/sci/ - Science & Math

I hypothetically test it every chance I get, I accept it as baseline

Despite never researching evolution beyond high school level, i've come to the conclusion that I don't care either way.

>In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection

Because no one has come up with a better explanation so far.

>>6203473
That doesn't mean that you just blindly accept an unproven theory as fact.

Because no one does anymore. We accept the evolutionary theory, which is different from Darwinism but takes many aspects from it.

What do you mean by "Darwinism"? Do you mean evolution? Evolution is observed and tested constantly.

>>6203501
What do you mean by unproven? It has plenty of DNA evidence behind it. Sure, in the strict sense we cannot say that it's 100% surely correct, but in that way we cannot be certain in anything in the universe.

It has an overwhelming amount of proof behind it and thus that we can accept the theory as by far the most likely scenario, and for this reason it is taught in school.

>>6203513
The origin of homo sapiens.

>>6203521

That evolution occurs is 100% surely correct. Particular evolutionary patterns/rates are sometimes hard to quantify but evolution is a real phenomenon.

>>6203524

You didn't define anything. What does Darwinism state about the origin of homo sapiens?

Is the dispute here that we descended from primates? Because we did, and the fossil record (not to mention genome similarities) make this incontrovertibly clear.

>>6203532

I want to make a quick correction. "Descended from" is a loaded expression that leads to a lot of contention. However, modern humans do descend from an earlier era of primates (not exactly comparable to the modern form). We and potentially other modern species both descended from a common ancestor.

>>6203538
How does one species evolve into a different species?

I give value on what something is based on. In this instance, its a metric fuckton of proof and during the centuries the theory has been common knowledge, there really hasn't been a single instance in which the theory would have been falsified.

So there's that.

And the fact that most analytic, scientific minds don't really "blindly" believe anything.

But you surely knew that, you just came to collect some replies on a troll thread in /sci/. Or you're from the southern (biblethumping) part of the third world country called USA.

i dont accept darwinism.

it seems not to practically work within higher organisms.

>>6203544
Lots and lots and lots of sequential mutations over an enormous amount of time.

>>6203544

There are two interesting schools of thought about this (probably more lesser-known ones).

I think the "popular" - not necessarily more well-regarded, but at least better known - interpretation is Phyletic Gradualism. This describes how over time, a genetically diverse population mingling, reproducing, and mutating on the individual level eventually results in two or more distinct species.

The other is Punctuated Equilibrium, which posits instead that the divergence occurs pretty rapidly (relatively speaking) and then both distinct species exist in a certain degree of homeostasis for a while, provided they're equipped to survive amply in the environment.

All that needs to be understood is how sexual reproduction works: two unique members of a population produce a new, genetically unique member. Mutations, various forms of selection, geographic isolation, genetic variation, etc. all play into how a single species might eventually diverge into two qualitatively different ones.

i accept darwinism as a theory because there is evidence to support it.

if you want to argue that theories cant be trusted because they are theories then im not bout it

>>6203544
Two members of a certain race reproduce. Their offspring will carry a mix of the parents' genes in a semi-random split. Sometimes the offspring is lucky and will have good genes. These offsprings have a higher chance of survival which enables them to reproduce more and produce even more children. The unlucky ones have a higher chance to die out.

Over a fuckload of years, thanks to the law of big numbers, there is a good chance that the overall gene pool of this race will continuously improve. For homo sapiens, we got taller, more intelligent and lost some of our body hair.

Over even more of a fuckload of years, like millions of years, the race or species will change enough that it will be considerably different compared to what they were a million years ago. Effectively they become a new species.

Now add some mutation into the mix (that is, the offspring might randomly have a genetic sequence that is not found in either parents due to a fuckup of mother nature), some races (actually most of them) completely dying out and this is evolution.

>>6203544

With time. Geological time, to be precise.

Take for instance a computer mouse. Take one from the early days and you get a rectangular box with two buttons. It was okay, because it served the purpose of moving the cursor on the rare computers in some science labs.
Now change the environment a bit; more users using mice to various more things. Surely, the box would do as well, but it isn't quite as good for the gamer, who wants an ergonomic mouse with many buttons. And the box isn't really that good for a graphical designer who needs a steady and heavy mouse for precise work.
New species are born.

