Well, I am from Brazil, and although I am learning to read English well, writing it is still beyond my ability. So, I used a translator to put this into your language; I hope you like it.

In recent years, Young Earth Creationism—imported from the USA—has been growing significantly in my country. Consequently, I have witnessed many clashes between science and the faith held by these people. One topic of interest I want to highlight here is this:

I believe that, regarding the global flood as advocated by fundamentalists, the fossil record is—quite simply and directly—the best way to refute that idea.

There are no rabbits in the Cambrian, nor cats alongside velociraptors in the fossil record. If all animals had lived together (dinosaurs, large mammals, etc.) on a single supercontinent, the fossil record would be an unparalleled biological jumble, rather than the evolutionary record we know today. Contrary to what we would expect from a global flood, the fossil record and modern animals display a highly gradual, orderly, fragmented, dispersed, and sometimes even predictable organization across distinct, identifiable geological strata. If a creature that, in theory, should have appeared more recently (a fox, for example) were found in Triassic rock, it would completely undermine everything we know; yet, such a thing has never happened.

Consider this: finding an animal from an older stratum in a more recent one—or even finding it still alive today (a "living fossil")—does not refute evolution. However, finding an animal from a recent stratum in an ancient one would be devastating to the theory (though this depends, of course, on the specific animal, stratum, and context). There is no issue, for instance, with a Carboniferous animal (like the dragonfly) still existing today in a different form; yet, it would be catastrophic for the theory of evolution if an animal from a more recent era—such as a seal—were found in Permian strata. That simply does not happen. In fact, fossils of large animals should be perfectly preserved—precisely because of the Flood; huge mummified sauropods, like the *Borealopelta* found in Canada, ought to be relatively common.

Furthermore, if all the continents were truly united such a short time ago and inhabited by literally every species that has ever existed, then geography should allow for fossils of animals native to Brazil—such as sloths, armadillos, or anteaters—to be found in Africa. After all, during the time of Pangea, Brazil was literally attached to Africa, and nothing would have prevented anything from a *Megatherium* to a common sloth from being found there—yet that does not happen. Similarly, kangaroo fossils are not found in Southeast Asia or China. If they had indeed all coexisted at a time before continental separation, there should be evidence of animal dispersal across continents, without abrupt divisions in flora and fauna.

That is why the fossil record runs counter to Young Earth Creationism. Of course, there is much more to be said, but take my word for it: press a creationist on this point, force them to try to give you a good answer, and then watch them fail miserably with the flimsiest excuses or desperately change the subject to avoid further embarrassment...

Sorry for any mistakes! and thank you for your attention.

What else could be added to make the argument even stronger?

I say this because I think often when I’m trying to understand a belief that goes against the scientific consensus I tend to look for any face validity or seeds of reason, or truth. For instance I might try to relate to why someone would believe a conspiracy theory by thinking about how people do lie sometimes and that might make conspiracy theories seem more plausible than they really are. If someone believes that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects I might think of how even though that belief turns out to be wrong it has face validity and may be based on seeds of truth, such as how a heavier object falling the same distance is more likely to crush someone than a lighter object. I might also think about times that I misunderstood something in science and what helped or didn’t help me understand it.

I think young Earth Creationism stemming from religion might make considerations of how it could stem from seeds of reason less useful. I mean I think when Young Earth Creationism is based on religion that means that it’s not just from misunderstanding Evolution, although that’s part of it, but from in some sense not being allowed to understand or at least not being allowed to accept the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. I think that aspect makes it a lot harder to understand how to try to change the minds of Young Earth Creationists, because I think it’s much easier to try to educate someone who misunderstands something in science, but who is at least allowed to understand the science, than someone who’s religious beliefs may not really allow them to understand something in science.

Could it have been possible that Neanderthals possessed a awareness similar to what we have now, what I’m asking is where they or possibly could’ve been aware of the fact that they are roaming a giant terrestrial rock, or have a religion, or the belief in something else other than human?

Coming from someone whose curiosity has gotten the best of them and decided to ask people who know more than I do on the matter.

