Alright anons, I've got an elementary question on evolution.

File: b24c9937ec13378867ab08b7c0424f56.jpg (53KB, 800x467px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x467px

>>2453366
I'm a bit confused, are you asking about how asexual beings evolve or how they are categorized? Or both?

I'm sorry for the child abuse you suffered anon.

>>2453534
Are homo sapiens really 1.5 million years old? I thought it was around 100 thousand?

>>2453366
There are many different definitions of what species means, since irl things aren't so cut and dry, and because some definitions can only make sense in some situations (as you point out).

>>2453366
>I went to a Christian school, so we never covered
You just went to a shitty school, I covered evolution while being on a Christian school.

Also, to answer your question, mutations happen.

>>2453366
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK8325/#A4082
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protozoa#Classification
>The classification of protozoa has been and remains a problematic area of taxonomy. Where they are available, DNA sequences are used as the basis for classification; however, for the majority of described protozoa, such material is not available. Protozoa have been and still are organized mostly on the basis of their morphology, means of locomotion, and for the parasitic species their hosts.[citation needed]
It's really difficult to classify them and it's prone to errors.

>>2453534
I'm asking about the categorization, I understand the idea of mutation and all that, I'm just curious how you'd go about classifying things which reproduce asexually.

>>2453540
>>2453560
It was a fundamentalist school in the U.S., so we were taught the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is impossible because giraffes were impossible.

>>2453551
>>2453612
Ah, see, I thought the answer wouldn't be simple. Thanks for those resources though, I appreciate it.

>>2453548
homo habilis

>>2453548
the homo genus is like 2 million years old, but h. sapiens is 280k years old

File: yoda-iguana.jpg (73KB, 551x551px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 551x551px

>>2453633
>because giraffes were impossible

Tell me more OP

>>2455948
Its a thing where the Girraffe's heart slows down when is leans down to get water, so it's heart doesn't blow its brains out. The idea is that if the girraffe's neck is too long, the heart is either too weak to get blood to the head, or too strong to survive getting a drink. Therefore the heart thing would have to evolve first. However, the heart thing would also hurt girraffes with non strong hearts, but as previously mentioned, the strong hearts would kill any girraffe beforew they could reproduce. In summary, the conecpt is that the girraffe is impossible with evolution (to be fair, they could have evolved at the same time randomly, but that is even more unlikely)

Source: Am a christian who has seen the argument like once but pondered it for way too long

File: Pepe3.jpg (5KB, 250x193px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x193px

>>2456659
>>2455948
Forgot to mention, am not the anon you replied too, and also I misspelled giraffe EVERY TIME.

>>2456659
>something that has no scientific consensus, still haven't nailed it down yet
>MUST BE IMPOSSIBLE, GOD DID IT
wewlad. how do they explain away the stuff that there IS a widespread consensus for which evidences the theory of evolution? seems pretty unscientific to try to say that because we don't precisely understand the specific path of the giraffe's evolutionary trajectory, evolution in its entirety, applied to every other case, is untrue... but i guess religion is almost the antithesis of science in the first place.

>>2456667
Yeah I came to a similar conclusion about the argument as well. If the argument is that lack of knowledge about one thing proves god did it, then we are back to God of the Gaps.

>I get that if you have two animal who can reproduce with each other and create offspring which is genetically viable they are of the same species
This is what they told me at my public school too, but it's not really accurate. For example, bison and cattle can interbreed and produce viable offspring (almost all american bison have cattle admixture), but they aren't even in the same genus. The distinction between species is a somewhat arbitrary human construction, and often has less to do with whether they CAN produce viable offspring, but whether they DO produce viable offspring, in animals. It is also based on phenotype differences (less so in sexual organisms) as is obviously the case with asexual organisms, as well as somewhat on genetic difference.

>>2456659
maybe, i dunno, the neck got a bit longer, then the heart a bit stronger, and so on unti we got the giraffe?

File: explooding g-raft.jpg (401KB, 1112x1008px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1112x1008px

>>2456659
their blood pressure is controlled via a series of muscular valves in the neck just like yours is. Otherwise your head would explode when you did a handstand.

most of these supposed problems with evolution are couched in simple misunderstandings of anatomy. And when I say simple I mean the anatomy is extremely complex but the creationists' minds are extremely simple.