HOME | DD
G-manluver — I understand evolution
Published: 2008-08-20 17:07:43 +0000 UTC; Views: 8461; Favourites: 423; Downloads: 73
Redirect to original
Description
anyone other than me tired of stuff like this:-Evolution means when a species turns into another, like when scientists say human came from monkeys
-Evolution means the universe was made by an explosion.
-Evolution say there isn't a God.
-Evolution means one day people won't have pinky toes.
-Evolution teaches people that black people aren't as good as white people since white people evolved from black people.
-Evolution may be wrong since its just a theory, not a law.
-Evolution means we all came from nothing
NO NO NO NO FUCKING NO YOU FAIL, FAIL AT BIOLOGY AND SCIENCE AND HAVING COMMON SENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a simplyfied version from wikipedia:
"In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
If that's still too hard for you: evolution means when one a living things gives its data (genetics) to its kids and eventually little changes accumulate because every individual is unique.
Ex: different breeds of dogs=evolution.
Simply put I made this stamp to try to stamp out all the misconception and lies surrounding this simple theory. If you actually understand the theory (not believe, believing in something suggest there is need for faith. You don't need to have faith for scientific theory since they're based upon occurences we can see and not stuff we don't know.) feel free to use this stamp.
Also darwin fish ftw!
PS: Da-wabbit pointed out the "came from nothing" thing. firstly no scientists suggest that, secondly the origins of life is a seperate theory called "abiogenesis". They may be both parts of biology but one has way more evidence than the other so don't confuse the two or squish them into one.
EDIT: decided just to disable comments. I don't like disabling them since I do enjoy conversation and feel that disabling comments is removing free speech however I'm not in the mood to argue the same point 10000x over because some people find it SO DIFFICULT to look up terms in a dictionary/encyclopedia before arguing them.
I understand you have faith but that's exactly it, ITS FAITH, not part of reality. Do yourself a favor and stop trying to inforce it like if its fact and people will stop thinking you're an asshole.
simple right?
EDIT 2:
I got a link to a very good video that visualize evolution a bit so you can get an idea how it works. [link] see there's no "we magically came from rocks" here, just how animals slowly got various advances and eventually got to humans (and for the record humans are evolving too. though slowly, so evolution is never ending for any organism so long as they don't go extinct).
Related content
Comments: 162
yes, yes, THANK you! As always you come through with logic and reason lacking in far too many people these days
I'm one of those crazy intelligent design believers who believe in evolution... even though I believe in some form of a god, I still cannot refute that evolution exists. It is freakin' obvious. So thank you for making this stamp that explains what evolution really means!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no problem, again I have to repeat this so many times: MOST BIOLOGISTS BELIEVE IN GOD AND ALMOST EVERY BIOLOGISTS ACCEPT EVOLUTION. That should right away remove the stereotype that evolution is an atheist or godless thing, the only thing evolution contradicts is origin stories that can easily be disgretited as fables (since we know snakes don't talk and there's no magic apples).
Evolution itself doesn't mention a god, but NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY does. Science can't say "God did it" because they would first have to prove God exists which is impossible at this known time. So religious people getting all up and arms about evolution is completely based on miscomprehension and not on the theory having "holes" or "making no sense".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have ALWAYS read the Christian creation story as just a great big metaphor, anyway. It even says how man was created after all the animals... evolution can fit into that very easily, if you ask me. It was just written at a time when the explanation couldn't be put into more scientific words because the terms and concepts didn't exist yet.
I dunno... I always found it easy to mesh science and God... but then I also seem to believe in a different Christian God than most other Christians (because, call me crazy, but... when the Bible says God is loving and forgiving and will forgive our sins and blah blah blah... I believe that and don't assume God is out to condemn all of our souls...)
ahh, but this isn't a religious discussion, per se... so I'll end that tangent...
in short, I just couldn't agree with you more. ^_^
...by the way, I just thought of a great book you should read.. (well, I think EVERYONE should read it really) it's called Ishmael, written by Daniel Quinn... EXTREMELY good psychological and philosophical novel... it rocked my world...
sorry, that's random, but I kept thinking of lines from it as I was writing this, and thought you might appreciate it, too.