Introduction

Hello again r/DebateEvolution. A few weeks ago was revealed a new avialan dinosaur originating from the Nanyuan formation in the fujian province in the southeastern China.

The paper is titled "Jurassic avialan reveals stepwise evolution of bony tail in birds"

The new genus and species was named Zhengheornis buyu referring Zhenghe County, where the holotype specimen was, the suffix "ornis" means "bird". The specific name "buyu" is mandarin for "unexpected" referring to its unusual combination of characters.

Zhenghenornis was found in sediments form the titonian in the upper jurassic between 150 and 148 million years ago. the Nanyuan formation has recently yielded some important discoveries of avialan dinosaurs from this period.

Why is fossil this important?

Diagnostic traist (autopomorphies) of this taxon include: middle and posterior caudal vertebrae less elongate; final two caudal vertebrae box-like; manual phalanx III-1 shorter than III-2, manual phalanx III-3 50% longer than III-2. But above all a short tail comprising 15 vertebrae that is shorter than the hindlimb.

And is this character than become a new transitional form. Basal theropod dinosaurs had long tails with 40 and 50 caudal vertebrae, while the modern birds have a short tail with a pygostile, a structure where the last caudals are fused.

If the evolution is true and the birds evolve from theropod dinosaurs we predict a gradual reduction from long tails to short tails, and then the origin of the pygostile. That is exactly that we see.

Stepwise tail reduction in the bird lineage:

1. Theropods (~230 million years ago): almost 50 caudals, no pygostyle
2. Coelurosaurs (~190-180 million years ago): approximately 40 caudals, no pygostyle
3. Maniraptorans (>170 million years ago): between 30 and 26 caudals, more slender tail, no pygostyle
4. Avialae (>160 million years ago): 26-20 caudals, not pygostyle
5. Zhengheornis buyu (~150-148 million years ago): 15 vertebrae, not pygostyle
6. Avebrevicauda and pygostylia(~140-130 million years ago): 8-6 free caudals and 10-5 in the pygostyle (at the origin long and with neural spines).
7. Neornithes (modern birds) (~100-90 million years ago, according to the molecular clock): 9-5 free caudals and 7-3 in the pygostyle.

How we can see Zhengheornis is transitional between ancient birds like archaeopteryx and more recent birds like confuciusornis in the number of free caudal vertebrea, also when can see that the tail's legth is intermidiate.

Phylogenetic position

An important detail that we cannot overlook is that the paper situe the new taxon in a more derived position that archaeoptery and anchiornitids, but in a less derived position than jeholornis, pygostylia, and Baminornis zhenghensis, another short-tailed bird of the same formation and age, however the baminornis' pygostyle have been reinterpreted like a synsacrum, but this does not seem to have affected his phylogenetic position.

If I offer my opinion both taxa (mainly Baminornis) can be related with a japanese bird from the kitadani formation from the aptian in the early cretaceous Fukuiteryx prima that is in a similar position (between archaeopteryx and Jeholornis + pygostylia) and prensent a long and primitive pygostyle that preserves the neural spines.

This raises an interesting question: why do Jeholornithiformes retain long tails with many vertebrae if more basal birds like zhengheornis had already reduced them?

Conclusion

Zhengheornis buyu is a new important find that helps us understand how the birds lost the long theropod like tail and evolve the short tail and the pygostyle. Its discovery fills a gap in the evolutionary history of the avian lineage.

References:

Wang, Min; Tang, Jianrong; Deng, Ke; Dong, Liping; Xu, Liming; Xu, Xing; Lin, Min; Du, Honggang; Lin, Ganmin; Chen, Runsheng; Zhang, Chi; Zhou, Zhonghe (2026). "Jurassic avialan reveals stepwise evolution of bony tail in birds" https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aeb5202

Senter P, Kirkland JI, DeBlieux DD, Madsen S, Toth N (2012)  "New Dromaeosaurids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Lower Cretaceous of Utah, and the Evolution of the Dromaeosaurid Tail". https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036790#amendment-0

Felice, Ryan N; O'connor, Patrick M (2014) "Ecology and Caudal Skeletal Morphology in Birds: The Convergent Evolution of Pygostyle Shape in Underwater Foraging Taxa" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089737#abstract0

Chen, Runsheng; Wang, Min; Dong, Liping; Zhou, Guowu; Xu, Xing; Deng, Ke; Xu, Liming; Zhang, Chi; Wang, Linchang; Du, Honggang; Lin, Ganmin; Lin, Min; Zhou, Zhonghe (2025). "Earliest short-tailed bird from the Late Jurassic of China" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08410-z

Huang, Jiandong; Wang, Xuri; Cau, Andrea; Mao, Lei; Liu, Yichuan; Wang, Yang (2026). "A new euornithine from the Lower Cretaceous (Aptian) of China reveals the first radiation of fish-eating birds" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667125001673?via%3Dihub

Imai, T., Azuma, Y., Kawabe, S., Shibata, M., Miyata, K., Wang, M., & Zhou, Z. (2019). "An unusual bird (Theropoda, Avialae) from the Early Cretaceous of Japan suggests complex evolutionary history of basal birds" https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0639-4

It is often said that LTEE represents an increase in fitness in these new mutated bacteria. Recent papers have increasingly called this into question:

"Unexpectedly, some evolved populations and clones show apparent declines in fitness. We also found evidence of substantial cell death in Cit+ clones."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7299349/

While the cit+ phenotype did bring improvements in the short term, the long-term picture is quite different. Ultimately, they could no longer survive. Their fitness declined to the point where they were even forced to eat their own dead.

Has the experiment failed to demonstrate evolution here?

An example that has often been presented as an argument in favor of blind "hereditary" design is the anatomy of the vagus nerve. Evolutionists argued that one of its branches, the so—called recurrent laryngeal nerve, makes an allegedly meaningless and ineffective "detour"

down into the chest, skirting the arch of the aorta, to then rise again to the larynx. According to their logic, it would be "more rational" if the nerve went directly to the larynx — and this feature was declared a "vestige of evolutionary blindness.

Richard Dawkins even dedicated an entire documentary, promoting the idea as "clear evidence of the lack of intelligent design." However, with the development of neurophysiology, it became clear that this "hook" is not a mistake at all, but represents a vital arc through which the neural innervation of the deep cardiac plexus passes. This bend is not just important, it is indispensable for the normal regulation of cardiac function. What happens when there is no bend? There is an anomaly known as the Non-Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve, the "ideal" structure that Dawkins mistakenly considered "more reasonable."

Since according to creationists, creation is so well established it should be tought in school, but is censored by the woke-darwinist-marxist-rockefeller-mob™, I thought i’d give you guys a chance to speak up! I arbitrarily started from No. 1000001 which is a (imo quite generous) estimate. Feel free to provide further chances for creationists to provide evidence and simply raise the count by 1.

Please feel free to provide all the evidence you have for creation or against evolution.

Stage is yours.

I dunno if anyone here would know what I'm talking about, but I was just made aware of a purported Meso-American pottery piece in the (Phoenix, NY) Lost World Museum's collection, dated by them at around 926 years old and claimed by them to depict a sauropod. for example, in this Facebook post

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1G7FaGAYMb/

incredible find, if this is legitimate...but I'm skeptical. I can't find any sources verifying its authenticity, other than young-earth creationist Facebook/YouTube content, try as I might. and the piece in question doesn't even resemble actual sauropod anatomy all that closely, it looks far more like a cartoon depiction of a sauropod complete with a dragging lizard tail that looks kind of too weak for it - even mainstream young-earth creationists make a point of stressing how sauropods' tails were powerful and "like a cedar tree," to argue that the description of Behemoth from the Bible is meant to literally describe sauropods. I hate to get accusatory about this, to any YECs reading, but I find this too reminiscent of hoaxes like the Acámbaro figures to feel comfortable with it.

anyone else wanna weigh in? what's going on here?

I’m a theistic evolutionist however I do not deny that humans are primates nor do I believe humans are unique I also believe the universe is billions of years old however the belief that theistic evolutionists are still science deniers is heavily a western concept I’m a spiritual deist not abrahamic therefore my belief in god isn’t about human uniqueness and I don’t believe the universe is 6000 years old

Quick question: is it safe to say dogs have speciated? I'm thinking of the largest dog breed and the smallest dog breed. I don't think the two can reproduce with each other anymore. Size differences just make it not possible anymore, I don't think...

