I have no sources. As previously stated, I'm merely speculating.

This discussion is on the hypothetical future, not historical events. Obviously, software and machines lend themselves to duties revolving around the processing and management of data (medical diagnoses, data entry, etc.); the question is (as stated in the OP) whether they'll become a viable alternative to low-skill jobs.

"Interestingly the safest jobs in the future may be ones that require manual skills as in gardening , shelf stacking , restaurant work etc ,etc. as bots are not yet advanced enough to carry out these tasks ."

You mean, the very same labor jobs robots are predicted to replace in the near future?

This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing that, as the cost of unskilled labor decreases (due to the replacement of employees by machines), the cost of raw/simple resources will decrease, which will in turn make said resources more plentiful/readily accessible, thereby increasing the general standard of living.

I was commenting on NathanAllen's "#WESTBOROLIVESDONOTMATTER".

What does someone's opinion on a matter, regardless of its controversial nature, have to do with the value of their life?

A healthy dose of impartial observation, followed by a dash of common sense.

Of course. They seem to be capable of quite astonishing feats of stamina when it means they can complain about something or demonize someone, so why not do so non-stop for the next four years?

You're correct, though not entirely: my description of Evolution (capitalized) was indeed flawed; I was describing the Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution, however, does not refer to just any change in alleles, however, nor does it theorize that alleles are capable of changing. That alleles change is an observable fact, clearly demonstrated by such examples as animal breeding and genetic heritage.

The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, states that genetic mutation is capable of, and has performed, the alteration of one species to another. Its nature as a theory, rather than observation, is due simply to the fact that its core ideal far overreaches observational evidence (given the astronomical periods of time involved), not to mention the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence contradicting it.

The existence of diverse breakfast cereals doesn't refute Darwinian Evolution, therefore it must support it in some way, right? Excellent logic.

Oh? All the article says, despite its title being basically the same as yours, is that the genetic drift of some populations are being observed. That in no way supports Darwinian Evolution.

Scientists are now able to track adaptation. Great. Observations of the ability of organisms to adapt to their surroundings via Natural Selection have been going on for quite some time now, like, for example, the visible process of dog breeding (incidentally a controlled adaptation), or Darwin's finches.

Adaptation, however, is not equivalent to Evolution. Evolution is an unsubstantiated theory that proposes that all life mutated into its current form from a common ancestor over astronomical periods of time, while adaptation is an observable phenomenon.

As such, the provided article bears absolutely no relevance, and thus substantiation, to the OP's argument.

Your entire basis for this argument (based on your later posts) is based around ambiguity and lack of context. Congratulations.

Here's something you should keep in mind:

This topic is about Liberals, not Conservatives. Dismissing the OP's point by saying "well, the other side does bad things too!" is both fallacious and childish.

What do Conservative beliefs have to do with this topic? Just because Conservative views are allegedly flawed doesn't mean Liberal views are intelligent.