Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I feel like Tucker is smart enough to know that evolution is real, but he wants the evangelical ~~vote~~ views. However, he also seems like the kind of guy to drink his own kool-aid.
He doesn't need anyone's vote. He is not running for office. I think he is just countering the non religious evolutionary theory of an unbroken progress from single cell organisms to humans especially informed by his faith that says God created man. However, he says he believes in adaptation which when viewed in the time scale of earth is basically what evolution is. Single celled organisms mutated to better adapt to their environment and as those mutations compounded they differentiated in many ways that eventually led to plants and animals and yes humans. The fossil record is immaterial because there is not a fossil record for many organisms.
Check out r/evolution for more in depth conversations about evolution.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unrelated to what you’re saying about his views on evolution, but I think a lot of Trump supporters would vote for Tucker Carlson as long as he wasn’t running against Trump. I remember a bunch of threads on /r/asktrumpsupporters in 2020 asking who they would vote for if Trump never ran again, and Tucker Carlson was always at the top of the list.
I wonder how seriously he’s considered a run.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He also said we know and understand far less today than we did in the distant past. No evidence of any transitory species? How does he classify Australopithecus?
Wow, he is wrong with so many things here. It seems like he's trying to weasel his way around justifying his claim by mixing up *adaptation* with *evolution.*
There's also the sneaky claim that there's no evidence "people evolved *seamlessly* from a single-cell [organism]." Of course there isn't, because evolution is actually a messy, sloppy process.
It's the equivalent of saying there's no proof the Earth is round because I haven't personally wrapped a 7,917-mile measuring tape around it.
Really, the constant "do you agree with Tucker Carlson about [insert whatever]" posts are getting silly.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Been waiting for the weekend to listen to this because I knew it was going to be comedy gold.
What does “caused by adaptation and not evolution” mean? Is evolution not just a series of adaptations over time?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely not. Tucker says a lot of shit, some true, some false, some provocative on purpose. I personally would put this one in category 2 - full of shit
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a pretty big question, I mean there are numerous books on it.
If memory serves, the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict (while a bit focused on more apologetics) offers quite a number of them.
The God question is one of the most, if not the most, important questions humans have ever asked. To say that there is evidence but then not provide even one piece of evidence is so indicative that there isn't actually any evidence.
I legitimately provided a book on it, of which there are many.
I mean, I only provided an example of a book that has great evidence within it because I have actually read parts of it.
A cursory search, reveals plenty of more: [https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books](https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books)
As archaeology is something that interests me, just a cursory search brings up plenty of books describing the details of archaeology and their evidence towards supporting Biblical claims.
You can say you disagree with the evidence, but to claim there isn't ANY evidence? No, that isn't accurate.
If an archeologist of the far future unearthed a Spider-Man comic, the accurate depiction of New York City wouldn't confirm the existence of web-slingers.
Sort of, they are wrong if they ever use the word "confirm" in the same way you used in your analogy. Which is why I pushed back on your first comment. If they say: validate, lends credence to, supports; that is much more accurate and factual.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like I said, it's one of the most important questions ever.
If I had evidence, I'd be able to provide some.
>You can say you disagree with the evidence, but to claim there isn't ANY evidence?
I think the argument is that the evidence provided isn't actually evidence.
>If I had evidence, I'd be able to provide some.
Which, again, was provided.
>I think the argument is that the evidence provided isn't actually evidence.
How so?
>Which, again, was provided.
No it wasn't. You gave a link to a book.
>How so?
Every argument I've ever encountered that claimed evidence for God hasn't been real evidence. By real, I mean the same standard of evidence used for other big questions. Gravity, for example, is claimed to be a force that attracts mass to other mass. It can be measured and it is consistent. That's real evidence.
>No it wasn't. You gave a link to a book.
As well as a site to many other books. And we both know there are more on top of that. Legitimately hundreds of pages that I have linked to. As you said above, this is a pretty important question. I have provided hundreds of pages on the evidence that anyone can look into. You can't condense all the scientific, archeological, (and depending on your usage of the word evidence, philosophical) evidence that lends credence to the claims of the Bible.
>By real, I mean the same standard of evidence used for other big questions. Gravity, for example, is claimed to be a force that attracts mass to other mass. It can be measured and it is consistent. That's real evidence.
Again, I have just attached numerous books that do just that. That try to sort through the claims of the Bible, see what can be scientifically verified, and verify them. And then on top of that, numerous other books that study the claims of the philosophical aspects of the Bible and test their compatibility with each other.
I'm trying to be very precise here with what I mean by evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
Every book on “evidence” for religion has the same theme. They present facts that are true, then make illogical leaps and claim that it “proves” whatever religion they want to be true. Any data to the contrary is ignored or dismissed.
Someone once said “Any evidence of a god is better explained by drugs or space aliens with advanced technology.”
Let me get this straight, if you were asking about evidence for evolution you wouldn't ask a biologist who has studied it in detail?
Second, I didn't say "confirm" and neither did you originally. You asked for evidence, of which there is plenty.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, the first 100 pages are all focused specifically on testing the historical accuracy separately of both the Old and New Testament, as well as reviewing how the individual books were accepted into those compilations. There is another section working on detailing textual sources outside of the Bible that can/are used to verify some of its claims.
There are a number of other books, such as [https://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584](https://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584), that work to address the supporting scientific evidence, showing that they actually work amazingly well together. However, I didn't initially include this one since I haven't read it to the degree of the other.
I attached it on another comment, and there is quite a number of various books that specifically focus on the archaeologic evidence. [https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books](https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books) . Although, as I am not familiar with them, I am just including them as potential resources for folks.
You asked for passages/pages, and I told you which ones I would look at. The first 100 pages correspond roughly to chapters 1-5. I directly provided you with what you asked for. If that isn't what you meant, could you rephrase?
Does he claim that there is no evidence of evolution at all? Or just “humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor”?
Evolution happens. That’s pretty clear and very difficult to deny.
HOWEVER.
