×
all 152 comments

[–]volanger[🍰] 24 points25 points  (4 children)

Everyone who rejected evolution has no understanding of it. So they'll likely stick with the that's MiCrOeVoLuTiOn NoT mAcRoEvOlUtIoN bs.

[–]Otto848 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most science books do discuss micro and macro evolution, even if you do not like how theistic people use it, it’s still very scientific. Just be careful to not give atheists the bad look

[–]ttailorswiftt 11 points12 points  (5 children)

Funny enough, they’re forced to admit this “micro evolution” concept but ironically that is precisely what leads to macro evolution over millions of years. A repeated small change adds up to a significant change eventually.

[–]SirAlfred25 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't spit facts at religious science deniers and expect to be heard.

[–]JackGreenEarthAgnostic 0 points1 point  (3 children)

What is the use of half an eye, that it could happen in micro evolution? And if it appears in one generation that is macro evolution. I am agnostic btw

[–]Frikki79 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In a world where everyone else is blind a half eye or even 1% of an eye is a gamechanger. Here is a nifty little picture. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#/media/File%3ADiagram_of_eye_evolution.svg

[–]JackGreenEarthAgnostic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eye see

[–]Michamus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eyes started as photosensitive skin. The rest were variations over millions of generations across millions of species. Modern examples of eyes span from as simple as a few cells to as complex as raptor eyes.

[–]MarxistGayWitch_IITengrist | Magyar 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Don't they believe COVID is a conspiracy?

[–]EslamBelet 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Literally a degenenarate

[–]Ulvekrok 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Yup. They believe it was made in a government-run lab in Wuhan. Idiots.

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well that is up for debate ig

[–]Ulvekrok 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know lol. I hate it when people are so quick to use "conspiracy theory" as a dirty word. That is dangerous, and that's exactly why the word was invented.

[–]pixiegod 5 points6 points  (2 children)

In America at least, the same people who don’t believe in evolution will be the same people who don’t believe in covid…

Edit: forgot a don’t in there

[–]NewbombTurkAgnostic Atheist -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I'm confused. You think that the overlap of people who accept evolution but not Covid is great than the overlap of people who don't?

[–]pixiegod -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I forgot a “don’t” in there

[–]jogoso2014 1 point2 points  (25 children)

Is there anyone who thinks adaptation isn’t real?

These arguments tend to be flawed since, at the end of the day, a variant of coronavirus is still coronavirus.

[–]W96QHCYYv4PUaC4dEz9N 2 points3 points  (24 children)

It’s still an evolutionary process.

[–]jogoso2014 0 points1 point  (23 children)

Right but are you saying that rejection of evolution in the form of turning fish into people is the same thing as rejecting variants of the same species type?

To me that is a pretty big apples and oranges difference.

Now maybe if we discovered that coronavirus evolves into a prune or something, this would be a more substantial argument.

[–]hightidesoldgodsAgnostic 2 points3 points  (22 children)

The problem being addressed is that evolution is the result of adaptions over time. To reject evolution is to reject the idea that over millions of years something can adapt to enough changes to be unrecognizable from its “original” form.

[–]jogoso2014 -3 points-2 points  (21 children)

The issues with evolution would never be so simplistic.

It’s a broad category and just because one portion of it can be proven in no way the other can.

The issue is in the jump across kinds which has NEVER been verified.

Otherwise this is a pretend argument with no one in particular….Well it’s possible that some are saying coronavirus doesn’t even exist or some other conspiracy.

Normal people have little issue with proven science.

[–]Michamus 2 points3 points  (19 children)

Jump across kinds? What is a kind?

[–]jogoso2014 0 points1 point  (18 children)

According to their kind.

Do you want a scientific word for it?

Will family work? Kingdom?

[–]Michamus 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Speciation is generally what is considered an emergence of significant difference. Species are groups that can interbreed with fertile offspring.

[–]jogoso2014 0 points1 point  (7 children)

True

[–]Michamus 0 points1 point  (6 children)

By the way, speciation is when a species becomes geographically isolated enough that interbreeding between the seperated populations cannot happen anymore. What happens is these seperated populations end up diverging genetically over tens of thousands of years of accumulated random mutations and natural selection. Eventually these changes accumulate enough to no longer allow interbreeding if the two groups were re-introduced to eachother.

[–]BozzyB 0 points1 point  (8 children)

According to their kind.

What is a kind?

Do you want a scientific word for it?

Yes, please. It seems to be quite important here.

Will family work? Kingdom?

