₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
LoLz. Did you read it? All talk and no game. Dumb Bleep.

I read it, I'm not like you🙃.
I skimmed through it🤨.

Now tell me when the "Neanderthals" emerged according to your own article 🤤?

Let me guess you want to go have another cursory look🤣🤣🤣.

Wonders shall never cease😂😂😂

Gabrielshow24:
I read it, I'm not like you🙃.
I skimmed through it🤨.

Now tell me when the "Neanderthals" emerged according to your own article 🤤?

Let me guess you want to go have another cursory look🤣🤣🤣.

Wonders shall never cease😂😂😂

Stupido, read:

The question of our origin has long intrigued humanity and remains the focus of intense interest and discussion. The evolution of all currently living organisms started billions of years ago with the first primates appearing 55-65 million years ago. It is estimated that the last common ancestor of Old World monkeys and great apes lived around 25 million years ago and that of humans and chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. The genus Homo evolved around 3 million years ago, with Homo erectus entering the scene 1.8 million years ago. Like most evolutionary processes, our early history is characterized by numerous genetic branches, many of which were ultimately unsuccessful. However, Homo erectus survived longer than any other hominin species and was the first known hominin to migrate out of Africa, where subsequent evolution led to the Homo neandertalensis, our archaic relatives, the Neanderthals.

That is the 2nd paragraph. And you claim to have read it. What a dumbfùcktard you are.

LordReed:
Stupido, read:

The question of our origin has long intrigued humanity and remains the focus of intense interest and discussion. The evolution of all currently living organisms started billions of years ago with the first primates appearing 55-65 million years ago. It is estimated that the last common ancestor of Old World monkeys and great apes lived around 25 million years ago and that of humans and chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. The genus Homo evolved around 3 million years ago, with Homo erectus entering the scene 1.8 million years ago. Like most evolutionary processes, our early history is characterized by numerous genetic branches, many of which were ultimately unsuccessful. However, Homo erectus survived longer than any other hominin species and was the first known hominin to migrate out of Africa, where subsequent evolution led to the Homo neandertalensis, our archaic relatives, the Neanderthals.

That is the 2nd paragraph. And you claim to have read it. What a dumbfùcktard you are.

I'm not a dumbfucktard.
It's just a statement that doesn't have an empirical proof.
The one you should have better suggested was the transitioning to Homo sapiens.

That seems more plausible given the fact they interbred with neanderthals.
Until proven it's just a theoretical position to explain characteristics found in this world!

That's why I allude to micro evolution 🤔!
Macro on the hand, doesn't have a substantiated evidence 🤔.

Do so well to educate yourself and stop showing ignorance!!!

Gabrielshow24:
I'm not a dumbfucktard.
It's just a statement that doesn't have an empirical proof.
The one you should have better suggested was the transitioning to Homo sapiens.

That seems more plausible given the fact they interbred with neanderthals.
Until proven it's just a theoretical position to explain characteristics found in this world!

That's why I allude to micro evolution 🤔!
Macro on the hand, doesn't have a substantiated evidence 🤔.

Do so well to educate yourself and stop showing ignorance!!!

Just say you don't know how evolution works and stop passing off your ignorant half baked nonsense as a reasonable rebuttal.

"It's just a theory" tells me you don't even know what theory is.

Meanwhile go and tell the Nobel prize committee to take the article down and rescind the prize because "it's just a theory".

Ignorant buffoon.

LordReed:
Just say you don't know how evolution works and stop passing off your ignorant half baked nonsense as a reasonable rebuttal.

"It's just a theory" tells me you don't even know what theory is.

Meanwhile go and tell the Nobel prize committee to take the article down and rescind the prize because "it's just a theory".

Ignorant buffoon.

You seem not to know the theme of the article or why they awarded them the Nobel prize in the first place?

It's rather burdensome 🤕!
They gave a theoretical background to the problem statement that required the adeptness of the recipient!

-------------
Of course I know how evolution works🤨.
I subscribe heavily to micro evolution —if you don't know what that means educate yourself about it.
macro evolution at best is just an unproved theory!
No empirical proof to suggest so!
It's just a way for us to reconcile fossil records to our present understanding.
So far, no one has lived a million years to confirm such theory 🤨 which is left to the future generations; if and only if we don't end ourselves with ceaseless wars in the coming millennia!!!

Gabrielshow24:
You seem not to know the theme of the article or why they awarded them the Nobel prize in the first place?

It's rather burdensome 🤕!
They gave a theoretical background to the problem statement that required the adeptness of the recipient!

