Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
evolution stamp by Apsaravis evolution stamp by Apsaravis
I'm tired of all those people saying "I don't believe in evolution because [insert random creationist crap here]". (And creationism includes all that "Intelligent Design" stuff, hope it's obvious)
You can't say "I believe/don't believe in evolution", because, well, it's not a matter of belief. :roll:
People who reject evolution most often simply have no idea what it is about and that's rather sad.
_________

[link] - thanks, *SageGoat

_________

Comments are allowed again.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Feb 13, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Well, you've really got to define your terms first. Microevolution (or natural selection or speciation) is undeniable and a non-issue. But it is macroevolution (essentially and simply put the concept of microbe to man across aeons of time) that is the real issue, and that is what anti-Evolutionists or Christians/Creationists really refer to when they express disbelief in or disapproval of the general concept of "Evolution" or "Evolutionism" as a philosophy, belief or religion. In this sense, yes, you can indeed say you don't believe in "Evolution". Indeed, some people who reject Evolution may not properly comprehend why they even should reject it, but then again, there are also a great deal of people who know full well why they do good in rejecting that belief in Evolution.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2017
Except that, in science, there is no debate about the validity of evolution (and what you refer as macroevolution is merely a cumulation of speciation events). 
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Horribly phrased. Rather, among Evolutionists, there is barely no debate on the supposed "validity" of Evolution as a philosophical framework. I was an Evolutionist for 20 years, and it took me several years to dare to come to terms with the reality of it being a dark, amoral, irrational, unscientific concept of a worldview. I believe it's pretty generally understood that macroevolution (if it were ever real) should indeed be an accumulation of changes produced through means of speciation (natural selection or microevolution which, unlike macroevolution, can be tested, repeated and observed), but alas, speciation does not produce this supposed "accumulation" of genetic changes to the organism, but species are produced by means of the decrease of information in the genome, each change gradually destroys the entire lineage of organisms. The actual process of speciation goes downhill, not "uphill" as Evolution would demand. The stone cold truth has to be faced sooner or later, Evolution is none more than an elaborate work of science fiction-fantasy. In other words, you can't go from a microbe to a human being simply because logic tells you (assuming the microbe ever by some strange process succeeded to arise on its own) the microbe will go extinct long before it could ever turn to anything even remotely close to even a worm.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2017
" among Evolutionists"
Not evolutionist (since there is no such thing) but among the scientific community.

"I was an Evolutionist for 20 years, and it took me several years to dare to come to terms with the reality of it being a dark, amoral, irrational, unscientific concept of a worldview."
Small problem there Pellchinn, a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life is not a worldview. Or are you suggesting that all scientific theories are worldviews also? How about gravity? Atom?

"I believe it's pretty generally understood that macroevolution (if it were ever real) should indeed be an accumulation of changes produced through means of speciation (natural selection or microevolution which, unlike macroevolution, can be tested, repeated and observed)"
Biology-wise, speciation (formation of a new specie) is considered "macroevolution".

"species are produced by means of the decrease of information in the genome"
Except when extra duplication of a gene occurs, which is quite frequent.

Perhaps you might desire to read about the subject? There is quite a lot of information online from educational and scientific sources. I suggest starting from the Berkeley university page on the subject.
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
///Not evolutionist (since there is no such thing) but among the scientific community.///

If there supposedly "is no such thing as Evolutionist" then you might as well say there is no such thing as Creationist either. Both terms (which are evidently very real and frequently used) are used to denote individuals with a specific foundational philosophical framework for interpreting scientific data and understanding the world around them. However, don't confuse the concepts of Evolution and Creation with the individuals who adhere to belief in said concepts. The scientific community consists of both Evolutionists and Creationists, and what you are really referring to are nothing but Evolutionists. Even yet, I should urge you to proceed with caution in using any ad populum arguments.

///Small problem there Pellchinn, a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life is not a worldview. Or are you suggesting that all scientific theories are worldviews also? How about gravity? Atom?///

How would that be in any way "a small matter"? If you hold to an Evolutionary philosophy, you have no true foundation for morality other than personal interest and preference, and morality is the very building block of society, but you are then completely trapped in a world of neverending meaninglessness, darkness, suffering and amorality. It's one thing to deal with the concepts of Creation (essentially the idea that a personal agent and intelligence is behind life and the universe) and Evolution (essentially the idea that life and the universe somehow created and ordered itself, which is of course counterintuitive) as possible explanations of the origin of the universe as well as the origin and development of life (Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, Social and Technological), but it's completely another when people start adhering to belief in the concept and attempting to indoctrinate others into sharing the same belief (especially by not being willing to let people choose a different belief). Evolution (in its general sense) is not even close to comparable to such things as gravity and atoms (which, unlike [macro]Evolution, can be continually and constantly experienced and observed), because it is merely the construct of your own mind (i.e. fantasy). Microevolution, however, is definitely comparable.

