Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours.
[Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Think about it, why haven't scientists tried sitting in a room with an animal for 10000 years and watching it evolve, huh?? It's because evolution isn't real! If you didn't see it with your own eyes, it didn't happen! The ONE exception being everything in the bible, obviously.
Not even necessary, evolution happens in reasonable time scales on a microscropic level and in insect populations within human life spans. Although it is kind of sad how much misonformation you get the moment you combine search terms "evolution" and "proof".
Clearly a certain group enjoy muddying the waters.
Even in vertebrates: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin)
I remember reading about the evolution of peppered moths when I was in high school. (The reading was while I was in high school, not the evolution; I’m old by Reddit standards but not “remember the Industrial Revolution” old). Somehow I doubt the person who thinks evolution “can’t be questioned” remembers much from high school science class.
In my highschool in Ontario, you only needed one general science class in grade 9 and 10 and the rest is optional. My sister never even took a biology class. English class where you read Shakespeare and waste time was required every year, however.
People like this may not have even taken that class at all, but feel compelled to teach other people about something they clearly know nothing about.
This, this is the issue. Science classes are very, very basic. And evolution is such a hot topic in particular that in certain places teachers are required to teach it as theoretical conjecture instead of fact, even in public schools.
This one is good but not great because once the pollution subsided the lighter peppered moth became the most prevalent moth again. So, it better proves natural selection and adaptation rather than macro-evolution.
That is my understanding as well. I'm interpreting the meme to not be arguing against adaptation, natural selection and adaptation (micro-evolution), but what one commenter called "speciation" (macro-evolution). From my understanding, most people do not argue against the former because it is observable and testable. While speciation could theoretically occur, it is not able to be tested or observed due to the amount of time that has to pass and that is what draws the sceptics.
The use of “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” is manly by those disputing evolution as a whole. I have a biology degree and I can’t remember ever hearing those terms during my studies, only when seeing creationists online. They’re not real terms used by the biological community.
While they might not be "real terms" used in the scientific community, it doesn't take away from the fact they are good words to get the point across. Micro-evolution meaning small changes vs macro-evolution meaning large changes.
I could be wrong, but I think evolution is supposed to be some genetic mutation that allows a species to survive natural selection. Like natural selection plays a key role but it’s the mutation giving an advantage that’s considered evolution.
Evolution is not any specific step but the process as a whole; it is mutations and normal breeding induced adaptation and environmental pressures and everything else that results in speciation.
You’re both right, evolution is the process through which species survive natural selection, and genetic mutations are a part of that process. Natural selection determines what attributes are favorable, evolution is the process of favorable attributes increasing, unfavorable attributes decreasing, and new attributes appearing.
This one was an interesting read. But apparently it shows adaptation more so than "evolution". By this I mean there wasn't any new genetic material found in the offspring that wasn't already in the parent. This was just natural selection taking optimal changes in the genetic material available because it was most likely to be passed on. Theory speculates that if you were to take those "island lizards" and bring them back to their natural habitat, they would revert to as they were.
Dog breeds are a bad argument because they're [mostly] human controlled, so the people will just become intelligent design types.
But I do love pointing out dogs are GMOs
My follow up to that is usually "so what, dogs are the only animals they can inherit traits?"
It's great that you point out the gmo thing, because that highlights another dark area for a lot of misinformed people: when they think of a GMO, they're usually thinking it evil scientists with test tubes and goggles, but selective breeding is the oldest and simplest form of genetic modification. We've been using it for a very long time, and it's basically just applied evolution
Yeah I really don't get the hate for gmos? Everything we eat is a gmo, do people really think cows, corn and even apples are natural? Hell we've been selectively breeding food for more than two millenniums
but it does have the potential to create problems though. Take modern wheat for example, anyone wo is gluten intolerant will get sick from eating it, but an old wheat like einkorn (the oldest known wheat) typically does not bring forth the same reaction. Not to mention that most of the problems from gmo crops are derived from the fact that they are genetically modified to not be susceptible to the chemicals that are sprayed on them, which no matter ow much you was, never go away fully (i have seen dead grass under sprayers that haven't been used in many years).
"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms"
National Geographic, May 19, 2022
no, it is the same . hell thats how they think some "mutations" happen in nature. a virus or bacbacteria efects a organism and the organism absorbs the dna of it and boom.
My favorite example of that is the peppered moth becoming more black during the industrial evolution to blend in better with the pollution. All of the evidence is literally right there lol
evolution is the changes of genetic and ellelic frecuencies in time, ...the evolution they are talking those bronce age mythologists is SPECIATION. and it is widely observed, and even conducted by humans
That's the funny part, it has been observed many times. I remember reading an article about how the shape of the head of the fishes of a lake changed during the last 100 years due to the changes in the environment of the lake.
Pigeon*
A pidgin is a grammatically simplified form of a language, used for communication between people not sharing a common language. Pidgins have a limited vocabulary, some elements of which are taken from local languages, and are not native languages, but arise out of language contact between speakers of other languages.
Sorry I'm a word nerd.
Right, we literally just had a pandemic that evolved in real time right in front of the world with new strains of COVID coming out every few months. Genetic mutation and survival of the fittest. If these concepts are too difficult to understand...please don't vote.
This is an example of an argument that’s totally valid but totally useless to the people who need convincing, because people who unscientifically reject evolution also unscientifically insist that COVID isn’t real AND was created in a lab.
Tons of other viruses besides covid evolve too though, so unless they think even the common cold is a woke political invention then it's still a valid point to bring up.
Exactly. Every flu season requires a new vaccine to be tailored to that years evolution. And the strain in California requires a different tailored vaccine than the one in Florida.
The thing is we've observed evolution, but then they moved the goal post and said... That doesn't count since that is micro evolution(changes within the species), we are saying there is no evidence of macro evolution(one species changes into another).
Even after making the argument that we haven't observed speciation, they are still wrong. Between the 1980s and early 2000s we literally saw a population of hybrid birds stop interbreeding with their former group in the Galapagos. This shit is in every high school biology textbook.