And this all in just a few decades.

Factor in geological time and you get biological species which vary as their environments change. When they have changed enough, you can classify them as different species.

Its just that geological time is really hard to actually comprehend. You can understand it, but you still can't quite comprehend the magnitude of it.

>>6203566
>using an analogy which lends credence to intelligent design

Might want to be careful about how you select your examples.

>>6203562
Seems unlikely. I mean, homo sapiens have only been around for around 200,000 years right? Seems like a pretty colossal leap in an extremely short period of time.

4 billion years of life, and in the minuscule amount of time we've been around, we've advanced beyond anything that has ever existed on this planet by an astronomical amount.

>>6203453
>I accept it as a baseline
>>>/sci/
/thread

>>6203576
Huh?
Homo Sapiens from 200 000 years ago haven't changed much compared to today. "Advanced beyond anything that has ever existed" was our own doing, and has nothing to do with evolution.

>>6203576

The more "intelligent" a species is, the more quickly it can learn how to be creatively resourceful, gradually progressing toward a more abstract thought process.

>>6203566
>>6203565
>>6203563
Wouldn't a massive number of individuals have to all mutate the same way at the same time for the mutation thing to be true?

Dare I say you guys believe in Darwinism based upon mere...faith?

>>6203591
People mutate all the time in loads of various ways. Mutations manifest itself within a species if it proves beneficial for survival.

>>6203576
Evolution is not necessarily slow. Mother nature can sometimes be so fast that it's scary.
For example, a few years ago biologists found a certain new fungi in Chernobyl that practically eats radiation.

>>6203595
Could my future child have a mutation caused by me and my wife that gave him Super powers?

Like a super mutant?

>>6203598
Obviously. How else would superheroes be real?

>>6203591
>Wouldn't a massive number of individuals have to all mutate the same way at the same time for the mutation thing to be true?

What? No. Consider a population of furry animals living in a cold climate. Over many centuries/millenia/what have you, the natural ebb and flow of climatological conditions causes the mean temperature in the ecosystem to drop by an appreciable margin.

Now, looking at how random mutation works, we can reasonably expect some mutations to result in less furry offspring, and some in more furry offspring. Given the changed conditions of the climate, which is more likely to withstand the cold?

Eventually you end up with a new species, adaptively equipped in an entirely different way than the "old" species. Sometimes geographical isolation (say one half of the population is segregated in a warmer climate as well) causes divergence to happen through this process of Natural Selection.

>>6203595
The same mutation in more than one individual at the same time?

>>6203585
>>6203584
Why were homo sapiens the only ones in 4 billion years to reach this level of intelligence?

>>6203604
Yes. If that mutation helps for survival there's a higher chance that they'll survive, and through inheritability there'll be more offspring with the mutation.

>>6203591
Mutation can spread among members a certain race quite fast. If on average you have two children by the age of 30, and so do your descendants, then in a thousand years a total of 2^(1000/30) ~~ 8 billion people will have some of your genes.

Blue eye is a mutation. No human had blue eyes a few thousand years ago, according to a research all blue eyed people share a common ancestor with this particular mutation.

>>6203608

You're noting how singular, exceptional, and non-trivial the human brain is, and you're asking us why it should take so long to emerge naturally?

>>6203608
Because there are millions of efficient ways to be a successful species? Intelligence is not the only way to pass your genes you know?

>>6203620
We're infinitly more successful than any other species that has ever existed by a massive margin though.

>>6203608
Do you have any idea how many species went extinct over all those years? We don't even know most of them.
Humans got lucky.

>>6203627

That's not even remotely true. Bacteria and viruses are far more "successful" biological entities than humans.

>>6203628
Seems like quite a stretch to chalk it all up to luck.

>>6203632
Bacteria and viruses haven't created civilization anon. They aren't self aware.

>>6203636
But that's what it is.
Evolution is a big fucking random number generator that randomly mixes DNA chains.

>>6203636
>Bacteria and viruses haven't created civilization anon. They aren't self aware.

These are extremely arbitrary measures of "success". You're judging the accomplishments of humans from a human's point of view. What do civilization and self-awareness contribute to the welfare of bacteria or viruses? Complex species have existed and coexisted for hundreds of millions of years and never were either of these things necessary to ensure their survival.

