Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Evolution?? 

51%
405 deviants said Its science
37%
293 deviants said Its a theory
9%
68 deviants said its a scam
3%
21 deviants said Its heresy

Devious Comments

:iconzachvalkyrie:
ZachValkyrie Featured By Owner Aug 24, 2013  Student Writer
It's a scientific theory, which incidentally is the pinnacle of modern scientific understanding. 
Reply
:iconprimenatorgirl217:
primenatorgirl217 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I believe in both evolution and creationism. They both make sense to me; I just can't go completely one way or the other, and it irks me a little when people condemn me for it.
Reply
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Aug 26, 2012  Student Filmographer
Eh, they do sort of clash, that probably why people do it >.> but like I said already, you can believe what you want to.
Reply
:iconhigurashilover123:
higurashilover123 Featured By Owner Aug 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
it's movie magic
DICLONIOUS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD
Reply
:iconcapn-smollet:
Capn-Smollet Featured By Owner Dec 16, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Its theory, as scientists have yet to provide evidence within the fossil record to support their idea.
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
I wasn't quite sure whether to vote that it's a science or a theory. The problem is, it is a scientific theory, but the word "theory" carries implications of uncertainty and guesswork. I finally put "science," although I consider it to be more a phenomenon, fact, or theory than a science. (My definition of science is a branch of scientific study, like biology, or applied science/knowledge, like medicine.)
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Look it up; it is actually not a science. I did a lot of study on it, and it is really more of a religion.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
Could you please give links to your sources? Every reputable, sufficiently informative source I have encountered on it supports the idea that it is a scientific theory. It describes things which have been objectively observed, changes to accommodate discrepancies (and, I assume, would be dissolved entirely if sufficient evidence completely contradicted it), and involves more logic, explanation, and testing than simple dogma.
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
I can't particularly give links to my sources, because my choice to believe in creation was built over the overwhelming evidence I have seen through my entire life. However, if you would like some of the sources I recall, a very good place to start with simple would be a DVD series called TrueU: Does God Exist?. My church did it and it truely blew my mind. You could also try looking up some of Ken Ham's work. Creation is much more plausable than this socity gives it credit for, and evolution is much less fact.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
I've looked up one partial biography of Mr. Ham, and may look up more about him and his ideas. I have to admit, first of all, that I am generally apprehensive about literalist interpretations of the Bible. Parts, or maybe even all, of it may have been inspired by God, but it has been passed down, written down, and translated by fallible, biased humans, often with their own agendas. The simplest argument against the Bible as literal fact is the presence of two independent, partially incompatible creation stories in Genesis. I won't go into that further unless asked, as the topic at hand is evolution, not religion. I might check out some of his books and that DVD series you mentioned, just to find out any merits of the other side of the debate. Could you please give me a few of your basic arguments against evolution, though? I don't know when I'll get around to checking those sources, so I would rather know why you oppose the concept in your own words.
And I agree that divine creation is plausible, mostly because there's literally no way to prove it. Therefore, it is not scientific, but faith-based. I still don't understand why so many people think evolution and intelligent design of the universe are incompatible.
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
For one thing, the whole of the bible is not meant to be taken literally. A lot of it meant to be take figurativly. Psalm 98:8 says,
"Let the rivers clap their hands,
let the mountains sing together for joy;"
Taken literally... yeah, no. Now, that has caused many divisions, because a lot of people take different parts to be figurative, like those who say the account of creation is figurative. I personally beleive in six literal days, but many people believe in figurative thousands/millions/billions of years.
As for the human fallibility in copying the scriptures, I recently found out about some ancient documents that were found sealed away in a tomb (I will have to look up where) and when compared to the documents we have now, the ones that have been copied and copied and copied, the diferences are very minor.
I shall try to organize my thoughts in order to tell you why I don't believe in evolution. It may be a while, because lately I've been stuggling to think in a manner that I can express.
If you think about it, there's literally no way to "prove" evolution, either. In short, no one was there, and it can't be repeated.
I actually have very good reason why Christianity and evolution aren't compatible. I will have to see if I can explain it well enough for someone to understand.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
Okay. I was mainly mentioning the literal interpretation because the biography emphasized Ken Ham's assertion of it.