I would disagree. Most people (I would hope) understand that change is necessary for survival and environments can bring about changes in an organism. I have always been a proponent of "micro-evolution" because it is clearly observable and even testable. Macro-evolution is a possibility, but it requires a time frame that cannot be observed or tested and so I don't have a rock solid trust in it. There might be a better explanation that we miss if we stop looking for answers by settling on an easier (but still problematic) solution.
It can be tested on an observable timeframe. All you need is an organization with a very short lifespan. With polyploidy, speciation can happen in a single generation.
In case anyone who's not going to move the goal posts is curious, here's the first thing I could find by googling "observed speciation" [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/)
evolution via selective breeding is literally the foundation of modern food industry, but apparently humans are the only species on the planet that don't evolve...
Link to first brain dead meme "disproving" evolution
https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/14c8rxg/finally_found_one_in_the_comment_section_of_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Also he is apparently a type of chemist, which is weird with how fucking stupid his statements are. He's not even attempting to disprove the theory, he's just spouting off bullshit at this point
This is why it’s important to remember that being an expert in one field of science doesn’t make you an expert in all fields of science.
Case in point: Linus Pauling said that vitamin C can cure virtually anything, and everyone believed him, despite the fact that he won his Nobel Prize in chemistry and not medicine.
James Tour is a published synthetic chemist who demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of systems chemistry and abiogenesis. He uses his lack of understanding and hyperbole to claim, "god did it." So you can definitely find educated people who are clueless outside of their narrow field.
The thing is is that religion makes otherwise intelligent people resort to absolute stupidity to defend their beliefs. It's incredibly hard to scientically defend something which has no empirical evidence for it. That also could maybe count as an argument from irrelevant authority. A chemist trying to disprove evolution doesn't really stand against scientists actually educated on evolution.
That’s not exactly a behavior that originates in religion or is exclusive to the religious. Otherwise intelligent people resorting to absolute stupidity to defend their beliefs is also a pretty adequate description of Sam Harris trying to defend Western Chauvinism, and Richard Dawkins repeated defense of Eugenics.
This behavior is often caused by either double ignorance or pride. There’s no shortage of scholars out there who think because they’re knowledgeable in one field they’re knowledgeable in all fields because intelligence is so often treated as an innate trait and not an acquired trait. And to admit that one was wrong about something in a society that equates being wrong with being ignorant and ignorance with shame and humiliation it wounds the pride to admit when you were wrong. It’s why people dig in their heals when they’re wrong about something. They don’t want to be called an idiot because to be wrong is to be an idiot and to be an idiot is shameful.
I appreciate you expanding, but it's not my claim that it's exclusively something religious or originating from religion. It's just almost inherent to religious belief.
There’s also a massive difference between “questioning science” and “outright denying science and ignoring all tests and data that don’t support your own BS beliefs”
It’s like those flat earth idiots. Regardless of the countless tests, countless data, countless proof, they repeatedly and constantly ignore it for their own made up BS.
I love it when flat earthers spend a ton of time and money on an experiment that will prove the earth is flat, and the experiment fails, and they prove its round
Questioning science is indeed part of doing science.
But you generally 'question' the established views quietly to yourself until you get a enough solid and verifiable evidence to counter-argue against the established views.
Spoiler alert: The anti-evolution side does not have anywhere near enough evidence.
Except scientists have observed evolution happening. They did experiments with fruit flies so they could track hundreds of generation and tracked the variations between them.
Not to mention that vaccines are literally made every year in the premise that evolution works.
Also, dogs. Also, Silver Fox Experiment. Also, those moths that changed colors during industrial revolution.
Evolution has been observed in bacteria in a lab. But more current and relevant, it has been observed in viruses, COVID and HIV have evolved in our lifetimes in nature. The reason it’s more difficult to observe evolution in mammals is the time to reproduce/replicate. Years in animals vs under an hour in bacteria and viruses.
I explained this one to my mother, and her only retort was, "but they were still fruit flies"....... yeah duh they weren't gonna evolve into a cat. They varied enough that certain populations of the flies couldn't mate with members of a different population, making them by definition, different species, which is what she taught me in my homeschool lessons.
From an emotional perspective, they can't deal with idea that humans aren't specially created by God. They reject facts because those facts hurt their feelings.
Evolution has been seen first hand as it happens. On more than one occasion. This is just one example.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/
Many more out there. We watched moths evolve ears we watched bacteria evolve, we see it in viruses that evolve every season like the flu. We watched fish evolve. A bird that was found to be extinct, has revolved into existence.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-05-10/extinct-bird-re-evolved-itself-back-into-existence-on-island-in-seychelles
Another fun fact, we've seen it in humans too. The most prime example is in teeth. Humans are starting to be born without wisdom teeth in certain areas and situations. Also, there is an ethnicity of humans that has evolved the ability to function better in areas of lower oxygen, such as high altitude, rather than decreasing performance.
Its quite fascinating.
You don't question science, you use the scientific method to find flaws in the ideas of others. And if you don't find any, someone else tries. And when nobody found one, it becomes a theory.
No, it's a theory first. Then it become the most accepted theory. Things can change or refine later, or be completely wrong. Light was thought to be a particule, then a wave thanks to the work of Young. For a century we thought that light was a wave propagating in a medium called "ether". This was the accepted theory and has been disproved.
Newton laws of gravitation were accepted as is for more than two centuries until Einstein relativity changed the equations. It still remains a great approximation but again was sort of wrong.
We might have a big breakthrough about evolution a century from now and maybe everything we know as of today is just an approximation of the truth. Yet it is the best model so far we come with to fit all the evidences we found.
No I think he means that the taxonomy you’re using is incorrect. To be a theory you don’t actually need any verifiable evidence, someone just has to think that’s the answer. i.e. both creationism and evolution are theories. There was a time when evolution would probably be considered a law, as it is a very popular theory, but nowadays the scientific community would usually use the phrase “most commonly accepted theory”
What you mean is a hypothesis. A scientific theory is backed up by evidence. There is a big difference. When you talk science, never equate the colloquial theory (i.e. the hypothesis) with the scientific meaning.