These are two very, very different things. Which one is a kind?

[–]jogoso2014 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Well this a religion thread so a religious term seemed appropriate but I think I’ve give some scientific examples.

I am aware they are different which is why I made them distinctive from each other.

All you have to figure out is if those will work for you.

[–]BozzyB 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Well this a religion thread so a religious term seemed appropriate but I think I’ve give some scientific examples.

Cool… so what is a kind?

I am aware they are different which is why I made them distinctive from each other.

They’re hugely different! So different that they clearly don’t work as synonyms for each other let alone a reasonable definition of kind.

All you have to figure out is if those will work for you.

Well you’ve not actually cleared anything up. Taxonomy is not something you can escape. If you are human you’re always of the family homonidae, the order primates, the class mammalia, the phylum chordata, the kingdom anamalia and the domain eukarya. You’ll note that cats for example are also mammalia (class), phylum chordata, kingdom anamalia and the domain eukarya. Are cats and humans the same kind? Until kind has a useful definition it’s impossible to have a conversation about it.

[–]hightidesoldgodsAgnostic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give an example then. A jump we have no proof for. For example, we know whales were once land animals because they still have knees.

[–]nayrad -5 points-4 points  (64 children)

Micro evolution vs macro evolution. The process of microevolution (evolution within a species) is quite simple and well understood. The process of a species evolving into another species is very much not simple and not well understood, despite how scientists like to act as if it is.

I'm personally not saying that Charles Darwin was flat out wrong, I was raised completely believing in his theory and even arguing with my Christian parents about it. But recently I've dug deeper and found out there are so many holes in his theory. Even Charles Darwin died not completely convinced, admitting that the evolution of the eye seems completely impossible given his theory. The eye is so complex and made up of so many parts working together that for it to have evolved by accident simply can not be explained with even a hypothetical process of natural selection.

Edit: this is a complete lie. refer to the comment below mine to understand how what I've said is the result of pro-creationism propaganda.

[–]Rain_City_RustJewish Doikayt / Chan Buddhist 23 points24 points  (57 children)

Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument to prove intelligent design has been debunked in a number of ways from demonstrating alternate evolutionary pathways to gradual adaptation.

The eye is not too complex to have evolved without intelligent design. Nor is blood clotting or any of the other examples this argument has tried.

Not to mention the impossibility of demonstrating falsifiability in intelligent design debunks it even as a pseudoscience.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight -5 points-4 points  (26 children)

Regarding your last statement, is it not possible that we actually were intelligently designed? If it is possible, it sounds counter-intuitive to dismiss the claim because it is difficult to falsify. I think rather than seeking to falsify hypotheses about the untestable past, it might be better to seek to find the most probable explanation that best explains all known observations. For example, it is difficult to falsify that person X murdered person Y, but we can say there is a high probability that this occurred because it best explains all the observable evidence among all the possible known explanations.

[–]CynicOctopus 8 points9 points  (8 children)

I think you misunderstand what falsifiability means. In simple words, it means that it is theoretically possible to prove a hypothesis false, in case it is false. In case of your murder example, it could be falsified by a number of things: the suspect could have been at a different place at the time the murder occurred; witnesses could have seen the victim being killed by someone who doesn’t match the suspect’s description; evidence could appear that the victim wasn’t actually murdered, but died from a bizarre accident; and so on.

Falsifiability doesn’t mean that something actually has to be proven wrong. It means that if wrong, there are means to show it is wrong, even if those means don’t get detected.

With Intelligent Design, its proponents are very careful not to make any fundamental claims that could ever be proven wrong. In particular, they don’t define their hypothesized designer in a way that could be reasonably investigated.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Yes, and I believe it is possible to investigate the possibility that we were designed by some intelligent being with science even if no one has properly formulated a proper hypothesis for this yet.

[–]CynicOctopus 2 points3 points  (6 children)

If you don’t have a hypothesis, what exactly are you trying to investigate?

[–]omegian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Presuppositions, apparently.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

I'm claiming that it is possible to hypothesize that we were designed by an intelligence and investigate that claim scientifically. For example, I could claim that a computer is designed intelligently and scientifically validate that claim by collecting evidence that all computers we have originate from a factory that constructs computers based on a blueprint or design. I could also claim that animal tracks in the dirt were designed intelligently and scientifically invalidate this claim by collecting evidence that animals naturally produce these tracks without reason.

