What's your answer to this Sup Forums?

What's your answer to this Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Fuck off

I found this post very mentally stimulating.

They are in Turkey

Evolution is bullshit, we know this.

Africa.

delete this op youre in danger. im not kidding your life is at stake. you might live if you delete this RIGHT NOW

Common ancestor =/= monkey

What do you think Germans are?

Romania, Brazil, Turkey, Albania, Nigeria...

Those who adapted to their environment survived, and those who didn't died off

They're dead retard. Your infographic is incorrect. That first creature isn't a monkey, it's a monkeys, and our, common ancestor, which are all dead too. A million monkeys would line up at the end with homo sapien FFS.

Gorillas weren't killed because they stayed in the Jungle.

The homonids were either killed or culturally enriched by homo sapiens, or just died out because they were too weak, and that's why there are not any of these anymore.

It's a shit image, people didn't evolve from chimps, there was a common ancestor

We evolved, but not from monkeys. I thought we were done with the monkey theory.

Yea, and le gawd created women by using a rib :-DDDD

What does it have to do with us BITCH?

Too late. The government is tracing his IP right now.

Well, I'm not sure if that's considered the same chimp as modern chimp.

But even then, many species stay unchanged for many million years (e.g. crocodile haven't changed in 60 million years)

So chimp's evolutionary branch stayed fairly unchanged... but human is a new evolutionary branch.

my brain works now

>millions of hairy lockjawed manlets
I have an idea where you could look

If you want to hear some real heads spinning, you should ask why the only evidence of these links are partial skeletons.

You mean to tell us you can get complete skeletons of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago, yet we have so little evidence of our "common ancestors"?

Why don't I have an autistic screeching roach saved?

Why is this true for many other species as well?

>you can get complete skeletons of dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago
No? Almost all of those are partial too, with the missing bits filled in by educated guesswork.
The only reason this works is by finding say 50 different partial T-rex fossils you eventually get at least 1 of each bone overall.

Same thing for most hominids, many partial fossils

That chart is misleading. There's no chimpanzees 6 million years ago, there was apes but no chimpanzees. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor but they're different now because of different groups being seperated by geography leading to them to become more different form each other over time. They become so different that they don't have compatibility with each other anymore.

Easy, there have been far more dinosaurs than human ancestors.

Dinosaurs ruled earth for 200 million years.

Human ancestor only 2-3 million years.

Plus dinosaur's are bigger and stronger bones. Strong enough to stay fully preserved until reaching fossil stage.

Because that's not how evolution works.

Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees.
Humans and Chimpanzees both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a human nor a chimp.

...

Fixed

They died. We killed them all. Homo Sapies won that particular race war

This is an excellent way to disprove the standard evolutionary theory. Microevolution (like the moths turning from white to black upon the introduction of new environmental phenomena) = real.

Macroevolution = fake

How can you people argue on the one hand that A) evolution happens because organisms with mutations that make them better suited for survival live while their less well-suited bretheren die out;
and B) that humans and chimps both "split off" (somehow) from a common ancestor, yet all the intermediary steps preceding man are now totally extinct with little to no evidence of them at all within the fossil record.

Darwin himself argued that if the fossil record didn't reveal a multitude of examples of all the intermediary species, his theory of macroevolution must be flawed and should be thrown out.

The best scientists can do is "there was some kind of rift in the ground in Sub-Saharan Africa that physically separated the various species" and/or "homo sapiens intentionally killed off every single homo erectus and every other proto-human."

That is such a fucking stretch and makes no sense.

If all the great apes are descendants from a common small-monkey ancestor, and there are still small monkeys in existence (implying they are evolutionarily fit for survival) WHY THE FUCK wouldn't there be living examples of each intermediary species? They somehow became "unfit" suddenly and all died out while the less-evolved monkey somehow remained fit for survival?

Both humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. The transitional species that were more like humans died out because we killed them all a long time ago.

Niggers

>you can get complete skeletons of dinosaurs
Haha that's the joke.

You can't. You get 20 skeletons of something that seems to be the same animal and try to put that puzzle together while doing guesswork here and there.

I believe there was a time when people believed that Iguanodons had spike on its nose like rhino and but then few new fossils were found which made people realise that the "spike" is in fact fucking claw. And it's by no means an exception. And then there's tons of faux shit like the feathered dinosaurs stuff, which was a theory that made a lot of noise but I think that it ended up when they've realised that Chinks are doctoring the fossils whole the time and most of the new feathered dinosaurs came from China.

How exactly were they separated geographically?
What evidence is there to support this claim?

>Christianity only has one interpretation xDDD

Aussies btfo.

>le interpretation meme :-DDDD
why would fucking savages from the desert even try to write something which needs to be interpretated

I like your answer fantastic way to explain that this evolution of us coming from Monkeys is BS.

>B) that humans and chimps both "split off" (somehow) from a common ancestor
Two geographically separated populations (those who remained in West African jungles and those who moved into East African savannahs).
It's the same as Rheas/Ostriches/Emus, separated by continent they faced slightly differing evolutionary pressures and evolved separately.