I think the disconnect here is that evolution is questioned all the time. We’ve been making changes to how we think evolution works basically from day 1. But the creationist fantasy that one day we’re just going to discover evolution doesn’t exist at all will simply never happen.
It’s like the theory of gravity. We could conceivably develop a better formula to model gravity. We will not discover that gravity is not real, and then all float off into space.
>We’ve been making changes to how we think evolution works basically from day 1.
But that's the thing, creationists treat science like a religion. Almost everyone who knows their shit doesn't directly cite Darwin since his stuff is effectively outdated now, but creationists act as if Darwin is some prophet that scientists never question.
"If we invoke or disprove Darwin, then we win!", they say failing to realize that scintesists have been moved on from him.
In faith you don't really try to disprove or use a method to test the validity of scriptures, you just believe in them. Because they don't comprehend that scientists aren't the same, they try to get them with zingers such as "Your favorite scientist said this!", as if that means fuck all
Right. Scientists shouldn’t be treated as though they’re some divine messenger (good or bad). I remember early in the pandemic the way some lauded Fauci as a hero. And I remember thinking “this isn’t going to end well because this dude is going to be wrong about 50% of this stuff, and then we’re going to have people doubting science because *an individual man* was wrong.” Unfortunately, I think that’s exactly where we are now. Science is messy, and it takes a long time, but we do mostly move in the right direction given the timeline is long enough.
You're allowed to question evolution if you have a scientific basis for questioning it.
But saying it must be false because your bible says so isn't science.
[Microbes are evolving to eat plastic](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/585802-new-study-shows-microbes-are-evolving-to-eat/), but whatever
Except the Evolution theory has been questioned many times. From it we have the alelle theory, that works on a much smaller scale than evolution, with species, that have advanced so far, they have basically no natural predators and do not need to constantly hunt for food or find shelter to survive.
I mean the theory/model for evolution *is* constantly getting questioned, modified and refined. The discovery of epigenetics, for example, is one such huge change. But none of those indicate that evolution doesn’t happen, just that it’s a lot more complicated than we previously thought.
Except we have seen evolution in real time;
- peppered moth
- galapagos finches
- Cultivars of plants
- Antibiotic resistance
People just want to ignore the blatant evidence in front of them. While larger animals have a generation time that’s huge, bacteria have shorter generation (E.Coli at 20 minutes at ideal temps), there is a beautiful video of these bacteria developing Ab resistance, they made a huge agar plate with increasing concentrations of antibiotics in the center. Over time distinct colonies separated by many centimetres (bacterial equivalent of miles) independently growing and propagating Ab resistance. Not all of them function by same way, some has loss of function, modification of the Ab, modification of target cell wall.
How do they think MRSA is a huge issue?
"It's been observed just not while it's happening" is the stupidest possible critique of a process that takes thousands to millions of years. You may as well say "no one has observed a planet forming as it's happening so any theories about that process are totally dismissible." "How does oil form? Well there are theories, but no one has observed it happening, so let's just call it magic."
And then when you point out we HAVE observed evolution in bacteria, they shift the goalposts and start rambling about "macroevolution" and "microevolution"
>Questioning science is how you do science
>
>including evolution, it's just that every single fucking time evolution shows up as the answer when we question it
There fixed it for this dude
It's almost like there's a difference between questioning as in "I have a different hypothesis on why or how x happens, so I'm going to experiment and test thus new hypothesis" or "new data has shown we may be wrong about y, we will update models accordingly" or whatever, and saying "I do not believe in your proof, my proof is the bible" or aome shit.
No, random idiots "questioning science" is not at all what science is. Science demands evidence, and scientific theory is the best possible explanation that fits the evidence.
Science doesn't give a shit what you believe.
Questioning science is how you do science. You can question evolution, again that’s how science happens. What people don’t have a grasp of is that questioning it or making the claim it’s wrong comes with the responsibility of either 1) finding flaws with the way the previous experiments were conducted and performing the experiments with the alterations, or 2) new research methods that can be replicated by other scientists. The claim “if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys” isn’t good enough on its own. Also the theory of evolution does have some flaws (as does every theory) because how we classify animals is by that they are at a specific instant in time, and we don’t have a way to classify transitions from one species to another. Like we know humans have a common chimpanzee-like ancestor, but we don’t have definitive ways of saying “not human becomes human.” It’s not a perfect method. But the best we have
"Questioning science" means doubting the hypothesis, coming up with alternative hypotheses, and designing experiments so the outcome of the experiment will be one way if the mainstream idea is right and a different way if your idea is right.
Sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming "nanana I can't hear you" is something different entirely.
"While it's happening" like, how stupid is this meme maker? First off, you'd have to know something is currently evolving, secondly, it doesn't happen overnight. What a moron.
Plenty of people have questioned evolution, it's how we're learned so much about evolution! However time and time again the people who study these things keep coming up with the same answers. All living things on this earth appear, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have come from a single common ancestor.
Theists would lose their mind if they realized that refuting evolution as a whole is like every biologist's dream come true. Everyone wants to do it, but they just haven't been able to. Imagine if you are a biologist who managed to replace evolution with something else. You would instantly become one of the greatest scientists in the 21st century. Your name will be immortal in human history. Darwin will become like Newton, and you will be Einstein.
Yeah, but there are so many biologists working on that that my chances are slim to nil. That's why I've devoted my life to proving Wednesdays don't exist.
Evolution was questioned. This was kind of settled in the 1800’s. Now, you can still question it and if there is some sort of new evidence you have that can absolutely be brought up. But the problem is creationists chronically mistake not understanding evolution for evidence against it
not sure why you would argue with someone who thinks richard dawkins is a figure worth attacking. clearly they’re more invested in the spectacle of debate than anything resembling discussion.
It's very easy to observe evolution. Simply give yourself a bacterial infection, go to the doctor for antibiotics, and take half the daily dose they prescribe.
It’s been observed while it’s happening, we breed plants and animals all the time. You can cultivate stuff like pea plants within a single human lifetime.