...and I love that quote in your siggy!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Really do they ever think how silly that sounds? if anything it makes God sounds like a prick that does everything to test us and if we fuck up it gives him an excuse to throw us in Hell fire.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
or people saying "evolution can't exist because God created the universe in 7 days, not billions of years"
yeeaaahhh... it just doesn't make sense...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah =/, actually the universe wasn't created in billions of years. that's just how old the planet is. the scientific community actually doesn't know the age of the universe or how its was created since we haven't got anything to show for it (science without evidence is not science at all).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmmm, yeah, that's true...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
extremely good points.. I never really thought of it that way, actually...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You all make an interesting point, however I am Christian and I do feel I must stand up for my beliefs and before you hide this comment I must state that I did study evolution at a public school so I did see it through an evolutionist's point of view, I find the evidence to be convincing but have several holes in it. For example how well species fit in an ecosystem makes it near to impossible that it came by chance. Also natural selection is a good theory and it's true to a point, I think that animals that were separated by an obstacle that couldn't live in it did indeed die that couldn't adapt did indeed die. Also the fact that some animals look a lot alike indicates a common creator. I also think that the theory of evolution was widely accepted because some people don't like the thought of a being that is infinitely more powerful than them so they can continue a sinful life. I'm not saying that an atheist is a sinful person I'm just saying they were influenced by a popular belief.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
not really, if anything evolution is widely unaccepted for those reasons, the only people that really accept it fully are those that do not let faith take control of facts (like atheists and biologists). I do not accept evolution because I do not want to be a special snowflake sinful creature, but because it explains with perfection how life is capable of adapting as it does.
Also even if chances are low for something=/= divine intervention. That's a theist thought pattern that annoys me. For example someone with terminal cancer is very unlikely to get better, but sometimes they do. Did a God heal them? Probably not but people will see it that way because of their roots, and depending on their religious background is what God or Gods healed them.
The fact humans exist as they do is also a very unlikely thing but its just how it is. Its not random, its was well devised and fits the pattern that is predicted using the theory.
I do not deny the existed of a God, and more than half of biologists believe in one. So your association with acceptance of evolution= atheism or not wanting a God is completely FALSE.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK I have no prior experience with debating. I do respect your opinion even if I don't believe it. I'm glad you didn't totally bash me I was a little worried about standing up for my faith, and I really hope you don't see me as some religious loony who is incapable of thinking outside the box. Thank you for being nice towards my argument.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Have you ever heard of the animal planet special The Future is Wild that is now a TV series on Discovery Kids? It's about how scientists predict what evolution will take species millions of years in the future. Of course I don't believe it but I find it to be very fascinating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes I've seen it and it does makes sense though its near impossible to be able to predict such futuristic evolutionary changes (though we can predict if an animal goes towards a particular path what its future appareance may look like).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd think it'd make sense to if I believed dramatic changes in animals like that were possible without outside interference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
but they aren't dramatic. that's the thing. Evolution is small changes that add up, not one big change all of a sudden.
For example a giraffe didn't just grow an excessively long neck in one generation, probably thousands of generations of slightly longer by slightly longer necks had to have happen to have the result we have today.
This is one major mistake people do with evolution that makes it seem impossible.
Think of it as a image, if you change a small part of a complete image everyday for say... 2 years you can't honestly say that image will look identical as it did when you started, not unless you backtrack (which evolution rarely does).
This is how evolution works, tiny changes over extended periods WILL add up and eventually you end up with something quite different than when you started.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do believe that creatures have genetic differences that make them unique, but I don't think that they can become an entirely different, and even if they could I don't see how a future habitat can automatically support the new creature without intelligent interference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
=/ but they don't become completely different, if we want to get technical humans are still biologically fish (we even have gills in early feotus developement).
ID isn't science, its saying nature needs a controler to work when we know it doesn't. We only feel it does because humans create so much that we feel the only way things come to be is with a creator.
take lightning for example, long ago if you even SUGGESTED it was a natural occurence you would be been killed. Now we are 100% it isn't a god shooting in from the heavens.
