Here is an artists impression of the white man's earliest mammalian ancestor. Say something nice about your ancestor

And by "turned" I mean small adaptations over time. One day this thing didn't magically turned into soemthing else, the changes were gradual, but over an immense amount of time those changes accumulated and led to another species.

Because crocodiles didn't need to adapt more than they already did. Not all species go through the same environmental pressures. Crocodiles didn't experience the same changes in environment that certain species of mammals did.

>thinks that in 70 million years an amphibious environment wouldn't change enough to warrant further adaptations necessary to stay an apex predator
imagine being stupid enough to believe this

I wonder what it would taste like grilled

You have to be pretty dumb to believe in evolution. The bible makes more sense than this garbage.

Imagine not believing in evolution when we have neural network algorithms for speach recognition n shiet literally made through artificial evolution.

all the things that species can be are already encoded within that species.
you will never see a rat evolve into a man, simply because it is a rat.

no GODS no EVOLUTION you must know that you have been lied to about everything

I descend from the line of Adam, made by God in His image. Evolution is for fags.

Clearly it didn't, that's why crocs didn't undergo any extreme adaptations like primates.

I know you're a wanker, but this is still the less offensive britcucking than chedda man

A species can diverge into another species over a long period of time, with the original species remaining. This can happen due to geographical separation. Australia is a good example of this, its the only place in the world with marsupials.

Do you also fuck your sister?
Personally, I am open to a belief in God. Evolution is simply a law instated by God.

Why would I fuck my sister?

Because you sound Cleetus from the deep south

Cletus believes in evolution now. Only big brains are anti evolution since we arent satisfied with the results of the theory.

>muh long period of magic spacetime
this is why evolution fails
small cumulative adaptions do not make a new species.

jesus fucking christ, i knew it wouldn't take long but for fucks sake I'm in tears right now

I ain't no monkey I is what I is

Except that they do. Small changes accumulated over that can allow the adapted competitor to outcompete the ones that didn't adapt. Account for time, and it's not unreasonable at all. Do you have a comprehension of how long 65 million years is?

yes, most early mammals looked like rats and tree shrews.

cancer tier slide thread

ignore shareblue slide threads, GET IN HERE

The Bible is nothing more than sandnigger fairy tales. If Adam and Eve were the only people. Everyone would be extremely inbred by now.

thats just micro artificial evolution. Macro artificial evolution has never been observed!

And then runs for election

Our DNA hadnt degraded as much as it has now, so there were less birth defects. It's also why people used to live hundreds of years.

Stealthy apex predators (no enemies), very low energy expenditure (can live a year without food). Crocs don't need much selection, they live in a stable environment.

This actually sounds much dumber and far less believable than whatever religionists claim

>british ''world-class'' education

Tfw you won't even live past 80 probably

Attached: patriarch-ages.jpg (450x389, 30K)

>British educayshun

Cute

>no grasping of biology whatsoever
You are embarassing.

Explain how this happened

Attached: Flicker-Tongue-660x403.jpg (660x403, 58K)

>Clearly it didn't [because I must pretend it did not]
Non sequitur. I understand this idea is beyond your comprehension abilities so I'll just explain why you're blatantly wrong via what you already said...

You already admitted there's a reflexive relationship between adaptation and environment here >changes in species stimulate changes in the environment
Amphibious species underwent massive changes in 65 million years (according to your delusions) and so did the mammals in these amphibious environments: ie amphibious mammals went back to the seas (again according to your delusions).

Yet.....>Crocodiles didn't experience the same changes in environment that certain species of mammals did.
Well guess what kid? You're an idiot and clearly wrong based on your own beliefs. Amphibious mammals had environmental changes so drastic (according to your delusions) that they turned into a different species and went back to the sea(a far more massive change than rodents turning into humans)..which would reflexively change the environment.....yet amphibious crocs in these same environments magically didn't change at all because you allege their environment didn't change...WTF????

You've made one massive and laughable contradiction. The crocs environment drastically changed in those 65 million alleged years but crocs didn't change at all.... total nonsense based on what you said.

Attached: Grade%204%20Unit%204%20Lesson%201%20Whale%20Evolution-1[1].png (440x330, 109K)

They use big numbers to sell it.

>this rock turned into a bird, but it took billions of years.
Fuck off.

Are you fucking serious?
I understood evolution without learning it in school because our school system is aids

Attached: trophy.png (211x314, 78K)

ATHEIST MONKEY NIGGERS ON SUICIDE WATCH FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR GAY ASS NERD SCEINCE

Attached: Basically I am monky.gif (711x664, 79K)

This is the ancestor of cats, dogs, and many ungulates as well, if I am not mistaken. Cats and primates split 50 million years ago if I remember correctly

Behold your 13.772 billion years old mother

Attached: Screenshot_1.jpg (756x613, 8K)

SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOT LEAF, YOU GAY RAT-MONKEY! EVOLUTION IS A JEW LIE.

then show me how small cumulative adaptions over time lead to less chromosomes, lead to fundamental changes for animals (such as the creation of fins for whales from their original starting point as a land based animal,
you think that them being forced in the water drowned all those with slightly less skin between their toes?)
if there exists evolution and it's simply unproven it does, it happens over a very short span of time in bursts, by a whale ancestor suddenly being born with alot of skin between its toes and it managed better than the rest. But the chance of this happening at random might be smaller than the chance of this happening within 10000 generations or 65M years of evolution
I think you underestimate and have no estimate at all of the timescales evolution just to push your point
65 million years is not a long time, crocs have been the same for the last 20 million?

>If I would save a penny for every day over a span of 65 million years I will not have a big heap of pennies weighing in at roughly 94.900 metric tonnes worth of steel, only small heaps of pennies have been observed breh.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ijdcfNo5zBE

Thread theme music

and yet this pile of pennies does not become a dollar. You can have added a billion upon a billion pennies, and yet you would not have created a single dollar. How do your small cumulative changes lead to a new species?
How does it create more or less chromosomes for this new species?
How does a land based animal get fins? Are the finns of whales still growing and increasing? or are they a finished product? so then shouldn't we be able to see this change occurring each generation? why don't we?

One a sidetrack; our ancestour's (in the OP) closest living relative is the oposum which arguably is barely any different from said ancestour, so a species descendants can both evolve very differently, or stay relatively the same.

Also, crocodiles (and alligators) have several sub-genus in their order that have adapted to niche's, such as small fish and large herbivores.
So not only is it bullshit to state that the order of Crocodilia "didn't evolve xD" it's incorrect to assume an ancient species profile disappears completely just because some of it's descendants have changed drastically.

Also birds are a great example of a broad spectrum of species while maintaining the same basic build, while still having a drastic array of different sizes and niche's.

What’d black pepo evolve from?

Attached: 33AA1A89-C569-4C1D-A875-D4B9DF5C37E9.jpg (462x579, 76K)

>If Adam and Eve were the only people.
You look stupid af, right now, to anyone who’ve read the Bible

Attached: 54FB6A14-9DCC-406A-95C5-ADB5A9721C5D.jpg (430x396, 43K)

Explain it then biogenius

Oi bruv, you got a loicense for the extra chromosome?

So over 70,000,000 years, why didn't other animals adapt to displace the croc as the apex predator in that environment? Wouldn't the environmental pressure spur that?

There are marsupials in North America and South America. Read a book, you stupid fucking nigger.

There is like 1 species of marsupials in South America.
While there are many in Australia and the reason for that is because the marsupials in Australia were left alone on Australia as it separated from Antarctica. The first marsupials were from South America and crossed over to australia back when the Americas, Antarctic, and Australia were conjoined landmasses.

>our ancestour's (in the OP) closest living relative is the oposum which arguably is barely any different from said ancestour,
Pure conjecture. There is no species in OP pic. It's an artistic work of fiction based on guesses of what a common ancestral mammal/marsupial should look like according to the science fiction you call evolution. By coincidence a modern opossum must coincidentally share the most features of all land mammals so now it's a "fact" to dupe morons into thinking an opossum is the closest relative to this common ancestor. Total circular reasoning.

>Also, crocodiles (and alligators) have several sub-genus in their order that have adapted to niche's, such as small fish and large herbivores.
More conjecture. You have no idea if these are adaptations or a "common ancestor" had these abilities to eat all these things in the first place.
>So not only is it bullshit to state that the order of Crocodilia "didn't evolve xD"
its not. read above.
>incorrect to assume an ancient species profile disappears completely just because some of it's descendants have changed drastically.
It's vastly more incorrect to assume a species would arbitrarily not make drastic changes when it's environment as well as similar species within that environment underwent drastic changes. Thats the entire point you oh so blissfully ignored.

They didn't

so you're saying that if we take opossums and create the right habitat, it'd result in humans or monkeys within 20 million years?
how did those opossums lose or gain the chromosomes necessary for humans?