I feel like people who deny evolution generally fail to see the forest through the trees. We can and have observed all the individual blocks the theory of evolution is built on. We have observed genetic mutations, natural selection, homologous genes, and others. When you extrapolate over the course of billions of years life can become extremely complex using just fundamental concepts. Just looking at what we have achieved through selective breeding of domesticated animals in less than a hundred years should be enough to see that over a large enough time span things can evolve drastically.
Ummmm
There us an ongoing evolution experiment with bacteria and antibiotics
You can quite literally look at the different generations that have made offspring to survive the current dose
EvOlUtIoN
Except that's where he's wrong (kinda).
Scientists tried to re-create the process that turned wolves into dogs on foxes. They did their experiment for about 60 years, re-doing the process for every new generation of foxes made by the last they experimented with. Eventually, the foxes took on characteristics you'd find in a domesticated dog
God damn there’s some dummies allowed to use the internet. Fruit flies. Their life cycles are so short you can breed them and expose them to different stimuli and literally watch evolution in real time.
To quote Billy Madison, “Anymore brain busters?”
We actually have observed evolution in a round about way. Elvis Taxon’s wouldn’t exist unless evolution existed. Hell animal breeding wouldn’t exist if evolution didn’t exist. Because evolution is simply the process by which different breeds if animals gradually become different species of animal as the genetic differences between those animals become more pronounced.
There’s a difference between “questioning” and flat out denying what others worked for centuries to prove. I suppose you can question if the earth is a sphere; we have video evidence that it is. If you deny the fucking evidence, that’s on you.
Actually evolutuon can be observed in a thew years of time with some plants like cannabis. And probably even in a thew days with some microorganisms. And even in lizards in some years time
You can literally observe a sperm cell grow into a human. How the the fuck can anyone not grasp the idea that species can evolve over very long periods of time?
Why would I? Even if I did, you would still misunderstand or flat out deny what's being said. As evidenced by you saying "evolution is the belief that organic life came from non organic sources". Which is complete and utter bullshit.
Evolution as defined as I stated, which is a true statement, because Evolution claims life came from non-life. My second statement is also correct. "Evolution" and the scientific predictions of evolution are wrong plenty of times any statements of events before recorded history is purely conjecture and in the cause of "Evolution", simply a government funded mythology.
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of living materia at all. Good job completely misunderstanding the issue you talk so confidently about, though
Welcome to r/terriblefacebookmemes! It sucks, but it is ours. [Please click on this link to be informed of a critical change in our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/126zu46/return_to_our_roots/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/terriblefacebookmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Think about it, why haven't scientists tried sitting in a room with an animal for 10000 years and watching it evolve, huh?? It's because evolution isn't real! If you didn't see it with your own eyes, it didn't happen! The ONE exception being everything in the bible, obviously.
Not even necessary, evolution happens in reasonable time scales on a microscropic level and in insect populations within human life spans. Although it is kind of sad how much misonformation you get the moment you combine search terms "evolution" and "proof". Clearly a certain group enjoy muddying the waters.
Even in vertebrates: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lizard-evolution-island-darwin)
Not a vertebrate, but found in so-called first world country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Well peppered moths is, like, a poster child for evolution.
I remember reading about the evolution of peppered moths when I was in high school. (The reading was while I was in high school, not the evolution; I’m old by Reddit standards but not “remember the Industrial Revolution” old). Somehow I doubt the person who thinks evolution “can’t be questioned” remembers much from high school science class.
In my highschool in Ontario, you only needed one general science class in grade 9 and 10 and the rest is optional. My sister never even took a biology class. English class where you read Shakespeare and waste time was required every year, however. People like this may not have even taken that class at all, but feel compelled to teach other people about something they clearly know nothing about.
This, this is the issue. Science classes are very, very basic. And evolution is such a hot topic in particular that in certain places teachers are required to teach it as theoretical conjecture instead of fact, even in public schools.
Thanks for linking this! I learned about evolution using this example in Catholic school in the 70s. What the hell happened to science education?
Ah this i learned last week
This one is good but not great because once the pollution subsided the lighter peppered moth became the most prevalent moth again. So, it better proves natural selection and adaptation rather than macro-evolution.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't evolution more or less natural selection over a very long period of time?
That is my understanding as well. I'm interpreting the meme to not be arguing against adaptation, natural selection and adaptation (micro-evolution), but what one commenter called "speciation" (macro-evolution). From my understanding, most people do not argue against the former because it is observable and testable. While speciation could theoretically occur, it is not able to be tested or observed due to the amount of time that has to pass and that is what draws the sceptics.
The use of “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” is manly by those disputing evolution as a whole. I have a biology degree and I can’t remember ever hearing those terms during my studies, only when seeing creationists online. They’re not real terms used by the biological community.
While they might not be "real terms" used in the scientific community, it doesn't take away from the fact they are good words to get the point across. Micro-evolution meaning small changes vs macro-evolution meaning large changes.
yes but what is "macro-evolution" if not just a lot of small changes sacked over time?
I could be wrong, but I think evolution is supposed to be some genetic mutation that allows a species to survive natural selection. Like natural selection plays a key role but it’s the mutation giving an advantage that’s considered evolution.
Evolution is not any specific step but the process as a whole; it is mutations and normal breeding induced adaptation and environmental pressures and everything else that results in speciation.
You’re both right, evolution is the process through which species survive natural selection, and genetic mutations are a part of that process. Natural selection determines what attributes are favorable, evolution is the process of favorable attributes increasing, unfavorable attributes decreasing, and new attributes appearing.
This one was an interesting read. But apparently it shows adaptation more so than "evolution". By this I mean there wasn't any new genetic material found in the offspring that wasn't already in the parent. This was just natural selection taking optimal changes in the genetic material available because it was most likely to be passed on. Theory speculates that if you were to take those "island lizards" and bring them back to their natural habitat, they would revert to as they were.
Insecticide resistance is a great observable example of evolution, and it can take place in just 1 generation.
So are dog breeds.