>>6203641
They aren't arbitrary at all. Why are you denying the superiority of humanity over every other living thing on the planet?

As soon as bacteria can understand the world on the same level that we do, I will consent to them being as successful as us. But until then, they aren't. It's not just about survival.

>>6203636
>Seems like quite a stretch to chalk it all up to luck.

Consider another point: If you were not self-aware, you would not be able to consider the notion of the emergence of a species of unparalleled self-awareness. The only reason we can have this conversation is because we're self-aware.

Furthermore, you simultaneously note that it took geological time scales to allow a species like humans develop, yet you're acting in principle like our existence came about suddenly and spontaneously and that makes us special.

>>6203649
>They aren't arbitrary at all. Why are you denying the superiority of humanity over every other living thing on the planet?

Give me a call when human beings are able to live thousands of feet underwater next to geothermal vents or in acidic lakes or near spots of normally lethal radioactivity.

Once again, you're naively judging the accomplishments of humans from the perspective of a human, which you should train yourself not to do.

>>6203640
I don't know anon. Look at how far we've advanced in a few short thousand years compared to the previous 4 billion years that life has existed.

>>6203636
And yet if a huge cataclysm hit our planet we will be wiped out while many bacterias won't. Who is successful now bitch?

Evolution is not a race for higher complexity, evolution is the result of the reproduction and survival.

>>6203658

I already addressed that here >>6203585, and responded to your subsequent question here >>6203618 and here >>6203651.

>>6203657
So you think merely existing is equal to creating civilization? Why?

I think you should read this.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IBladder.shtml

>>6203661
Let me know when bacteria develop the intelligence to be able to divert the cataclysm as save the planet.

>>6203675
Can you save the planet?

>>6203668

Creating civilizations is an admirable feat of human creativity and ingenuity, but it is not a universally "superior" achievement. Civilizations crumble and die. They exist to honor our own self-absorption, in a way.

You're going about this from a very anthropocentric view. It makes you look rather foolish.

>>6203665
You didn't really answer anything in any of those posts anon.

>>6203680

I think you're just unable to grasp it.

I don't believe in evolution. I understand evolution.

>>6203658
I already told you. Evolution is not necessarily slow.
It also gets faster the more specimen you have. Human population has massively increased in the last few thousand years.

>>6203682
If Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck could, I probably could too.

>>6203685
You're really downplaying the enormity of human achievement, and overplaying the achievement of bacteria existing

>>6203691

You might as well not believe in DNA.

>>6203670
I expected that this article will be about the evolution of the bladder organ. I was left disappointed.

>>6203700

No. You're missing the central point: life exists to survive. If one life form is better at surviving than another, that makes it more adaptive, capable, and enduring.

The camp that believes humans have "transcended" their biological foundations and that we are uniquely privileged compared to mere "animals" is misguided and wrong. Get over it, or stop shitting up the board with "Nuh uh! I disagree! Nuh uh!" and leave already.

>>6203700
Read the link already >>6203670
Your misconceptions about evolution are listed in many sites already.

>>6203692
Again, I'm just pointing out how we've advanced in two hundred thousand years more than every other living that that has ever existed in four billion years combined.

>>6203714

You're still completely unable to comprehend why your use of the term "advancing" is invalid. You're also unable to comprehend how evolution works or what drives evolutionary change. That you seemed to have trouble accepting evolution to begin with is all becoming very clear now.

>>6203711
You're now assuming you know why life exists in the first place, which is entirely different philosophical question. The answer of which I really doubt is just to survive.

>>6203724
What, you're saying our intelligence hasn't advanced?

>>6203725

I didn't say that's "why" it it exists, I said that's what it exists to do. If a life form does not pass on its genes, or if the entire population simultaneously stops reproducing at all, that population will die out.

Philosophy has no place in biology or evolution. If your intention here was to bring about a laborious discussion of existentialism you're on the wrong board.

>>6203735
Yeah you're right. /lit/ is way cooler than you guys. I'm going to go start a Proust thread now.

>>6203729

Our intelligence as we measure it has advanced, yes, but as another anon mentioned earlier, sapient "intelligence" is not the only mechanism conducive to the survival of a species. Without survival, the rest is for naught. Even with survival, the rest is irrelevant - survival and adaptability is key.