How do your small cumulative changes lead to a new species?
>Be animal
>Get arbitrarily put into an grouping by scientist based on genetics and morphology.
That's how.
To answer for real:
>Be animal, live in an environment where I have a niche and a function in the circle of life.
>Something changes, I'm part of the group that adapts to said change(s) by either changing strategy or by utilising an already existing part of me to adapt to it, others don't and escape the change or die.
>Be a group of mammals that tries to procure ants/termites from hills, have a slightly long tongue, but simply dig to get to said food source
>My tongue isn't as long as number-002's tongue, 002 has had better results by simply licking out the ants from the ground and their hills's entrances
>Digging helps but not as much as having that tongue, be smaller than 002 and lose to him in compitition for a mate, 002's offspring(which he won't stop having untill he can't mate anymore mind you, much like his descendants) typically have longer tongues.
>Be me, see one of 002's descendants enter my territory, swiggity swooty.webm
>002's descendant let's me S M A S H.
>Our offspring now typically both has strong claws and longer tongues than I, but not always.
>Repeat process for eons, see several groups head for not ant/termite hills but become more focussed on scavanging in stead of spawn camping.
>See lanky pale creature
>Mfw dark
>Mfw when I'm back again wearing a collar
>Mfw I have no face but I'm registered as a "ant-eater"(genius lmao).
>Repeat until environment changes again or I start getting results doing something different by chance.
Cont.

There are ~100 species in North and South America.

>what is an opossum/Didelphidae
The state of modern Bong education. Getting rid of 11-plus was a mistake.

WE

>repeat process for eons
no stop that. because as you yourself said, 001 manages to fuck himself back into the fold
there is no net change in the dna of the population except the addition of the longer tongue gene
this does not explain evolution or a change of species, nor does it even begin to explain the creation of a subspecies. Your muh eons argument ends up creating splits between populations which are arbitrary and not based on the genetic differences of the animals, which you would need for evolution
it's not a good explanation
what, did whale ancestors with slightly more skin between their toes swim faster to the ladies? or had a higher chance of surviving a flood? muscles and whatnot would make more of a difference than a little bit extra skin (and it would only be a little bit extra because muh cumulative changes)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
'burst evolution' has a higher chance of working than 'cumulative changes'

Hi mom Where's my pb&j

Oh don't blame him. You see, modern Brits are simply the result of generations of adaptations and environmental pressure. All the smartest, fittest ones culled over generations of fratricidal wars, while the least fit were at safely at home eating toast sandwiches and musty old yeast in between breeding.

she cute

so you're saying if you put bacteria in a petri dish it'll grow and develop more complicated ecosystems of cells within it? Who put them there, a wizard?

>How does it create more or less chromosomes for this new species?
Mutations in the DNA/RNA structures that either enable or simply not hinder the species ability to survive and smash.
>How does a land based animal get fins? Are the finns of whales still growing and increasing? or are they a finished product?
Tendons, muscles and skin envelop the bones that receive strain from being used to move(paddle) in a body of water, which creates more surface area to make this process more efficient, these structures bridge one digit to the other( which is why whale fins are not perfectly smooth) and depending on the size/needs of the species to adapt to the environment, will either increase/decrease or stay the same.
>so then shouldn't we be able to see this change
occurring each generation? why don't we?
Typically we can observe this in the fossil records, or by observing species existing in a volatile environment( Darwin finches for example).
Second, whales are an offshoot from a species that swam and ate in shallow water areas(an example of an existing mammal species still doing this would be the manatee), if you were to study the taxonomy lines of whales and manatees then one will see how the species that led to whales simply kept swimming further out away from the shores, while the species that led to the manatees stayed closer by.

The main factor that enables evolution to let species change so drastically is time and unfilled niches, horses and elephants to this day STILL have digits(finger bones etc) hidden in their hoeves and stumps while not really needing it, also equines also have a very varied array of individual genus while retaining the same build.

We could probably attain oposum based "humans" via selective breeding(maintaining healthy genomes unlike dogs(more "mutt" strains to cross with) within 700,000 years desu.
But yes basically.

crocs and sharks have won the evolutionary game, they don't need to adapt to shit because they are absurdly efficient at keeping themselves alive

3/10 shit b8 is successful

This. Snake venom was the result of a duplication event that over time, turned the duplicated chromosome into genes that produced very heavy proteins that can kill prey.

She cute :3

Fpbp

>jawdropping amount of delusion: the post
yeah 500k generations is all it takes... are you high or do you actually believe your own fairy tale?

>Bullshit lol.