///Biology-wise, speciation (formation of a new specie) is considered "macroevolution".///

Macroevolution is generally and specifically defined as Evolution above the species or family classifications, or Evolution occurring on a large scale (as opposed to mere speciation). Trying to merge microevolution and macroevolution together doesn't solve anything, it doesn't address the issues, but that kind of reasoning is like referring actual teenagers to actual babies or adult dogs to small puppies. That is more an attempt at defending Evolution regardless of any methods or costs. Stating that "macroevolution is microevolution" means you're merely talking about nothing else but microevolution, but the term macroevolution exists to describe something much larger and more different from microevolution. If anything, the species (or family) level of classification is right below the ultimate limit for what could be considered macroevolution. But yet again, speciation (microevolution) is not the issue and never really were, but macroevolution is. You could learn further on this subject by visiting the very Berkeley Evolution Library you're evidently referring to below;
evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr…

///Except when extra duplication of a gene occurs, which is quite frequent.///

This is indeed common in the degeneration of the organism, and the subsequent rise of a new species, but again, it's all working in a downward spiral where the organism will eventually go completely extinct. Gene duplication doesn't produce new functions or features, but (precisely) duplicate features (generally while losing another feature). Evolution on any large scale (eg. microbe to man across millions of years) cannot logically or reasonably occur.

///Perhaps you might desire to read about the subject? There is quite a lot of information online from educational and scientific sources. I suggest starting from the Berkeley university page on the subject.///

I've had a passionate interest in Evolution for more than 20 years. I never really stopped. I'd suggest you drop this arrogant attitude, lest any discussion will be at a complete standstill.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017
"you might as well say there is no such thing as Creationist eithe"
Technically there are since they have faith in their creation myth while scientific theories are not a matter of faith.

"
what you are really referring to are nothing but Evolutionists."
No, I am merely talking about the scientific community. You can refer to the NCBI database to find hundreds of thousands of biology peer review papers, all supporting the scientific theory of evolution and not a single one pointing to a specific deity of creation myth.

"
and Evolution (essentially the idea that life and the universe somehow created and ordered itself, which is of course counterintuitive) as possible explanations of the origin of the universe as well as the origin and development of life (Cosmic, Stellar, Chemical, Organic, Social and Technological)"
The scientific theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, nothing else. Please, do not invent "evolution" like Eric Hovind tried to do.

"
Evolution (in its general sense) is not even close to comparable to such things as gravity and atoms (which, unlike [macro]Evolution, can be continually and constantly experienced and observed), because it is merely the construct of your own mind (i.e. fantasy). Microevolution, however, is definitely comparable."
The entire scientific community would disagree with your statement.

"
Macroevolution is generally and specifically defined as Evolution above the species or family classifications, or Evolution occurring on a large scale (as opposed to mere speciation)"
You seem to really be confused about what speciation is (formation of a new specie) and "macroevolution". Again, I suggest you read about the subject. Cumulate the speciation events over a period of time and you'll get to what you define as "macroevolution" (which is both observed in the fossil record and supported by phylogenetic).

"
it's all working in a downward spiral where the organism will eventually go completely extinct"
Yet another baseless claim. With the selective pressure in an ecosystem, it leads to better odds of surviving until reproduction (thus, not leading to extinction).

"
Gene duplication doesn't produce new functions or features, but (precisely) duplicate features (generally while losing another feature)."
Quite the contrary.  Considering that the Pax 2 and Pax 6 genes has a same origin which duplicated and leaded to those two, one which lead to the formation of the ears, one for the formation of the eyes.

"
Evolution on any large scale (eg. microbe to man across millions of years) cannot logically or reasonably occur."
Genetic seems to prove you wrong.

"
I'd suggest you drop this arrogant attitude, lest any discussion will be at a complete standstill."
I have no arrogant attitude, merely one of discouragement when one who claim to have had an interest in the subject shows quite a lot of ignorance in her claims.
Reply
:iconpellchinnn:
Pellchinnn Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Seriously? You're just acting in a stubborn and ignorant manner and not even willing to discuss this openly and respectfully and seriously address any of my objections to your claims, this is but empty words and a juvenile attempt at telling me I'm "wrong" without any regards as to whether you are actually justified in doing so or not. Come on! But alright, whatever you say. Live the dream mate.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2017
Sorry Pellchinn, but you provided no actual objection and I had to actually correct you quite a few times. If you did not desire people to respond to your claims, then you shouldn't have posted a message.

