@MrColuber It is always amusing to see the evolution denialists lying their butts off selectively quote-mining scientists, always leaving out the parts where the scientist endorses evolution. A sad state of affairs. But then, you can't tell too big a lie for Jesus!
What on earth is this supposed to prove? Anyway, it is pretty clear from comparative genomic work that tree shrews are probably the 'closest living relative' to primates. Now how the contentiousness of the relationship between tree shrews and primates 'disproves' evolution, i have no idea...
And by this guy's own logic, does the fact that primate's maternal behaviours closely match that of humans mean that primates and humans are closely related?
"way back in 1966" - 40 year old data can be of questionable relevance, such is the nature of science.
The article in question stated "no close relation", that does not equate to "Shrews are not relatives of the Primates" as you put it, it just means they are distant relatives, ie sharing a common ancestor further back in the evolutionary tree than say monkeys and primates.
Even species that are closely related can have drastically different maternal behaviours. Take fish for example, some are egg layers, some are live bearers and some are mouth brooders. In addition, some species of fish fiercely protect their eggs/offspring, while others do not, and some will even eat their own offspring. Going by the logic of the speaker in this video, that would suggest the various species of fish are unrelated.
Primates, Tree Shrews, Lagomorphs, Rodents, and Colugos are Euarchontoglires. We're members of the same major clade.
MrColuber 1 year ago
@MrColuber It is always amusing to see the evolution denialists lying their butts off selectively quote-mining scientists, always leaving out the parts where the scientist endorses evolution. A sad state of affairs. But then, you can't tell too big a lie for Jesus!
Aarbutusfigeroa 11 months ago
oki primate came from fish at the start they dnt act the same the guy obv a religious freak lol
philwelzy 2 years ago
What on earth is this supposed to prove? Anyway, it is pretty clear from comparative genomic work that tree shrews are probably the 'closest living relative' to primates. Now how the contentiousness of the relationship between tree shrews and primates 'disproves' evolution, i have no idea...
Daubentonia76 2 years ago
And by this guy's own logic, does the fact that primate's maternal behaviours closely match that of humans mean that primates and humans are closely related?
spentfromnz 3 years ago
"way back in 1966" - 40 year old data can be of questionable relevance, such is the nature of science.
The article in question stated "no close relation", that does not equate to "Shrews are not relatives of the Primates" as you put it, it just means they are distant relatives, ie sharing a common ancestor further back in the evolutionary tree than say monkeys and primates.
spentfromnz 3 years ago 2
Even species that are closely related can have drastically different maternal behaviours. Take fish for example, some are egg layers, some are live bearers and some are mouth brooders. In addition, some species of fish fiercely protect their eggs/offspring, while others do not, and some will even eat their own offspring. Going by the logic of the speaker in this video, that would suggest the various species of fish are unrelated.
spentfromnz 3 years ago