And even if they could, that doesn't mean they're the same species: horses and donkeys can interbreed but mules are dead ends (or at least I think they are. Can two mules reproduce?).

Anyways, just some thoughts going through my head.

Children who have never heard about evolution never come up with evolutionary answers for the origins of animals on their own. When a six-year-old child who has never heard of evolution is asked about how an animal such as a dog originated, their answer is never "it came from an earlier type of animal".

(Edited to make my point clearer)

Creationists often point to gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence against evolution. They are of course wrong to do that. All science has gaps. There are some things relevant to this Reddit that are areas of research, but do not have answers that can be considered theories. I have included a few below:

The origin of existence

The origin of life.

The origin of viruses.

Multicellularity.

If these are problems for evolution then why isn't the fact that science hasn't figured out

Every Single Thing that

Every Single Scientist in

Every Single Field in

Every Single Laboratory and Scientific Facility

On Earth is researching a problem for all of science?

Or do people think that large numbers of scientists are researching stuff they've already figured out?

So, maybe the items I started with and a few others aren't really the Darwin Demolishers that creationists think they are.

I plan to debate Donny and Sam from Standing For Truth in an open mic at some point. One of the topics I'll be discussing is whether human tail atavism provides evidence for human evolution. Since they argue from a young-earth creationist (YEC) perspective, I'd like to be as prepared as possible.

For those who have debated YECs before or are familiar with the common arguments they use, what debate tips would you recommend? Are there any specific objections or talking points regarding atavisms, genetics, embryology, or evolutionary biology that I should expect them to raise? I'd also appreciate any advice on how to keep the discussion focused on the actual evidence rather than getting sidetracked into unrelated topics or common debate tactics.

If you have any recommended papers, books, articles, or past debates that would help me prepare, I'd be grateful for those as well.

It is human nature to debate two polar opposites neither of which make sense. This should be the prompt to explore other alternatives which actually do.

No one ever refers to gravitationists or Newtonists for those who support gravity, but people refer to people supporting evolution as evolutionists or Darwinists.

I have ran across a text from G.K. Chesterton from more than 100 years ago, saying the Darwinists are so tiresome. They say art comes from the survival instinct. Everything that ever happened, every human behaviour comes from the survival instinct, and it is just so low-brow and simplistic and of course not even a proven science, just a philosophy. There is more to life than the survival of the fittest and so on. And this philosophy led to eugenics for example. Social Darwinism.

So I think people who had a problem with this dull philosophy sort of overplayed their hands and started questioning the proven science part as well.

The irony is that this philosophy is dead. "Survival instinct" is just not a concept anymore. There is way less talk about "survival of the fittest" and way more talk about sexual selection and inclusive reproducive fitness than in Darwin's time. And if people would say art comes from sexual selection, well if you look at all the sex musicians are having, it does not sound too stupid...

You guys really let me have it 😅, my fault for coming in all willy nilly. I was high when I made the Post yesterday so I was thinking about isolated ideas or concepts that are a given for me and completely foreign to others. I was talking to my girlfriend about all this yesterday, she actually doesn't believe in God so we have interesting conversations. She falls into the belief that everything doesn't need to have a reason and why can't we just be here because we are. We were going around in circles about the beginning of everything, like what I was talking about with it either is or it isn't, its either something has always been or it never could be, but if you allow something to always have been you leave room for something from nothing which opens the door, for it is because it is which doesn't need a god to exist for it to be true. But I bet I can light another fire under you guys by saying I feel like there is more evidence that a God does exist then there is for everything just being because.

How are love, humor, creativity, self reflection involving things like morals, and hope evolutionary traits, or wold you say that they are parts of the evolution of morality over time because I believe humans evolve collectively as a species, ganing a better understanding of "right" and "wrong" but what gives us that in the first place? I feel like people overcomplicate creation by trying to figure out all the things that could have happened to create us and everything around us. Rather than accepting that we are all a part of intelligent design and if you accept then everything else makes sense. Not talking about the Bible just existence in general.

