No wait, I think I see it. I get the feeling someone's gonna call out "Y is dis on teh athesism channel?" That would be because if you really understa Not Pokemon
x
Click to expand

No wait, I think I see it

No wait, I think I see it. I get the feeling someone's gonna call out "Y is dis on teh athesism channel?" That would be because if you really understa

I get the feeling someone's gonna call out "Y is dis on teh athesism channel?"
That would be because if you really understand this natural phenomenon, and the timeline, it all logically links to abiogenesis, and every deity imagined until the Age of Enlightenment was invented in part to explain creation, life and earth, therefore deserves to be in the channel, also considering the appeal.
If you compare possibilities, the special pleading apologetics for divine explanation versus the natural explanation, and think they're equal in chance, please discuss below.

Tags: Not | Pokemon
Going left to right can you point to the exact place that the color
stops being blue and becomes red?
This is how it is with evolution. You can' t point to one generation
where a mother gives birth to a child of a different species.
For most species it is a gradual change over thousands of years.
All species are transitional.
There is no "Missing Link", only points on a continuum.
This image is public domain. Free to copy 3: distribute. Lama ttet M society
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+156
Views: 13319
Favorited: 22
Submitted: 10/22/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to robinwilliamson Subscribe to atheism submit to reddit

Comments(68):

[ 68 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #24 - youarejustsocute (10/22/2013) [-]
> Be me
>see this post
>think, "I don't get it, the whole background is like a dark gray."
>remember that I am colorblind
>cry internally
#8 - cotterj (10/22/2013) [-]
Blue never becomes red because there's purple in the middle. WHERE'S THE PURPLE SCIENCE? WHERE'S THE PURPLE?   
Gif unrelated with love
Blue never becomes red because there's purple in the middle. WHERE'S THE PURPLE SCIENCE? WHERE'S THE PURPLE?
Gif unrelated with love
User avatar #42 - addictakilla (10/23/2013) [-]
>stops being blue and becomes red
>goes from blue to purple to red
**** you
User avatar #58 to #42 - kamusioso (10/23/2013) [-]
please, make a graph that goes from blue to red without passing though purple, enlighten us!
User avatar #62 to #58 - addictakilla (10/23/2013) [-]
it was a joke faggot
User avatar #48 to #41 - Blargosnarf (10/23/2013) [-]
Well, obviously the first red one was the first red word at the top, and the first blue word was the one right below that!
#52 - demandsgayversion (10/23/2013) [-]
This graph was taken very much out of context. Here is the original version, very scientific graph on evolution, published in many journals.
#51 - thebigcountry (10/23/2013) [-]
>Be me
>Be Catholic
>Don't care if others are religious
>opinions and **** . People can have them
>see this post
>dont have a clue what it means
>go to kitchen
>make hot chocolate
>pour it into mug
>return to post
>it's talking about colors
>make greentext comment
>MFW I'm colorblind
User avatar #49 - patrickmiller (10/23/2013) [-]
Dude it goes purple first , there are three colors there and I can point here it goes from Blue to Purple to Red but there simply is no transition from blue to red. You have to stop asking impossible questions to prove point to people who already agree ith you.
User avatar #66 to #49 - robinwilliamson (12/02/2013) [-]
It's the in between mixing stage of change. Missing the point.
User avatar #21 - mayormilkman (10/22/2013) [-]
Preach it to the choir, man!
#36 to #21 - tenthdivine (10/23/2013) [-]
>preach it to the choir
User avatar #1 - dunsparcee (10/22/2013) [-]
i can def see it
User avatar #2 to #1 - robinwilliamson (10/22/2013) [-]
Pics or it didn't happen
#5 - schnizel (10/22/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #12 - whereistherumgone (10/22/2013) [-]
This is a ****** example; blue isn't next to red.
User avatar #14 to #12 - robinwilliamson (10/22/2013) [-]
It's just a color shift between primary colors.
User avatar #15 to #14 - whereistherumgone (10/22/2013) [-]
Yes, but inbetween primary colours are secondary colours. You can't draw an exact line where blue stops and red starts because purple fills the gap.
User avatar #17 to #15 - robinwilliamson (10/22/2013) [-]
It's a transition. That should be even further the analogy's validity, since it's purely a philosophical perspective how you have to look at it, there's red and there's blue, then in a transition, there's an array of this gray area of purple, the thing that happens getting from A to B. I can't quite further explain since it's a very simple analogy, and certain ways of looking at it really complicate it. It's just a simple idea intended for a single transition aspect. You can't really apply all the properties of the figurative to fit the literal, that's not what it was meant for.
User avatar #18 to #17 - whereistherumgone (10/22/2013) [-]
I don't need to have the principle explained. Like I said, this is not a good example - just blue to purple would be a better one. But even then I could draw a line at where the blue stopped and the purple started - just not in the same place.
User avatar #19 to #18 - TheMather ONLINE (10/22/2013) [-]
Common Ancestor - Other Homos - Homo Sapien Sapien.
Blue - Shades of purple - Red.