They exist, called niggers

>How exactly were they separated geographically?
Large rivers alone are enough. Hence the bonobo and true chimpanzee split by the Congo.
Anything, the sea, mountain ranges, simple distance works.

...

chimps did not exist millions of years ago, only a common ancestor.

i wish conservatives weren't so anti-science.

...

There are millions of pens, and there are millions of computers. WHERE ARE THE TYPEWRITERS?

In the fossil record.

They died out because they couldn't compete with their more evolved counterparts.

To use a different example since this whole thing seems to be magically explained away by just parroting "we had a common ancestor and then we must have killed all the intermediary hominids for the lolz" --

The macroevolutionary claim is that a giraffe gradually developed a long neck after millions of years because the zebra-like proto-giraffes who could reach the higher leaves survived.

If it's evolutionarily beneficial to have a long neck and gives you an advantage over the shorter-necked versions -- WHY would the zebra and all very short-necked horselike creatures still survive until today? If you believe macroevolutionary theory's claims, you have to somehow hold true that:

A) All the intermediary version of an ungulate between zebra and horse magically died out, yet

B) The original organism, the zebra, whose unfitness for survival propelled the development of the giraffe (shorter necks can't reach the leaves and die out, longer necks allow for survival and propagation of the mutation) , is somehow magically still fit for the exact same environment that led to the evolution of the giraffe.

this

>They somehow became "unfit" suddenly and all died out while the less-evolved monkey somehow remained fit for survival?

Well no shit Sherlock that's the circle of life. Survival of the fittest.

There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved".

Nothing to do with food, that's pop-science garbage
newscientist.com/article/dn19135-zoologger-how-did-the-giraffe-get-its-long-neck/
>The evidence supporting the high-feeding theory is surprisingly weak.

Dead

It "makes no sense" to your ignorant sense, you fucking creationist faggot. You are mind cucked by a parasitic idea that has infested your brain, making you unable to reason properly. Castrate yourself and make a vow of silence for the rest of your life to spare humanity from your stupidity, faggot.

Faggot faggot bitch donkey faggot.

Humans and missing links weren't competing with chimps.

I'm actually not a creationist, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian retarded view of the universe at all.

It's a false dichotomy to think either you're a scientific materialist or a weird God-with-a-dude's-personality theist.

Calm your jimmies friend.

Because that's not how evolution works in species who reproduce through sex.

Populations don't go extinct.
The entire population evolves together, by mixing genes through sex.
Some genes have a slightly higher chance of spreading through the population then other genes, so in time the entire population will have the more beneficial genes and nobody goes extinct.

The key is that everybody is related if you go back just a few dozen generations.

Read the second half of a fucking sentence faggot -- WHILE the LESS-EVOLVED (or there would never have been any reason for that species to change) monkey somehow remained fit for survival in the same environment

how do you believe life came to be if not for evolution or god?

also this place is infested with creationists, so forgive him on that.

It'd also be great to hear you materialists explain how a cataclysmic new environmental factor killed all the dinosaurs, yet we have crocodiles and other cold-blooded large lizard creatures which lived 65 million years ago at the end of the late Cretaceous and survived until today.

Underrated post

>If it's evolutionarily beneficial to have a long neck and gives you an advantage over the shorter-necked versions -- WHY would the zebra and all very short-necked horselike creatures still survive until today?

Because there are different niches.
ie: different ways to be successful.

Giraffes evolved to eat the leafs from thorny trees.
Zebra evolved to eat grass.

They can live side by side because they don't compete for the same food, same shelter, etc.

Maybe direct intervention by beings more advanced than us.

It's ridiculous to think humans are the pinnacle of biological existence (especially if you're a firm believer in evolution).

The odds of another planet having the same exact environment that led to our evolution -- extremely high given the hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone.

The odds of another planet having started the whole evolutionary trajectory much earlier than Earth's -- very high given the sheer numbers at play.

And just like an ant or a sparrow could never possibly fathom what human existence is like and what our motivations for our actions might be, we will never be able to comprehend or even remotely understand the beings above us in the hierarchy.

Kkkkkekkkkk!

dinosaurs are big, they eat land animals, and live on land.

Crocs live in the water. Oceans away from the blast of the meteor harbored them, they fed off fish and the like, which were not dead after the cataclysm.

smaller species were able to survive just as rodents were, and they evolved over 65 million years to get bigger. that's why we have iguanas and komodo dragons.

Yes but what COMPELLED them to evolve towards a specific niche?

A zebra randomly picked grass and a giraffe randomly picked thorny trees?

Also frenchman is the only smart one here so far, you're failing fellow Amerifags.

Similarly, if it's evolutionary beneficial for angler fish to have a glowing thing protruding from its head so it can hunt in the dark, why wouldn't EVERY fish in the same exact environment similarly benefit from a glowing thing?

This "niche" theory sounds pretty good on paper until you start to dig into what the actual mechanics of evolving towards a specific niche might be.

