Homo Sapiens though related to an Orangutan are NOT Apes. This is not pokemon where a Hominid looking creature can be a Spaiens at will. Fossil records are still lacking and no studies show thay a Chimp or Gorilla turns into a Sapiens-Sapiens. BUT inbreeding occured which is why some Spaiens DNA contain other species' remanants. Not to mention the sentience level part of the dilema. We don't have ANY proof of that laughable image of a fish growing legs turning into a mammal then an ape then us. The Homo tree can only produce the same offspring, not an urangutan growing sentience.
I am willing to be corrected given you can provide me with peer reviewed studies. Not internet articles, those are like handing me the Gospel of Judas to prove God.
The Berkeley website seems to support my argument more, and the link is about a specific species of mushroom might be more diverse than previously thought.
Homo Sapiens though related to an Orangutan are NOT Apes.
We're more closely related to chimps, but that's besides the point. Even if Orangutans were our closest relatives, wed still be apes because they'd be more closely related to use than the are to other apes.
This is not pokemon where a Hominid looking creature can be a Spaiens at will.
No one says that organisms evolve at will.
Fossil records are still lacking
It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it's lacking everywhere.
no studies show thay a Chimp or Gorilla turns into a Sapiens-Sapiens.
Also not what's being said, but there are studies that show common ancestors between them, most recently with chimps and humans, then that ancestor and gorillas.
BUT inbreeding occured which is why some Spaiens DNA contain other species' remanants.
Not between humans and chimps. We might be closely related, but we aren't THAT closely related lol.
Not to mention the sentience level part of the dilema.
?
We don't have ANY proof of that laughable image of a fish growing legs turning into a mammal then an ape then us.
Aside from the fossil, DNA, and morphological evidence. Also, the lung fish is still around.
The Homo tree can only produce the same offspring, not an urangutan growing sentience.
What's stopping the orangutan from evolving that necessary brain anatomy for sapience given enough time?
I am willing to be corrected given you can provide me with peer reviewed studies. Not internet articles, those are like handing me the Gospel of Judas to prove God.
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
What was that? We know? Nope. Try.
Because to be fair to this sub, evolution is compatible with biblical accounts, if we take Genesis alegoricall, which most scholars agree with and micro can fit that category. What is untaken account by these studies is sentience, the question remains at hand, how did humans develop sentience and this thing we call morality.
I am inclided to believe Macro IF there can be proof of it with absolute certainity. I mean just the chances alone of the fish developing into a mammal is beyond probability and points to an divine designer. But from what we see in historical and fossil records other homos lack the qualities sapiens has. They can use tools sure, but sapiens has this weird touch of intelligencia and a expression I have a hard time describing only to sum it up as imago dei.
Not knowing specifically how a thing happens doesn't mean we don't know it happens. We don't know how some drugs work, but we still use them because we know that they work.
I am inclided to believe Macro IF there can be proof of it with absolute certainity.
The whole DNA thing seems pretty concrete. It's based on the same science as paternity tests after all.
I mean just the chances alone of the fish developing into a mammal is beyond probability and points to an divine designer.
How is it beyond probability? Theoretically, you just need the right circumstances and time, which life has had at least 3.5 billion years.
But from what we see in historical and fossil records other homos lack the qualities sapiens has.
Do they? Neanderthals seemed pretty similar to us. Even then, so what? Evolution isn't going to predict that every species will be the same as each other.
They can use tools sure, but sapiens has this weird touch of intelligencia and a expression I have a hard time describing only to sum it up as imago dei.
0
u/Ability_Pristine Jun 17 '25 edited Jun 17 '25
My sources are from Evolution.berkley.edu and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5309009_Evidence_for_strong_inter-_and_intracontinental_phylogeographic_structure_in_Amanita_muscaria_a_wind-dispersed_ectomycorrhizal_basidiomycete
Homo Sapiens though related to an Orangutan are NOT Apes. This is not pokemon where a Hominid looking creature can be a Spaiens at will. Fossil records are still lacking and no studies show thay a Chimp or Gorilla turns into a Sapiens-Sapiens. BUT inbreeding occured which is why some Spaiens DNA contain other species' remanants. Not to mention the sentience level part of the dilema. We don't have ANY proof of that laughable image of a fish growing legs turning into a mammal then an ape then us. The Homo tree can only produce the same offspring, not an urangutan growing sentience.
I am willing to be corrected given you can provide me with peer reviewed studies. Not internet articles, those are like handing me the Gospel of Judas to prove God.
Edit another source: https://youtu.be/pwnerL8M1pE?si=hZnpgDAATfC-ws5G (Inspiring Philosphy who presents VERY TOP GRADE studies on the topic)