Even if it was just blue to purple, you'd still have indigo in the middle. Or magenta in purple to red.
User avatar #20 to #19 - whereistherumgone (10/22/2013) [-]
That's completely irrelevant, indigo could be considered both blue or purple, whilst magenta is just a kind of purple
User avatar #22 to #20 - TheMather ONLINE (10/22/2013) [-]
It is relevant, because evolution is like any other sliding scale. There's no distinct border between one thing and another, everything is just a transition into something else. Minute changes build up constantly to change the whole, like the composition of light in colors.
Just like the changes from pure blue to indigo are no bigger different than any other step of equally big changes between blue and red, just like the change between your parents and you are no bigger than any other generation between the single-celled creatures at the beginning of all life to the current generation of humans.
Everything constantly changes to a minute degree, with steps in between. Even you right now and you ten minutes from now may not be exactly the same because of slight changes in which parts of your genome are activated, and you twenty minutes from now will be just as different from the you ten minutes from now.
User avatar #23 to #22 - whereistherumgone (10/22/2013) [-]
Dude, why are you explaining evolution to me? Or how colour scales work? All I said was THIS was not a good example, partly because it's using a transition between 3 colours whilst talking as if there is only 2, and partly because on this particular picture you can see actual strips of different colour gradient. I really don't know what you think I said to suggest I don't know what evolution is or how the concept is related to it.
User avatar #25 to #23 - TheMather ONLINE (10/22/2013) [-]
This is a good example. What you said about the gradient is the same way evolution is a transition between countless species, whilst people who deny it talk as if it's between two, and there are several samples of different know transitional species.
User avatar #26 to #25 - whereistherumgone (10/23/2013) [-]
No, OP specifically makes a point on whether you can say where one colour stops and another starts, and in this example you can.
User avatar #27 to #26 - TheMather ONLINE (10/23/2013) [-]
If anything, it is then between the first blue and the second, because you can't say which shade is no longer "blue".
#29 to #27 - whereistherumgone (10/23/2013) [-]
Yes you can. See this isn't a steady gradient. You can see where it's supposed to be moving in one direction it keeps going back to blue again, then suddenly purple, and so on.... Not a good example.
#56 to #29 - kamusioso (10/23/2013) [-]
just saiying...
User avatar #61 to #60 - kamusioso (10/23/2013) [-]
I mean that the boundaries of someone seeing blue, may not be the same for someone else
#3 - ubbashnubba (10/22/2013) [-]
Sounds good, the problem is that Evolution cannot be proven for this very reason. While there is a large amount of fossil evidence, this evidence is puny compared to what there should be, or compared to what would be necessary to prove Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.
#13 to #3 - anon (10/22/2013) [-]
The conditions under which an organic life form or parts thereof become mineralized in such a way as to survive for millions of years are ridiculously uncommon, yo. That's why you don't just trip over them, dog.
#16 to #3 - anon (10/22/2013) [-]
Fossilization is not exactly a likely thing to happen to the average organism, so the fossil record is obviously not going to be as thorough as we'd like. That being said, there are still plenty of fossils, all of which have so far corresponded to the rest of the fossil record. More importantly, all it would take was one irregular fossil that didn't correspond to our current knowledge to debunk the theory of evolution. The fact that that has yet to happen is a pretty good indicator that evolution is at the very least somewhat correct.
User avatar #38 to #3 - popkornking (10/23/2013) [-]
No they definitely have chains of fossils tracing this continuum for humans, all the way back past homo erectus.
User avatar #47 to #3 - iridium ONLINE (10/23/2013) [-]
You don't know what a theory is, do you.

A theory is when the observation and experimentation a hypothesis results in the same repeatedly confirmable conclusion. They tested it over and over again and found it confirmed time after time.

There is no scientific reasonable doubt in the theory of evolution. Will that guarantee that there never will be? No. But that's the nature of science. And the problem with the fossil record is people against the theory of evolution continually move the goalposts when someone presents it, until they get to something we don't have the information for, then call the whole thing wrong.