It won't be long before people realize that animals can change all by themselves (most people have realize this already). we know they can (Xolos anyone?) so why do we always feel the need to shove "GOD DID IT" into it. It isn't like we've never seen an animal change overtime, why pretend they don't?
Also big change is just a lot of little change, you keep ignoring that. You agree small changes can happen yet disagree those changes accumulate which simply, even you probably know, is illogical.
It be like saying: "Everytime I curse I'll put a penny in this jar but no matter how long I do it the jar won't get full."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think we're getting too involved in this debate, I think we should just accept that we have different beliefs and just be friends, although I kinda liked pushing my debating skills to the limits, thanks for a great debate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I actually think it's an intelligently thought out theory. And if people are stupid for believing in evolution then there are a whole lot of stupid people in the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
=/ there isn't a a belief in it, seriously what's wrong with a theory that simply states that your genes get passed on to your kids and since everyone different you eventually get change?
What's next? not believing gravity because it doesn't have God rubbed all over it?
I don't want to start a fight but please don't comment you don't believe in a theory that is a SCIENTIFIC ONE and thus does not require belief, especially when I stated what it meant and gave a very good example of a form of evolution that YOU KNOW HAPPENS.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never meant to start an argument, I was just stating my opinion.
The evolutionary theory is still a theory. I know very well that a 'theory' in the scientific community isn't a '
Also, can you really blame people to have all those views you mentioned in your list? The way evolution is taught in schools and the way its presented and used...people will go to those conclusions.
When evolution is taught, isn't there usually references to 'Lucy' and aren't there comparisons made between humans and other primates? When evolution is taught, don't teachers and textbooks say something about how we came from nothing, to single cell-organisms, to complex organisms? And finally, don't people use evolution as a basis to say that God doesn't exist?
Honestly, it's not hard to come to those conclusions...
And the example you said of the dogs, couldn't it also be said that they were created differently so they could live in the environments they're native to? It could go either way...
And a final note...'gravity' isn't a very good example to use. There actually IS a text in the Bible that defends gravity.
I mean no harm to you. I'm not trying to badmouth the evolutionary or anything, I'm just trying to defend what I believe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
School are HORRIBLE PLACES to learn about evolution in North America because they often mis-explain it or mistake it for other things (like speciation).
No, no one other than extremely anti-theist use evolution to disprove God, the only people I ever hear say that are Christians that exclaim that atheist use it to disprove God despite the fact I have only seen one atheist ever say that evolution disprove God and I corrected them because that is false.
Really evolution isn't even debatable, the actual theory is proven without a shadow of a doubt to anyone that has any extreme knowledge of biology. The only parts that arguable are aspect like speciation (changing from one species to another) with is a result of evolution even though there are several cases of speciation that have been recorded. Natural selection, also arguable, has ALSO been proven because, even in my dog example (not all dog breeds were selected by humans).
There is no "missing link" between humans and apes that could disprove evolution, there is no magical thing that could be found to disprove evolution.
Because the basic theory has been observed millions on times, even when you have a child if you choose to the fact your child will have some of your traits that could either benefit them or damper the possibility they survive IS PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS AT WORK.
God could be the one that makes it happen, same with gravity, most scientists believe this actually. The fact you are a Christian, believe in God and think/know Jesus is your savior is no reason to say evolution is false as you can clearly see in the fact I wrote this extremely LONG COMMENT to show that it doesn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said that evolution: 'organism changing through breeding' was false, or has the possibility of being false. An organism changing through breeding is very true.
The examples I gave were to show how people can make the wrong conclusions about evolution. I never meant it as a proof to say 'evolution doesn't exist'.
Evolution as in the 'we came from nothing' kind of evolution is what I don't 'believe' in.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
we didn't come from nothing,even scientists know that much, and that's isn't even part of the theory.
That's abiogenesis (gave you a link to wikipedia there since I don't really want to go over that theory), the theory of the origins of life, evolution deals with life that already exists, not with when life started.
Yet another misconception about the theory that for whatever reason people can't get their head wrap around it (heck, I admit, until 2007 I thought evolution also meant the origins of life).
