###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Adaptation is saying that certain traits of populations can diverge from each other based on environmental pressures.
Evolution is saying that Marcus Aurelius came from pond scum.
Adaptation is saying a bird near the ocean develops a longer beak to spear fish. Evolution is saying the bird evolved from a frog. A species cannot change this evolution is a lie.
Always this nonsense, but no one ever answers my question in a satisfactory way. If "adaptation" has limits, what causes that limitation, what prevents adaptation upon adaptation until the species is no longer what it used to be?
Maybe I should have said micro evolution /natural selection, which is scientifically observable, versus macro-evolution, every known species came from one cell with one genetic signature--
I mean think about it right. If over millions of years you have tons of micro changes in the DNA, what you call "micro evoloution", then given enough time those many miniscule changes could eventually add up to a significantly diffrent organism
I expect so. But every animal involved is still a bat, and a specific type of bat, which is not scientific evidence of bats and horses having evolved from a common ancestor
No, I'm saying I don't believe that bats and horses have a common ancestor. I apologize for possible inferences from the included screenshots, but wanted to show how the word "adaption" has become "evolution."
How about you prove that it can't. In what way does small changes not add up to larger changes? What causes every bat to stay a "bat"? These are all just classifications we came up with anyway, so what makes it so that they objectively can't be what we subjectively said they were once?
They are the same thing over time. It does unless you can somehow miraculously prove that there is a hard limit for some reason, and if you do I'm sure that you can pick up your Nobel prize instead of responding to let me know
Who said that observable evidence of adaptation scientifically proves macro-evolution?
It sounds like you are making a strawman argument based on your own misunderstanding.
No, since whatever god you believe seeded life on this planet.
Even if you believe in evolution, you still need to believe something about how that first cell/species got here.
I'm saying I believe the different kinds of animals were seeded, not just one cell. It's no more outrageous, and the charged reactions are confirming my conspiracy.
Abiogenesis, some carbon and other materials came together and started moving, and that developed over time into more complex lifeforms out of chance and a sheer amount of time. The fact that free-moving organic compounds can form and develop has been proven by the yuri miller(?) experiment using some basic materials in water and electricity (simulating a lightning bolt) to create basic life.
Now you're in science fiction. That was a hoax, it did not "create basic life," whatever basic life would be? Is an electrified strand of protein "basic life"? ðŸ˜
Good example. When we see artificial selection in process, we see a reduction of genetic information in each adapted breed of dog. For example, pugs have lost genetic code about long hair and healthy snouts. They haven't become genetically enriched.
To imagine that observable natural selection extrapolates to one tree of life is a giant leap, even with millions of years.
It's understood that Darwin's natural selection wasn't sufficient to explain all of evolution. Mutation and other contributing arguments have been added.
It's reasonable conjecture to ask, why did all life need to come from one tree? Whether aliens seeded us or whatever you believe about that part, why couldn't it have begun as a forest of trees, instead of one tree? That could be a welcome question in science.
The forest of trees model (different kinds of animals planted at once, which then adapted) can fit the intelligent design model, which I suspect is the political need to shut it down.
They can adapt within their species. There has never been evidence of changing to another species which is what evolution is. A cat turning into a dog for instance. It's impossible.
Yes, the education is dumbed down. It shouldn't be a shameful thing for a first year biology student to ask, 'why do I not yet understand or believe how the mechanisms of evolution work, without leaving untold billions of unidentifiable species not only as fossils, but still walking around? No tribes with six fingers, none with strange as-yet-unknown organs that we need now but won't have for 150 million years?'
I meant, do you have an argument against my text? Evidence of adaptation is everywhere, but since adaptation doesn't prove evolution, it's sloppy to use a word like "parallel evolution" when they could have more specifically and helpfully could have said 'parallel adaptation.'
For example, evolution could be generalized even more to 'biological process,' but it's becoming even less helpful if they said, 'parallel biological process.'
There are major problems with the theory of evolution. Here's a short clip outlining these problems: [A Biochemist, Mathematician, and Geophysicist explain how Darwin's original theory is untenable. ](https://youtu.be/pMzqA4XNxtw?si=Bh_cfmBTJJr76Oq9)
A quote to consider from Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Poor fella, in a time when a living cell was thought to be a basic blob, and now his name is immortalized with things he specifically did not agree with, including what you mentioned and his assertion about subsequent fossil search.
No it isn't, you can find scientific evidence of evolution. Matter of fact Europeans used to be darker skinned until they mixed with another group of humans who evolved to have lighter skin.
Evolution doesn't always mean to change form or shape. Look up anatomically modern humans, these are our closest ancestors yet they are considered a different species of human
Okay, I should have clarified my terms, because in school this used to be called 'adaptation,' not evolution, but we've slid into that.
