/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15606404
the opponents of evolution don't oppose things changing thats obviously observable look at OP, they oppose extrapolating this into a common origin type argument which holds no weight under observation. species are present in the fossil record, the process of speciation or one species becoming another one is not. so the bear argument or the hooved animal argument is pretty odd. you can have similar looking animals who also adapt to their environment so they become dissimilar. this is not evolution it's natural selection.

it's dangerous intellectually to strawman your opponent because it let's you confidently say things like this:

>shrink based evolution
by which you mean
>adaptation due to atmospheric pressure

which you imply if not outright state are identical statements. you are conflating observable reality with a scientific world view for which you have no evidence for, the transition of all living forms from one original form. on the face of it, the claim is so outrageous that only a religious thinking person could even apprehend it. in fact it is a religious claim, you just replaced god with nature and state the same causal chain