I am not arguing that point.
I'm saying that others, including many so-called 'scientists' would and do argue that point. Many of today's 'scientists' believe in consensus instead of facts.
I.E. there's the way things SHOULD BE , and there's the way THEY ARE.
While humans might be 'evolving' physically, they seem to be 'devolving' mentally.
You're talking about the distinctions between so-called micro evolution (aka "adaption") and macro-evolution.
I doubt if any scientist who pondered it for long would disagree with me.
The problem here is scientists themselves invented the terms "micro" & "macro" as simple shorthand to notate when they were talking about short-term & long-term evolution.
I doubt if any scientist then, or many today, grasped that they thereby handed anti-evolutionists a weapon to use against science.
My suggestion here would be to eliminate both the confusion and any deceptions by eliminating terms like micro, macro & adaption.
Simply refer to it all as evolution, short, medium or long term.
UCANSEE2: "While humans might be 'evolving' physically, they seem to be 'devolving' mentally.
Fair to to say that from Day One, life has always been a race between evolution and devolution, with evolution winning out only because it's "failures" (harmful mutations) were quickly eliminated by natural selection.
Today, with much of that selection gone, or indeed reversed by government programs, we can expect to find rapid devolution -- "rapid" in geological terms.
The "solutions" will begin when science can make routine gene therapy for in vitro conceptions.
I have no guess what new problems that will create...