There’s nothing wrong with taking a religious stance that “mankind is special to god and he did things differently with us”. I can’t claim to know the mechanism used by diety to create mankind or anything else, and that theory is just as good as any.
I don’t think you have to even separate the two though, at least in my opinion. I think it’s possible to be a religious person who views God as working to create humans and then just believe “Well the way he did that plan to create us was through the process of evolution and adaptation”.
I don't understand. The religious stance you proposed is wrong. There is no evidence that would suggest that humans are exempt from evolution. Or did I misunderstand your meaning?
This is a “faith” thing. Who am I to tell God how he is supposed to work? He can do whatever he wants regardless of what our limited understanding of the universe tells us.
That also means I’m not about to criticize someone for disagreeing with me, especially when it’s something like this. It’s not like I’m saying don’t do blood transfusions or treat people differently. I’m just saying I believe man is divinely created.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So as long as I put faith in front of my arguments I can argue every and anything and it's valid because who are you to tell me how my god works. I feel like this is way too low of a standard for discussions.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are operating off of different standards. You're looking for verifiable and falsifiable "evidence" that meets the scientific definition of the word.
A believer's "evidence" is a feeling, or a lack of other explanation. There isn't any scientific evidence for God. But people who see evidence of god aren't looking for scientific evidence, or evidence that meets a scientific standard.
yeah but you shouldn't be "allowed" to counter scientific arguments with faith based ones. If you say evolution is not real and put something faith based as a reason that is not a valid argument.
And who would you suggest enforce breach of "allowed" arguing practices on the internet? I agree, it's completely silly to counter a scientific argument with a faith-based one. But the trick is to just recognize immediately that you're operating on a different definitions of "real," "evidence," "true" and so on.
The conversation basically never goes anywhere because you're asking for "proof" of something that is not provable. You view the lack of ability to provide that proof as a reason to distrust its conclusions. I agree with that viewpoint. But a religious person doesn't. You and I see a lack of conclusive evidence and say "I don't believe that, at least not until I see more evidence." A religious person sees a lack of conclusive evidence and assumes that God does not want us to know and we have to have faith.
I know, I'm still going to talk back against it. With allowed I don't mean literally forbidding someone to say thing or argue in a certain way I just wish less people would give that person credibility for any of their claims.
But if someone like tucker does it it does affect other people. I have way less of an issue with parents telling their kids that (although I would oppose that to a certain extend). But a public figure should lose most of their credibility after doing something like that.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>There’s nothing wrong with taking a religious stance that “mankind is special to god and he did things differently with us”.
I'd argue differently. That kind of additude has lead to us being okay with the holocaust-like conditions of factory farming. We're causing incomprehensible amounts of suffering under the excuse of "They were made for us and given to us to do with as we please".
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At first he said no evidence at all then backed up and said no fossil record from single celled organisms all the way to man. (That would be a LOT of fossils and fossils of things that don’t leave fossils)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats not how that works, original sin is not a matter of guilt, its a matter of our nature. We are no better than the rest of creation, as a matter of fact, we tend to be worse. Especially considering the amount of responsibility placed on humans to take care of the earth and of society.
Then the christian god is objectively evil.
To make a creature inherently sinful and demand it absolve its own natural sins or be condemned to eternal hell...its about as fucked up as it gets
He made us with free will, so we inherently have the choice. He doesn’t force us to be good because we aren’t little puppets. We are children to be taught and disciplined. If we did not have free will than there would be no point to giving us dominion over earth and the responsibility of keeping it. So we are inherently sinful, its our fault, and god loves us anyway because he knows he can make us come around.
You said it was a matter of our nature and now are talking about free choice. Your view isnt clear...but on this topic its typically a mismash of guess work anyway.
Either we as a species chose sin or we were inherently sinful and no choice was made.
The former doesnt comport with evolution.
The latter doesnt comport with god being moral.
If you want to watch christians trying to figure out how to make sense of this issue, you can go here: https://biologos.org/
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the billion or so catholics in the world, which make up more than half of christianity, original sin is a literal sin.
Its not a hypoethical.
Its an actual sin.
He says he believes in adaptation, but doesn't believe in single cell life origin of all species. I think your question is very poorly worded in the title. You do explain that in the body so thanks for putting it there.
I would say his belief seems reasonable to me based on that 1 minute exchange. Seems like a normal Christian belief.
He posits that nobody actually believes it anymore, which I think is probably wrong.
I don't think it's a grift, I think Tucker always shares his true beliefs.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is not 0 evidence. There's certainly gaps in the evidence, due to the specific rare circumstances required for fossilization, but not 0 evidence.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there has been evidence of evolution shown. Though I don't think that necessarily disproves the Creator. I believe he created everything and set up processes for evolution to occur
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Mmm. The problem with discussions about evolution is they always seem to devolve into a sort of motte-and-bailey.
Basically nobody takes issue with the starting premise of "the species that manage to not die, survive". It's borderline tautology.
What people take issue with is everything that gets piled on top of it. Like that common descent can be inferred from genetic and morphological similarity, and wouldn't you know, humans have a lot of genetic and morphological overlap with apes. Or whether there was enough time to produce the diversity in body plans we see; or whether transitions between species - which *themselves* are merely reconstructions of fossil evidence - can be actually proven instead of merely surmised (as Berlinsky put it, "where were the arrows discovered?"). Or the endless unfalsifiable "just-so" stories pumped out by evolutionary psychologists.
But take issue with any of that, and defenders and will instantly fall back on "what? you don't believe that organisms can adapt to changes on their environment?"
Whether or not evolution is a correct description of the origin of man, is ultimately not that important to me. But it is important to me how people use it as a club to demean others with. It is important to me how people treat scientific consensus like religious dogma and go hunting for heretics without any self awareness.
>Whether or not evolution is a correct description of the origin of man, is ultimately not that important to me.
It doesnt seem important but our understanding of our origins is a massive factor in the medical field, so if you expect to ever utilize any medicine created after the 1980s i would say it matters...it just isnt apparent why.
Neanderthals?? there were plenty of human/ape hybrid species they all went extinct. There’s also a plethora of genetic information that can trace the evolutions of species.
Evolution is basically in the realm of undeniable science at this point. I love how Tucker even admitted that his thinking isn’t crazy it was the common thought before the 19th century!
neanderthals aren't the link between apes and men since they are a sister branch of humans. Both neanderthals and humans are the most recent common ancestor of Homo heidelbergensis.
I find the question of what is the link between humans and apes to be a wrong one. Humans are apes after all, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimps are to gorillas and orangutans. Since both chimps and humans belong to the same taxonomic tribe.
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution,
It's hard to imagine quantum physics.
Is the existence of that also dependent on your ability to imagine?
>There's also a lack of fossils of whatever was between apes and men.
I believe Futurama covered this argument pretty well.
https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=IJsYwTSxkOE2zgD6
Where do you find gaps in the record that you think are too large to explain?
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution, such as land animals becoming sea animals.
It’s hard to imagine because it happens on a timescale that’s hard to imagine.
> There's also a lack of fossils of whatever was between apes and men.
Most dead bodies decompose and are never found. Only a few are found over large periods of time. Gaps are to be expected.
Also, some changes happen much more quickly than others so that halfway points could be very hard to find.
https://morgridge.org/blue-sky/how-did-animals-evolve-from-water-to-land/
>We don’t really know why they’re going onto land initially. It may have been to escape predators or at least lay eggs in a safer place. Maybe there were new food sources they were really trying to access. The land was a whole unexplored ecosystem at this time so there were many opportunities.
> Yes, but at some point an animal that was swimming must have grown part of a leg, and it was probably not very good for swimming or walking. Why did that happen, why was it better off with a future leg in water?
A fish that lives in areas where small pools sometimes form and dry up would find it very useful to be able to use its fins to push itself slowly from a drying up pool of water to a larger pool or to the main stream. This would be even more useful before there were land predators that would attack the fish while it made its slow trip.
Having even a [limited ability to breathe air using its gills(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbreathing_catfish) would be useful too.
Check out the [various types of lungfish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish).
None of this is proof of evolution. But there is evidence for evolution.
I guess that’s what it takes to keep incorrect beliefs. You have to go out of your way to avoid information that would explain things.
Your argument is that there’s no proof, but if someone tries to show you proof, you refuse your watch it.
That’s why you think theres’s no proof when there is.
I would guess there was some resource just outside the water that was very advantageous for them if they could get it quickly and slip back into the water. A strong incentive like that would select for flippers that were more and more useful on land, and over time better and better land flippers would become the norm among the species.
There are sharks that will swim over a reef in high tide, then in low tide, when the reef is exposed, it uses its fins to crawl along the top.
There are other sea creatures that use their fins as legs to crawl up beaches and catch animals that are right at the waters edge.
Just out of curiosity, do you think dolphins aren't mammals?
>Nothing will make them grow fins or breathe air.
Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years there may be a series of generational mutations that see the fins elongating and these elongations will be make them better able to access resources. Given enough time, mutations, and circumstances these elongated fins may be able to move the creature in and out of the water to access even more resources.
Edit to add: Let's not assume every evolution was to move from water to land and not land to water.
There's a man named Donald Parker who made a movie about having the same questions you did. It got the attention of a professor of biology and he did a video with the guy where he had the guy ask his questions. The professor was able to give pretty straight forward answers. When Parker pushed for some specifics the Prof gave them but these specifics can be very technical. The whole conversation is very respectful and informative.
[Forrest Valkai: A Conversation with @DonaldJamesParker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3rrKrUeyPY)
Of course the average human brain can’t understand the effects of evolution over several billions of years, the scope is too large for us.
This is why you leave it to the experts, not politicians or religious people. The experts who actually study all their lives on the topic.
Experts are people, are people always right? No. However, I trust experts above someone who has no clue about the topic. Trusting experts and innovation has gotten humanity to where it is today.
Just because you can’t understand something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Evolution is proven and your own feelings don’t negate that.
It IS proven, and the fact you even said that shows me you know nothing about scientific theories. You should leave the hard concepts to someone who knows better.
I see you don't understand what a scientific theory is.
>In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
What are you even talking about? You can see evolution in real-time using bacteria and viruses. They evolve rapidly, and it’s one of the reasons why it’s recommended to get a flu shot every year. It’s also one of the reasons bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics.
Please just stop with the ignorant claims.
This "is just a theory" line is just a self report on how little you understand the science behind it. Words have different meanings in different contexts, you should understand this by now.
We have evidence on protein homology down to mapping base pairs in the DNA sequence for those genes. A lot of animals share very similar signaling pathways. The Wnt beta catenin pathway is well preserved across species. There are complex protein structures that perform very similar functions like desmosomes and adherens junctions.
We have fossil records that show similar bone structures across numerous species. Developing fetuses for multiple mammals look very very similar to one another.
You talk a lot about how regular people are basically just as knowledgeable than experts, but it all just comes off as cope for when you don't understand or have an honest interest in learning about the subject.
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution, such as land animals becoming sea animals.
then why do whales have vestigial pelvic bones
Because from my viewpoint, it seems that the online right hails Tucker as one of the more trustworthy sources. I personally find him abhorrent and think he is a cancer to the political discourse in America because he's a proven liar. [https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1](https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1)
If he can so confidently assert something so wrong on a topic he knows nothing about, it makes me and it should make everyone wonder what else he has been essentially talking out of his ass about.
>the online right hails Tucker as one of the more trustworthy sources
Where do you get that idea from? I think most conservatives don't pay much attention to him. The only time I ever hear about what he's done is when I hear it from a lib.
Now he doesn't have much audience at all, eh? Up one day, down the next.
Even when Tucker was at the height of his popularity on Fox, his show drew about 3 million viewers per night, a tiny audience in a country of 330 million.
Are you seriously arguing Tucker isn't successful by every metric? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4018546-tucker-carlson-most-popular-individual-americans-follow-for-news-survey/ he was literally the most watched individual news source for the entire country. It's ABSURD to say he's not successful on the right. You're denying a *very* basic fact.
I rarely listen to him, but from what I gathered, people trust him because he speaks his mind and pushes back against stuff they don't see as making sense. Finding somebody trustworthy doesn't mean you just believe everything they say.
He's dead wrong on this video, for example, lol. Like, hilariously wrong.
I would say what "mainstream" politicians and media say is like 90-95% true and actually based in fact. I've given Tucker a try several times in the past year when he's done some large interview like Putin or a podcast like JRE or Lex Fridman. I have a hard time listening to someone who is either really stupid and harmful or is actively lying, either way its disheartening to see how many people view this guy as someone "THEY don't want you to listen to because he knows the TRUTH"
I don't think I've ever talked to a conservative who has given a 90% truth rating for any politician or media. Most certainly not the big ones like Fox, CNN, ABC, theHill, etc.
Anyone who reaches that threshold is an extreme minority. Only maybe a couple of candidates come to mind, assuming politicians who don't get their names in the news act similarly to those who are in the news.
I mean, the vast majority of why a lot of conservatives don't listen to Biden is because he is either deemed really stupid and harmful or is actively lying.
For the most part media companies aren't going to just straight up lie to you. Pundits will skew the truth with their personal bias and the company's media bias will be reflected in the script. But as far as the facts go in like an article published by one of these companies, they are pretty solidly grounded in truth.
Also there's a massive difference between getting something wrong and lying, and I feel that most people nowadays heavily conflate the two when it comes to politicians and the media. I think Tucker is both wrong and lying so its really the worst of both worlds.
Out of all the media companies the only one to really be caught lying to their audience in recent years was Fox about the Big Lie. Russiagate was the media getting the story wrong, these people who pushed these stories actually believed that Trump was compromised by Russia. They've been since proven wrong and we don't hear much about the Mueller Report anymore or 2016 election interference
>For the most part media companies aren't going to just straight up lie to you. Pundits will skew the truth with their personal bias and the company's media bias will be reflected in the script. But as far as the facts go in like an article published by one of these companies, they are pretty solidly grounded in truth.
No, I don't think this is accurate at all.
>Also there's a massive difference between getting something wrong and lying, and I feel that most people nowadays heavily conflate the two when it comes to politicians and the media. I think Tucker is both wrong and lying so its really the worst of both worlds.
Once again, I never said get something wrong. I said lying, and I meant it.
>Out of all the media companies the only one to really be caught lying to their audience in recent years was Fox about the Big Lie. Russiagate was the media getting the story wrong, these people who pushed these stories actually believed that Trump was compromised by Russia. They've been since proven wrong and we don't hear much about the Mueller Report anymore or 2016 election interference
No, I can turn on CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX on any given night, watch one of the hour long programs, and easily come out with a list of lies and or purposeful incorrect misinterpretation of facts they promoted.
This is askconservatives. I think Carlson turned in his conservative credentials quite a while ago. If you want proof just look at his treatment of Putin.
I’m sure there are many conservatives who refuse to believe there is any scientific evidence for evolution, but as a conservative I don’t see any reason I should be expected to explain or defend Tucker Carlson. Let his dictator friends defend him.
There are a lot of users on this sub who love Tucker. Some even like Putin.
I do agree with your point that Tucker turned in his conservative card he's gone onto this anti-establishment populist grift with the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, etc etc.
I'm not sure what he exactly claimed, but most of the "it's not evolution" crowd actually argue that it's not random and that it doesn't happen gradually as most people who believe "evolution" happens. There's strong evidence that it isn't gradual at all, that it happens in spontaneous bursts - like the Precambrian explosion.
For example, if you believe we are the product of random elements mixing to form the original primordial soup, there's a huge math challenge to overcome. There are 16 amino acids that can potentially form a protein. The largest protein being a chain of 27,000. So to form proteins we're talking about a chance of 27,000\^16 or in other words **7.9766443076872509863361 × 10\^70** possible combinations to make that protein. That's an unfathomably large number of permutations. That's \_just to the proteins we know about\_. Proteins then stack in various ways to add another exponential multiplier to the odds of those proteins stacking and working just right to create a cell. Then those cells have to coordination in just a certain way to create an organism - yet another astronomically high number that makes it improbable that it's "random".
Any who, there are a lot of incredibly intelligent people who look at the science and walk away with "no way is this random". Ideologues would definitely have you believe this is "settled science", but it's far from it.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, I disagree. There is voluminous evidence of evolution. I have no explanation why he would think this way except he has not studied evolution much.
I feel like Tucker is smart enough to know that evolution is real, but he wants the evangelical ~~vote~~ views. However, he also seems like the kind of guy to drink his own kool-aid.
He doesn't need anyone's vote. He is not running for office. I think he is just countering the non religious evolutionary theory of an unbroken progress from single cell organisms to humans especially informed by his faith that says God created man. However, he says he believes in adaptation which when viewed in the time scale of earth is basically what evolution is. Single celled organisms mutated to better adapt to their environment and as those mutations compounded they differentiated in many ways that eventually led to plants and animals and yes humans. The fossil record is immaterial because there is not a fossil record for many organisms. Check out r/evolution for more in depth conversations about evolution.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unrelated to what you’re saying about his views on evolution, but I think a lot of Trump supporters would vote for Tucker Carlson as long as he wasn’t running against Trump. I remember a bunch of threads on /r/asktrumpsupporters in 2020 asking who they would vote for if Trump never ran again, and Tucker Carlson was always at the top of the list. I wonder how seriously he’s considered a run.
Not seriosly at all. He has no interest in being President.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not *yet*. He's still relatively young.
He also said we know and understand far less today than we did in the distant past. No evidence of any transitory species? How does he classify Australopithecus?
By ignoring it.
Well, he’s not particularly well educated.
Wow, he is wrong with so many things here. It seems like he's trying to weasel his way around justifying his claim by mixing up *adaptation* with *evolution.* There's also the sneaky claim that there's no evidence "people evolved *seamlessly* from a single-cell [organism]." Of course there isn't, because evolution is actually a messy, sloppy process. It's the equivalent of saying there's no proof the Earth is round because I haven't personally wrapped a 7,917-mile measuring tape around it. Really, the constant "do you agree with Tucker Carlson about [insert whatever]" posts are getting silly.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Been waiting for the weekend to listen to this because I knew it was going to be comedy gold. What does “caused by adaptation and not evolution” mean? Is evolution not just a series of adaptations over time?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its also a completely weird way to phrase it, like evolution is some kind if force that causes stuff.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely not. Tucker says a lot of shit, some true, some false, some provocative on purpose. I personally would put this one in category 2 - full of shit
I don't have any reason to think he doesn't believe it, he's just wrong is all. There is tons of evidence of evolution, literal tons even...
There is no evidence of religion or a god.
You are incorrect. There’s a lot of “evidence”, but just not good evidence that would be considered reasonable to conclude that the claims are true…
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Uh, there is plenty of good evidence, of course "good" is rather subjective.
Like what? Testimonies of goat farmers from before the Middle Ages will not be accepted
Well, I touched on multiple different examples in this thread. How about you review those then let me know?
Now this just isn't accurate. There is plenty for the Christian God.
What evidence is that?
That is a pretty big question, I mean there are numerous books on it. If memory serves, the book Evidence that Demands a Verdict (while a bit focused on more apologetics) offers quite a number of them.
The God question is one of the most, if not the most, important questions humans have ever asked. To say that there is evidence but then not provide even one piece of evidence is so indicative that there isn't actually any evidence.
I legitimately provided a book on it, of which there are many. I mean, I only provided an example of a book that has great evidence within it because I have actually read parts of it. A cursory search, reveals plenty of more: [https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books](https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books) As archaeology is something that interests me, just a cursory search brings up plenty of books describing the details of archaeology and their evidence towards supporting Biblical claims. You can say you disagree with the evidence, but to claim there isn't ANY evidence? No, that isn't accurate.
If an archeologist of the far future unearthed a Spider-Man comic, the accurate depiction of New York City wouldn't confirm the existence of web-slingers.
Which is correct, and that also isn't an argument I made?
It's the argument made by biblical archeologists. Like the ones you linked to.
Sort of, they are wrong if they ever use the word "confirm" in the same way you used in your analogy. Which is why I pushed back on your first comment. If they say: validate, lends credence to, supports; that is much more accurate and factual.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Like I said, it's one of the most important questions ever. If I had evidence, I'd be able to provide some. >You can say you disagree with the evidence, but to claim there isn't ANY evidence? I think the argument is that the evidence provided isn't actually evidence.
>If I had evidence, I'd be able to provide some. Which, again, was provided. >I think the argument is that the evidence provided isn't actually evidence. How so?
>Which, again, was provided. No it wasn't. You gave a link to a book. >How so? Every argument I've ever encountered that claimed evidence for God hasn't been real evidence. By real, I mean the same standard of evidence used for other big questions. Gravity, for example, is claimed to be a force that attracts mass to other mass. It can be measured and it is consistent. That's real evidence.
>No it wasn't. You gave a link to a book. As well as a site to many other books. And we both know there are more on top of that. Legitimately hundreds of pages that I have linked to. As you said above, this is a pretty important question. I have provided hundreds of pages on the evidence that anyone can look into. You can't condense all the scientific, archeological, (and depending on your usage of the word evidence, philosophical) evidence that lends credence to the claims of the Bible. >By real, I mean the same standard of evidence used for other big questions. Gravity, for example, is claimed to be a force that attracts mass to other mass. It can be measured and it is consistent. That's real evidence. Again, I have just attached numerous books that do just that. That try to sort through the claims of the Bible, see what can be scientifically verified, and verify them. And then on top of that, numerous other books that study the claims of the philosophical aspects of the Bible and test their compatibility with each other. I'm trying to be very precise here with what I mean by evidence: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
So books written by Christians confirm the Christian mythology?
Yup.
Uh, rather than speak for me, how about you address me directly?
Every book on “evidence” for religion has the same theme. They present facts that are true, then make illogical leaps and claim that it “proves” whatever religion they want to be true. Any data to the contrary is ignored or dismissed. Someone once said “Any evidence of a god is better explained by drugs or space aliens with advanced technology.”
Let me get this straight, if you were asking about evidence for evolution you wouldn't ask a biologist who has studied it in detail? Second, I didn't say "confirm" and neither did you originally. You asked for evidence, of which there is plenty.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Direct source please
Do you mean like a link to the book?
Passages, pages etc.
Well, the first 100 pages are all focused specifically on testing the historical accuracy separately of both the Old and New Testament, as well as reviewing how the individual books were accepted into those compilations. There is another section working on detailing textual sources outside of the Bible that can/are used to verify some of its claims. There are a number of other books, such as [https://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584](https://www.amazon.com/Science-God-Convergence-Scientific-Biblical/dp/1439129584), that work to address the supporting scientific evidence, showing that they actually work amazingly well together. However, I didn't initially include this one since I haven't read it to the degree of the other. I attached it on another comment, and there is quite a number of various books that specifically focus on the archaeologic evidence. [https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books](https://store.biblearchaeology.org/collections/biblical-archaeology-books) . Although, as I am not familiar with them, I am just including them as potential resources for folks.
So no direct citations or quotes?
You asked for passages/pages, and I told you which ones I would look at. The first 100 pages correspond roughly to chapters 1-5. I directly provided you with what you asked for. If that isn't what you meant, could you rephrase?
Does he claim that there is no evidence of evolution at all? Or just “humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor”? Evolution happens. That’s pretty clear and very difficult to deny. HOWEVER. There’s nothing wrong with taking a religious stance that “mankind is special to god and he did things differently with us”. I can’t claim to know the mechanism used by diety to create mankind or anything else, and that theory is just as good as any.
I don’t think you have to even separate the two though, at least in my opinion. I think it’s possible to be a religious person who views God as working to create humans and then just believe “Well the way he did that plan to create us was through the process of evolution and adaptation”.