We must be cautious to not trust (((their))) lies but the majority of anti-science guys are niggers.

don't you people go to school? you know down syndrome people exist, right? genes mutate, dumbass, every time a cell undergoes mitosis it has a very low chance to suffer mutations to its dna, enough of those over time and it becomes apparent outwardly

>Pure conjecture. There is no species in OP pic. It's an artistic work of fiction based on guesses of what a common ancestral mammal/marsupial should look like according to the science fiction you call evolution. By coincidence a modern opossum must coincidentally share the most features of all land mammals so now it's a "fact" to dupe morons into thinking an opossum is the closest relative to this common ancestor. Total circular reasoning.
Your point on the image is true, but your assertion on them not being extremely closely similair in genome is false, disprove the overlap in genome.

>More conjecture. You have no idea if these are adaptations or a "common ancestor" had these abilities to eat all these things in the first place.
The ancestour supplied the base build and it's descendants adapted to said niches, it's not hard to understand.
>its not. read above.
It is, do some research and supply evidence for your claims.

>It's vastly more incorrect to assume a species would arbitrarily not make drastic changes when it's environment as well as similar species within that environment underwent drastic changes.
Bro, you're agreeing with me, that or proofread your texts as you seem to get confused.

Evolution is fake and gay.
God made this place.
Noah's flood happened. Lots of impressive looking structures are pre flood.

>Bruh you're wrong because they arbitrary split away and adapted to different environments and niches which disproves evolution.
>Literally describes evolution and then claims that it disproves itself somehow.
Bro, proof-read.
I think I already answered your post with my whales bit that's further down this thread.

Meant for

>What are dogs.
Ftfy.

It always amazed me how they could act so sure of themselves when they only have incomplete data and very few fossils
Basically they're taking a shortcut and ignoring maybe 90% of what actually happened just to print out this picture of a possum
science is amazing

Attached: 1492951469651.jpg (832x624, 56K)

nigger you're positing the exact same claim that evolution postulates
over time the groups split up magically and two species come into being
you made the actual split as arbitrary as evolution does and that's why it's still unexplained

>be me, cute mouse-oppossum
>running around in a tropical forest eating insects and shitting on reptiles
>not a care in the world
>fuck bitches when i please, have like 90 children
>fuck yeah
>wait, evolution, what are you doing with that gene? no, no!
>now chained in an office cubicle in utter misery wondering if this is hell
>mr. shekelstacks tells me another bill is due this week, i have to put off buying groceries until next paycheck
>sitting in traffic for 3 hours a day just to get back and forth
>bank owns everything
>haven't walked in sunshine in over a year, only full employees can get vacation time, i'm just a permanent temporary
>was supposed to get an offer on month 2, it's now month 14
>manager called me by the wrong name this morning
>have to shit in a toilet and subsist on a diet of packaged oat bars and lowfat yogurt

for you

Attached: 1540908880683.png (505x873, 707K)

More establishment fantasy bullshit.

So what evolved into marsupials and echidneas? This is what pisses me off about science. The pop scientists just take wild guesses and then publishes these to magazines for non-scholarly people who think scientists and politicians will never lie to you.

>Your point on the image is true, but your assertion on them not being extremely closely similair in genome is false, disprove the overlap in genome.
You want me to prove there's no genome overlap between a modern day species and a fictional drawing.... do you actually read what you type?

>The ancestour supplied the base build and it's descendants adapted to said niches, it's not hard to understand.
Culling a genome is not creating novel features. You're basically saying crocs species are dog breeds.

>Bro, you're agreeing with me, that or proofread your texts as you seem to get confused.
Allopatric adaptation is not allopatric speciation, try to keep up. Prove these different croc "species" which are based on niche adaptations cannot generally create viable/fertile hybrids.

Again the entire point you blissfully ignored is that, allegedly, amphibious mammals had an environment change so drastic they eventually turned into a massively different species yet amphibious reptiles, aka crocodiles, went through this same environmental change yet only experienced niche adaptations.

>Fucking and having said results survive on their own opposed to results that can not is magical to me.
It is lmao.
>Many different birds exist but I say that's all just "arbitrary" and totally not based on millions of years worth of generations adapting to environments and niches, bro.
You're trying to argue against facts with semantics, facts exist even without languages bro.
Really, study DNA and fossils and try to disprove it with pointing out facts and not with just words.

>jews are called rats throughout all history
>finally convince goyim that they come from actual rats
Lmao

Attached: 58accc7f2900002200f27ead.jpg (630x1121, 95K)

Attached: 2186D8A5-CDC4-4311-A591-D502522F4471.gif (244x200, 717K)