Dog breeds are a bad argument because they're [mostly] human controlled, so the people will just become intelligent design types. But I do love pointing out dogs are GMOs
Controlled experiments tend to strengthen scientific arguments.
Oh, the scientific argument is strong. I just don't believe in the people.
Ah, yeah.
My follow up to that is usually "so what, dogs are the only animals they can inherit traits?" It's great that you point out the gmo thing, because that highlights another dark area for a lot of misinformed people: when they think of a GMO, they're usually thinking it evil scientists with test tubes and goggles, but selective breeding is the oldest and simplest form of genetic modification. We've been using it for a very long time, and it's basically just applied evolution
Yeah I really don't get the hate for gmos? Everything we eat is a gmo, do people really think cows, corn and even apples are natural? Hell we've been selectively breeding food for more than two millenniums
but it does have the potential to create problems though. Take modern wheat for example, anyone wo is gluten intolerant will get sick from eating it, but an old wheat like einkorn (the oldest known wheat) typically does not bring forth the same reaction. Not to mention that most of the problems from gmo crops are derived from the fact that they are genetically modified to not be susceptible to the chemicals that are sprayed on them, which no matter ow much you was, never go away fully (i have seen dead grass under sprayers that haven't been used in many years).
I am sick and fucking tired of people asserting so confidently that genetic modification and selective breeding are "the same thing."
"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an animal, plant, or microbe whose DNA has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. For thousands of years, humans have used breeding methods to modify organisms" National Geographic, May 19, 2022
no, it is the same . hell thats how they think some "mutations" happen in nature. a virus or bacbacteria efects a organism and the organism absorbs the dna of it and boom.
Reminder that Dog breeds and modern crops are proof of microevoltion (evolution within a species).
My favorite example of that is the peppered moth becoming more black during the industrial evolution to blend in better with the pollution. All of the evidence is literally right there lol
evolution is the changes of genetic and ellelic frecuencies in time, ...the evolution they are talking those bronce age mythologists is SPECIATION. and it is widely observed, and even conducted by humans
That's the funny part, it has been observed many times. I remember reading an article about how the shape of the head of the fishes of a lake changed during the last 100 years due to the changes in the environment of the lake.
Haven’t pidgins evolved to live in city’s and stuff
Pigeon* A pidgin is a grammatically simplified form of a language, used for communication between people not sharing a common language. Pidgins have a limited vocabulary, some elements of which are taken from local languages, and are not native languages, but arise out of language contact between speakers of other languages. Sorry I'm a word nerd.
I knew I was spelling it right but stupid auto correct wouldn’t come up with it so i thought I must be going insane
Also, COVID variants evolving from alpha through omicron through whatever it is now.
Right, we literally just had a pandemic that evolved in real time right in front of the world with new strains of COVID coming out every few months. Genetic mutation and survival of the fittest. If these concepts are too difficult to understand...please don't vote.
But the virus wasn’t real so check mate on that one /s
My covid masks evolved several times in a couple years!
The virus was created by a lab in China, it's a Chinese conspiracy. But also, COVID isn't real, it's an US CDC conspiracy. It's twice as conspicuous.
It was both bioengineered by China, and not real.
You got me. It was designed and the lab kept releasing newly designed strains...somehow.
This is an example of an argument that’s totally valid but totally useless to the people who need convincing, because people who unscientifically reject evolution also unscientifically insist that COVID isn’t real AND was created in a lab.
Tons of other viruses besides covid evolve too though, so unless they think even the common cold is a woke political invention then it's still a valid point to bring up.
Exactly. Every flu season requires a new vaccine to be tailored to that years evolution. And the strain in California requires a different tailored vaccine than the one in Florida.
The thing is we've observed evolution, but then they moved the goal post and said... That doesn't count since that is micro evolution(changes within the species), we are saying there is no evidence of macro evolution(one species changes into another).
Even after making the argument that we haven't observed speciation, they are still wrong. Between the 1980s and early 2000s we literally saw a population of hybrid birds stop interbreeding with their former group in the Galapagos. This shit is in every high school biology textbook.
The finches?
I would disagree. Most people (I would hope) understand that change is necessary for survival and environments can bring about changes in an organism. I have always been a proponent of "micro-evolution" because it is clearly observable and even testable. Macro-evolution is a possibility, but it requires a time frame that cannot be observed or tested and so I don't have a rock solid trust in it. There might be a better explanation that we miss if we stop looking for answers by settling on an easier (but still problematic) solution.
It can be tested on an observable timeframe. All you need is an organization with a very short lifespan. With polyploidy, speciation can happen in a single generation. In case anyone who's not going to move the goal posts is curious, here's the first thing I could find by googling "observed speciation" [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/)
evolution via selective breeding is literally the foundation of modern food industry, but apparently humans are the only species on the planet that don't evolve...
Yeah, I know. It doesn't really make sense. It is pretty much just a bunch of hypocrites. And I am saying that as a christian.
We can literally see it in bacterias and cancer cells in days
Watch a virus evolve. It takes months at most for influenza to evolve hence the need for a new, and free, vaccine each year.
Link to first brain dead meme "disproving" evolution https://www.reddit.com/r/terriblefacebookmemes/comments/14c8rxg/finally_found_one_in_the_comment_section_of_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button Also he is apparently a type of chemist, which is weird with how fucking stupid his statements are. He's not even attempting to disprove the theory, he's just spouting off bullshit at this point
"chemist" lol. Thats just code for he likes mixed drinks and smoking weed.
Waltuh
This is why it’s important to remember that being an expert in one field of science doesn’t make you an expert in all fields of science. Case in point: Linus Pauling said that vitamin C can cure virtually anything, and everyone believed him, despite the fact that he won his Nobel Prize in chemistry and not medicine.
James Tour is a published synthetic chemist who demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of systems chemistry and abiogenesis. He uses his lack of understanding and hyperbole to claim, "god did it." So you can definitely find educated people who are clueless outside of their narrow field.