If the ancient scriptures really are so similar, that's pretty neat. There are still some places in which different translations produce very different implications (one of the more minor, but funnier, being the passage in which Moses comes down the mountain after receiving the laws - depending on how the text is interpreted, either he was glowing, or he appeared to have horns.). More importantly, the Old Testament in particular existed as oral folklore long before it was written down, and some parts can be pointed out as changing with the times. Of the two creation stories, for example, the one starting at 1:1 (which was developed after the second) serves to counter a Babylonian creation story of the time: most notably, the Hebrew God, not Marduk, draws the world up out of the watery deep, and only chaos existed before God (as opposed to the Babylonian story, in which there was sufficient existence for dozens of gods to fight a war).

As for your claim that there's no way to "prove" evolution, that's true. There's also no way to prove that gravity attracts objects, rather than them happening to draw near each other in a way that happens to vary with their distance and respective masses. Real proof exists only in mathematics, if there; science works in evidence and explanations. In science, we make observations, note patterns, and attempt to explain all the observations yet made. If a given theory successfully explains all the phenomena it relates to, and still stands after testing, it's valid. However, it is still not considered to be set-in-stone; remember, Newtonian physics is quite different from Einsteinian physics.

More importantly, the question is not whether a theory can be proven, but whether it can be disproven. I can posit a theory that leprechauns make dough rise, but it is only a valid theory (whether or not it is true) if there is some hypothetical set of conditions under which I would admit it to be false. If I were to throw a ball up into the air and it continued without accelerating down again, I would first seek an alternate explanation, but if that didn't work, I would rescind my assumption that gravity is universal on a macroscopic scale. If a dog gave birth to a duck, that would disprove the theory that species are a valid system of classification. And as Richard Dawkins pointed out, if a paleontologist were to find the fossils of a modern hippopotamus in rock from the pre-Cambrian era, that would disprove evolution.

On a lighter note, I've struggled with giving words to thoughts many times. Especially when I need to speak them out loud.
Reply
:iconrisedarkmoon:
RiseDarkMoon Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2010  Student Interface Designer
I beleive evolution
I think it makes more sence than a GOD just created everything
then the question is appaering ...who created the God
thats unquestioned n taboo to say

well....I respect the religions but I dont believe
hmm sorry if my english better I wanna say lot of things...
Reply
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2010  Student Filmographer
well said

yes to me too evolution just sounds like it makes more sence
and those are good questions too, but i just accept that il probabley never know how life or the universe was made T.T

not that i wanna know.... space scares me lol
Reply
:iconrisedarkmoon:
RiseDarkMoon Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2010  Student Interface Designer
space scares me also :D
but I stop thinkin those 2-3 years ago
some questions will never answer in my lifespan
maybe humanrace will able to answer this :D
Reply
:icon32bites:
32bites Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2010  Professional Photographer
To say something is a theory and something else is science is a misnomer.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and retested to be true.

A theory is not just an idea, that is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea that was though up as a solution to a question.

Only after a hypothesis passes scrutiny of the scientific community then it becomes theory.
Reply
:iconkingvego:
KingVego Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
ADAPTATION!
Reply
:iconflametwirler:
FlameTwirler Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
My thing is, microevolution (change within species) is provable and common, while macroevolution (change from one species to another) has never been able to be proven. Hence, theory.
Reply
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010  Student Filmographer
Arnt they the exact same thing...??? -.-
micro is just in the short term while macro is in the long term.
Reply
:iconflametwirler:
FlameTwirler Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2010
Nope, not the same thing - especially in the extremity of the change. Microevolution, for example, would be the change of a species of moths being predominantly white to predominantly black, because the terrain had changed due to a volcanic eruption (ie lots of ash, so the black ones were now better camoflauged). That's a cited case, forget the specific species name though. It would also include differences in human race, etc. Still the same species, but there are slight differences involved. Macroevolution would be the change from chimp to human, amoeba to multi-celled organism, invertebrate to vertebrate, etc. And while there is much speculation, postulation, and theory, there is no definitive proof for any of those changes. (used to be a big of a science geek)