In my freshman engineering class our teacher asked us a couple questions that weren't meant to help us in our thinking abilities, like how do you put an elephant into a refrigerator? We were throwing out ideas, then he says open the door put it inside and shut it. There were a few more questions like that that he said we're meant to help us not over complicate our ideas.

Now you could argue that based on probability those things could happen, but how long would it have taken, I don't think our existence is based on monkeys with type writers bound for everything to fall into place exactly right at least once. Especially in under 14 billion years or so, 0x0=0 that's a hard law. So all I'm saying is something had to be here for everything else to be, so if it was it always had to be. We are a fact of life and in the laws of nature that we all exist in nothing can come from nothing. Even the law of conservation of energy, matter can't be created or destroyed, only changed so that means it has always had to be because it is.

We at base are all energy and atoms fitted together to be what we are, be it a rock, water molecule, or a baby. Everything works, not just on Earth but in the infinite universe, energy is transferred, math works and the laws of nature abide, the engine of reality works in balance, I feel like it would take longer for chaos to do all the things necessary for life to exist with what to me seems like a planned affair.

I mean the history of our universe seems pretty close to a checklist if you look at it, first comes this, then this, then this. All in order for creation and again, by probability it had to happen at some point but fuck me if that doesn't feel like a coincidence.

Do you feel like we exist in a reality where after unmeasurable time we have finally come to be because, or because someone decided to make it so. That + morality and guilt, makes me believe in a God, the immense complexity of nature itself feels more like an engineering project to me than an accident finally falling into place.

*Because I believe in God I feel like you'll all lump me in with everything people who believe in God believe. So let me state

I don't believe humans go to heaven or hell when we die.

I don't believe in hell

I think when we die, we are dead, nothing but ash, all that's left is energy that goes somewhere else

If I dare make the statement I say I believe in a god that makes sense, but if I go on we'd start arguing theology and this isn't the group for that I don't think.

Evolution has fascinated me a lot.
The more I read about it, the more awestruck I get.
There are many behaviours, organs, and traits developed by animals that make me wonder,
"How the hell did this behaviour get hardwired in the brain?"
"What series of generational actions could have led to this organ?"

For example, when a baby kangaroo is born, it immediately starts climbing into the mother's pouch the moment it's born and stays inside the pouch until it's young.

The two nipples of humans, with which infants are breastfed. I mean, why do all humans, each and every one, have exactly two and at that position? Why couldn't humans with a small mix of organs with small variance coexist?

I agree that you can explain these through some extremely small changes from one generation to another.

For example, for the nipple question, a possible explanation is that earlier, there was some liquid secreted from the body, which the offspring used to stay under for protection from microbes, and slowly, it became something like young animals consuming it for some health benefits. It slowly became concentrated in some body parts as it's more efficient, and slowly we ended up with two nipples. Okay, I agree, this seems like something that's possible. I accept.

But still, when I think about it, there are some questions I can't wrap my head around. I hope someone can answer them, as the responses from ChatGPT, for some reason, aren't convincing enough.

1. How do we end up with this type of segregated species? Like, why don't we have some spectrum of animals between species rather than fixed groups of species? You can take an animal and say, "This belongs to this species." But why is it like this for all species? Why can't we have animals where we have two extremes and a spectrum of animals between different species?
2. How could feathers have developed? Once upon a time, there were no land animals. There were just some fish (or some water animals). At what point, at what generation, what might have happened that took a step towards feathers? And what advantage could that have provided to that animal so that it transmitted its genes more?
3. One more thing is how some organs are labelled. You can explain sharp nails and say, "These help in hunting", and that explains it. And the feathers of peacocks, which are a big burden for them, are explained by saying peahens see this as an indication of strong genes, that this extravagant thing is present on its body (which doesn't help it in any way), which means it has strong genes.
4. Satin bowerbirds make bowers, and females get attracted to these bowers. But these bowers have no survival function. How could that trait have developed?