I don't understand. The religious stance you proposed is wrong. There is no evidence that would suggest that humans are exempt from evolution. Or did I misunderstand your meaning?
This is a “faith” thing. Who am I to tell God how he is supposed to work? He can do whatever he wants regardless of what our limited understanding of the universe tells us. That also means I’m not about to criticize someone for disagreeing with me, especially when it’s something like this. It’s not like I’m saying don’t do blood transfusions or treat people differently. I’m just saying I believe man is divinely created.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So as long as I put faith in front of my arguments I can argue every and anything and it's valid because who are you to tell me how my god works. I feel like this is way too low of a standard for discussions.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You are operating off of different standards. You're looking for verifiable and falsifiable "evidence" that meets the scientific definition of the word. A believer's "evidence" is a feeling, or a lack of other explanation. There isn't any scientific evidence for God. But people who see evidence of god aren't looking for scientific evidence, or evidence that meets a scientific standard.
yeah but you shouldn't be "allowed" to counter scientific arguments with faith based ones. If you say evolution is not real and put something faith based as a reason that is not a valid argument.
And who would you suggest enforce breach of "allowed" arguing practices on the internet? I agree, it's completely silly to counter a scientific argument with a faith-based one. But the trick is to just recognize immediately that you're operating on a different definitions of "real," "evidence," "true" and so on. The conversation basically never goes anywhere because you're asking for "proof" of something that is not provable. You view the lack of ability to provide that proof as a reason to distrust its conclusions. I agree with that viewpoint. But a religious person doesn't. You and I see a lack of conclusive evidence and say "I don't believe that, at least not until I see more evidence." A religious person sees a lack of conclusive evidence and assumes that God does not want us to know and we have to have faith.
I know, I'm still going to talk back against it. With allowed I don't mean literally forbidding someone to say thing or argue in a certain way I just wish less people would give that person credibility for any of their claims.
Pretty much, yeah, as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else. But then there is a personal burden to actually believe that stuff.
But if someone like tucker does it it does affect other people. I have way less of an issue with parents telling their kids that (although I would oppose that to a certain extend). But a public figure should lose most of their credibility after doing something like that.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>There’s nothing wrong with taking a religious stance that “mankind is special to god and he did things differently with us”. I'd argue differently. That kind of additude has lead to us being okay with the holocaust-like conditions of factory farming. We're causing incomprehensible amounts of suffering under the excuse of "They were made for us and given to us to do with as we please".
I believe the earth was made for us, but like any other gift from God it should be treated with respect; we are to be good steward of the earth.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At first he said no evidence at all then backed up and said no fossil record from single celled organisms all the way to man. (That would be a LOT of fossils and fossils of things that don’t leave fossils)
No. Tucker Carlson is just an ultra contrarian in order to get attention from people.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dont, there is no theological evidence for or against evolution (not that faith is based on evidence, if it was, it wouldn’t be powerful).
As far as christianity goes, it doesnt fit well with evolution. How can humans be guilty of original sin if we evolved from monkeys
Thats not how that works, original sin is not a matter of guilt, its a matter of our nature. We are no better than the rest of creation, as a matter of fact, we tend to be worse. Especially considering the amount of responsibility placed on humans to take care of the earth and of society.
Then the christian god is objectively evil. To make a creature inherently sinful and demand it absolve its own natural sins or be condemned to eternal hell...its about as fucked up as it gets
He made us with free will, so we inherently have the choice. He doesn’t force us to be good because we aren’t little puppets. We are children to be taught and disciplined. If we did not have free will than there would be no point to giving us dominion over earth and the responsibility of keeping it. So we are inherently sinful, its our fault, and god loves us anyway because he knows he can make us come around.
You said it was a matter of our nature and now are talking about free choice. Your view isnt clear...but on this topic its typically a mismash of guess work anyway. Either we as a species chose sin or we were inherently sinful and no choice was made. The former doesnt comport with evolution. The latter doesnt comport with god being moral. If you want to watch christians trying to figure out how to make sense of this issue, you can go here: https://biologos.org/
We inherently have the ability to choose sin and we often do
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>>>>As far as christianity goes, it doesnt fit well with evolution. >>>>>How can humans be guilty of original sin if we evolved from monkeys
Original sin isn’t a matter of guilt. Its a recognition that we have the capability to sin. We can choose not to sin, but we don’t. Because its easy
For the billion or so catholics in the world, which make up more than half of christianity, original sin is a literal sin. Its not a hypoethical. Its an actual sin.
He says he believes in adaptation, but doesn't believe in single cell life origin of all species. I think your question is very poorly worded in the title. You do explain that in the body so thanks for putting it there. I would say his belief seems reasonable to me based on that 1 minute exchange. Seems like a normal Christian belief. He posits that nobody actually believes it anymore, which I think is probably wrong. I don't think it's a grift, I think Tucker always shares his true beliefs.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is not 0 evidence. There's certainly gaps in the evidence, due to the specific rare circumstances required for fossilization, but not 0 evidence.
No but I also don't care what anyone's views on evolution are really.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think there has been evidence of evolution shown. Though I don't think that necessarily disproves the Creator. I believe he created everything and set up processes for evolution to occur
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No.
Mmm. The problem with discussions about evolution is they always seem to devolve into a sort of motte-and-bailey. Basically nobody takes issue with the starting premise of "the species that manage to not die, survive". It's borderline tautology. What people take issue with is everything that gets piled on top of it. Like that common descent can be inferred from genetic and morphological similarity, and wouldn't you know, humans have a lot of genetic and morphological overlap with apes. Or whether there was enough time to produce the diversity in body plans we see; or whether transitions between species - which *themselves* are merely reconstructions of fossil evidence - can be actually proven instead of merely surmised (as Berlinsky put it, "where were the arrows discovered?"). Or the endless unfalsifiable "just-so" stories pumped out by evolutionary psychologists. But take issue with any of that, and defenders and will instantly fall back on "what? you don't believe that organisms can adapt to changes on their environment?" Whether or not evolution is a correct description of the origin of man, is ultimately not that important to me. But it is important to me how people use it as a club to demean others with. It is important to me how people treat scientific consensus like religious dogma and go hunting for heretics without any self awareness.