So I suppose you could say in theory it would be the same thing, but only if macroevolution were provable, which at this point it is not yet. (and no, one thumb bone from something they can't identify doesn't count as 'proof' - just ask the 'brontosaurus', haha.)
Reply
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Feb 19, 2010  Student Filmographer
Hmmm?? still sounds like exactly the same thing to me, all these small things add up over time and when a species is isolated due to environmental changes two populations may change so much over time that they can no longer breed with each other, which therefor makes a new species, this is only one way it can happen though but probably the fastest. theres plenty of proof for this. With macroevolutions, it is still the exact same thing as micro, just takes millions of years. For example a tortoise is born with a mutuation that gives it a longer neck when food on the ground is in shortage. This tortoise is much more sucessful and when it breeds it may pass on this gene that helps it to survive. And if over time the food on highter and higher levels becomes unavailable the tortoises neck might change to resemble that of a brontosaurus/Apatasaurus.??? it just takes time
Reply
:iconflametwirler:
FlameTwirler Featured By Owner Feb 20, 2010
I'll have to disagree still - I think they're very different matters.

Take humans for instance. You compare a Scandinavian and an African, and their climate and environment have (micro)evolved them to have different builds, skin tones, and even bone structures. However, they are still human, and still would be over long periods of time, if under the mandates of micro-evolution, regardless of isolation.

Macroevolution would be a shift so extreme they couldn't be considered the same species, ala Time Machine or X-Men - though even there in both of them the argument could be made for either macro or micro-evolution since they're still similar in so many ways.

Which I'm sure you're aware of and we're just talking semantics at this point. *shrugs*

Anyhow, I see the two very similar in that one stops at a certain point, only bending a species so far before actually changing it all together, while the other makes jumps and leaps and bounds.