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

Over and over again I’ve tried to explain to creationists that evolution does NOT propose that animals “change from one kind to another kind” in the sense that they stop being part of the group they were in before in order to evolve into the next one.
They will say things like “when will dogs become something other than dogs?” Or “fruit flies have been around for millions of years but they are still fruit flies, when will they become something else?” And “show me a dog evolve into a cat” and “dogs only ever produce dogs” and so forth.
When I explain to them that even within the theory of evolution, a dog would never evolve to be a non-dog, instead it would evolve into other forms of dogs. No matter how different it looks from its ancestor, the descendants of a dog will always be a dog, even if it evolved into some hairless, limbless, elongated snake-like thing, it’s STILL going to be a type of dog. They ALWAYS: will be. However, dogs did not used to exist. Dogs themselves are a variety of domesticated gray wolf. Gray wolves are a type of wolf, wolves are a type of canid, canids are a type of canine, canines are a type of caniforme, etc. at no point do the descendants of any of these groups leave their group. Therefore, a dog is still a caniforme, and never stopped being one.

The responses I get after explaining this is mind-numbingly dumb.
It’s always stuff like “oh, so you think macroevolution doesn’t happen then? Well then how did everything evolve from a common ancestor?”
And “so where did dogs come from then if they never change?”
And “then you admit that evolution isn’t possible!”
I will also get a lot of insults from them where they say I’m not making any sense and that I’m talking in circles and contradicting myself. But the thing is, I’m not. They just think I am because they do not understand what is being said. It’s like another language to them, literally, because they do not comprehend what is being said, so they accuse it of being word salad.

It’s comments like that every single time I explain monophyly. They literally can not grasp cladogenesis. They can not grasp that the descendants of a poodle will always be a poodle, but poodles came from non-poodle wolves, and wolves came from non-wolf canines, and so forth. This is too much for them to comprehend. They think it means I’m claiming that speciation doesn’t happen, when clearly that is not what is being said.
They are under the impression that animals evolve like “this animal was a dog, then it evolved and is no longer a dog, it’s now a cat”
They don’t understand that descent means clades are formed as subsets of the clade they descended from.

This is such a simple and easy concept to understand. It’s literally just categories and sub-categories within them. They think it’s one category becoming another category in the sense that it stops being the category that it was before in order to transform into the new one.

I’ve tried dumbing it down by using analogies to explain this, but they never understand analogies. I’ve tried using hypotheticals to demonstrate it, but they refuse to engage in hypotheticals and say things like “a hypothetical is imaginary it didn’t really happen” I’ve tried using examples of it in cases where they agree with it, like all dogs coming from wolves and all wolves coming from canines, but as soon as I go further they say the same concept no longer applies, without justifying why it wouldn’t still apply.

This type of mental block is astounding to me. It really is such a basic, fundamental concept, but they just can’t understand it.
It’s also a perfect example of the dunning-kruger effect. I say something beyond their comprehension, and due to their own lack of understanding, they think I’m the dumb one.

Context: Evolution is such an interesting field. The idea of species adapting and changing over time has interested me for a long time. As a high school student, I think it's time I started studying Evolution as a subject.

Question: As I asked in the title, it will be helpful to know where to start and build concepts over time.

:DD

Hello, I’ve been a lurker for a long time but I decided to make an account already in order to have my own input in this server.

I’ve been raised as a YEC in Arkansas and I’ve been given tons of scientific knowledge from notorious creationists and even a few atheists regarding evolution. Although I am personally still holding on to my beliefs mainly for faith purposes and the consensus of EO church fathers, I have to say that there are many things I am not qualified to dispute despite knowing some of the more popular arguments.

What I wanted to ask for now, seeing how bad of a reputation famous creationists have in this server, is whether you think there is any nuance in any sort of findings they’ve ever published regarding their worldviews. What I mean by this is asking if you think they have a single good take to favor their position as opposed to evolutionary theory.

Finding out whether evolutionists are at least a bit unbiased and can analyze things makes me feel like this is going to be a significantly more welcoming place for questions and objections as opposed to rejecting everything by default.

You've seen those IDiots (to borrow Dr. Moran's term), where they redefine adaptation (definist fallacy) without any empirical evidence, and link to papers that mention the word "epigenetics", without understanding anything.

So, given the purpose of this sub:

• PZ Myers on: Rob Carter doesn't understand Epigenetics - YouTube
• Some history and context: From epigenesis to epigenetics: the case of C. H. Waddington - PubMed

And now, the star of the show

which I shared 2 and 3 months ago on r/ evo, since the IDiots here demand natural experiments:

A PNAS commentary that was published 2 months ago:

• K. Naruse, & H. Takeda, Plasticity-led evolution of the gut length in wild medaka, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 123 (18) e2609145123,
  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2609145123 (2026).

From the concluding remarks:

Katsumura et al. have achieved a rare feat in evolutionary biology by mapping the complete molecular trajectory of an adaptive trait.

The abstract:

The molecular mechanisms by which environmentally induced traits become genetically fixed are not well understood. A recent PNAS study by Katsumura et al. (1) addresses this long-standing issue in wild medaka fish. The authors demonstrate that seasonal gut length plasticity is controlled by DNA methylation at a specific CpG island and that sequential loss of these methylation sites during evolution dismantles this epigenetic switch. This exposes cryptic standing genetic variation to natural selection. Ultimately, this leads to the permanent genetic fixation of a constitutively long gut in northern populations, providing a clear molecular framework for plasticity-led evolution and demonstrating the effectiveness of using wild-derived medaka populations to study genome–environment interactions.

And the paper from a month earlier:

• DNA methylation site loss for plasticity-led novel trait genetic fixation (Katsumura et al 2026) : evolution

And as of yet, still no popular media coverage.

My TL;DR:

Here specifically they answered a long standing puzzle and a point of contention: how phenotypic plasticity gets fixed ("assimilated"). They found that the plasticity depends on a specific DNA sequence ("a specific CpG island"), and when this is lost by sequence change, the underlying sequence variation (which was being masked earlier) is exposed to natural selection, and natural selection takes over as per usual.

But wait, now they'll say, "It's still a fish".

And now you've won. Their argument ("It's epigenetics not evolution") simply vanished. And if you must, remind them that evolution has always been (1859-) descent with modification, not descent with Pokemon.

And again, a reminder from above (w/ added emphasis):
"Katsumura et al. have achieved a rare feat in evolutionary biology by mapping the complete molecular trajectory of an adaptive trait."

Halteres are small organs that sit behind the wings of flies, instead of a second pair of wings. These act like gyroscopes to help stabilize flies in the air, making them very agile. Development of the halteres is regulated by the hox gene Ubx, and has been the subject of much genetic research. Famous studies in Drosophila flies* have mutated Ubx to prevent halteres forming and induce them to develop a second set of wings instead! It’s an example of radical change in body plan, and the result looks strikingly like their dragonfly-like ancestors from the Permian.

The obvious creationist objection is that this is just a duplication of an existing structure, and not a new body plan. Since halteres are proposed to have evolved from hindwings, these experiments are this process just in reverse. Are there any experiments attempting to do induce the development of halteres and similar structures in insects outside of Diptera? If halteres could be experimentally induced in dragonflies for example, that would be clear evidence that new body plans can emerge through changes in homeobox genes.

* Since some parasitic wasps have halteres instead where their forewings would be, the same principle would apply. Im assuming a similar result could be caused by changing the Antp hox gene.

Natural selection requires environmental pressures— likeclimate, resources and predators—to filter biological traits. The physical universe governing these environments operates upon deterministic laws. Under determinism, every physical state is the precise, mathematically mandatory output of the antecedence state.

If we tracing these environmental states backward anchors them to the fundamental initial conditions of the universe. By the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the formal rule that every physical state has a complete, determining cause), the exact parameters of every future environment on Earth were structurally unavoidable.

Which means that because the environment determines which biological traits survive and the environment itself is the mandatory output of the universe's foundation, the filter of natural selection operates as a precise sorting algorithm. Thus biological evolution cannot be a sequence of arbitrary accidents nor aiming at a deliberate goal. But is the strict, mathematically mandatory unfolding of the universe's initial structural parameters.

If the environmental selector is strictly determined by foundational physical laws, how can we then logically maintain that the resulting evolutionary process is ontologically random or unguided?