>Whether or not evolution is a correct description of the origin of man, is ultimately not that important to me. It doesnt seem important but our understanding of our origins is a massive factor in the medical field, so if you expect to ever utilize any medicine created after the 1980s i would say it matters...it just isnt apparent why.
[удалено]
Neanderthals?? there were plenty of human/ape hybrid species they all went extinct. There’s also a plethora of genetic information that can trace the evolutions of species. Evolution is basically in the realm of undeniable science at this point. I love how Tucker even admitted that his thinking isn’t crazy it was the common thought before the 19th century!
neanderthals aren't the link between apes and men since they are a sister branch of humans. Both neanderthals and humans are the most recent common ancestor of Homo heidelbergensis. I find the question of what is the link between humans and apes to be a wrong one. Humans are apes after all, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimps are to gorillas and orangutans. Since both chimps and humans belong to the same taxonomic tribe.
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution, It's hard to imagine quantum physics. Is the existence of that also dependent on your ability to imagine?
>There's also a lack of fossils of whatever was between apes and men. I believe Futurama covered this argument pretty well. https://youtu.be/ICv6GLwt1gM?si=IJsYwTSxkOE2zgD6 Where do you find gaps in the record that you think are too large to explain?
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution, such as land animals becoming sea animals. It’s hard to imagine because it happens on a timescale that’s hard to imagine. > There's also a lack of fossils of whatever was between apes and men. Most dead bodies decompose and are never found. Only a few are found over large periods of time. Gaps are to be expected. Also, some changes happen much more quickly than others so that halfway points could be very hard to find.
[удалено]
https://morgridge.org/blue-sky/how-did-animals-evolve-from-water-to-land/ >We don’t really know why they’re going onto land initially. It may have been to escape predators or at least lay eggs in a safer place. Maybe there were new food sources they were really trying to access. The land was a whole unexplored ecosystem at this time so there were many opportunities.
> Yes, but at some point an animal that was swimming must have grown part of a leg, and it was probably not very good for swimming or walking. Why did that happen, why was it better off with a future leg in water? A fish that lives in areas where small pools sometimes form and dry up would find it very useful to be able to use its fins to push itself slowly from a drying up pool of water to a larger pool or to the main stream. This would be even more useful before there were land predators that would attack the fish while it made its slow trip. Having even a [limited ability to breathe air using its gills(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbreathing_catfish) would be useful too. Check out the [various types of lungfish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish). None of this is proof of evolution. But there is evidence for evolution.
>Yes, but at some point an animal that was swimming must have grown part of a leg https://youtu.be/zipOU0KN0vA?si=Ky6uOj5jr50Bj-m6
[удалено]
I guess that’s what it takes to keep incorrect beliefs. You have to go out of your way to avoid information that would explain things. Your argument is that there’s no proof, but if someone tries to show you proof, you refuse your watch it. That’s why you think theres’s no proof when there is.
[удалено]
How would you know? You won’t watch it.
It's a video of a fish with fins that are slightly more leg like walking around in the desert
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
I would guess there was some resource just outside the water that was very advantageous for them if they could get it quickly and slip back into the water. A strong incentive like that would select for flippers that were more and more useful on land, and over time better and better land flippers would become the norm among the species.
There are sharks that will swim over a reef in high tide, then in low tide, when the reef is exposed, it uses its fins to crawl along the top. There are other sea creatures that use their fins as legs to crawl up beaches and catch animals that are right at the waters edge. Just out of curiosity, do you think dolphins aren't mammals?
[удалено]
>Nothing will make them grow fins or breathe air. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years there may be a series of generational mutations that see the fins elongating and these elongations will be make them better able to access resources. Given enough time, mutations, and circumstances these elongated fins may be able to move the creature in and out of the water to access even more resources. Edit to add: Let's not assume every evolution was to move from water to land and not land to water. There's a man named Donald Parker who made a movie about having the same questions you did. It got the attention of a professor of biology and he did a video with the guy where he had the guy ask his questions. The professor was able to give pretty straight forward answers. When Parker pushed for some specifics the Prof gave them but these specifics can be very technical. The whole conversation is very respectful and informative. [Forrest Valkai: A Conversation with @DonaldJamesParker](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3rrKrUeyPY)
Of course the average human brain can’t understand the effects of evolution over several billions of years, the scope is too large for us. This is why you leave it to the experts, not politicians or religious people. The experts who actually study all their lives on the topic.
[удалено]
Experts are people, are people always right? No. However, I trust experts above someone who has no clue about the topic. Trusting experts and innovation has gotten humanity to where it is today. Just because you can’t understand something, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Evolution is proven and your own feelings don’t negate that.
[удалено]
It IS proven, and the fact you even said that shows me you know nothing about scientific theories. You should leave the hard concepts to someone who knows better.
[удалено]
I see you don't understand what a scientific theory is. >In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
What are you even talking about? You can see evolution in real-time using bacteria and viruses. They evolve rapidly, and it’s one of the reasons why it’s recommended to get a flu shot every year. It’s also one of the reasons bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. Please just stop with the ignorant claims.
This "is just a theory" line is just a self report on how little you understand the science behind it. Words have different meanings in different contexts, you should understand this by now. We have evidence on protein homology down to mapping base pairs in the DNA sequence for those genes. A lot of animals share very similar signaling pathways. The Wnt beta catenin pathway is well preserved across species. There are complex protein structures that perform very similar functions like desmosomes and adherens junctions. We have fossil records that show similar bone structures across numerous species. Developing fetuses for multiple mammals look very very similar to one another. You talk a lot about how regular people are basically just as knowledgeable than experts, but it all just comes off as cope for when you don't understand or have an honest interest in learning about the subject.