>>6203743
Our intelligence has made the rest irrelevent though. We can make ourselves survive through unnatural means.

>>6203763
Pretty much.
Intelligence is like a Mage in dungeons and dragons. You can pull a tool out of your pockets for any situation that does everything better than a race specialized for it.

>I have sharp claws rawr
>fuck you I have a sword
>I can run fast!
>I can't hear you over the sound of my supersonic jet
>I'm a seal and have a thick layer of fat that protects me from the cold!
>Welcome to the club.

Fucking mages.

>>6203780
>>6203763
You still refuse to read the common misconceptions about evolution.

Worse than ignorant people are the ones that refuse to learn.

>>6203604
>>6203613
No. Learn to population genetics. E.G. take any intro course to biology in college.

Or read a book, like Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show On Earth.

>>6203604
>>6203613
Please see:
>>6203616

>>6203591

If the mutation was caused because of the environment then massive numbers would kinda mutate in the same way

if its just by chance then only small number do, like how we have a small population of midgets

They exist because they mutated in conception

>>6203501
>unproven theory

>>6203608
>Why were homo sapiens the only ones in 4 billion years to reach this level of intelligence?

They gained the right advancements for intelligence

Standing upright and shape of the head and nervous system lead primates to become very smart and social, however we were able to sweat and cool better than other animals which lead us to hunt more food, we also cooked our food and it lead to more efficient digestion. Such small things added up and ended up gaining the development of a smart brain

>>6203604
This is like asking if more than a few people ever have brown, or blonde hair.

Yes you retard.

>>6203763
You finally said something worthwhile. Yes us humans may be at the point we can say "fuck you" to evolution and do shit our own way.

Which makes no sense in seeing how you don't accept the probable truth of evolution.

And what does human advancement have to do with the truth or falseness of evolution? I'm getting that your very proud to be a human and probably can't comprehend your just another species on this planet.

>>6203448
Bu... I don't understand the debate on this. Isn't it bleeding obviously correct? Why on earth would you not think this??! I'm not even a biologist, I'm a mathematician

>>6203501
Someone doesn't know what "Theory" means
Go back to reddit

>>6203591
Firstly that can happen due to radiation- as it causes the DNA to mutate (hence why it causes cancer)

Secondly, there is a lot of incest in the animal world. Imagine an ape community where a mother gave birth to a mutated child- and that child had 46 chromosomes instead of 48, due to fusion, and thats how the first human was formed. That proto-human raped an ape, and passed on his genetics to his child. Then he raped the child, purifed the genetics and washing away the ape genetics, until another pure, female human was formed. Then they reproduced and produced human children in large numbers. That's how the mutation survived.

Because its my religion. I have faith in Darwin obviously.

>>6203448


'Blindly' accept?

You're a religiturd.

>>6203613
>If that mutation helps for survival there's a higher chance that they'll survive

Its not always about survival though

If a certain mutation helps you secure a mate then that mutation is also more likely to stay even if it can be a burden on personal survival

Eg: Peacock feathers

>>6203670

what the hell is IB in IB ladder

>>6203591
No.
Easy example.
It is hot. You got two dogs. One had slightly longer hair and the other had slightly shorter hair. Because it is the dog with shorter hair will have a higher chance of surviving. His children will have short hair as well and so it will have a higher chance of mating. Eventually dogs with shorter hair become more common than ones with longer hair in that environment. This happens with almost every mutation.

>>6204639
>mutating hot dogs
Who in their right mind would eat those?

God damnit /pol/

I haven't even read this thread yet but I can just feel the autism flowing through /sci/ veins

>>6204672

if scientific topics cannot be validated regardless of what the opposing heretic is then what is the point of this board

we might as well get this board deleted

darwinism is the atheists refuge against mommy's hurtful religious upbringing which told them they were naughty for sticking objects up their butt, like richard dawkins who got molested by a priest and secretly liked it

evolution occurs, it is the mechanisms and details that we are not sure about.

>>6204672
>anything i dont like is /pol/
go be underage somewhere else

>>6204686
>we might as well get this board deleted
That's a capital idea! http://www.4chan.org/feedback

>>6204728
> nothing exploded...
where did you get this info ?