And empty words? So the Pax-2 and PAx-6 genes being a duplicate but leading to the formation of two different organs are empty words?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Ah, the good 'ol comment section, the perfect place to see the true nature of humanity :) (Smile) 
Well....so many people disregarding scientific evidence, not really a place I want to be.
Reply
:icondragonking24:
DragonKing24 Featured By Owner Jul 31, 2016
I believe in both in my opinion and yes God could be involved in evolution according to a quote

"Should evolution be an answer to how but not an answer to why"
Reply
:icongreen-tea-flower:
Green-Tea-Flower Featured By Owner Edited Apr 3, 2016  Student General Artist
Creationists don't get how Evolution works because they haven't evolved yet!:iconhurrhurrplz:
Reply
:iconhermy-one:
Hermy-one Featured By Owner Edited Mar 11, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Right? You dont believe, you use your own reason to determine its validity. They think people accept evolution because someone said so, like they believe/accept things because the bible or pastor says so.

I went to the Natural History museum and was embarrassed by my mother loudly proclaiming just this upon reaching the ancient ape and human bones. She stalked away refusing to even look at them. I had to give her a calm down lecture that it is fact there are very old skeletons that are similar to both human and ape and because this is science, theories are postulated based on what we are strictly observing. That there is no reason to be defensive and no one was going to chain her down and make her believe in ape-men lol. Sorry, my mum and I dont get on well...
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner May 15, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Funny almost...
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
To sum up,this stamp says:

"Fuck Christians,their beliefs are bullshit".
Reply
:iconlightningaxe1000:
LightningAxe1000 Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2016
Their beliefs are bullshit. All religious beliefs are bullshit. 
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Sep 4, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks. I'm a Christian,so have a nice block! ;)
Reply
:icondiehard300:
DieHard300 Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2016
If you believe that Evidence and Logic is less important than your childish fantasies, yeah, Your beliefs are bullshit.
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Nov 11, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Pissed off much? :)
You're so butthurt.
But "love thy neighbor",so I'm not gonna shame on you or block you. 
Reply
:iconanimalistic-artworks:
Animalistic-Artworks Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Why say he is butthurt or pissed off? The only person who seems pissed off in the slightest is you because of the rash way you reacted to someone calling your belief "bullshit". Is silencing someone the adult way to discuss something?

Evolution itself also doesn't mean you cant hold a religious belief. (see "Theistic Evolution")
And "DieHard300"s point stands. Do you think demonstrable amounts of scientific evidence is less important than your religious belief? Have you analyzed the evidence yourself?
Demonstrable evidence doesn't care about an individuals or groups belief to the contrary.
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Old comment is old. Now I believe in evolution and I'm not much religious anymore. I'm quite on the deist/rationalist side.
Reply
:iconanimalistic-artworks:
Animalistic-Artworks Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Thats interesting to hear :) What brought you to believe in it? (Not meaning to intrude on your personal life, im just interested about what thoughts/events people go through when they sway away from religiosity towards things like evolution) :)
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Basically...
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Apr 28, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah.
When will people understand that we are not Pokémon? Evolution,according to me,is partially fantasy,developed by a bearded "hipsta" that despised God.
Reply
:iconpaleosir:
paleosir Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Do you realize what evolution even means? 
Pokemon doesn't show any evolution, they just call it that way (actually, in the pokemon lore, everything is created by a god, but that aside).

-''Evolution,according to me,is partially fantasy,developed by a bearded "hipsta" that despised God.''- Well, the pople accepts evolution.
Does he despise God? No.
Also, it is supported by a ton of evidence, which is, luckily, easily accesible nowadays through the wonderful means of the internet you are using.
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Old comment was old. Did you ever read the date?
Also,who is the "pople"? Are you referring to the Pope or the people?
Reply
:iconclivehandforth:
clivehandforth Featured By Owner Jul 10, 2016  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
you realize evolution takes many many years right? i can't just wake up one day and be a giraffe. it's not that simple.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
MMMYeah...basically...

But hey, I can't say what's fact yet....I'll wait it out, til then, I'll stick with God and his homies.
Reply
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah. I'll do too :XD:
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
Why fuck christian? The head of the Church itself accept the scientific theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life.
The only ones who have problems with it are creationists (and not only christians creationists).
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner May 4, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Easy, those people are not really of the religion...
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner May 4, 2016
Or they are of the religion and you are not.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner May 4, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
Bullshit if I ever heard any tbh...those people don't even follow half of the stuff in the book.

Glad to see you again Mr.Mel...it's been a while. Art is great as always, wish I could fav, but that'll make it awkward...
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner May 5, 2016
Why would you claim that they do not follow their book? Especially considering they still use latin and all instead of badly translated english (badly translated since english is a germanic language and not a latin one).

And like the art if you want, I bear no ill will on people because we disagree one the validity of a scientific theory.
Reply
:iconwakaflockaflame1:
wakaflockaflame1 Featured By Owner May 5, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
I should tell you this now, my arguments are not against evolution... I'm just against those faker who claim they are holy.