User avatar #6 to #3 - lastweek (10/22/2013) [-]
Someone has an extra chromosome.
#10 to #6 - cotterj (10/22/2013) [-]
Gosh you're clever! Any other person would disagree with a well thought out explained argument, maybe with some evidence. Thank you for adding variety by just plain insulting the other person for having a different view, whilst also using your complete ignorance to offend an unfortunate, diseased minority. That's the kinda multitasking we really need in this wasteful world. Efficient and intelligent!
User avatar #31 to #10 - lastweek (10/23/2013) [-]
1. Learn biology.
2. Understand why what I said is relevant to the topic of evolution.
3. No more bitching on a site for stupid jokes
4. Everybody is happy

That's right, there is no unknown step because everything is laid out, now go educate yourself.
User avatar #28 to #3 - TrippleHelix (10/23/2013) [-]
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, there's a difference
User avatar #4 to #3 - billybong (10/22/2013) [-]
"not as many fossils as what I think/was told should be there, therefore it's reasonable to doubt"

Did I miss something, or did you basically state the above?

There couldn't be ANY ancient fossils, if the theory evolution wasn't correct
#9 to #4 - cotterj (10/22/2013) [-]
" There couldn't be ANY ancient fossils, if the theory evolution wasn't correct "
couldn't they be the fossils of extinct species unrelated to any surviving species?
assuming that the plural of species is species. while i'm at it, I'm actually a believer in evolution, but maybe i'm in the mood for an argument
User avatar #33 to #9 - billybong (10/23/2013) [-]
So, are you implying that as soon as the earth existed (lets not get into a creationism debate) all of the animals were suddenly there, then waeker species slowly died off over millions of years? I can't see any way for that to work, other than divine influence, since for those animals to exist they'd need to have either evolved in the first place from Primordial soup or have been "zapped there" by a god

Now, the biggest flaw with your idea is, why is it impossible to find fossils of modern animals or human fossils from prehistoric times? (Except for the animals that lived then and are still alive now, Eg crocodiles)

Most likely answer, because they didn't exist then, and came into existence after millions of years of evolution.

Take a look at stuff like this, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

This is one of the earliest skeletons found that resembles modern man, And it's a different damn species to us. Yet, we can't find any prehistoric skeletons like that which resemble modern man at all.

Youcantexplainthatone.gif
#59 to #33 - cotterj (10/23/2013) [-]
I'm not disagreeing with the theory, just the statement
User avatar #67 - KINGOFTHESTARS (01/20/2014) [-]
b-b-but havent they found missing links to other stuff? or am i wrong on that?
User avatar #68 to #67 - robinwilliamson (01/20/2014) [-]
Missing links =/= the moment they're a different species.
It means links to certain genetic traits
User avatar #64 - bladeguy (11/30/2013) [-]
hmm i dont know? maybe the last ******* bar on the right is red and the only red? blue becomes indigo then purple then pink then red orange then red at the end. every different seperation is a different color so **** your **** .
User avatar #65 to #64 - robinwilliamson (12/02/2013) [-]
You really missed the point hoss. Looking at it way wrong, it's a damn metaphor. When someone says "Wow, it was hell out there!", you don't say "No it's not, only bad people are in hell and there's good people out there.", because that's not the point.
Point A changes and changes and changes and goes through a mixing stage and reaches what is called point B.
User avatar #63 - thereoncewasaman (11/11/2013) [-]
I love this so much, because sadly there are alot of people that don't understand how evolution works and this definitely helps.
User avatar #54 - sinonyx (10/23/2013) [-]
with this picture
it's literally impossible to point or where red becomes blue, this is true

but that's only because blue becomes purple which then becomes red
User avatar #57 to #54 - noblexfenrir (10/23/2013) [-]
Well that in essence would be a better representation of how evolution works.
#50 - anon (10/23/2013) [-]
I'd say its the purple spot.
#43 - anon (10/23/2013) [-]
I actually can pinpoint this. The change happens when the color is pink, purely pink. Pink is made of red and white,which means blue is no longer present. The purple had faded and the color is made from red now.
User avatar #39 - angreif (10/23/2013) [-]
i'd say the part where it's purple
#44 to #39 - anon (10/23/2013) [-]
Technically, purple contains blue, thus purple is still blue
User avatar #45 to #44 - angreif (10/23/2013) [-]
purple is blue and red.
#37 - kanedam ONLINE (10/23/2013) [-]
isn't exactly that the problem... that there are way too many nuances in between missing to say there is a gradual change...?

(just asking, not want to start a science vs religion discussion. the question is meant purely scientific)
#40 to #37 - scruffyguy ONLINE (10/23/2013) [-]
Not everything that dies fossilizes so we're not to gonna have a **** load of fossils to show the smooth evolution of species over the eons; we do have enough fossils however, to make inferences.
[ 68 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)