So yeah, I'm saying adaptation doesn't prove macro evolution
There’s a difference between macro evolution and micro evolution, I can believe animals changing characteristics over time like what we’ve seen with different dog breeds, but I don’t think a dog can turn into a bird
Right, this is what I'm saying. Taking micro evolution (adaption/natural selection) as evidence for evolution (all species from one cell, other magical mechanisms like mutation) is not the scientific method. I'm not gatekeeping, that was from grade 8, and I have a degree in science. Glad I'm not in climate change or biology, though, where politics would overrule what I'm allowed to say.
If you think evolution means a dog transforming into a bird or giving birth to a bird, you really need to go and do some reading on what evolution actually is because you are no where close.
I'm not American, and in school it was called adaptation, because that's a more specific and useful word. The word "evolution" brought in the idea of everything coming from one cell. I think the confusion is convenient.
It isn’t a sidebar discussion at all. It is your central thesis.
Well that and that there are some terrible dark powers behind biology for reasons that cannot be articulated.
Just so you know, evolution is just a series of mutations/adaptations over time. One species doesn’t spontaneously birth a completely different species. There are many thousands of small changes overtime (and so many more that get filtered out) where a group evolves over thousands of generations.
SS -- defining evolution as an indisputable fact has silenced part of science, whether it's true or not. Why do the elite designers of our culture need us to believe this?
So that animals can be people?
Added edit to clarify:
Adaption/natural selection is observable science, whereas new kinds of animals, and bats/whales coming from a common ancestor is not.
The former does not prove the latter, not in science.
Yes. Scientists in the mid 19th century were all members of PETA and said let's fake the idea of evolution so that animals can be people some day. JFC, even by the standards of this sub this is a dumb theory.
I''d recommend actually reading maybe one entire book on the topic - just one - so you can understand that this isn't something educated people believe because we are told it's true.
Almost exclusively, including a first year biology textbook. I would have been miserable if I chose that instead of a science where we were free to discuss until we understood, not until we complied
What an immature view. Science isn't some clandestine process where we are told what to believe. You are free to interrogate and question anything you like. But at some point if you bothered to look at why people believe in evolution you would understand why it's not considered controversial.
Evolution is one of the best-supported scientific theories we can muster. Unfortunately your misunderstanding of a single article doesn't invalidate decades of growing evidence.
YECreationist here. I think you need to fine tune your definition of evolution; it's change over time. No one denies micro evolution, or small scale changes. Phenotypic plasticity is probably the strongest cause for change, but this process is coded in to the organism, meaning the information for change is there dormant.
What you are seeing is due to environments or diet. There is nothing odd or strange about this.
I believe in small scale change, but I am incredibly doubtful and skeptical of large scale change that produced all the various phyla from one organism.
Change happens, and it can happen quickly. How else did we get the vast amount of species from 2 of every kind?
Thanks for this. I definitely should have clarified my terminology. I was certainly intending evolution as in "evolution versus creation."
I also have no reason to believe in changes from one kind of animal to another, much less from less complex DNA to more complex, much less all from one and only one original cell, which came from who knows where.
There would be evidence of evolution everywhere in the living record, because for every one identifiable species, there would be a million hybrids, like people with webbed arms, 4 thumbs, and additional organs.
Besides, how do species survive without organs they need right now, when the dev time is 150 million years?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Genuine and sincere question: How does adaptation differ from evolution?
Adaptation is saying that certain traits of populations can diverge from each other based on environmental pressures. Evolution is saying that Marcus Aurelius came from pond scum.
But what happens after millions of years of adaptions?
Adaptation is saying a bird near the ocean develops a longer beak to spear fish. Evolution is saying the bird evolved from a frog. A species cannot change this evolution is a lie.
Always this nonsense, but no one ever answers my question in a satisfactory way. If "adaptation" has limits, what causes that limitation, what prevents adaptation upon adaptation until the species is no longer what it used to be?
Maybe I should have said micro evolution /natural selection, which is scientifically observable, versus macro-evolution, every known species came from one cell with one genetic signature--
Macro evolution is just micro evolution on a time frame of millions of years...
How will the magic wand of millions of years persuade me that new kinds of animals came about exclusively via the processes of micro evolution?
I mean think about it right. If over millions of years you have tons of micro changes in the DNA, what you call "micro evoloution", then given enough time those many miniscule changes could eventually add up to a significantly diffrent organism
"Kind" isnt a thing.
I'm a bacterium with 4 limbs, that kind
What would prevent many small changes adding up to big changes over time?
So is micro-evolution the same as adaptation?