And since its a seperate theory, yes abiogenesis has much less evidence that evolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly, it's that misconception of evolution that I don't agree with.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah ;3; I can't say for sure how life started because even scientists are arguing how it happened (there's several theories about how non-living organic matter could have potentially became living but I'm not even going to get into that >> too much potential to turn into a religious argument, even moreso than with evolution).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dog breeds isn't evolution. It's artificial selection.
Here's a better example: the birds in the Galapagos. Darwin? You know. Each one had a common ancestor, but through natural selection (which is related to evolution) each came to have different-shaped beaks so they could eat different foods so they wouldn't all be competing for the same food.
Or just look at these pictures, which will show you a good deal of human evolution.
Paranthropus boisei
Australopithecus africanus
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens
Mind you there's a big gap in between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens because I can't remember what goes there, I took this class two years ago.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
no, it is evolution actually, artificial selection is still select pressure and thus is still evolution. You're mistaking natural selection for the entirity of the theory of evolution.
As you probably know evolution is more than just natural selection, there is also the mechanism of gene flow and genetic drift which are NOT nature exclusive.
Because there are more than just nature influences towards evolution ANY SPECIES change is still consider under evolution. This is a common and I guess you could say fatal error people make. Because they do not see dog breeding as evolution they assume that all evolution can only be influence by natural selection and since natural selection based evolution is very slow in comparison to artificial selection people assume evolution cannot work because of the speed it takes.
But if you still think dog breeds aren't evolution there is at least one breed of dog that was molded by nature and not humans called the Xoloitzcuintli.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No no no, I'm not mistaking natural selection for evolution, because natural selection cannot work unless the concept of evolution does. (Or unless there's a God. Not going there.) I would say using dog breeds as an example is kind of a stretch. I don't know what a Xoloitzcuintli is but I will find out. The reason I think it's a stretch is because people, human beings, breed dogs based on the traits they want. They may cross an English bulldog and a terrier to get a French bulldog over successive generations (don't quote me on that). The changes from one breed to an offspring breed is from crossing dogs of unlike hereditary backgrounds and I'd correlate it to crossing two humans of different ethnicities.
Evolution works by need, or needlessness. It's over continual, successive generations that things will develop or change as need be, not through crossing different ethnicities or breeds or anything, but just through need. For example humans began to walk on two legs over time because it was to their advantage to see over the grasslands of Africa. In some parts of the world it was to their advantage to have dark skin; in some parts of the world like Europe dark skin was unnesscessary and so over time it became lighter.
I would say that dog breeds introduces variation through artificial selection despite need, buuuut if you go by the definition that indeed any change in a species is evolution...where does that stop? At what point is it no longer evolution and just a quirk of variation in the gene pool? For example the mestizos--ethnic crosses that resulted in a Native American-Spanish population of 'mixed bloods'. Is that considered evolution?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it actually is because mixing two different population (for humans we call them "races") is a mechanism of evolution called "gene flow".
Evolution actually covers a lot more than what most people think. Most people assume it only covers changes in nature, or only big changes, or only speciation or only this or only that, it covers it all and more.
If a species of frog get longer legs because someone killed on the short legged frogs and now only long legged frogs exist: that's still evolution. If a bunch of dogs get loose and centuries later they find them and now they have longer snouts: that's still evolution. If two groups of will lions with distinct features (breeds) mix together and become one: yet that's still evolution.
But for the last example: remember that breeds, not species! what defines a species is when two population can no longer mix together, when they still can any mix is consider a contribution to the species' evolution.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I recognize that evolution covers natural selection and such, but wouldn't changes in evolution go for species as a whole, i.e. with the frogs having longer legs? Any mix, any breed, would be one part of the species, i.e. not all humans are suddenly mestizo.
Also I want to disagree with changes being absolute. There's always subtle variation. I doubt all the frogs now have longer legs; there will be those oddballs still carrying the short leg gene. A good example would be a certain species of moth that lived in the Black Forest. Long ago most of them were light in color, to blend in with the bark; the minority dark ones got eaten. However what with pollution the bark of those trees is now dark, and the minority-majority balance has flipped--there are more dark moths because the light ones tend to get eaten.
