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:
 
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Good for you.
Reply
:iconseeing-spades:
Seeing-Spades Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2015  Student General Artist
and this is why i dont bother with religion
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
There is no disagreement, evolution is still the only scientific model which explains the diversity of life in science. No competing hypothesis is supported by everything observed in biology.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2015
So we must agree to disagree.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
"So the simple age of something disqualifies it from acquiracy?"
No, but it wouldn't take into account our current understanding of evolution based on what we now know of genetic now wouldn't it?

" I do not need to provide biological documentation."
When making a claim about science, you are obligated to support your assertion with scientific peer review documentation of the fields in question. In the case of evolution, you have to provide biology related papers.

"you don't skip ahead to advanced details unless the basics proves trustworthy in the first place"
And the basis for the model of evolution has been demonstrated hence why it moved from being an hypothesis to being a scientific theory.


"The Evolution Hoax Exposed is entirely valid in first checking the fundamentals of the whole evolution hypothesis, and this means historical research into Darwin (and Huxley). Darwin admitted that he often doubted the validity of his own theories, and also admitted that if certain basic problems remained unresolved (the infertility of mutations such as mules, for example) his whole argument would fall flat on its face."
And evolution has been confirmed times and times again and not a single peer review paper in the fields related to biology denies it's validity.  It is a fact that life evolves and the scientific theory of evolution explains how. You denying it won't make it false, it just makes you wrong because you deny what is demonstrable with empirical evidences.

" I am not qualified in that area, nor do I need to be. "
Then you have no reason to deny the validity of the scientific theory or to claim it to be false.

"That being said, there is plenty of literature there for you to read or access."
None which are related to science. Again, when discussing a scientific subject, you read scientific documentation.

"Start with Expelled by Ben Stein"
A movie about intelligent design being shown to be creationism under a guise? Sorry, but that silly movie has been debunked so many times it's a wonder anyone gives it any credance.

"Only then can one hope to resolve a question, by hearing both sides."
Unfortunately for you, there is no "two sides" in science, only what is demonstrable with empirical evidence. Hence why evolution stands as the only model which explains the diversity of life.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
So the simple age of something disqualifies it from acquiracy? That can't be true, as our whole basis of knowledge is built what others have discovered in the past. And no, I do not need to provide biological documentation. Not because it doesn't exist, but because when you are testing the dependibility of a theory, religion, world view or purported fact, you begin with the fundamentals; you don't skip ahead to advanced details unless the basics proves trustworthy in the first place. If you study history and someone claims an event occurred which was the Battle of the Bulge, you begin by checking the basic fact - did such a battle even take place and who claimed it did? You don't jump to analysing soil residues from 1940's boots. The Evolution Hoax Exposed is entirely valid in first checking the fundamentals of the whole evolution hypothesis, and this means historical research into Darwin (and Huxley). Darwin admitted that he often doubted the validity of his own theories, and also admitted that if certain basic problems remained unresolved (the infertility of mutations such as mules, for example) his whole argument would fall flat on its face. Nothing has changed.
Given that the fundamental principles are flawed, there is no need for myself to provide more rigerous documentation. I am not qualified in that area, nor do I need to be. That being said, there is plenty of literature there for you to read or access. Start with Expelled by Ben Stein. But if you ask why evolution couldn't have happened, then refuse to access anything that demonstrates why it couldn't because you claim that by definition that makes it 'nonsense', then you are actually insisting upon a self fulfilling analysis, and are not pursuing the question with integrity.

Obviously though we don't agree on these issues, and as fruitless argument is useless, I don't see the point in continuing. But read the material, as it's as incumbent upon you to read what the real objections against evolution are as it is for me to know what Darwinistic scientists claim. Only then can one hope to resolve a question, by hearing both sides.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2015
A specie turning into a completely different specie? Hmm, perhaps you are confusing what evolution does.
Per instance, we are humans (homo sapiens) but we are still part of the hominidae (with the pans, the ourang outangs and the gorillas), we are still part of the  haplorhinis (with all the apes who lost their tail and has a non-working vitaminc C producing gene), we are still primates (which includes both haplorhinis and Strepsirhini), are are still placental mammals (like all mammals which grows in their mother's wombs), we are still synapsids (which includes all placental mammals, all marsupials and all monotremes). We are still tetrapods (which includes synapsids and sauropsidae (which includes all reptile and birds). And that is to name a few.