-------------
Of course I know how evolution works🤨.
I subscribe heavily to micro evolution —if you don't know what that means educate yourself about it.
macro evolution at best is just an unproved theory!
No empirical proof to suggest so!
It's just a way for us to reconcile fossil records to our present understanding.
So far, no one has lived a million years to confirm such theory 🤨 which is left to the future generations; if and only if we don't end ourselves with ceaseless wars in the coming millennia!!!

Gosh you are stupid sha. You claim to have read the article and it doesn't hit you that the work is only a subset of the evolutionary theory which is one of the reasons the paper would include the paragraph I quoted and further says this:

There are around 31,000 single-nucleotide positions in the genome where present-day humans from all parts of the world carry only a novel (derived) nucleotide, whereas both the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes carry the ancestral nucleotide, conserved since the split from chimpanzee.

It is when you acknowledge you're an ignorant fucktârd that's when you begin to actually learn.

Gabrielshow24:
Thanks God, for calling me Mr. Thinker😁.
I appreciate your sarcasm!!!
Why not do so well to disprove me? 🤔
Or show us macro evolutions happening now?

Examples of Macroevolutionary Events:
The evolution of tetrapods (four-limbed animals) from fish
The diversification of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs
The evolution of flowering plants
The evolution of bat wings and loss of limbs in snakes and lizards

Scientists have even observed macroevolution on relative short term basis when they subjected non-citrate bacteria and later watched them evolve into citrate bacteria.
All these are stuff one can read online but due to religion blocking some brains, you see Christians(even literate ones) talking as if they have never seen a classroom.
Amazing what religion can do

Gabrielshow24:
🤦🏾‍♂️
Millions of years seem like a befitting explanation 🤔
The same way fossilization occurs in "millions of years"🤔

It has not been empirically proven so, it's just the only plausible explanation.

So fossilization cannot be proven?

jaephoenix:
So fossilization cannot be proven?

Fossilization can take roughly an hour to millions of years.

So what's your point? 🤨

Also from my statement all you could pick was that fossilization can't be proven? 🤔

Read it again to know the intended message I aimed to pass across!

Gabrielshow24:
I didn't mention great ape or did I?
I only mentioned macro evolution 🤔 which your colleague said he doesn't have empirical proof to because it takes "millions of years" 😂😂😂

You said u haven't seen ape evolve to humans. And I corrected u that the great ape (where we came from) is currently extinct

jaephoenix:
You said u haven't seen ape evolve to humans. And I corrected u that the great ape (where we came from) is currently extinct

I didn't mention ape.
Kindly show me where I did?🤨

Gabrielshow24:
Fossilization can take roughly an hour to millions of years.

So what's your point? 🤨

Also from my statement all you could pick was that fossilization can't be proven? 🤔

Read it again to know the intended message I aimed to pass across!

Please educate me. I cant glean any other meaning

jaephoenix:
Examples of Macroevolutionary Events:
The evolution of tetrapods (four-limbed animals) from fish
The diversification of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs
The evolution of flowering plants
The evolution of bat wings and loss of limbs in snakes and lizards

Scientists have even observed macroevolution on relative short term basis when they subjected non-citrate bacteria and later watched them evolve into citrate bacteria.
All these are stuff one can read online but due to religion blocking some brains, you see Christians(even literate ones) talking as if they have never seen a classroom.
Amazing what religion can do

Elegantly poised in writing rubbish.
Every Scientist knows that macro evolution has not been directly observed as at yet!!!

Even the bacteria you allude to is micro at best🤨.
Common sense is not common!!!

Gabrielshow24:
I didn't mention ape.
Kindly show me where I did?🤨

You wrote this




At best, evolution happens on a micro scale 😂😂😂
Not sufficient to produce what they suggest.
At least in our 2000years of "modern existence"
why haven't we seen an ape evolve to man? 🤔
At the end of the day, it's just human's way of reconciling what they have on ground 🙃!!!At best, evolution happens on a micro scale 😂😂😂
Not sufficient to produce what they suggest.
At least in our 2000years of "modern existence"
why haven't we seen an ape evolve to man? 🤔
At the end of the day, it's just human's way of reconciling what they have on ground 🙃!!!





The bolded is what up said. Oya deny again

jaephoenix:
Please educate me. I cant glean any other meaning

Was my message about fossilization? 🤨
Kindly, give a secondary school child, let him/her read and tell you what the intended meaning should be!!!

😂😂😂

jaephoenix:
You wrote this




At best, evolution happens on a micro scale 😂😂😂
Not sufficient to produce what they suggest.
At least in our 2000years of "modern existence"
why haven't we seen an ape evolve to man? 🤔
At the end of the day, it's just human's way of reconciling what they have on ground 🙃!!!At best, evolution happens on a micro scale 😂😂😂
Not sufficient to produce what they suggest.
At least in our 2000years of "modern existence"
why haven't we seen an ape evolve to man? 🤔
At the end of the day, it's just human's way of reconciling what they have on ground 🙃!!!





