Nope. Macro-evolution hasn’t been proven, yet is taught as if it is.
Darwin questioned the leap of faith from his research into adaptation of a species to environmental pressures to one species changing to another.
My guess is that the royal society needed ammo to fight the control of the church and so developed their own dogmatic beliefs to follow based on Darwin’s theories.
Remember, this was 150 years ago. Would such an idea hold sway if new today?
No, they had an insanely low priced program for several years (I lost it about 3 months ago) for $35 for year. Canadian! It was bizarre, although from a marketing standpoint it made sense, as it wouldn’t cost them a $300 subscription.
But sadly, it finally lapsed, and the telemarketer who tried to get me to re-subscribe at $300 was flabbergasted that the price every existed. (Or thought I was lying.)
Anyway, I wish I know what mailing list they pulled my name from to offer that subscription price. Googling didn’t turn up anything. They were getting $35 - cost of shipping the magazine from me, a price I was happy to pay for the privilege of being able to read 1/3 of the magazine. (And it made me feel almost-sorta like a real scientist. Nothing like having friends notice your stack of Nature’s sitting in the corner. Real science-tribe cred :-)).
Next time I’ll try to find a cartoon that meets your criteria of absolute scientific accuracy and diversity…while still illustrating the point.
Okay, now I feel bad - I’ll stop joking about science as religion. (I don’t mean my posts entirely facetiously, but (I hope) obviously not too seriously either.)
Anyone, as someone who had definitely never suffered due to a lack of religious beliefs, it’s hard for me to imagine the world where strong religious belief isn’t actually a social handicap. I am sorry for making fun of my beliefs. I mostly do so in an effort to have my peers show a little more tolerance for those poor religious folk, who usually (again in my neck of the woods) trying to live their lives in a world were they’re a minority.
Could you also find one that shows what Christians think happened?
(eyeroll)
I understand your point, but there’s not really room to show all the different branches of primates in six frames of a cartoon. Brevity is the soul of wit.
Please give me your non-evolutionary explaination for ring species.
How about this one?
Well. . . this implies that there actually IS a god who loves you. Maybe god exists, maybe not (or maybe god exists but is not anywhere near what a Christian believes is god.) So in that sense belief is really just a very ornate security blanket: the believer thinks it is offering him or her protection against monsters, but there’s no solid evidence of that. I say the believer is welcome to their chosen security blanket (as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else), unfortunately for them they have to constantly be on the defensive against evidence the security blanket is an illusion (ironically the verse from the Book of Matthew about the house built on sand comes to mind.)
Ultimately arguing about the existence of a deity is really just arguing whether life has meaning or not. Maybe it doesn’t have a meaning, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be happy anyway.
Pity that your reading skills aren’t commensurate with your wit. I said Christians not creationists.
I was going to mention that, but make him clearly define "macro-evolution’ (what fucking bullshit) and any terms, like “species” that are used in that definition, so there’s no wiggle room. The short answer is that “species” is fundamentally a human construct to make it easier to talk about things, with no clear edge cases in nature. Thus, the difference between “micro” and “macro” evolution is nothing but the kind of bullshit sophistry that I would expect from a theologian.
That’s like saying running hasn’t been proven because we’ve only seen individual steps. You’ve made an phony distinction and put all the evidence in one pile.
I’m glad you feel this way. Throw away your over 150-year-old gospels and join the newest, truest belief.
So, if Darwin had finished his proof of macro-evolution, do you think we’d
be having this debate?
No. of course not.
We’d all see the proof.
Find the proof and I’ll concur.
Good luck there though.
I would not propose to speak regarding what ALL Christians believe, but I found a site called ChristianForum that entertains a conversation about why the rib was used because …well, you can read it for yourself.
I’d quite agree.
But you don’t necessarily increase human happiness by acknowledging what any materialist like myself knows to be true.
There is no meaning, Life is simply a series of chemicals that happen to execute certain processes. Consciousness is simply a certain configuration of those chemicals. Any other configuration is just as meaningful. The extinction of everyone you know and love is no more meaningful than sand falling in a different configuration upon a beach.
Each individual brain is an array of chemicals that interact electrochemically with other particles. The same can be said of any group of chemicals. That one set of chemicals produces consciousness doesn’t make it in any fundamental way different from any other set of chemicals.
The universe has no meaning. It simply is.
It is against this unalterable reality that our little sacks of chemicals are modified in order to produce different chemical configurations (read invent meaning in order to make ourselves happier). It means nothing - certain chemicals reactions occur in response to certain stimuli.
The fact that evolution has created this very elaborate set of chemicals is simply an accident of math lodged in the physical reality of iteratively modifying systems. There’s no more meaning than in the ‘evolution’ of a canyon. They are all the inevitable outcomes of a complex interaction of systems.
All of this is incontrovertibly true (if you are part of the science tribe). But going on about it won’t make you popular at parties :-).
(I’ve met exactly one person in my life about 20 years ago who I think (he may have just talked a good game) actually internalized all of this. And I have to say, someone who was that rational creeped me the heck out. I mean I know the truth of all of the above, but I’d hate to ever know the truth about life’s meaninglessness.)
Yes because nothing - nothing - will get you to change your mind. Darwin doesn’t need to “prove” anything because this isn’t math - it’s science. We look for evidence. And there has been lots and lots of evidence since Darwin. All of which supports the interconnectedness of life. All of which you do and must ignore.
True, but I’ve always disliked that depiction because it does subtley reinforce the “then how come there are still monkeys” argument.
I’m sure there’s a pithy portrayal that’s more accurate. We just haven’t discovered it yet.
This is simply showing the line of a single branch.
That needs a lot of trigger warnings…sounds like the sort of “joke” my dad’s friends tell, hoping to get a rise out of me (I don’t give them the satisfaction).
The idea that one book can hold all the ‘really important’ thoughts from human history has always been a problem for me. It has slavery, but that’s ok if you are a good master or obedient slave. Some of the Old Testament practices are even worse.
My grandfather said, many times: “God gave you a brain, use it!”. Still good advice.