Here is a link to a basic explanation of what evolution is and how it works by the Berkeley university. It also has several examples to support what they claim :

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr…

Enjoy!
Reply
:iconmishinopolis:
Mishinopolis Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
why have I not found any acceptable empirical evidence that evolution can cause one species to turn into a completely different species? Such as a land dwelling wolf like creature becoming a whale. if you have any references, I would be interested in seeing them.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
So a book written in 1971 is your "documentation"? Sorry, I asked for biology peer review documentation. You can find hundreds of thoudands of them on the NCBI database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ )

Actual scientific documentation, no religious/intelligent design nonsense.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Read The Evolution Hoax Exposed [link]www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Hoa…. The origins of the evolution theory are matters of history and historical research into the people who purported the theory. This book lays out how flimsy was (and remains) the idea and evidence (flimsiness recognised by Darwin and Huxley) and how little evidence there is behind the claims made by Darwinistic scientists. On top of this, Darwin on Trial is another worthwhile book. There is a wealth of literature on this, much of which is from leading scientists, but these are good starting points.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Are you familiar with the term theory in a scientific term? Because it is different from "mere speculation" and closer to "a model which has been confirmed with empirical evidence that explains a particular phenomenon" (in the case of evolution, it is the diversity of life.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
Actually, evolution is still ongoing as we speak. The emergence of new species is called speciation and numerous cases as been observed in both animals and plants.
Reply
:iconmelnazar:
Melnazar Featured By Owner Feb 15, 2015
What you think is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific theory of evolution. But if you claim it is false, then please, back up your assertion with biology peer review documentation (since it is a scientific subject, then you should based your thinking on scientific documentation).
Reply
:iconspinozillarex:
SpinozillaRex Featured By Owner Feb 11, 2015
Scientific theory is different from societies version of theory

The theory you're talking about is more of a hypothesis, in a way.

Scientific theory is based off of mountains and mountains of evidence. Also evolution has been observed many times, such examples include the peppered moth, and most recently the yellow-bellied three-toed skink.