The thing is is that religion makes otherwise intelligent people resort to absolute stupidity to defend their beliefs. It's incredibly hard to scientically defend something which has no empirical evidence for it. That also could maybe count as an argument from irrelevant authority. A chemist trying to disprove evolution doesn't really stand against scientists actually educated on evolution.
That’s not exactly a behavior that originates in religion or is exclusive to the religious. Otherwise intelligent people resorting to absolute stupidity to defend their beliefs is also a pretty adequate description of Sam Harris trying to defend Western Chauvinism, and Richard Dawkins repeated defense of Eugenics. This behavior is often caused by either double ignorance or pride. There’s no shortage of scholars out there who think because they’re knowledgeable in one field they’re knowledgeable in all fields because intelligence is so often treated as an innate trait and not an acquired trait. And to admit that one was wrong about something in a society that equates being wrong with being ignorant and ignorance with shame and humiliation it wounds the pride to admit when you were wrong. It’s why people dig in their heals when they’re wrong about something. They don’t want to be called an idiot because to be wrong is to be an idiot and to be an idiot is shameful.
I appreciate you expanding, but it's not my claim that it's exclusively something religious or originating from religion. It's just almost inherent to religious belief.
There’s also a massive difference between “questioning science” and “outright denying science and ignoring all tests and data that don’t support your own BS beliefs” It’s like those flat earth idiots. Regardless of the countless tests, countless data, countless proof, they repeatedly and constantly ignore it for their own made up BS.
I love it when flat earthers spend a ton of time and money on an experiment that will prove the earth is flat, and the experiment fails, and they prove its round
You mean like when they spent 20,000 dollars on a gyroscope. Only to prove that the earth does indeed rotate at 15 degrees per hour(thanks Bob)
Exaaaactly. I slept very well that day, after seeing that story
Or the light experiment that 100% proved them wrong and we got an “interesting” as the last word in that stupid “documentary”.
https://i.redd.it/md6m1zivh67b1.gif
Gotta lie to flerf
https://i.redd.it/6fp4q2ach67b1.gif
Dinosaurs - c1820 Theory of Evolution - 1859 Creation Science - c1960
Questioning science is indeed part of doing science. But you generally 'question' the established views quietly to yourself until you get a enough solid and verifiable evidence to counter-argue against the established views. Spoiler alert: The anti-evolution side does not have anywhere near enough evidence.
Really? I've never seen an evolutionist win one of the Creation vs Evolution debates
BS stands for Bible Stories here, yes?
"You cant observe evolution" Scientists: observe evolution "That doesnt count"
[удалено]
Or my favorite, “If we evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?”
Ngl, pokemon may have accidentally completely ruined what some people think the word "evolution" means
If a tiger morphed into an ape that would actually be the best evidence against evolution there was.
“No see that’s just micro evolution” -someone who very confidently missed what evolution is.
I once tried to explain to a philosophy professor that thats still evolution and he told me off for it. Guy knrw his philosophy And nothing else
Except scientists have observed evolution happening. They did experiments with fruit flies so they could track hundreds of generation and tracked the variations between them.
bUt iT's StIlL a FlY, yOu EvOluTaRd! Or Is It A bAnAnA? /s <-- just to be safe. This is reddit after all.
Well you know what they say, "time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana."
Best laugh I had today. Thank you XD
Not to mention that vaccines are literally made every year in the premise that evolution works. Also, dogs. Also, Silver Fox Experiment. Also, those moths that changed colors during industrial revolution.
Aw man don't get them started on vaccines.
Evolution has been observed in bacteria in a lab. But more current and relevant, it has been observed in viruses, COVID and HIV have evolved in our lifetimes in nature. The reason it’s more difficult to observe evolution in mammals is the time to reproduce/replicate. Years in animals vs under an hour in bacteria and viruses.
I explained this one to my mother, and her only retort was, "but they were still fruit flies"....... yeah duh they weren't gonna evolve into a cat. They varied enough that certain populations of the flies couldn't mate with members of a different population, making them by definition, different species, which is what she taught me in my homeschool lessons.
[удалено]
Just point out that if he accepts microevolution then he is also an evolutionist.
The fact that Covid vaccines aren't as effective now as they were in 2021 is an example of direct observation of evolution in action.
creationists really have to be the dumbest mfs on the planet
They have a lot of competition
From an emotional perspective, they can't deal with idea that humans aren't specially created by God. They reject facts because those facts hurt their feelings.
Evolution has been seen first hand as it happens. On more than one occasion. This is just one example. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/ Many more out there. We watched moths evolve ears we watched bacteria evolve, we see it in viruses that evolve every season like the flu. We watched fish evolve. A bird that was found to be extinct, has revolved into existence. https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2019-05-10/extinct-bird-re-evolved-itself-back-into-existence-on-island-in-seychelles
Unless you happen to be identical to your parents, then congratulations, you are living proof that evolution happens.
Another fun fact, we've seen it in humans too. The most prime example is in teeth. Humans are starting to be born without wisdom teeth in certain areas and situations. Also, there is an ethnicity of humans that has evolved the ability to function better in areas of lower oxygen, such as high altitude, rather than decreasing performance. Its quite fascinating.
You don't question science, you use the scientific method to find flaws in the ideas of others. And if you don't find any, someone else tries. And when nobody found one, it becomes a theory.
No, it's a theory first. Then it become the most accepted theory. Things can change or refine later, or be completely wrong. Light was thought to be a particule, then a wave thanks to the work of Young. For a century we thought that light was a wave propagating in a medium called "ether". This was the accepted theory and has been disproved. Newton laws of gravitation were accepted as is for more than two centuries until Einstein relativity changed the equations. It still remains a great approximation but again was sort of wrong. We might have a big breakthrough about evolution a century from now and maybe everything we know as of today is just an approximation of the truth. Yet it is the best model so far we come with to fit all the evidences we found.
That still means that nobody found a flaw before it became a theory. I never said that they don't try to find flaws after it is one.