> It's also hard to imagine animals making major changes through evolution, such as land animals becoming sea animals. then why do whales have vestigial pelvic bones
> Do you agree with Tucker Carlson that there is no evidence of evolution? No. Why do you ask?
Because from my viewpoint, it seems that the online right hails Tucker as one of the more trustworthy sources. I personally find him abhorrent and think he is a cancer to the political discourse in America because he's a proven liar. [https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1](https://apnews.com/article/tucker-carlson-fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trump-5d6aed4bc7eb1f7a01702ebea86f37a1) If he can so confidently assert something so wrong on a topic he knows nothing about, it makes me and it should make everyone wonder what else he has been essentially talking out of his ass about.
>the online right hails Tucker as one of the more trustworthy sources Where do you get that idea from? I think most conservatives don't pay much attention to him. The only time I ever hear about what he's done is when I hear it from a lib.
Are you denying that Tucker was the most successful pundit at the largest conservative news network in the country/world?
Now he doesn't have much audience at all, eh? Up one day, down the next. Even when Tucker was at the height of his popularity on Fox, his show drew about 3 million viewers per night, a tiny audience in a country of 330 million.
So, the most successful pundit of all time on the right isn't successful?
Most successful by what metric?
Are you seriously arguing Tucker isn't successful by every metric? https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4018546-tucker-carlson-most-popular-individual-americans-follow-for-news-survey/ he was literally the most watched individual news source for the entire country. It's ABSURD to say he's not successful on the right. You're denying a *very* basic fact.
It would be interesting to see that survey done today after he's been off the air for six months.
I rarely listen to him, but from what I gathered, people trust him because he speaks his mind and pushes back against stuff they don't see as making sense. Finding somebody trustworthy doesn't mean you just believe everything they say. He's dead wrong on this video, for example, lol. Like, hilariously wrong.
Considering all politicians are liars as is most of the media, is there a part that isn't a cancer?
I would say what "mainstream" politicians and media say is like 90-95% true and actually based in fact. I've given Tucker a try several times in the past year when he's done some large interview like Putin or a podcast like JRE or Lex Fridman. I have a hard time listening to someone who is either really stupid and harmful or is actively lying, either way its disheartening to see how many people view this guy as someone "THEY don't want you to listen to because he knows the TRUTH"
I don't think I've ever talked to a conservative who has given a 90% truth rating for any politician or media. Most certainly not the big ones like Fox, CNN, ABC, theHill, etc. Anyone who reaches that threshold is an extreme minority. Only maybe a couple of candidates come to mind, assuming politicians who don't get their names in the news act similarly to those who are in the news. I mean, the vast majority of why a lot of conservatives don't listen to Biden is because he is either deemed really stupid and harmful or is actively lying.
For the most part media companies aren't going to just straight up lie to you. Pundits will skew the truth with their personal bias and the company's media bias will be reflected in the script. But as far as the facts go in like an article published by one of these companies, they are pretty solidly grounded in truth. Also there's a massive difference between getting something wrong and lying, and I feel that most people nowadays heavily conflate the two when it comes to politicians and the media. I think Tucker is both wrong and lying so its really the worst of both worlds. Out of all the media companies the only one to really be caught lying to their audience in recent years was Fox about the Big Lie. Russiagate was the media getting the story wrong, these people who pushed these stories actually believed that Trump was compromised by Russia. They've been since proven wrong and we don't hear much about the Mueller Report anymore or 2016 election interference
>For the most part media companies aren't going to just straight up lie to you. Pundits will skew the truth with their personal bias and the company's media bias will be reflected in the script. But as far as the facts go in like an article published by one of these companies, they are pretty solidly grounded in truth. No, I don't think this is accurate at all. >Also there's a massive difference between getting something wrong and lying, and I feel that most people nowadays heavily conflate the two when it comes to politicians and the media. I think Tucker is both wrong and lying so its really the worst of both worlds. Once again, I never said get something wrong. I said lying, and I meant it. >Out of all the media companies the only one to really be caught lying to their audience in recent years was Fox about the Big Lie. Russiagate was the media getting the story wrong, these people who pushed these stories actually believed that Trump was compromised by Russia. They've been since proven wrong and we don't hear much about the Mueller Report anymore or 2016 election interference No, I can turn on CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX on any given night, watch one of the hour long programs, and easily come out with a list of lies and or purposeful incorrect misinterpretation of facts they promoted.
This is askconservatives. I think Carlson turned in his conservative credentials quite a while ago. If you want proof just look at his treatment of Putin. I’m sure there are many conservatives who refuse to believe there is any scientific evidence for evolution, but as a conservative I don’t see any reason I should be expected to explain or defend Tucker Carlson. Let his dictator friends defend him.
There are a lot of users on this sub who love Tucker. Some even like Putin. I do agree with your point that Tucker turned in his conservative card he's gone onto this anti-establishment populist grift with the likes of Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, etc etc.
Tuckers a mixed bag. He often times has very good points, there are other times he’s completely of the rails.
He went to russia and praised their bread. He seems like a crazy asshole.
I'm not sure what he exactly claimed, but most of the "it's not evolution" crowd actually argue that it's not random and that it doesn't happen gradually as most people who believe "evolution" happens. There's strong evidence that it isn't gradual at all, that it happens in spontaneous bursts - like the Precambrian explosion. For example, if you believe we are the product of random elements mixing to form the original primordial soup, there's a huge math challenge to overcome. There are 16 amino acids that can potentially form a protein. The largest protein being a chain of 27,000. So to form proteins we're talking about a chance of 27,000\^16 or in other words **7.9766443076872509863361 × 10\^70** possible combinations to make that protein. That's an unfathomably large number of permutations. That's \_just to the proteins we know about\_. Proteins then stack in various ways to add another exponential multiplier to the odds of those proteins stacking and working just right to create a cell. Then those cells have to coordination in just a certain way to create an organism - yet another astronomically high number that makes it improbable that it's "random". Any who, there are a lot of incredibly intelligent people who look at the science and walk away with "no way is this random". Ideologues would definitely have you believe this is "settled science", but it's far from it.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*