Also I feel pretty bad for that girl, but the best thing to do is educate her on the difference between science and religion.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
I don't have to believe every little aspect in that theory. It's like people require you to completely believe in it without doubting anything in it.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Why do you think that evolution is a fraud?
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Eye for an eye. 😄
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
*citation needed*
Reply
:icontabbi1994:
tabbi1994 Featured By Owner Edited Feb 10, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
But evolution is still a theory, we can't go back in time and check out if it was really like this.
When we had evolution in biology, though, a girl in my class raised her hand as the teacher was finished and asked "But, what about god!", and i'm not kidding you right here, the whole class (even the teacher) laughed at her. Just a moment later we found out that she was serious (we all thought that she was kidding). My teacher just said that "This topic is a topic for religion not biology.".
Until today I feel equally bad and not bad for what we did.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Any what?
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
I don't have any.
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Nor yours.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Wikipedia is written by professionals and scientists.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
What a hatefull and arrogant person you're.
Reply
:iconoriginalczechball:
originalCzechball Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2015
Evolution is proven fact. Your opinions won't change anything.
Reply
:iconpantheratigris10:
pantheratigris10 Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
im sorry dude to say this but its not and im telling you the truth you are going to burn in hell plus what makes a dude that believes that we came from apes Darwin even said before he died his theories were junk. you people need someone to believe in not something to believe in
Reply
:iconbig-bad-rocket:
Big-bad-Rocket Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2015
Religion aside I still don't think evolution is real. Sorry but it just isn't.
Reply
:iconspinozillarex:
SpinozillaRex Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2015
Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning there's a great amount of evidence to support it.
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
They are mostly humans
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Humans or modern day apes to be specific?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Lets say that the new species were related to the ape people
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Separately or on the lines of the ape people?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Because.. I don't know but after they died out a new species had already formed because of those mutations so there was another ape man that looked almost like a human being and that's evolution
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
How come we don't have this ape man in our century alive? There wasn't a reason for it/them to die out.
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Like an ape man
Lets say that one of these ape people suddenly became intelligent enough to learn how to use tools and he caught a big a-- antelope and he got to live long enough to have babies with an ape chick
the baby is now smart enough to catch food for his family
Now his kid suddenly lost some fur and it happens to be a bad time to be born with no fur because it is in the middle of the winter, the baby dies because it was warm enough to survive so the trait isn't used until the ape people learned how to make clothes to cover themselves with
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
Like?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
another species
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
And who was this ape man? Another race or a species?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
We evolved from an ape-like man that has also evolved from the mammals from the Jurassic period
And paleontology has evidence that prehistoric animals such as the Dire wolf and the mastodon can evolve to the dog and the elephant
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
I do know about science. And paleontology is the study of fossils. Evolved from what?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I am just saying that people didn't come from nothing. We evolved! But you probably don't know anything about science and paleontology.
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
That makes no sense. If it was true, people would/should be able to forge matter out of the air.
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
I would say something came from absolutely nothing :3
Reply
:iconinternetexplorer968:
Internetexplorer968 Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2015  Hobbyist Artist
It's not a fact unless it's a law. Also it needs hardcore evidence before becoming undeniable.
So everything has to be analyzed by science? It doesn't have the answer to everything, and it is only a base to ask questions.
Bigfoot is a myth made up by millionaires to make money. If they really tried, they would have got one already.
A day in a god is not the same as a day in humanity. What makes more sense? Matter came from nothing with no reason or it was created by something stronger and more powerful?
Reply
:iconfunnyfurryfox:
FunnyFurryFox Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Well evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory there have been a lot of evidence proving that evolution is indeed a fact
However the belief of God is NOT a scientific theory, heck Bigfoot has more evidence than God. He was created by some crazy old man that decided that there is a ginormous man in the sky who created the planet, caused millions of years of evolving and erosion, and created man in like a week...
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I guess I'll start with a question. How would you define macro evolution? 
Reply
:icondeathzerobbb:
deathzerobbb Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Haha i know right! Im so confused arnt i? Well anyways what ya wanna talks about? Haha how evolution is bull? ( well except micro evolution small little changes ) And people are trapped in there own little dream lands? But anyays lets here what you have to say or if anything :D
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I can understand people who at least think they have a valid argument against evolution and try to have a meaningful discussion, but you are quite the quandary. 
Reply
:icondeathzerobbb:
deathzerobbb Featured By Owner Jan 18, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Nope silly trolls dont exsist there myths :D your so silly 
Reply
:icondafreak47:
DaFreak47 Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2015  Student Digital Artist
I am a firm believer that nothing can be accomplished through violence (verbal or otherwise) or the use of ad hominems, directed at the person rather than the information. Too many Atheists throw around words like "idiot" and "ignoramus" as if they somehow increased the legitimacy of their argument. Having been on both sides, I know how counterproductive name-calling is when attempting to make a point or spread information.

When it comes to the views of minorities, it often takes a more prominent voice to pierce through the constant hum of the majority. Sometimes, these representatives truly are just arrogant and egotistic, which is a shame. On the other hand, some just want to be heard, not to hear the sound of their own voices, but for legitimate reasons that shouldn't always be disregarded because of a few misguided individuals. At least, that's what I believe. 

I'm sorry to tell you this, but nothing in science is a "full picture". Even well established scientific facts are not 100% verifiable. Some aspects of our universe are easier to observe, and so our understanding might be as high as 99.99% accurate, but we will never have a 100% accurate "full picture", especially for aspects, such as macroevolution or gravity, which cannot be directly observed by the human eye. To use another cliche, you cannot look yourself in a mirror and be "100% sure that you even exist". Science does not provide absolutes, and asking for such will bring you nothing but endless disappointment. All that we can do is be reasonably certain and continue to increase our understanding.

This statement -"Why not adaptation? Why does it have to be only evolution? Life can adjust without having to grow extra limbs."- is incredibly confusing to me, because it seems to imply that adaptation and evolution are separate. Adaptation is the result of natural selection, which is a mechanism of the Theory of Evolution. Without the concept of adaptation, there is no evolution. By "adaptation" are you referring to microevolution? Because either way, you cannot have macroevolution without microevolution, just as you cannot have evolution without adaptation. Also, evolution does not require organisms to "grow extra limbs". In fact, evolution implies the exact opposite. Natural selection can only exert its effect on existing anatomical structures, which is why we see homologous structures in so many of today's species and the fossil record, with a diverse range of functions. 

Many Atheists seem to forget a very important aspect of their Atheism. Atheism is not making a positive claim, and without a positive claim there is nothing which needs justification. We stand neutral, with nothing to gain or lose. 
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

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

Stats

Views
24,043 (2 today)
Favourites
1,800 (who?)
Comments
2,757
×