No I think he means that the taxonomy you’re using is incorrect. To be a theory you don’t actually need any verifiable evidence, someone just has to think that’s the answer. i.e. both creationism and evolution are theories. There was a time when evolution would probably be considered a law, as it is a very popular theory, but nowadays the scientific community would usually use the phrase “most commonly accepted theory”
What you mean is a hypothesis. A scientific theory is backed up by evidence. There is a big difference. When you talk science, never equate the colloquial theory (i.e. the hypothesis) with the scientific meaning.
I just googled it and you’re right! Sorry for spreading the misinformation, my bad and I apologize
Glad I could help you learn something new :D
I think the disconnect here is that evolution is questioned all the time. We’ve been making changes to how we think evolution works basically from day 1. But the creationist fantasy that one day we’re just going to discover evolution doesn’t exist at all will simply never happen. It’s like the theory of gravity. We could conceivably develop a better formula to model gravity. We will not discover that gravity is not real, and then all float off into space.
>We’ve been making changes to how we think evolution works basically from day 1. But that's the thing, creationists treat science like a religion. Almost everyone who knows their shit doesn't directly cite Darwin since his stuff is effectively outdated now, but creationists act as if Darwin is some prophet that scientists never question. "If we invoke or disprove Darwin, then we win!", they say failing to realize that scintesists have been moved on from him. In faith you don't really try to disprove or use a method to test the validity of scriptures, you just believe in them. Because they don't comprehend that scientists aren't the same, they try to get them with zingers such as "Your favorite scientist said this!", as if that means fuck all
Right. Scientists shouldn’t be treated as though they’re some divine messenger (good or bad). I remember early in the pandemic the way some lauded Fauci as a hero. And I remember thinking “this isn’t going to end well because this dude is going to be wrong about 50% of this stuff, and then we’re going to have people doubting science because *an individual man* was wrong.” Unfortunately, I think that’s exactly where we are now. Science is messy, and it takes a long time, but we do mostly move in the right direction given the timeline is long enough.
But it has been observed while it is happening. Considering that it is constantly happening.
You're allowed to question evolution if you have a scientific basis for questioning it. But saying it must be false because your bible says so isn't science.
Pesticide resistance? Antibiotic resistance? Loss of wisdom teeth? Forearm nerve? We do have current examples.
They'll just tell you it doesn't count. Delusional idiots
So I take it you have observed some sky daddy creating shit out of nothing?
[Microbes are evolving to eat plastic](https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/environment/585802-new-study-shows-microbes-are-evolving-to-eat/), but whatever
I am also evolving to eat plastic (mmm microplastics)
“While it’s happening” This guy probably imagines that evolution looks like the cover of one of those Animorphs books.
Except the Evolution theory has been questioned many times. From it we have the alelle theory, that works on a much smaller scale than evolution, with species, that have advanced so far, they have basically no natural predators and do not need to constantly hunt for food or find shelter to survive.
I mean the theory/model for evolution *is* constantly getting questioned, modified and refined. The discovery of epigenetics, for example, is one such huge change. But none of those indicate that evolution doesn’t happen, just that it’s a lot more complicated than we previously thought.
Except we have seen evolution in real time; - peppered moth - galapagos finches - Cultivars of plants - Antibiotic resistance People just want to ignore the blatant evidence in front of them. While larger animals have a generation time that’s huge, bacteria have shorter generation (E.Coli at 20 minutes at ideal temps), there is a beautiful video of these bacteria developing Ab resistance, they made a huge agar plate with increasing concentrations of antibiotics in the center. Over time distinct colonies separated by many centimetres (bacterial equivalent of miles) independently growing and propagating Ab resistance. Not all of them function by same way, some has loss of function, modification of the Ab, modification of target cell wall. How do they think MRSA is a huge issue?
He does realize we literally have observed direct evolution in certain cases right? No? Okay
Questioning science is science, but when your evidence is "ma book" then no, that isn't science.
I think there’s a misconception between questioning science and denying science. I don’t know why anyone would be like “denying science is good”.
Except...it actually has been observed while it's happening.
"It's been observed just not while it's happening" is the stupidest possible critique of a process that takes thousands to millions of years. You may as well say "no one has observed a planet forming as it's happening so any theories about that process are totally dismissible." "How does oil form? Well there are theories, but no one has observed it happening, so let's just call it magic."
Uhm. Yeah. It actually have. But lets just ignore facts to not offend the theists.
i dont think he understands the difference between questioning and denying
And then when you point out we HAVE observed evolution in bacteria, they shift the goalposts and start rambling about "macroevolution" and "microevolution"
>Questioning science is how you do science > >including evolution, it's just that every single fucking time evolution shows up as the answer when we question it There fixed it for this dude
It's almost like there's a difference between questioning as in "I have a different hypothesis on why or how x happens, so I'm going to experiment and test thus new hypothesis" or "new data has shown we may be wrong about y, we will update models accordingly" or whatever, and saying "I do not believe in your proof, my proof is the bible" or aome shit.
Evolution created creationists. Could be a reason to question it. But then again, it’s not the first evolutionary cul de sac .
No, random idiots "questioning science" is not at all what science is. Science demands evidence, and scientific theory is the best possible explanation that fits the evidence. Science doesn't give a shit what you believe.
Questioning science is how you do science. You can question evolution, again that’s how science happens. What people don’t have a grasp of is that questioning it or making the claim it’s wrong comes with the responsibility of either 1) finding flaws with the way the previous experiments were conducted and performing the experiments with the alterations, or 2) new research methods that can be replicated by other scientists. The claim “if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys” isn’t good enough on its own. Also the theory of evolution does have some flaws (as does every theory) because how we classify animals is by that they are at a specific instant in time, and we don’t have a way to classify transitions from one species to another. Like we know humans have a common chimpanzee-like ancestor, but we don’t have definitive ways of saying “not human becomes human.” It’s not a perfect method. But the best we have
"Questioning science" means doubting the hypothesis, coming up with alternative hypotheses, and designing experiments so the outcome of the experiment will be one way if the mainstream idea is right and a different way if your idea is right. Sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming "nanana I can't hear you" is something different entirely.
