Are these two things mutually exclusive…?
A Mutation is typically an inherited trait that is ultimately detrimental to the proliferation of the species (a 9 legged deer) or not necessary (like the striped sparrows at Chernobyl), while an Adaptation is always something that leads to the success of the species.
Mutations and Adaptations are often cited as “proof” of the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection. Unfortunately the words “belief” and “subscribe” are often misused when talking about theory. Too many people say they “believe” a theory when it is more accurate to say they subscribe to a theory.
One method by which evolution occurs is mutation. Random mutation + selection + descent with modification = evolution. Perhaps most mutations are detrimental, but when they are beneficial, they get passed (DNA) to the next generation which then has a comparative advantage and that mutation becomes more common, etc, eons of time, evolution. One might call that an adaptation, but it arose from a mutation. Not exactly mutually exclusive (mutation, adaptation)
I guess to shorten it, a mutation that is beneficial is an adaptation is it not?
Yeah, I hate it when people ask if I believe in evolution.
There’s nothing scientific about blindly accepting something that you read in a high school textbook. Our understanding of how evolution works should continue to adapt as we collect and share data, just like our understanding of gravity.
And if someone wants to say they don’t believe in evolution, it’s the same thing. It’s not a dogma to be believed or disbelieved. It’s just a way of understanding the evidence we’ve collected, so far.
One of my professors had a display showing a series of skulls from extinct Hominini to a modern human. He never insisted that anyone accept or reject any part of evolution, he simply insisted that if we rejected his explanation(s) for how these skulls formed, then we had to come up with our own explanation.
It reminds me of how people will ask if you believe in climate change. There are those who look at that subject with dogmatic fervor.
Yes, there’s a very religious aspect to climate change.
Especially when people say “the science is settled.” No such thing. There’s no phase of the scientific method which states “stop asking questions.” There are only people who stop asking questions, and one has to wonder why they’re afraid to ask.
I want to know why the Apes are still here if they changed to man.
Probably because modern humans did not evolve directly from modern apes. As in, homo sapiens did not evolve from any current species
Those become politicians, it’s takes longer.
It’s refreshing to see this topic being discussed so gentlemanly. I don’t have anything to add other than that.
There were only 2 genders back then. 
Interesting how antropologists never considered possibility of a fully bipedal ape, which lived in trees. The idea never came up in 200 years of study, until very recently. Walking on their two legs has been considered strictly human trait.
I had to look up athiest again, a person who dosen’t believe in god or gods.
Seems most worship the one in the mirror pretty regular.
The Revelation to John…they think climate change is bad now…
True of most people, regardless of their “religiosity”. “Judge not, that you not be judged.” Ironic how so many “religious” people fail to follow their religious book.
Okay, so let me ask the obvious question, who believes they evolved from an ape, and if so why are there still apes?
There are still apes because it’s not a linear 1:1 where you have one species that evolves into one other species…multiple species can and do evolve from one common ancestor. You can even have the ancestor and the new species both exist at the same time
This is a very informative book
Also, I scrolled up and see I referenced this before: