this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023

324 points (84.6% liked)

Atheist Memes

6617 readers

2 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
No bigotry.
Attack ideas not people.
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
No False Reporting
NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

fkn@lemmy.world

friend_of_satan@lemmy.world

Donjuanme@lemmy.world

Not2Dopey@sh.itjust.works

324

Evolution is real (midwest.social)

submitted 2 years ago by Lanky_Pomegranate530@midwest.social to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 78 points 2 years ago (13 children)

This is one of those posts where ultimately I agree with OP, evolution is real and we certainly saw it with the COVID-19 pandemic in case anyone was still in doubt. Still, OP is an edge lord and gives this instance a bad look when they post edge lord stuff like this.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 years ago

Yup. This kind of thing gives a bad name to atheists and is one of the reasons I don't like to bring it up often. We should be more respectful and set a good example, not stoop to the shit-slinging level.

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I had a biology professor in college refuse to teach the evolution lessons because she didn't believe in it.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

She wasn't teaching the science of biology at that point. She was teaching her own thoughts and feelings and should have been removed from her position.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I requested something like that with my dean but nothing changed.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago

My highschool World Religions teacher told us "he followed one of the religions he was going to teach, but would not tell us which one". Big respect for that, teaching us objectively what was out there.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Where was this?

[+] kromem@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I may read through that later to see if it's covered but I want to remind everyone there a difference between evolution and evolution by natural selection. I often hear Muslim scholars says Islam is so smart because it talks about evolution, but it's not evolution by natural selection.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Lucretius was definitely talking about evolution from natural selection (especially look at the last one from book 5 about the intermediate freaks where only what survived to reproduce continued to exist), including what was nearly a Mendelian picture of trait inheritance from each parent.

As for whether that picture of things was being conveyed by a historical Jesus, it really depends on how one interprets the broader context of the sower parable regarding what survived multiplying (i.e. is canon more accurate or the Naassenes).

But I'd strongly suggest at least reading through the first part of my comment of the De Rerum Natura quotes. Your mind will be blown (when I was first researching this material I had to keep checking it wasn't a hoax or overly forgiving modern translation, as it was strikingly at odds with the accuracy of what I thought was capable of being theorized in antiquity).

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

What is the difference? Evolution as a word can mean a few things but the concept of evolution from a biological perspective is the same as natural selection. There is no difference. Natural selection is the theory by which we explain observed biological evolution.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I suspect they mean the broad concept of "life came from other stuff that was different before it" vs "life came from other stuff based on what survived to reproduce."

Not that neutral selection is overly broad vs evolution, but that the term evolution is sometimes too loosely applied to ideas in an attempt to give them greater credence while the thing it is applied to is ignoring the mechanics of how those changes were propagated.

It's a fair point even if it doesn't really apply to what I commented as Leucretius not only explicitly described the relevance of surviving to reproduce on the survival or failure of intermediate mutations, but even was aware that trait inheritance depended on a doubled seed from each parent.

So it was kind of like "I didn't bother reading this but I'm going to assume it's wrong in this way" where the way discussed is a legit point but not applicable to the thing they are replying to as would have been immediately apparent had they read it.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I suspect they are simply being dishonest which is why I asked. They probably don’t know and don’t care about the various methods of inheritance. They just want to try and claim that natural selection is wrong.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Look up Lamarckian.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nah. I’m familiar with Lamarckian evolutionary theories and there’s no evidence for them. Although many evolutionary traits and effects seem Lamarckian in the ways they affect species, they are completely defined by natural selection processes and mechanisms.

I can’t tell if you’re bringing this up in bad faith because you’re a religious person or if this is a genuine attempt at separating the hypothesis from the effect and you’re just a bit ignorant.

As an example, epigenetic inheritance, which has been dishonestly used as an example of Lamarckian evolution, has evidence for it. Contrary to that idea, though, it has never been observed to have an effect on actual evolution because the environment of the species in which the inheritance occurs is still selected for by their environment.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think there is more evidence for lmarckian thinking now than when it was proposed. I don't think it really works but the environment can activate genes. As for whats the difference is natural selection is the source of evolution whereas god evolved creatures over time with his god powers as part of his great plan. well that would not be.

[–] dpkonofa@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Not in the way he meant it. We’ve confirmed that inheritance is a thing but not in the way he described. In one of his writings, he gave an example of how a blacksmith, for example, could grow his muscles because of the rigor of his work and that he could pass that down to his children to give them an affinity for the same type of work. We now know that that’s not only not true but that, even in his example, the environment is the driving factor there.

I won’t even comment on the god powers.