reactionality

Again, I'm NOT the one that needs to provide evidence, because I have made no claims.

The ORIGINAL POSTER needs to provide proof because their "meme" is an infograph with a claim.

You're twisting the burden of proof, so go f yourself for your bad faith.

Why should I, as the person receiving a meme, research why it is based on fact and not fiction?

That's not how the burden of proof works.

Burden of proof is on the person who posted, so certainly not you. But they're quiet and you're out here telling me to research why the meme is correct.

That amounts to saying you don't know how to prove it, and believe it on pure subjective opinion. Which makes whatever you link idiotic since it might not even prove what you're trying to say.

So you feel good about downvoting someone for rightfully pointing out a lack of evidence, then sending a link to an entire book review which might or might not even show evidence of the thing I was asking for?

LMFAO.

The image is, if you read left to right and top to bottom, moving backwards in time.

I'm not asking why things got to the point they are at today. I'm asking how someone can just populate an image about the ocean hundreds of years ago off of pure vibes.

There is no science behind just adding more animals to increase the fauna/flora density by entirely subjective amounts here. And I can say that it isn't just meant to show an increase because specific years are used, as well as 3 data ponts, so the density of animals in question is the point.

The wish-fulfillment, because we're moving back in time, is that the ocean was that full of life all those years ago. Unless backed by evidence. Which no one has presented so far.

How are you quantifying the amount of each species in the past? Or is this just wish-fulfillment hogwash?

E: Ah yes, the hive-mind defense, downvoting something you have no answer for.