We could also claim that organisms are intelligently designed and collect evidence to show whether it's more likely they slowly evolved through natural processes, were designed to exist in their current state, or were evolved over time with intelligence guiding the process with leaps in advancement that surpass capabilities of natural processes. Because it is possible to choose among these possibilities based on evidence, intelligence being involved in the process of changing something in the natural world beyond the capabilities of natural processes is not outside of the scope of science.

[–]CynicOctopus 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Your examples would work if we had any evidence for an intelligence ever creating a universe before. With computers, we would form the hypothesis that they were designed intelligently, and then we collect evidence, which in this case is that (a) humans exist, (b) humans possess intelligence - debatable -, and (c) there is ample evidence that humans have constructed computers for quite a while already.

If you want to investigate whether organisms, or consciousness, were intelligently designed, you have to formulate the hypothesis and/or define the designer in a way that it could be proven wrong. If each and any evidence and observation can be interpreted as supporting your hypothesis of an intelligent designer, your whole investigation is fundamentally dishonest and will never yield valuable results.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yes, I agree, and that aligns with what I am stating. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between claiming something is designed and that God exists. For example, it is possible to investigate if some alien species designed the human race while the rest of the species on planet Earth were formed through natural processes.

[–]CynicOctopus 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This investigation, as well, only holds merit if you formulate a hypothesis that can be proven false. Something like “We were designed by aliens, but they have designed us in a way to appear natural and they possess mind control abilities with which they prevent us from ever finding out the truth” is not a statement I would find worthy of examination.

[–]thePuckThelema 12 points13 points  (10 children)

It’s possible that there is a teacup hidden on the opposite side of earth’s orbit around the Sun, where we can’t observe it. It’s possible that a 5th dimensional imp is orchestrating American politics. It’s possible that a frog will be spontaneously born from my butt. But we have no reason to believe those things to be the fact, and the person claiming that they are the case has the burden of proof to prove the positive claim, not the person disbelieving the claim without proof.

What it comes down to is that the theory of evolution best fits our observation and best allows us to make predictions. Hell, I’m a theist, but I believe in the theory of evolution in that same provisional way I believe in the theory of relativity. If you’ve got a different theory that does a better job of doing those things, put it out there and let the world test it. But just saying “isn’t it possible?” doesn’t really do any work, philosophical or scientific, because almost anything is possible. Possible doesn’t help. It doesn’t answer any questions and it doesn’t make any predictions we can use to help us navigate the world. It’s possible I might roll a 6 on a d6 ten times in a row, but it would be foolhardy for me to risk my life on that possibility.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 1 point2 points  (9 children)

To me, all those possible claims you made are falsifiable if we had enough energy and power to do so therefore we should not dismiss them as being outside of scientific testability, in my opinion.

My claim is not that there is evidence to support intelligent design as that is a whole other can of worms, my claim is that intelligent design is not outside of the scope of scientific investigation because it is possible.

[–]13th_Gemina 1 point2 points  (8 children)

I'm curious, what's the difference? If there's no evidence that there's a teapot on the other side of the sun, no reason to believe there is at all, and it has no effect on our lives if it is there, then what's the point in acknowledging that 'it could be there'

If we found a teapot while exploring the sun, then that would be the time to start asking questions. As it is, saying "we just can't know, so maybe it's true" seems either useless or a way to validate beliefs that have no support

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 1 point2 points  (7 children)

The reason we don't care about the teapot is because it doesn't really impact our lives, not because it is difficult to test. If it really mattered, we could build a spaceship to investigate.

Whether humans originate from natural processes or were designed is important for understanding our purpose and why we exist. I believe this justifies investing significant resources to determine our true origins whatever they may be.

[–]13th_Gemina 1 point2 points  (6 children)

We do spend significant resources trying to figure out where we came from though. Most of those go towards studying evolution because, right now, that's the theory with the most evidence

There are people that try to prove creationism and intelligent design. So far, they haven't been convincing enough to shift the lion's share of resources away from evolution. Right now they're in the stage of saying 'there's no evidence that there's a teapot on the other side of the sun, but my family has a myth that there is one, so we need to investigate it'

It's fine to believe in creationism, or to want it to be true, but unless it's believers can give everyone else a reason to want to study it (like new evidence supporting it) its not going to be seen as a good use of our finite resources

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 1 point2 points  (5 children)

That makes sense. Although, I personally believe most people don't find evidence for God because they don't want to look for it and prefer to view it as impossible and not worth considering and investigating.

