That's not what he wrote though. He wrote that animals descended from a common ancestor, and that through changes over time, the population of Earth became diverse and different over time. Species don't "adapt" to nature, what happens is a series of genetic variations over time become more dominant, or simply become isolated to the point where they give rise to new species with new traits and new genetic information. Your understanding, much like your attitude, of evolution is childish at best. Animals don't "adapt", nature just weeds certain populations out, however to assume, as you did repeatedly (when you said "animals encourage the strong to survive") that traits are picked based on their strength or relative weakness is also wrong. There are plenty of animals still in existence today who are ill-suited to their environments, and for whatever reason have managed to carry on despite this. Genetic drift, mutation, and some external forces are what contribute to new species. The way you phrase your understanding of "natural selection" is far closer to eugenics, or the idea that if you breed Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jane Fonda together somehow you'll get Michael Phelps as a kid. That notion is preposterous, and Darwin purposed nothing of the sort.
I used darwin as a throw away example in a post that actually had nothing to do with him...and you want me to post THAT????? No thanks, dude.
I am well aware that adaptations dont happen overnight....in fact...EVERYONE is aware of that. So, why do I have to write a text book explaining it??
Not only did Darwin not say that adaptation is not immediate (Arnold + jane = Phelps) but i didnt say it either. I made the mistake of assuming that EVERYONE knows what I mean when i say that species adapt.
I agree with your take on darwin. Obviously genetics changes happen over LONG periods of time. Animals (as I stated before) arent smart enough to hand pick which traits to have...but in order to survive in their ecology, natural selection helps develop the traits they need.
Of course, also as you correctly point out...not all animals adapt. Not all people have computers...or even running water. There will be instances where the species dont adapt. This is nature, not magic. Again, this si someting almost every child is aware of, and I shouldnt have to spell it out in a post.
Since it was a throw away line in a post that had little to do with darwin, I failed to go full into it...instead just using the childhood version we all learned in grade school...wrongfully assuming people would be able to fill in the rest.
Heres another one...
Candy canes are made of sugar
Now...am I right??? yes and no...the process of making a candy cane involves more than just shaping a stick out of sugar and waiting. However...do I really have to explain the rest??? Is it really necessary to do that? In your eyes..YES...i have to go into complete detail about the production of candy canes.
Thats my stance on the darwin discussion. I am incompletely right...he DID state that species adapt...but for more information, I advise people to read Origin of The Species, not a post on a superhero message board.