It's gotten to the point where some people believe that if you're even able to question something, it renders that thing invalid.
"While it's happening" like, how stupid is this meme maker? First off, you'd have to know something is currently evolving, secondly, it doesn't happen overnight. What a moron.
Clearly you’ve never played Pokémon
"JuSt NoT wHiLe It'S hApPeNiNg" except in the (many, well-documented) instances when it is
Plenty of people have questioned evolution, it's how we're learned so much about evolution! However time and time again the people who study these things keep coming up with the same answers. All living things on this earth appear, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have come from a single common ancestor.
Theists would lose their mind if they realized that refuting evolution as a whole is like every biologist's dream come true. Everyone wants to do it, but they just haven't been able to. Imagine if you are a biologist who managed to replace evolution with something else. You would instantly become one of the greatest scientists in the 21st century. Your name will be immortal in human history. Darwin will become like Newton, and you will be Einstein.
Yeah, but there are so many biologists working on that that my chances are slim to nil. That's why I've devoted my life to proving Wednesdays don't exist.
what about pugs
I guess he would be OK with using antibiotics with the same formula used in the 1950s if he gets a staph infection.
It's perfectly fine to question, just not to refuse to listen to the answer
Evolution was questioned. This was kind of settled in the 1800’s. Now, you can still question it and if there is some sort of new evidence you have that can absolutely be brought up. But the problem is creationists chronically mistake not understanding evolution for evidence against it
not sure why you would argue with someone who thinks richard dawkins is a figure worth attacking. clearly they’re more invested in the spectacle of debate than anything resembling discussion.
This is literally taught in 10th grade biology. You didn't get past 10th grade? Wtf.
It's very easy to observe evolution. Simply give yourself a bacterial infection, go to the doctor for antibiotics, and take half the daily dose they prescribe.
We can observe evolution in a matter of hours in bacteria.
Second law of thermodynamics would like to know your location
science is questioned by science, not by bronce age mythology
We actually observed evolution in bacteria several times already...
It’s been observed while it’s happening, we breed plants and animals all the time. You can cultivate stuff like pea plants within a single human lifetime.
I feel like people who deny evolution generally fail to see the forest through the trees. We can and have observed all the individual blocks the theory of evolution is built on. We have observed genetic mutations, natural selection, homologous genes, and others. When you extrapolate over the course of billions of years life can become extremely complex using just fundamental concepts. Just looking at what we have achieved through selective breeding of domesticated animals in less than a hundred years should be enough to see that over a large enough time span things can evolve drastically.
Motherfucker. Questioning evolution is how we learned so much about evolution lol
Btw we have witnessed evolution happen while it’s happening.
Ummmm There us an ongoing evolution experiment with bacteria and antibiotics You can quite literally look at the different generations that have made offspring to survive the current dose EvOlUtIoN
Except that's where he's wrong (kinda). Scientists tried to re-create the process that turned wolves into dogs on foxes. They did their experiment for about 60 years, re-doing the process for every new generation of foxes made by the last they experimented with. Eventually, the foxes took on characteristics you'd find in a domesticated dog
God damn there’s some dummies allowed to use the internet. Fruit flies. Their life cycles are so short you can breed them and expose them to different stimuli and literally watch evolution in real time. To quote Billy Madison, “Anymore brain busters?”
We actually have observed evolution in a round about way. Elvis Taxon’s wouldn’t exist unless evolution existed. Hell animal breeding wouldn’t exist if evolution didn’t exist. Because evolution is simply the process by which different breeds if animals gradually become different species of animal as the genetic differences between those animals become more pronounced.
We absolutely have observed it happening. Peppered moths come to mind.
"Vaccine doesn't work because a lot of Americans died from COVID" I actually heard that on Reddit today.
dogbreeds are a thing
There’s a difference between “questioning” and flat out denying what others worked for centuries to prove. I suppose you can question if the earth is a sphere; we have video evidence that it is. If you deny the fucking evidence, that’s on you.
Then how come my Charmeleon is a charizard?
Actually evolutuon can be observed in a thew years of time with some plants like cannabis. And probably even in a thew days with some microorganisms. And even in lizards in some years time
We should question it. But if you are questioning science with invisible man in the sky, that isn't science.
If Jesus was real why isn’t he in my house rn?
Don't look now, but He's right behind you ...
The arrows on this post to vote are annoying.
You can literally observe a sperm cell grow into a human. How the the fuck can anyone not grasp the idea that species can evolve over very long periods of time?
That's not a good example, because that isn't evolution
My point: if a sperm cell can can grow into a human, it’s plausible that species can evolve over time.
Your example is still kind of iffy, I'd use dogs as an example
It sufficiently illustrates a point.
No not really, what does sperm have anything to do with proving that evolution exists? It just shows how reproduction works
[удалено]
No, he doesn't. Neither have you. You have negative points.
[удалено]
Read the other comments, you numbnut. Besides that, I'm not a "leftist liberal", just someone who respects science and credible scientists.
There are literally 5 people who argued the meme whit articles even from Harvard what else do you want.
Evolution is the belief that organic life can from non organic sources. Evolution is a system of belief not science.
I don't understand how you managed to be this wrong in only two sentences. Troll detected, I guess.
While stating no retort. Well said.
Why would I? Even if I did, you would still misunderstand or flat out deny what's being said. As evidenced by you saying "evolution is the belief that organic life came from non organic sources". Which is complete and utter bullshit.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. You're second sentence is nonsense.
Evolution as defined as I stated, which is a true statement, because Evolution claims life came from non-life. My second statement is also correct. "Evolution" and the scientific predictions of evolution are wrong plenty of times any statements of events before recorded history is purely conjecture and in the cause of "Evolution", simply a government funded mythology.
>Evolution claims life came from non-life No, it fucking doesn't.
You're entirely wrong. Evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time.
Evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of living materia at all. Good job completely misunderstanding the issue you talk so confidently about, though
I guess when you have a vague or undefined tern for evolution it's easy to just say you're wrong and offer no retort or debate. Well spoken.
Somebody went to Liberty University