Gregor Mendel was the first to state that variation exists in the population of every species. Those genes might not always be present, if they're recessive, and sometimes the recessive genes can become the predominant trait of a species just because the organisms carrying the dominant genes have been killed off for some reason. So these traits already exist in the genes, so...why would that be evolution? Now, dropping off a gene or gaining a new set totally, like if humans stopped having pinky toes, I can see why that would be, because of the change in genetic makeup.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
oh course those changes aren't absolute, heck there are still humans born with tails and human haven't had tails naturally for millions of years xP. Its more when most members of a distinct population of a species have a particular trait that is consider them "evolving". So if most rottweilers have black fur with brown regions than that is usually the norm, if more and more member become completely black through some mutation that keeps being passed down then we would consider them "evolving" or at least that's how I understand it.
Genetic related stuff is not my best subject when it comes to evolution. to my understanding most evolution is just mutation in existent genes, like a particular piece of data being lost or having a secondary copy which creates new traits. Most these traits are neutral, some are bad and some are good.
For example a small percentage of european decendants have a almost complete immunity of AIDS, this isn't a new gene per se, just a mutation of existing genes that allows that population to be immune to AIDS infections.
If genetic drift took place and members without this mutation died for some reason unrelated to AIDS, the trait would probably grow and become more common. Also, if these europeans bred with Indians its possible that these mix individuals would thus be immune to AIDS as well, meaning not only europeans would be immune but Indian-europeans also.
As you can see, no natural selection was required for the anti-AIDS gene to be passed down and become part of our species but as far as I know this would still be consider evolution.
Hope this reply makes sense since I may have misread yours and not got what you were trying to ask.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mmmn the way I figure it a change can come from evolution but not necessarily natural selection. Natural selection as I know it is strictly that the organisms adapted best are the survivors. If AIDS became a pandemic, then I'd consider humans shifting to almost entirely being immune to it an act of natural selection.
And I would say that the anti-AIDs gene for example coming about as a mutation wouldn't be considered evolution until it becomes a normal gene for the majority of humans. Or there's a fine line somewhere I'm missing. I'm fairly certain evolution means characteristic changes in a species over all, not just in a segment of it, like dog breeds.
Though following that thought you could consider dog breeds evolution if you define a 'dog' as being a species of enormous variation by its very nature...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah, its pretty hard to see what is consider evolution, I think in general its only consider an evolved trait when many individuals from the same population for it but I could be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
mm I can just see this getting many religious comments 
Things like residual hind legs in whales; why would the bones be there if they weren't once land creatures?
[link] has some others facts like that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
most people don't realize creating new breeds from various animals=evolution since most people don't even understand what evolution is.
Also thanks for the link, I faved it since its awesome!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, yes I do.
And I think you're brave to post this, knowing how many bullcrap comments you're gonna get from people who either are too lazy/disrespectful to read comments or are just plain ignorant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well I knew I would get them, deviantart tends to be full of teenage knowitalls that think evolution means something and utterly refuse to listen to the actual definition when you tell it to them.
its good to hear other people say they understand it. I meet way to many morons that close their eyes and plug their ears to the evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oho, now wait a moment. Not all these retards who are giving you stuff are teenagers, and not all teenagers are giving you stuff. I'm an example. I'm in high school and these people are pissin me off! Oh my God. I could shoot myself. I know what evolution is and how it works and religion makes me grind my teeth. YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME WANT TO CRY.
...((grind)) D:<
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said all teenagers, I said "teenage knowitalls" (which is a reference only to teenagers that think they know everything and not all teenagers) since most people that comment in this nature are usually between the ages of 13 to 17 years old.
This isn't steryotyping teenagers since of course only a few years ago I qualified as one, its an educated observation.
Most people that respond in the nature of "lalala I can't hear you I'm smarter than you lalala" are teenagers. This isn't to say only teenagers do this (I know quite a few adults that act this way) or to say all teenagers do this.
I thought by my wording this would be obvious but I guess people can't read my comments the same way I wrote them =/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is the problem with the internet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>