/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8995364
>I still don't get how people can refute evolution, considering it's an observable mechanism.
Show me one kind of animal turning into another in observable time.

>As a chemfag, shifting equilibrium due to factors making one species more favorable to self-catalyze (see; reproduce) is just an analytical curiosity, nothing hard to believe that could happen.
You are also familiar with the extremely high improbability of abiogenesis, yes?

>Stuff that can live and make copies of itself better than anything that competes for the same resource will be in higher abundance
I thought evolution was about "change," not getting "better."

>Combine this with what we can quite literally observe about how DNA works, and the mechanism for population level evolution is super simple to see.
So are you saying certain populations are more "evolved" than others, including man?