Evolution Tree vs Creation Orchard

Which explains modern biodiversity more accurately?

Is it just me or has there been a sharp increase in creationism/evolution threads in the last few weeks? Is there an underlying cause or is it a statistical fluctuation?

It was probably just my influence. It's like a virus I tells ya.

There's a bunch of shitters who spam retarded threads. They don't seem very creative, because they cycle through the same handful of topics over and over. Right now they're doing creationism, but they might move on to perpetual energy or global warming denial next.

Actually, there was just one shitter (I think).
It was me mostly.

interesting point, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

Our ancestors were indistinguishable from one another, in fact they so indistinguishable that they would hybridize with other species and subspecies for a long period of time. They most likely resembled chimps, but walked upright like a man. Think Sahelanthropus, and. I don't mean the machine.

Global warming denial was last week, not that that guarantees it wont be next.

>So that means it would have to have features of both
< ERROR: illogical conclusion >

The problem with "missing links" is that they are always well-defined creature in it`s own ecological niche, often not related with it`s supposed descendants.
Coelacanth is a deep sea dweller, who never sees the shore.
Even evolutionists agree that archaeopteryx is a separate lineage to birds.
Neandarthals were not a primitive, more chimp-like humans, but a separate lineage that coexisted with Homo sapiens sapiens.
Then scientists put the burden of being "transitional species" on some incomplete or even theoretical fossil.

It's totally possible that the evolutionary tree of life has several starting points. It's just they almost certainly converge at one point or another.

So the orchard depicted there is just an exaggeration of that concept.

> Which explains modern biodiversity more accurately?
There is no "more". The "tree" is accurate, the "orchard" is flat-out wrong.

30 years ago it might have merited 8/10 as a troll. Then DNA sequencing became a thing and now we can objectively determine the common ancestry of any species for which we can obtain DNA (i.e. anything still alive, or anything which died recently enough that we have more than just bones). Note that we don't need the DNA for the common ancestor, only its descendants.

But even without genetics, anyone denying the common ancestry of e.g. vertebrates is clearly being wilfully dishonest; it's not something you can credibly claim to believe.

I've been thinking about something.

If life really did arise by chance as a natural byproduct of chemistry, why hasn't it happened more than once?

This is a serious question btw, not trying to shitpost.

Because the chemicals that made up the first life would be consumed immediately by modern day life. The right conditions for life to arise again are not available. Even if it did, the proto-cells would likely be consumed by other life as well, erasing any evidence of abiogenesis.

I wonder, if we could somehow breach the underground water reservoirs that have been isolated since forever, would we also find life there? A different kind of life?

Nice Satanic trips! We didn't evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor. They evolved to their current chimp state alongside our evolution, and our common ancestor is either dead or living in both of us

Highly doubt that. The temperatures and pressure down there are inordinately high for any life to form...

at this point orchard makes more sense and with the ever growing evidence (regarding most specifically humans) imo it is only a matter of time to put this debate to bed.

The resistance from people who already bought into the tree interpretation will wither when the more critical next generation challenge the old dogmas more and more.

summerfag children

neato! I think I've heard of this before, is it related to the fact that when you observe the animals they are always reproducing the same species? I think I saw that on a zoo commercial, or was it on national geographic, haha! sometimes I have to wonder, if the animals are all in the same kingdom, and yet they are classified as mammal, vertebrate, dinosaur, etc. So is it even possible for them all to be in the same kingdom? and after that, how do you incoroporate fungus and plant into that category, haha! never-the-less, if they're all in the same kingdom, then that inplies that they're in the same common ancestry, which would have to be in the ancient past, and how many millions of years would it take for that to happen? LOL! you also have to think, it really makes you think, like, if all animals evolved from a common ancestor millions and billions of years in the past, then how come the names of the animals don't go in alphabetical order with age? wouldn't the names of the oldest extinct animals begin with the first letter of hte alphabet, then working it's way through to the later letters when you get to modern animals?

It's more to do with patterns and ratios than either of those. There are abrupt gaps between many species, and not much in the way of transitional species. Why isn't the alleged Wolf-Dog still around, when the Hyena is? This cannot be explained using natural selection as the reason. Also, whoever designed us did not do as good a job as those who designed the animals. We are nothing without our tools. How is that even possible in Nature?

>wolf-dog

I meant Bear-Dog, a common ancestor of Wolves and Bears.

>< ERROR: illogical conclusion>
it would have to have features of both in order to be the most simplistic changes between the ancestor and the descendents according to ocham's razor.

How about something like this? I mean it's probably have larger brow ridges, but still.

*it would probably

well it depends how you count features. if you counted anything you could then everything would share the DNA feature, skin feature, hair feature, etc.

No. Your logic is flawed.
Changing A to B and C does not requier A to have any features of B and C. At all.