Well for one...in the case of Roman catholic... their book...it's not their book...they are Roman converts who thought it best financially if they changed from the religion they were originally doing...into Christianity. So now all of a sudden, we got statues that they claim are profits, but were originally just statues of their gods

Latin? The book was originally written in Hebrew, not Latin. That's why I'd call someone crazy if they honestly think "Jesus" was his name...when the letter "J" isn't even that old.... I just call him Jesus cause it's easier to remember...
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner May 7, 2016
Christianity's entire history has borrowed things from other myths, heck, it's the same with judaism who borrowed things from other mesopotamian religions. It's kind of understandable since, at it's basis, a religion is a subset of the culture whose myths and legends are veneered. To get more followers, they borrow things from the other myth.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconthediscoturkey:
TheDiscoTurkey Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016  Hobbyist General Artist
The head of which church?
Each church has a different head...Catholic one has the Pope,Anglican one has the Queen,Orthodox one has the Patriarchs... :/

I've seen that many Christian people,including myself,conciliate creationism with evolutionism. For example,God could have created dinosaurs and they later evolved into birds,reptiles and what's on. :> But that's a matter of faith. I have no problem with either full creationists nor full evolutionists.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 29, 2016
You can believe that if you desire, sure, if you go into specific details of the abrahamic creation myth problems occurs (per instance genetic demonstrate there never was an Adam nor an Eve) but you can believe evolution was "guided" by your deity (which is the current stance of the "Church" in general).
Reply
:iconbrutusstark:
BrutusStark Featured By Owner Dec 10, 2015
With respect, I disagree. But you have every right to post what you believe is the truth as the Christians do the same.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2015
If I may point out, as it is said in the stamp, evolution is not a matter of belief. In biology, it is demonstrable that life do evolves and the scientific theory of evolution is the only model which encompass every single things observed in biology to explain the diversity of life.
Reply
:iconbrutusstark:
BrutusStark Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2015
Yes it is. Biology supports micro, not macro evolution.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Dec 18, 2015
Macroevolution is defined as the formation of a new species. It's also called speciation and this has been observed both in lab and in nature.
Reply
:iconbrutusstark:
BrutusStark Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2015
No, no, it's not a new species, it's a breed of the same species. Plus the extreme genetic mutations cannot reproduce.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2015
" it's not a new species, it's a breed of the same species."
1. It is considered a new specie when that population cannot reproduce with other population originating from the same ancestral population.
2. In biology, a new specie never stop being part of the previous group it was part of. As such, homo sapiens (that's us) are part of the homonidae, oh the haplorhini, of the primates, of the placental mammals, of the synapsids, of the amniotes, of the tetrapods, chordates and eukaryotes to name a few.

"Plus the extreme genetic mutations cannot reproduce."
Actually it can since mutations are spreading throughout the population as the selective pressure of an ecosystem select the traits that helps survival until reproduction. If a mutation gives an advantage, it will favour the mutant to have offspring as the generations continues, the populations will have that mutant gene.
Reply
:iconbrutusstark:
BrutusStark Featured By Owner Dec 22, 2015
No, mutations cannot reproduce. Mutations are seldom beneficial. Plus most of these animals that had a common ancestor didn't share the same common ancestor with us.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Dec 23, 2015
"No, mutations cannot reproduce."
They can be passed on to the next generation if the one who has the mutation survives until reproduction.

"Plus most of these animals that had a common ancestor didn't share the same common ancestor with us."
Actuall yes, we share these common ancestors with them. Morphology and genetic demonstrate it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconareksim:
Areksim Featured By Owner Jul 9, 2015   Photographer
I don't believe in evolution because the earth is flat! xD

lol
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Jun 2, 2015
Okay, I want someone to debate me. Why can't the theory of evolution work with Creationism? Really, why not?
Reply
:iconspinozillarex:
SpinozillaRex Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2015
Because creationism suggests that all species were created on one day while evolution suggests that it took animals millions of years to adapt to a specific environment. Creationism dismisses the idea that an animal can adapt to the point where it can be a separate species from it's ancestors, but for some reason excepts the idea of adaptation.
Reply
:icontidalwave21:
tidalwave21 Featured By Owner Dec 8, 2015
Well, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. They also believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are mythology with symbolic meaning. 
Reply
:iconspinozillarex:
SpinozillaRex Featured By Owner Dec 9, 2015
Well if you ask me it doesn't seem like people are paying attention to the church. There are still tons of catholic schools that repent the teachings of evolution, not to mention tons of people.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 10, 2009
Image Size
4.9 KB
Resolution
99×56
Thumb

Stats

Views
27,144 (1 today)
Favourites
1,790 (who?)
Comments
2,930
×