The bolded is what up said. Oya deny again

Thanks for refreshing my memory 🤔.
At least you got something right!

My general message was about macro 🙃!
I must have mentioned it as a rhetorical question 🙃

Gabrielshow24:
Elegantly poised in writing rubbish.
Every Scientist knows that macro evolution has not been observed as at yet!!!

Even the bacteria you allude to is micro at best🤨.
Common sense is not common!!!

Do you even know definition of macro evolution?
Oh my fvvcking god. Religion has killed all your brain!

Gabrielshow24:
Thanks for refreshing my memory 🤔.
At least you got something right!

My general message was about macro 🙃!
I must have mentioned it as a rhetorical question 🙃

So u can't deny again. Good

jaephoenix:
Do you even know definition of macro evolution?
Oh my fvvcking god. Religion has killed all your brain!

Explain it to me 🥲.
Kindly, Give your scientific source for the direct observance of macro evolution 🤔.
I don't what all those, patterns🤔
I want a detailed explanation within the last 2000 years

Gabrielshow24:
Was my message about fossilization? 🤨
Kindly, give a secondary school child, let him/her read and tell you what the intended meaning should be!!!

😂😂😂

U want deny again?

jaephoenix:
U want deny again?

Oya tell the world, whether my message was about fossilization 🤔?
Am waiting🥲.

Gabrielshow24:
Explain it to me 🥲.
Kindly, Give your scientific source for the direct observance of macro evolution 🤔.
I don't what all those, patterns🤔
I want a detailed explanation within the last 2000 years

The police don't witness murders directly. Very rarely do we have video recordings from multiple angles of murders. Most of the time, homicide detectives have to piece together what happened from lots of different pieces of evidence. Detectives start by looking at the existing evidence and guessing what likely took place. They try to collect additional evidence to see if it agrees with the initial guess. If not, they alter their "guess" until they have enough evidence to be confident that the "guess" is reasonably consistent with what actually happened.
Scientists are detectives of nature.
For those studying evolution and related fields, it's very similar. Speciation normally happens on scales measured in thousands of years at least. Just as detectives can't physically travel back in time to witness a murder directly, scientists can't live long enough to gather enough data points to show speciation happening directly.
One example of macro is the evolution of insecticide resistance in insects or antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Also read this and cure this ignorance that religion has dealt you.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/

Gabrielshow24:
Oya tell the world, whether my message was about fossilization 🤔?
Am waiting🥲.

This is your message Mr. Lie lie


Millions of years seem like a befitting explanation 🤔
The same way fossilization occurs in "millions of years"🤔
It has not been empirically proven so, it's just the only plausible explanation.



From the above, what is the main theme or topic of that post?
U r both ignorant and dishonest. The worst type

jaephoenix:
The police don't witness murders directly. Very rarely do we have video recordings from multiple angles of murders. Most of the time, homicide detectives have to piece together what happened from lots of different pieces of evidence. Detectives start by looking at the existing evidence and guessing what likely took place. They try to collect additional evidence to see if it agrees with the initial guess. If not, they alter their "guess" until they have enough evidence to be confident that the "guess" is reasonably consistent with what actually happened.
Scientists are detectives of nature.
For those studying evolution and related fields, it's very similar. Speciation normally happens on scales measured in thousands of years at least. Just as detectives can't physically travel back in time to witness a murder directly, scientists can't live long enough to gather enough data points to show speciation happening directly.
One example of macro is the evolution of insecticide resistance in insects or antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Also read this and cure this ignorance that religion has dealt you.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/

If you had payed attention, I said "direct" observance of macro evolution.

I am well familiar with this!
Also, the example you cited is micro at best—insecticide resistance!

You still haven't proved to me the direct observation of macro evolution.

Your friend gave the best answer, Time scale!
Since, you couldn't resist the need to be smart you decided to show your ignorance 🤨!!!

jaephoenix:
This is your message Mr. Lie lie


Millions of years seem like a befitting explanation 🤔
The same way fossilization occurs in "millions of years"🤔
It has not been empirically proven so, it's just the only plausible explanation.



From the above, what is the main theme or topic of that post?
U r both ignorant and dishonest. The worst type

The main topic is that macro evolution hasn't been proven by direct observation!!!
The issue your friend raised is Timescale—Millions of years.

That's why I used the same "millions of years" yardstick that science believes is required to form fossilization but instead the contrary is present today!!!