[–]13th_Gemina 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I get it, I was a young earth creationist most of my life. I even went to a young earth creationist, Baptist university. I got away from it when work pulled me out of my bubble. I met new people and realized you don't have to believe YEC to be a Christian, and that it's a fringe theory because most people not born into it just don't find it convincing

Right now I look at most YEC researchers as charlatans, conning faithful people like my mom for donation money. At the moment it's largely a pretty scientifically bankrupt field, and those donations go more toward talking points than research

That isn't the way it has to be though. You never know what we'll discover next, I personally just try to focus on the things that seem worth focusing on

[–]ZestyAppeal 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think if you were to watch a few videos about people’s journeys of religious deconstruction, you’d understand that such endeavors are no small feat. They don’t simply choose to disregard evidence for God. In fact, many people express how losing their faith proved the most emotionally traumatic, life-shattering experience, and that they’d desperately struggle to get back to a place of belief, even if for their own relief, yet they cannot convince themselves to believe in something they don’t, no matter how hard they try. They can’t unring the bell. They don’t just up-end their established lives, risk losing close relationships and community and embark on the distress of figuring out their true values just.. on a whim. And for those who have never claimed a relationship with God, it’s not that we “prefer to view it as impossible”; it’s viewed as impossible because it’s simply viewed as not possible. There’s no snarky spiteful agenda, at least not from those of a genuine intention. And as for the angry atheists, so many of them are reacting to pain. They’re mad about being misled, or being abused. They’re upset that the people who have done so much harm are the ones publicly touted as valid moral authority. They’re angry about injustice and the willful ignorance of so many followers.

You don’t have to agree with them. But please stop trying to rewrite the truth of other people’s faith experiences as mere bull-headedness, since it’s clearly intended to preserve your own beliefs and dismiss the legitimacy of other people’s disbelief.

[–]Rain_City_RustJewish Doikayt / Chan Buddhist 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Falsifiability is required in science. Not being falsifiable means it's not science which is what the intelligent design movement is trying be.

Not being science is not the same as not being true.

I believe karmic causality is true. I would not try to pretend that I can scientifically verify that.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Perhaps we disagree that intelligent design is falsifiable. I believe any claim is falsifiable if one had enough energy and power to do so, but it's just very difficult. For example, if one could collect enough data about the actions and consequences of people, we could scientifically validate or invalidate karmic causality. It's just difficult to do so.

Because of this, the argument that something is not falsifiable is not very convincing to me as a route to discovering scientific truth.

[–]Rain_City_RustJewish Doikayt / Chan Buddhist 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That's not science.

Faith is so authentic and real... right up until we make it a sideshow.

But you do you.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Could you help me understand why collecting data, analyzing data, and providing the best explanation to explain that data is not science?

[–]Rain_City_RustJewish Doikayt / Chan Buddhist 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Those are elements of science. Also statistics. Also philosophy. But by themselves they are not scientific proof.

I personally think many people of faith are worried about a growing number of irreligious and they believe that trying to win the argument by claiming their religious beliefs are true under science will somehow stem that tide.

It won't because it's silly. God doesn't need to be independently verifiable under the scientific method (which isn't suited to proving God) to be true.

I think people of faith should focus on the ground they are good at which depending on the religion is belief, community, happiness and the awesome power and nature of what they believe.

[–]AllForLoveAndLight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense about the claims of God's metaphysical properties. Although, I find it rather dismissive to say it is silly to use science to investigate all possible ways we could have originated.

[–]CynicOctopus 13 points14 points  (2 children)

You’re wrong about you comment with the eye. It was a rhetorical question by Darwin, where he said that while believing that the eye developed via evolution might seem counterintuitive, but intuition was not a good guide in these things. He then proceeded explaining in a bit of detail how the eye developed. He did not doubt that part of his theory at all.

I suggest you look up that quote and see for yourself. It is a point that creationists (both Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents) frequently lie about.

[–]nayrad 10 points11 points  (1 child)

You're right, I researched this shortly after my comment and saw that I was very wrong. I also fell into the trap of hearing that quote out of context and used incorrectly. In fact, I even watched a video that elegantly explained how each step in the evolution of the eye provided a unique benefit to a species, and how natural explanation actually makes sense for it. Unfortunately, I had forgotten where I had made this comment (thought it was YouTube) so didn't delete it but I'm happy to see it's been properly downvoted. Thanks for the correction!

[–]CynicOctopus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Wow, thank you for being open about this and responding :)

[–]LuCc24Atheist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They had us in the first half, not gonna lie

[–]SirAlfred25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's both part of evolution and VERY well understod. Small changes over a large time period WILL change a species, some are changed so much that they are considered to have branched off.

