Yo Dawg Heard You

hadn't thought of that one

Those are two different processes. I think you just put "evolve" into the bottom caption to make them sound the same, when they aren't.

It would be pretty silly to disbelieve the fact that germs can change or adapt in order to develop resistance to certain substances. That's an observed fact.

But it would be just as silly to leap from that observation to the false conclusion that therefore those changes provide support for the idea that those changes give a valid explanation of how bacteria came into existence in the first place, or that they explain how bacteria can turn into anything else besides bacteria (which has never been observed).

The top caption and bottom caption are talking about two different things. People should believe that germs develop resistance to certain treatments (because that's true), but they shouldn't believe evolution, which holds that those kinds of genetic changes can explain the origin of the bacteria's genes, or that bacteria can develop into anything else other than bacteria (because those things aren't true).

Do you see how those are different things?

They aren't, because pecillin is an antibiotic (which I have heard is weak,) and germs can "develop" resistance to it. Develop and evolve are actually the same thing for germs, bacteria, and viruses, they just evolve faster because they're smaller, and creatures don't evolve during their lifetime, their descendants have (slightly) different features that their parents didn't have, nor their grandparents, etc.

The Black Plague didn't come out of nowhere because of quick development, it was because of a genetic mutation (which is rare,) and caused the death of many people. Bacteria evolving has been observed hundreds of thousands of times. When scientists are searching for a cure for a disease, they aren't just looking for the disease's weakness, they're studying it's evolution and searching for factors of another disease. They are successful a large portion of the time with finding it. Changing half of the topic, When I see (extremely) religious people who have been given evidence of evolution, they just make a new word for it (like development of adaptation. Adaptation is existant but seperate) and they just shit on the argument and act like they won. You didn't really shit on it, you made a point, which changes my mind on things a bit, but, new name.
Neither of us are scientists, so we both are making some invalid points. I'm probably gonna stop making memes that point fingers at people.

I appreciate your reply. I still think there's a real difference you're not acknowledging here (between observing genes changing, and the theory of evolution which involves genes being created from scratch), but as you say, neither one of us are scientists, and we're both probably looking more at the things which 'fit' more comfortably into our worldview.

I'll think about the points you've written here. If I think of something important that you might want to know, I'll try to come back and write it, or just make it into a meme. :)

Thanks again for your reply.

Are we talking about macroevolution or microevolution?