Personally, I'm not a believer in macroevolution (I know, surprise suprise - but for me there is not enough definitive proof), hence why I see such a distinction between the two. Even if I were, though, from a scientific standpoint I would still see a divergence between the two types because of the aforementioned cap. I think they are altogether different animals and affect creatures in different ways, though I can see where you'd come from that, if one is true and you believe the other is true, then they could certainly bleed into each other.
Reply
:icondelboysb91:
delboysb91 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
Darwin's THEORY of Evolution, which he himself later denied..
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Sep 25, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Had he known what we know now he never would've come up with that theory.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
What do you mean? From what I've learned/read, the process of evolution is more complicated than his mechanism of natural and sexual selection, but the basic principle still stands.
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
But the difference is that is it so incredibly more complicated. The "simple" step of getting the amino acids to line up in the right order to make relitivly small protein is mathmatically three times what is considered impossible, and that's just one step in an astronomical amount that would be needed to bring about what we see today. With the knowledge of the world we have today, I believe that a logical man such as Charles Darwin would see that it is in fact more probable that there was in fact a Creator rather than just random chance.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
There's a difference between "God initiated life" and "there is no evolution." Let's start right after life began - could have been divinely instituted, could have happened at random. Pretty clearly, some traits would be more advantageous than others. Pretty clearly, some organisms (possibly just protocells at this point) will be more adept at surviving and, eventually, reproducing than others. I assume you acknowledge that genes exist, are hereditary, and can be altered by occasional mutation. So from there, very gradually, some organisms accumulated certain traits others did not. Very gradually, some became so different from others that they could no longer breed (if sexual) or were another species on traits alone. Some of those cells' descendents ended up as bacteria, some plants, some animals, some fungi. There have been well-documented cases of natural selection in modern times; for example, the moths which, over time, have darkened and then lightened in color because the earlier color made them obvious to predators (the difference in requirement was due to soot produced by industry). Also, cane toads in Australia have been found with longer and longer legs, for increased speed and distance.
In case you point to these changes as evidence that such improvement is clearly divinely ordained, I present vestigial structures. If evolution is not a real phenomenon, why do some whales have vestigial leg bones? Why must bats be constrained to a wing structure based off of a mammalian forefoot/hand, rather than having a more efficient structure? Why, for that matter, are attributes like hair and milk-production so closely correlated, unless most or all of the animals which share both, logically unrelated, traits are descended from a common ancestor?
Again, I am not discounting the possibility of divine creation. I am, in fact, a Presbyterian. I am just saying that the evidence of evolution adds up.
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Oh no, I very firmly believe in... selective... I can't remember what I was saying. Natural selection! There we go! I beleive in natural selection, but the difference is that I beleive that it is "natural" "selection". Exatly the way the moths were: they had both black and white genes in them, and they turned black to survive, and then back to white to survive. The trick is; they're still moths. It was information they already had, it wasn't new information.
~Rose
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
However, suppose the existence of a species of lizard. Over time, some might develop preference for a certain type of prey and pass that on to their offspring. Some of the lizards who prefer burrowing mammals might eventually better become better adapted to pursuing them underground: shorter legs, more flexible bodies, etc. Other lizards of the same initial species might stay above ground, and might in fact be encumbered by such adaptation. Over many generations, some of the descendents of the burrowing lizards may continue to differentiate from the others (which would, themselves, be changing, though perhaps not to such a degree). If an extreme form on either side (flexible body and short legs on one, and firm body and long legs on the other) is preferable, those lizards which prefer mates with similar structures to their own would prosper. If genetic tendency were thus largely confined to two clusters, as it continued, the two groups might become so genetically dissimilar that their offspring would be infertile. They would now be considered separate species. I was going to follow the burrowing lizards and show how they become similar to snakes, but I think simple speciation is good enough.

Also, I've read a little of one of Ham's books now, and I'd like to say that no, evolution, speciation, natural selection, and adaptation are not considered to be the same things; they are, as he correctly points out, different processes, although they are related. And so far as I know, few if any scientists use "evolution" as a synonym for "the history of life on earth." The process of change in lifeforms, yes, the history of life itself, no.

Would you like to take this debate to Notes, or to continue it here?
Reply
:iconburntblackrose:
BurntBlackRose Featured By Owner Oct 7, 2011  Hobbyist General Artist
Kay I shall be moving it to notes when I get around to it (hopefully soon). My email's been hacked so I have to clean all that up first.
~Rose
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010  Student Filmographer
He did lol? i never knew he denied it? i though he was just unsure of his discovery and only published it like 20 years after he wrote his book becuase someone had come up with a similar theory?
Reply
:icondelboysb91:
delboysb91 Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2010
Lol That maybe so! i dont remember where i heard he denied it, but due to heavy criticisms at the time, he probably had second thoughts..
I get the theory though, it actually makes sense, but its silly to say its fact if its not necessarily provable =)
Reply
:iconmultimorph:
Multimorph Featured By Owner Oct 5, 2011
Well, it's a scientific theory, which pretty much means it's the best way we have so far to explain all the facts involved. Gravity is also a theory.
Reply
:iconeim30:
Eim30 Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2010
It's only a rumor that he denied it while on his deathbed. Many believe it to be true because he was afraid that if there was a god he would go to hell. We learned about it in school a few weeks ago.
Reply
:icondelboysb91:
delboysb91 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2010
Lol i see!
Well if he did then i suppose no matter what the consequences were he'd be fine :XD:
Reply
:iconwarbaaz1411:
Warbaaz1411 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
mitsubishi evolution 8 or 9 or even X :)
Reply
:iconmoni158:
moni158 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010  Student Filmographer
? huh
Reply
:iconwarbaaz1411:
Warbaaz1411 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2010
its a car :)
Reply
Add a Comment:
 

Poll History