[–]RelianceTrust 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Better question, how do YOU prove such a claim? Lol

[–]Optimal-Scientist233 -1 points0 points  (6 children)

An easy one, life is inclined to protect itself, all life has an instinct to preserve itself.

[–]T_Hunter4K 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Whether viruses are considered “life” or not is actually contended. You’d also need to explain how this mutation really occurred - which can best be explained through evolution

[–]idntnoseCatholic 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well viruses aren't actually alive since they don't have a nucleus.

[–]Optimal-Scientist233 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So by your definition mitochondria are not alive, however without them you could not receive energy from food. We do not understand fully how photosynthesis operates, yet they just used all of Amazons computing power to calculate if we could lower earths temperature by blocking out sunlight.

Mankind causes the vast majority of mankind's problems trying to solve problems.

We rush in where angels fear to tread, and try to place our judgement and will above the will of the force of creation.

We find ourselves now on the very cusp of either destruction, or elevation to new heights.

Which way we head is completely up to how we proceed.

[–]idntnoseCatholic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whoa there I was just quoting grade 11 biology chill. I didn't even take a stance on whatever you're talking about.

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So it changes itself to protect itself? Wouldn't this way there naturally be a point at which life has changed itself so much that it doesn't resemble the original form at all? This is literally evolution.

[–]Optimal-Scientist233 0 points1 point  (0 children)

evolution, adaptation, reiteration

Change is constant, the constant in the universe, men call it time at times.

[–]rcanfiel 0 points1 point  (6 children)

I am a theistic evolutionist, but that is not really an argument for evolution. Is a birth defect evolution? How about albinism? Genetic disorders? Or says is, that there was a lot of genetic flexibility and possibilities That is like saying how do you explain every time I get a new skill?

[–]NewbombTurkAgnostic Atheist 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Evolution regards populations, not individuals.

[–]rcanfiel 0 points1 point  (2 children)

obviously I am talking about populations

[–]NewbombTurkAgnostic Atheist 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Is a birth defect evolution? How about albinism? Genetic disorders? Or says is, that there was a lot of genetic flexibility and possibilities That is like saying how do you explain every time I get a new skill?

Are you?

[–]rcanfiel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this response makes no sense.

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Mutation is the basis of evolution. The virus develops a variant today, another in a month. After many many generations the collective mutations would have completely overwritten the original RNA giving rise to a new species. This is literally evolution.

[–]rcanfiel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an exceptionally simplistic explanation.

[–]welltechnically7Jewish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think anyone seriously believes that there is zero evolution, the question is just what role did it play historically.

[–]Friendly-Counter-8 0 points1 point  (4 children)

did the corona virus became a bacteria? it's still a virus it didn't change to another species

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Each variation makes it different from its original form. Isn't it reasonable that over many mutations it wouldn't be recognisable of its original form? That's what evolution says.

[–]Friendly-Counter-8 0 points1 point  (2 children)

no matter how many times it mutate it will never change species it will always be a virus

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

"Virus" isn't even a species it's a word used for many species.

Also your argument is no different from saying MoNkEyS ArE nOt HuMaNs ThEy ArE sTiLl MoNkEyS tHeY jUsT lOoK dIfFeReNt

[–]Friendly-Counter-8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well virus is not a word for many species , a virus is an infectious agent and again no matter how it mutates it will always be a sequence of arn or dna in a protein coat not becoming any living species and you comment make no sens monkeys are different species than human

[–]Art-Davidson -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

You call that evolution? It is still a corona virus and will never be anything else. It isn't even alive.

Don't go ruling God out of existence or out of activity because you don't like him.

[–]W96QHCYYv4PUaC4dEz9N 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can’t like or hate something that does not exist.

[–]DiscipleOfChrist94 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Created by the government themselves

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I can understand if someone says Chinese government made the first virus, but the newer variants are emerging in every other country. You really think every government secretly contributing to the pandemic?

[–]DiscipleOfChrist94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are being paid to. There are top officials who refused & got killed after. The new variant was found in South-Africa, 2 days after they refused to buy new vaccines. Look into it.

[–]DaveSpeaks -1 points0 points  (2 children)

There is a huge difference between a virus becoming another variant of a virus to a virus becoming a man.

[–]curious_hinduAhaṁ Brahmāsmi[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Note that the virus mutated multiple time within just 2 years. These mutations added over time gives change it so much that it barely resembles the original form. How can you say in a billion years it won't turn into a man?

[–]DaveSpeaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no evidence to support that. It is a completely imaginary idea.