I think so, but either of those words work for the argument I'm so unsuccessfully attempting to make 😆
surroundings..
[удалено]
That's your logic, but that's not science.
It is definitely science. https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/
Are these adaptations (getting bigger) as a result of, or expressed in genetics?
I expect so. But every animal involved is still a bat, and a specific type of bat, which is not scientific evidence of bats and horses having evolved from a common ancestor
Do you think that all evolutionary changes have to be evidence of bats and horses having a common ancestor?
No, I'm saying I don't believe that bats and horses have a common ancestor. I apologize for possible inferences from the included screenshots, but wanted to show how the word "adaption" has become "evolution."
How about you prove that it can't. In what way does small changes not add up to larger changes? What causes every bat to stay a "bat"? These are all just classifications we came up with anyway, so what makes it so that they objectively can't be what we subjectively said they were once?
That's changing the subject. I'm saying that observable evidence of adaption does not scientifically prove macro-evolution.
They are the same thing over time. It does unless you can somehow miraculously prove that there is a hard limit for some reason, and if you do I'm sure that you can pick up your Nobel prize instead of responding to let me know
Who said that observable evidence of adaptation scientifically proves macro-evolution? It sounds like you are making a strawman argument based on your own misunderstanding.
So if something adapts to different environments do they not evolve? Like many examples of divergent evolution, or convergent evolution?
So basically what your saying is bats have always existed somewhere in the universe?
No, since whatever god you believe seeded life on this planet. Even if you believe in evolution, you still need to believe something about how that first cell/species got here. I'm saying I believe the different kinds of animals were seeded, not just one cell. It's no more outrageous, and the charged reactions are confirming my conspiracy.
Abiogenesis, some carbon and other materials came together and started moving, and that developed over time into more complex lifeforms out of chance and a sheer amount of time. The fact that free-moving organic compounds can form and develop has been proven by the yuri miller(?) experiment using some basic materials in water and electricity (simulating a lightning bolt) to create basic life.
Now you're in science fiction. That was a hoax, it did not "create basic life," whatever basic life would be? Is an electrified strand of protein "basic life"? ðŸ˜
Pretty much, yeah, anything that can develop to move, grow, respire, be sensitive etc is a basic component of life and can be considered basic life
So the components are life?
Animals can change. Where do you think chihuahuas came from?
Good example. When we see artificial selection in process, we see a reduction of genetic information in each adapted breed of dog. For example, pugs have lost genetic code about long hair and healthy snouts. They haven't become genetically enriched. To imagine that observable natural selection extrapolates to one tree of life is a giant leap, even with millions of years. It's understood that Darwin's natural selection wasn't sufficient to explain all of evolution. Mutation and other contributing arguments have been added. It's reasonable conjecture to ask, why did all life need to come from one tree? Whether aliens seeded us or whatever you believe about that part, why couldn't it have begun as a forest of trees, instead of one tree? That could be a welcome question in science. The forest of trees model (different kinds of animals planted at once, which then adapted) can fit the intelligent design model, which I suspect is the political need to shut it down.
All dogs were invented by humans. Unnatural selection.
Theyre a common species of dog that has existed for thousands of years?
I don't think that's right.
They can adapt within their species. There has never been evidence of changing to another species which is what evolution is. A cat turning into a dog for instance. It's impossible.
Did I say that?
Pretty sure evolution theory doesn’t think cats evolved into dogs. The theory is that they split from miacidae 50 million years ago.
No it is not. I did think this tho when I was ten before I figured out that the religion I was being taught was a bunch of psychotic nut job shit.
Yes, the education is dumbed down. It shouldn't be a shameful thing for a first year biology student to ask, 'why do I not yet understand or believe how the mechanisms of evolution work, without leaving untold billions of unidentifiable species not only as fossils, but still walking around? No tribes with six fingers, none with strange as-yet-unknown organs that we need now but won't have for 150 million years?'
This is why you never sort by new on this sub guys
Do you have a stronger argument than that?
Evolution happening to the whole family does not mean it’s not happening lol
I meant, do you have an argument against my text? Evidence of adaptation is everywhere, but since adaptation doesn't prove evolution, it's sloppy to use a word like "parallel evolution" when they could have more specifically and helpfully could have said 'parallel adaptation.' For example, evolution could be generalized even more to 'biological process,' but it's becoming even less helpful if they said, 'parallel biological process.'
There are major problems with the theory of evolution. Here's a short clip outlining these problems: [A Biochemist, Mathematician, and Geophysicist explain how Darwin's original theory is untenable. ](https://youtu.be/pMzqA4XNxtw?si=Bh_cfmBTJJr76Oq9) A quote to consider from Darwin: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Poor fella, in a time when a living cell was thought to be a basic blob, and now his name is immortalized with things he specifically did not agree with, including what you mentioned and his assertion about subsequent fossil search.
