 shows an A.
Frame 500, 2500, 6000, 50,000, etc, etc, shows an A.
You then imagine some of the others show B, and that you just can't find them.
Go figure.
Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?
What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?
You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/hominid_evo.jpg
Not the gap game with not named or hypothetical intermediaries. Nor misclassifying different "breeds" of humans as different species.
Just as there are many variations of cats and dogs, I have no doubt there were many variations of humans. I no more expect we appear exactly the same as the first than a poodle looks like a wolf.
But you can't throw in your imaginary missing links in cats and dogs because we know their true lineage. We know they are of the same kind, just different "breeds" or variations thereof.
I only expect the application of direct observation, to other kinds in the past, instead of imaginary processes never once observed.
Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?
Comment, chimps and humans never directly split from each other, there were intermediate species that did that.
No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all.
Half of them you need to remove anyways. You of course misclassified them, just like you did with the dinosaurs.
More than "species" does, since you can't seem to get things right,
And still list two Felidae as separate species even when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
A totally arbitrary classification that has nothing to do with one animal evolving from another, even in your theory. After all, did not mammals evolve from fish? Or are all the links just unknown, just lines on a piece of paper and not named?
No, the name game, that's your game.
Humans don't share ancestry with any mammals, but humans. Cats only with Felidae, Canidae only with Canidae. You can't find a cat or dog skeleton that isn't a cat or dog. And then the waving of hands, and the imaginary gap game will begin.
Except you have never observed anything but turning on or off what was already there, or re-arranging what was already there.
All you have ever observed is variation amongst the same kind.
It produces the "illusion" of a nested hierarchy, easily mistaken by some as meaning evolution when applied to non-living fossils of which nothing is known. Hence the original OP.
So why wouldn't using what already existed show a hierarchy, when it is clearly evident in the different breeds of dogs and cats, that are each and every one of them still Felidae and Canidae?
Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????
You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.
Just as there are many variations of cats and dogs, I have no doubt there were many variations of humans. I no more expect we appear exactly the same as the first than a poodle looks like a wolf.
But you can't throw in your imaginary missing links in cats and dogs because we know their true lineage. We know they are of the same kind, just different "breeds" or variations thereof.
You could start by showing just one link between actual humans and apes.
Not the gap game with not named or hypothetical intermediaries. Nor misclassifying different "breeds" of humans as different species.
Comment, chimps and humans never directly split from each other, there were intermediate species that did that.
None of those are chimps or orangutans
Prove it.
Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????
Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?
Snipped nonsense...
Huh? You think all the fossils are the same species?Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????
Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?
Show me an E. coli that isn't an E. coli, despite the myriad "strains" that exist?
I think it is you that confuses the same species with other species.
Prove it.
Show me a cat that isn't a Felidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist??????
Show me a dog that isn't a Canidae, despite the myriad of "breeds" that exist?
Show me an E. coli that isn't an E. coli, despite the myriad "strains" that exist?
I think it is you that confuses the same species with other species.
Just the tip of the proverbial iceberg is all.
No, you found different "breeds" of humans (just like cats and dogs), with some chimp, ape and orangutang skulls thrown in to boot. Gotta make it look good after all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?