🤔 Don't you think at all?
Even if I were to give you the benefit of a doubt that I didn't structure the message well you should have known better that my progressive message was on "macro evolution"!!!

Gabrielshow24:
Elegantly poised in writing rubbish.
Every Scientist knows that macro evolution has not been directly observed as at yet!!!

Even the bacteria you allude to is micro at best🤨.
Common sense is not common!!!

Always confidently talking rubbish.

Jaephoenix gave you several examples of "macro evolution" that have been observed but you changed it to direct observation because that is how dishonest you are. Once you see that you lost the argument you will change it.

Meanwhile there has been macro evolution DIRECTLY OBSERVED in the following case:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-witnessed-in-real-time-a-single-celled-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organism

Oya come and change your argument again.

LordReed:
Gosh you are stupid sha. You claim to have read the article and it doesn't hit you that the work is only a subset of the evolutionary theory which is one of the reasons the paper would include the paragraph I quoted and further says this:

There are around 31,000 single-nucleotide positions in the genome where present-day humans from all parts of the world carry only a novel (derived) nucleotide, whereas both the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes carry the ancestral nucleotide, conserved since the split from chimpanzee.

It is when you acknowledge you're an ignorant fucktârd that's when you begin to actually learn.

Of course, I implied that.
Or where you blind when I told you that they gave a theoretical background to the problem statement 🤨?

Most importantly they were able to extract the genomes of Neanderthals!!! — from which your elucidation is a direct Implication!!!

Like I said it's a theory that doesn't have a direct observation!!!

Until when it has.
I subscribe to micro evolution!!!

Summary: they were able to extract the genomes of Neanderthals that existed 'years' ago.

It's not a direct observational proof for macro evolution!!!

It only substantiates the theoretical assertions of evolution!!!
Nothing more, nothing less!!!
Educate yourself and stop showing your ignorance 🤤!!!

You did better earlier with the "timescale" allusions until you fumbled yourself up by bringing that article as an evidence for the direct observation of macro evolution 🤔

LordReed:
Always confidently talking rubbish.

Jaephoenix gave you several examples of "macro evolution" that have been observed but you changed it to direct observation because that is how dishonest you are. Once you see that you lost the argument you will change it.

Meanwhile there has been macro evolution DIRECTLY OBSERVED in the following case:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-witnessed-in-real-time-a-single-celled-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organism

Oya come and change your argument again.

You are an idiot
That's micro evolution!!!

LordReed:
Always confidently talking rubbish.

Jaephoenix gave you several examples of "macro evolution" that have been observed but you changed it to direct observation because that is how dishonest you are. Once you see that you lost the argument you will change it.

Meanwhile there has been macro evolution DIRECTLY OBSERVED in the following case:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-witnessed-in-real-time-a-single-celled-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organism

Oya come and change your argument again.

I am a Scientist, from the very beginning I have been aware of the facts.
Even the question I asked suggested that I intend for direct observational proof👀!!!

Mind you, I clearly subscribed to micro evolution but macro evolution, although has substantiated proof, has no direct observational proof 👀!!!

Something I was very sure you and your cohorts will fall into!!! 🙃
In your bid to sound wise, you ended up being foolish🤕

Gabrielshow24:
I am a Scientist, from the very beginning I have been aware of the facts.
Even the question I asked suggested that I intend for direct observational proof👀!!!

Mind you, I clearly subscribed to micro evolution but macro evolution, although has substantiated proof, has no direct observational proof 👀!!!

Something I was very sure you and your cohorts will fall into!!! 🙃
In your bid to sound wise, you ended up being foolish🤕

You have been given direct observations so quit your yapping.

Gabrielshow24:
You are an idiot
That's micro evolution!!!

Single cell to multi cell is micro evolution? You are a dumb fucktârd.

Gabrielshow24:
Of course, I implied that.
Or where you blind when I told you that they gave a theoretical background to the problem statement 🤨?

Most importantly they were able to extract the genomes of Neanderthals!!! — from which your elucidation is a direct Implication!!!

Like I said it's a theory that doesn't have a direct observation!!!

Until when it has.
I subscribe to micro evolution!!!

Summary: they were able to extract the genomes of Neanderthals that existed 'years' ago.

It's not a direct observational proof for macro evolution!!!

It only substantiates the theoretical assertions of evolution!!!
Nothing more, nothing less!!!
Educate yourself and stop showing your ignorance 🤤!!!

You did better earlier with the "timescale" allusions until you fumbled yourself up by bringing that article as an evidence for the direct observation of macro evolution 🤔

Dumdum the nucleotides indicate common ancestry you imbred cretin.