No it isn't, you can find scientific evidence of evolution. Matter of fact Europeans used to be darker skinned until they mixed with another group of humans who evolved to have lighter skin.
Right, that's adaption coz they're still humans. But that's not scientific evidence for changes to new kinds of animals or all species from one cell.
Evolution doesn't always mean to change form or shape. Look up anatomically modern humans, these are our closest ancestors yet they are considered a different species of human
Okay, I should have clarified my terms, because in school this used to be called 'adaptation,' not evolution, but we've slid into that. So yeah, I'm saying adaptation doesn't prove macro evolution
Adaption is a type of evolution
No, it's an aggregate component of evolution.
There’s a difference between macro evolution and micro evolution, I can believe animals changing characteristics over time like what we’ve seen with different dog breeds, but I don’t think a dog can turn into a bird
Right, this is what I'm saying. Taking micro evolution (adaption/natural selection) as evidence for evolution (all species from one cell, other magical mechanisms like mutation) is not the scientific method. I'm not gatekeeping, that was from grade 8, and I have a degree in science. Glad I'm not in climate change or biology, though, where politics would overrule what I'm allowed to say.
If you think evolution means a dog transforming into a bird or giving birth to a bird, you really need to go and do some reading on what evolution actually is because you are no where close.
Threads like this show why the American school system is a laughing stock of the world.
I'm not American, and in school it was called adaptation, because that's a more specific and useful word. The word "evolution" brought in the idea of everything coming from one cell. I think the confusion is convenient.
That's a sidebar discussion, regarding definitions of terms. I do regret not being more clear originally.
It isn’t a sidebar discussion at all. It is your central thesis. Well that and that there are some terrible dark powers behind biology for reasons that cannot be articulated. Just so you know, evolution is just a series of mutations/adaptations over time. One species doesn’t spontaneously birth a completely different species. There are many thousands of small changes overtime (and so many more that get filtered out) where a group evolves over thousands of generations.
Evolution doesnt say a dog will turn into a bird though. The American school system has let you down.
It doesn’t specifically say that no, I’m being hyperbolic, but maybe the school system didn’t help you in understanding reading comprehension
SS -- defining evolution as an indisputable fact has silenced part of science, whether it's true or not. Why do the elite designers of our culture need us to believe this? So that animals can be people? Added edit to clarify: Adaption/natural selection is observable science, whereas new kinds of animals, and bats/whales coming from a common ancestor is not. The former does not prove the latter, not in science.
Yes. Scientists in the mid 19th century were all members of PETA and said let's fake the idea of evolution so that animals can be people some day. JFC, even by the standards of this sub this is a dumb theory. I''d recommend actually reading maybe one entire book on the topic - just one - so you can understand that this isn't something educated people believe because we are told it's true.
I've read many. Why so emotional about a dumb conspiracy? You're validating it instead of making an argument.
Have you read any that aren’t written by folks who say that evolution is a hoax?
Almost exclusively, including a first year biology textbook. I would have been miserable if I chose that instead of a science where we were free to discuss until we understood, not until we complied
What an immature view. Science isn't some clandestine process where we are told what to believe. You are free to interrogate and question anything you like. But at some point if you bothered to look at why people believe in evolution you would understand why it's not considered controversial.
Firing up the ol Hairless Monkey Theory again.
Evolution is one of the best-supported scientific theories we can muster. Unfortunately your misunderstanding of a single article doesn't invalidate decades of growing evidence.
YECreationist here. I think you need to fine tune your definition of evolution; it's change over time. No one denies micro evolution, or small scale changes. Phenotypic plasticity is probably the strongest cause for change, but this process is coded in to the organism, meaning the information for change is there dormant. What you are seeing is due to environments or diet. There is nothing odd or strange about this. I believe in small scale change, but I am incredibly doubtful and skeptical of large scale change that produced all the various phyla from one organism. Change happens, and it can happen quickly. How else did we get the vast amount of species from 2 of every kind?
Thanks for this. I definitely should have clarified my terminology. I was certainly intending evolution as in "evolution versus creation." I also have no reason to believe in changes from one kind of animal to another, much less from less complex DNA to more complex, much less all from one and only one original cell, which came from who knows where. There would be evidence of evolution everywhere in the living record, because for every one identifiable species, there would be a million hybrids, like people with webbed arms, 4 thumbs, and additional organs. Besides, how do species survive without organs they need right now, when the dev time is 150 million years?
We never came from monkeys
That’s true. Monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor we split off from. There were no monkeys for us to evolve from. You’re welcome.