You really think crocodiles were insulated from the cataclysmic event because they were in a few inches of swamp water?

>It's ridiculous to think humans are the pinnacle of biological existence (especially if you're a firm believer in evolution).
please tell me where i said that or implied it.

>The odds of another planet having the same exact environment that led to our evolution -- extremely high given the hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy alone.
why are you so against us evolving, then, if they would have evolved?

>The odds of another planet having started the whole evolutionary trajectory much earlier than Earth's -- very high given the sheer numbers at play.
yet we still haven't found any signs of life, we're still looking though. any life out there is bound to be far far away.

All big animals went extinct in those cataclysmic events.
Nothing bigger then a chicken would be alive.

Apparently there were small species of crocodile who survived and later evolved into the bigger species he have today.

btw: for someone who knows very little you are very quick to draw conclusions.

Really makes me fart.

Hahahahaha

are burgers really this retarded?

This really makes me think.

it didn't kill all the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs continued to be the top of the food chain even after the extinction event. Terror bird for example.

if rats hiding in caves were able to survive (that also means able to eat stuff), so were crocs. in fact it's more likely that the croc would have survived because of the more replenishable source of fish.

understand that these crocs are on the opposite side of the earth to the blast. i can't run any calculations right now to estimate how hot it would get for them, but i'm willing to assume that the crocs survived.

Genocide

this.

oxygen levels dropping is why we don't have any big animals anymore.

We like truthful science not cucked science.

>created women by using a rib
McRib
FTFY

>Yes but what COMPELLED them to evolve towards a specific niche?
>A zebra randomly picked grass and a giraffe randomly picked thorny trees?

Usually it's geographical isolation.

Zebras likely evolved in an area with plenty grass.
Giraffes likely evolved in an area with a scarcity of grass and other low-growing plants, but plenty thorny trees to eat.

FFS just read up on Darwin's study of finches.

But you can at least get enough skeletons to put together a complete one. For early humans, you literally have just a handful of partials and not nearly enough material to make one actual skeleton.

So just like the Iguanadon or Dipolodocus, all we have are (((scientists))) putting some pieces together and then making up the rest.

>there are millions of Australopithecus
How stupid are you?

>A zebra randomly picked grass and a giraffe randomly picked thorny trees?
no.
a tall ancestor could reach the trees.
a short ancestor couldn't.
those genes had a better fitness than the ones in between, so they diverged.

>why wouldn't EVERY fish in the same exact environment similarly benefit from a glowing thing?
a shitload of animals who live in the deep ocean have lights on them. it's not exclusive to angler fish.

>cucked science
please tell me how evolution cucks you.

>conveniently leaving off all the extinct creatures that evolved into monkeys
>pointing out a "pattern" that only exists in this incomplete chart

herp a derp

between species = niggers

Last time i checked niggers, pigmys and abos existed.

Evolution is real, adaptation proves this. Showing that there's a missing link, does not disprove evolution.
The ancient aliens theory comes to mind though. It sounds crazy but bear with me, it's not impossible that ayy lmaos have genetically engineered us. The theory is that they wanted to create a slave race (look into the sumerians written history) but basically had morals too so they couldn't just create one, as that's playing god. So, they created humans with a large portion of their DNA (created in His image) and a small portion of DNA from life here on earth (thus the like 1% chimp DNA in all humans and like 99% foreign DNA). Sounds crazy, I know, but it would explain what the fuck happened. Considering how much Sup Forums likes their conspiracy theories it's kind of surprising that this never gets suggested.

I think they also don't give a shit if one "T-rex" bone is a million years older then the other "T-rex" bone in the same skeleton.

For humans we make distinctions between skeletons that are 20.000 years old, 30.000 years old, 40.000 years old etc. and call them all by different names.
Even though we probably wouldn't even notice if there was a "Neanderthal" riding the bus.
We are just look at every little detail when it comes to our own evolution.

both chimps and humans are the current apex of their evolutionary tree.

both chimps and humans are missing the previous evolutionary steps, mostly because we have wiped them out through being more successful.

there is no between species from apes to humans, humans do not come from apes.

both apes and humans come from a common ancestor branch, so does every other species in the planet if you look back far enough

>What's your answer to this Sup Forums?

Did you forget to check Australia?

...

>those genes had a better fitness than the ones in between, so they diverged.

That would also imply tall animals prefer tall mates, and short animals prefer short mates.

Far more likely is a population getting physically separated from the rest.
For example because a small group washes up on an Island separated from the main population.

Every separated population eventually evolves into a separate species if it doesn't go extinct or re-joins the main population.

There aren't millions of Australopithecus running around. Don't confuse form and species.

Kek

No, there are not millions of the first one - because they evolved into Homo Sapiens (pictured) and modern Chimps/Bonobos (not pictured).

Actually there arent million of
"these"

because the ape on the left side has a common ancestor with us.
That means we didnt evolve from him but he evolved next to us from a common ancestor

Abbos, blacks do you need more proof of undeveloped humans?

Sage