Every newborn cat was produced by mammals: the parent cats.
Every newborn dog was produced by mammals: the parent dogs.
Every newborn human was produced by mammals: the parent humans.
Every newborn humans was produced by apes/primates: the parent humans.
The confusion here, is entirely on your end.
Mammals and primates are not species, is a broad all inclusive catagory. Primates are mammals, yet you don't confuse them with cats.
There is no split from ape to human because humans ARE apes.
Just like there is no split from mammals to human because humans ARE mammals.
Cats are mammals to, yet you split them just fine.
I don't know... it's your strawman... I never claimed "mammal" or "primate" being species.
No, your just trying to equate both being mammals means something while recognizing cats and dogs both being mammals means nothing when it comes to species.
Ape is the branch. Humans are a branch on that branch.
View attachment 199723
Then you won't mind showing me the common ancestor that split one to ape one to human?
And primates. And mammals. And vertebrates. And eukaryotes.
Which mean nothing. If I say my mammal died today what am I talking about?
Phylogenetic trees aren't imaginary.
Then show me a common ancestor on any of them. Put your money where your mouth is.
And still, ancestors of spanish speaking folks didn't speak spanish. They spoke latin.
How about that, ey?
How about it since the ancestors of Spanish speaking folks that spoke Latin are the same species as those that speak Spanish.
That's gradualism for you.
Which changes nothing at the species level.
So says math.
1+1+1+1+1+.....+1 = billions.
And yet despite 50 at every birth over let's say 150,000 years or 7.5 million, we are still the same species.
Yes, you're correct. Indeed. Latin didn't gradually evolve into spanish, italian, portugese and french. Nope. All these roman languages don't actually exist. It's just conspiracy nonsense. They all still speak Latin. Yep!
Your ad hominem attacks only defeat your purpose and show your lack of science.
Those that spoke Latin despite all the phonetic changes to French, still remain the same species.
Your just upset your language example fails miserably to prove your point but proves mine instead.
Maybe you should step back for a moment and think before you write.
You're making zero sense and it is rather obvious that you are desperatly trying to avoid the elephant in the room.
Maybe you should calm down an stop with the ad hominem attacks just because you can't defend something. Those who lack science are the ones that resort to such tactics.
I think some self-reflection and honesty is in order. Even if just out of basic some self-respect.
I agree, so after you have done so come back and maybe we can have a rational discussion without your resorting to ad hominem attacks because you lack science to argue with.
Nobody is claiming they were a different species.
You really need to stop being so silly and dishonest.
You need to start being honest with yourself. You are implying that changes in language is exactly like changes in species, yet changes in language in reality have nothing similar, since all languages are a manmade creation, not a natural process.
Or shall we discuss dog breeds and watch as you switch your stance and argue they can't be used because they are a manmade separation?
My example only illustrates how gradual change over time inevitably results in big changes over large periods.
But it doesn't, our English language is composed of French, Latin, and other languages. It is simple phonetic differences, and is manmade, but yet if we were to discuss genetics and dogs.....
The examply is an illustration of how the accumulation of micro-changes results in macro-changes after long periods. Something you claim to be impossible.
Oh no, I quite agree macro-changes are possible. If I place a million black rabbits near the Arctic circle after generations I will end up with white rabbits. But they will always be rabbits.....
It does not. More dishonesty.
Agreed, on your part, as its beyond your ability to counter.
Irony. The only person here who is pretending that humans are somehow a "special" case as opposed to all other animals, is you.
And yet I'm not the one refusing to classify the different subspecies of humans as subspecies as is done with every other animal. So I think you simply see yourself reflected in your own accusations while refusing to admit the truth. That's irony, claiming I'm elevating us as special when I'm simply accepting we are different subspecies while you argue against classifying us as such, even if every other animal species is classified that way.
The irony is some you classify as separate species just because their beaks are shaped different, even when the DNA between those "claimed" species was less than between the human races and couldn't even differentiate between them. That's irony!