>>6204795
from the haystack he got his other strawmen from

The mutation isn't caused by the environment (you're getting epigenetic/Lemarckian here). The environment means the mutant is more likely to reproduce, so the mutation is in their offspring and subsequently the whole population

Why does /sci/ blindly accept bait?

>>6204839
terminal boredom

>>6204839
probably because this board is so dead and boring since the reddit mods delete anything and everything that isnt AMA, EPA, FDA, and APA approved.

>>6204859
Such as this thread?

>>6204869
please tell me which government agency or government-backed organization specifically prohibits the idea of questioning how accurate darwinism is?

>>6204859

>implying the reddit science boards aren't some of the only good and informative boards on there

>>6204930
thats because the "good and informative" stuff gets upvoted. that doesnt work on an image board. if you want reddit, go to reddit.

>>6204930

That's true - you can actually learn something from reddit. /sci/ is better for lulzyness, though.

>>6204947
>/sci/ is better for lulzyness
And OP delivers.

Why do you blindly accept Gravity?

>>6204953
Because it prevents my fat ass from getting out of this chair.

>>6204954
>[insert example of evolving/resistant change of bacteria and my health]
Am lazy.

does the theory of evolution make accurate predictions that have been independently verified?

>>6204958
>[insert witty come-back about my evolving ass]
lazy as well

>>6204964
nope

>>6204964
It predicts every new species found will have a common ancestor with every known species.

>>6204970
Difference is what am saying corresponds to reality.
At least the empirical one.

>>6204967
See >>6204973

>>6204978
My ass creates its own reality.

(not OP btw)

>>6204964
>>6204967

Maybe you should spend 5 seconds to Google "predictions made by evolution." The first few results are lists of great examples.

>>6204973
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131021153202.htm

>No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests

>>6204989
a) that's a hominim ancestor, they still have a common ancestor mr retardo, just not a hominim one.

>>6204994
sounds like circular reasoning to me.

>>6204997

then you don't know what circular reasoning means

>>6205008
by your logic everything in the universe could have a common ancestor regardless of who or what had a hand in it and this would somehow prove darwinism. do you understand how retarded that is?

>>6204989
You can't make an ad hominin argument and expect to be taken seriously.

>>6205022
/sci/ really is reddit on 4chan

>>6204823

are you saying all mutations happens regardless of the environment and the only reason they are more in numbers is because the non specific mutants did not survive because they could not mutate fittingly for that environment?

I think the environment where cellular division takes place does affect mutation

So microbes that reproduce are affected by the entire environment of the world because they fucking reproduce where they can, in complex organisms cell division takes place in eggs and wombs and the change of environment in that can easily cause mutations

So saying mutations are not caused affected by environment at all seems wrong

>>6205014

You genuinely did not understand the original statement, "It predicts every new species found will have a common ancestor with every known species."

This statement is not necessarily invalidated by finding two species which do not share a recent or particular common ancestor. It means if you trace back the phylogeny (evolutionary branches) of life on Earth far enough, you will find that all life originates from a single species (perhaps some form of primordial Archaea or what have you).

In comparisons between human DNA and various forms of plant DNA, the similarity ranges anywhere from 5-10% to 50-60%.

>>6205046
>are you saying all mutations happens regardless of the environment and the only reason they are more in numbers is because the non specific mutants did not survive because they could not mutate fittingly for that environment?

Not him, but this is exactly correct.

>I think the environment where cellular division takes place does affect mutation

What do you mean by "the environment"? Do you understand how genetic replication works? Mutations occur when there are chemical errors in transcription. Mutation can also be exacerbated by radiation (which is a type of environmental effect, if you like).

>>6204940
>if you want reddit, go to reddit.

just went evolution subreddit

its the same fucking shit creationism vs darwinism

>>6204964

yes, it predicts how viruses/bacteria/fungi/pests(like crop insects) can evolve in the environment and help make medicines/vaccines and pesticides for each

>>6205058
>Mutations occur when there are chemical errors in transcription.

exactly i meant these occurs can easily be caused by the environment

not just radiation though, ifeven just the temperture changes you can affect the chemical reactions that takes place

but lot more happen than temperature in environment, chemical changes on a macro level of the environment like the change of atmospheric content of different gasses an affect mutation

saying mutation is not affected by environment seems false

I am actually beginning to believe all mutations are environmentally caused some are just at a very micro level that just affects single cells by whatever caused it to have error in the chemical replication process

>>6205068
and yet no virus bacteria or fungi has ever had massive mutations capable of changing it on a significant enough level to prove macro-evolution despite the fact that many have rapid mutations comparable to millions of years of evolution of other species in a short amount of time.

