There is no experimental evidence of any organism becoming any other organism. There is no experimental evidence of a single celled organism becoming a separate multicellular species, or even of a mechanism in which they would do so. The DNA changed due to a mutation damaging DNA replication. Hardly evidence of "natural selection." The term species is actually still debated to this day by biologists, for the simple fact it easier to define in male and female reproductive organisms and harder to define in bacteria etc. You require two animals with identical chromosome count in order to produce a healthy, fertile offspring. Bacterium can reproduce asexually by cell division etc. Still remains the fact that in order for any variants with any adaptions to be labeled a new species, they must be different in chromosome count and unable to reproduce with each other. Which is not the case with variants of a species.
The definition of a species is rather well known aside from some special cases. As you said, what can reporoduce. Chromosome count is not the factor, however, otherwise we'd be able to fuck
Sable antelope and have kids. No, it's compatible RNA.
That being said, no, we have not yet witnessed single celled organisms evolving into multicelled organisms. Mostly because the experimental work has only been going on for 30 years. You did know that such complex evolution requires at LEAST a few thousand years, right? That being said, plenty of evidence to support it and plenty to disprove spontaneous existence.
You asked for evidence of life existing the same way "a billion years ago" and I gave you evidence of something existing the same way for 360 million years. There is no actual proof of any "evolutionary branch" ever happening. So your conjecture is based no false reasoning to begin with.
No, I asked for proof of HUMANS existing a billion years ago. Nice try. I made no argument that everything evolves. Quite simply, some things never die out because they are so well adapted to their environment and their environment doesn't change.
Are you just going to keep diverting everytime I make a logical point?
Your "logical" point was "Humans took a billion years to learn to farm that's why we have no evidence of their existence before hand. Also, humans don't balance with nature but live outside it. Also they couldn't take over their habitat."
Yeah, no. Agriculture allowed for settlements and stability, not increased population. Not the size you're thinking of anyway. Hunter-gatherer could sustain a decent sized tribe. The native Americans of North America were hunter-gatherers and they have a ton of evidence that they existed. What? Did it take humans a billion years to make fire? Or use pointy rocks? And how do you know? What Evidence do you have to show that humans have existed for a billion years? Or are you arguing from ignorance?
How about this, if you want to talk about environments let's examine "natural selection." Why do many animals near the equator have such thick fur?
Name 1 because I'm only really seeing the three-toed sloth and that thing uses it's fur (and the algae that grows in it) for camoflague.
Why do animals in the arctic have bare skin?
Polar bears do not.
Seals, penguins, and other animals that are aquatic do for speed in the water. Hair makes you slower.
Wouldn't it be advantageous to develop appropriate protection from the elements?
They did! The fact that you THINK they don't makes me wonder how you can then accept intelligent design as that clearly shows a lack of intelligence, doesn't it?
Why do humans near the equator have darker skin?
Why do eskimos have light skin?
Vitamin D. It's essential for human survival and it's created by sunlight on the skin.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/Light skin allows for the most vitamin D creation while dark skin limits it but protects better from sunburn. But at the equator, you get a lot more sun exposure (due to it being in the sky longer during the year) so you will get enough vitamin D creation even though it's much less than if you had light skin. It's basically trading more vitamin D than you need for less severe sun burn.
Wouldn't it be advantageous to the human to evolve a lighter skin tone to reflect more light in the tropics?
Wouldn't it be advantageous to eskimos to have darker skin, and more hair on their bodies?
You seem to not understand how the human body works with regard to temperature. Nor how sunlight works, apparently.
SO! Here's the deal. Your skin will absorb infrared rays from the sun. That's what it does. The color is irrelevant to this. Your body also produces heat. A lot of it, actually. Normally, the heat produced is LESS than the outside temperature so the skin cools. However, when enough IR has been absorbed, the body will heat up. The sweat glands then remove said heat by having water evaporate on the skin, which removes heat.
So, where am I going with this? Well, Eskimos are not a separate species. Nor did they evolve in the arctic. They, like most humans, migrated. Current archeological evidence suggests that humans originated from Africa. This is why hair was slowly lost over the course of several thousand years: The ice age ended and the planet warmed so the insulating hair wasn't needed as much anymore. We still have some (chest, genitals, armpits, face, back, head) but not as much as we likely did prior. Humans then expanded outwards across the world and landed in cold areas. Hair was very helpful but since most of it was lost prior, they supplemented with animal skins.
Animals adapt to their surroundings, but not by changing their DNA. Advantageous translations of DNA provide an answer for variation of species but not outright creation of new species let alone a genera.
I really have no idea how to make you understand this. You have the pieces yet you just won't put them together.
Ok, lets try this:
Take a book. Say.. War and Peace.
Change 1 word.
Is it still War and Peace? I mean, you just changed the word Apple to Orange but the story isn't altered. It's still the same story, thus, the same book.
Change 1 more word. Ok, you changed Andrei Nikolayevich Bolkonsky to Andrew Nikolavevich Bolkonsky. Is it still the same book? Story hasn't changed, right? Just one instance of the character's name. It's just a typo, really.
Keep doing that. When will it be a different story?
Show Posts