>>6205014
Utterly missed the point retardo

Anon asked if Darwinism makes testable predictions.

It predicts that every form of life you examine will share a common ancestor with another, and this is something you can test.

The above says nothing about whether such a test will give positive or negative results. It's just showing that Darwinism is falsifiable and so scientific,

However, up to this point, all things tested seems to have a common ancestor with everything else.

>>6205087
>Anon asked if Darwinism makes testable predictions.
you forgot the second part of his sentence
>that have been independently verified?
alluding to the idea that its been tested true

>>6205084
define "significant enough".

>>6205084
>macro-evolution

evolution is evolution, there is no macro or micro

The goal o medicine is to find a way to stop them from evolving, everyone cannot survive that is what evolution indicates some species can go extinct if they cannot adapt to the environment

Unfortunately some viruses like HIV evolve faster and differently than we can destroy them. HIV has proven it can withstand harsh environments introduced to them

But maybe we will find a way to make them go extinct like small pox, one can hope

>>6205084
>macro-evolution
Go back to jail Hovind

>>6205093
Oh, OK, well that was addressed in my last para

>>6205084
>macro-evolution
there is a fairly arbitrary line between macro and micro evolution, that can be moved as soon as scientific proof gets close to macro evolution

>>6205097
>evolution is evolution, there is no macro or micro
thats like saying theres no micro-economics or macro-economics. dont play those games. evolving a land mammal into a whale is a huge assumption that needs huge evidence.

>>6205110
But it's all micro evolution until the two species you measure from are adequately far away from each other, you don't just make a huge leap.

>>6205110
the fact of a common ancestor is that evidence

>>6205110
>evolving a land mammal into a whale is a huge assumption that needs huge evidence.

The evidence is fossils showing the missing links between land mammals and whales

>>6205110
>evolving a land mammal into a whale is a huge assumption that needs huge evidence.

Nobody said a land mammal evolved into a whale. Evolution doesn't mean everything evolved to and from everything else and any species can just evolve freely into any other species. Don't take your eyes off the prize here.

>>6205122
Evidence is also the massive commonality of structures between a whale and, for example, me. Structures in the large scale, like a spine, to identical biochemical processes, like folic acid metabolism, to having massive DNA in common.

>>6205128
>Nobody said a land mammal evolved into a whale.
Yes, they did, dumb fuck.

>>6205135

Running a search for "whale" in this thread returns >>6205110 as the first post that even brought it up.

Furthermore, a "missing link" >>6205122 between land mammals and whales does NOT mean that land mammals "evolved into" whales as you assumed.

>>6205128
>Nobody said a land mammal evolved into a whale.

Land mammals DID evolve into whales and there are fossil records to prove thm

you might wanna look them up

>. Evolution doesn't mean everything evolved to and from everything else and any species can just evolve freely into any other species.
want to look it up

evolution means whatever species exist today came from an earlier species

In the case of whales they came from some ancient land mammal

>>6205143
>>6205135

Interesting, I hadn't known this before.

Either way, to OP/whoever else doubts the integrity of the evolution of whales, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

>>6205142
If you mean nobody in this thread, then state that. Zoology says whales evolved from land mammals.

Your second para seems to be saying evidence does not mean that what it is evidence of is true. Well, maybe, but it supports the truth of it. The real evidence is here >>6205130

>>6205143
>fossil records
These are weak proof. The best proof is shared DNA

>>6205110
>thats like saying theres no micro-economics or macro-economics.

No its not saying that becuase Economy and Biology are differet subjects

Economists came up with the term micro and macro becuase there different varibles considered in each

however whatever laws apply in micro economics also apply in acro economics

Also Biologists dont classify evolution as micro or macro evolution because they dont see it as two differnt things

>>6205156

Why are similar skeletal structures weak proof?