this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
870 points (98.1% liked)

Science Memes

16551 readers
793 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saleh@feddit.org 9 points 6 days ago (8 children)

From the point of intelligent design:

We see that there is different sensory focuses. For instance many animals can smell and hear much better than humans do. Some animals have exceptionally better eyes than humans, but overall humans are very focused on vision.

Now when we look at modern inner city environments and the like. Would you think it to be actually better if our senses, particularly our eyes were that much better and delivering even more input to our brains? We already see many people that are overwhelmed in terms of their sensory input and frankly the ones that aren't still suffer slowly from living in cities. In terms of where we are now, i don't think it is too bad that we don't have hawk eyes.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

So this intelligent designer decided to fuck our eyes up some weird convoluted way instead of just... making us see less?

I honestly hope you don't subscribe to this unscientific garbage.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

The eyes of mammals are designed in a way that they "see less" than for instance certain birds or reptiles.

You call this "fuck up some weird convulted way", when it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. Thereby it is consistent with the way the visual nerve cells are designed and work together with the rest of physics and chemistry. The design is intelligent as it factors in all aspects as part of a coherent complete design. A design far too complex for any human mind to grasp in full.

Basically your question is like asking, why there is no "magic solution" that directly breaks the observable laws of physics. The genius of the design is in not requiring to break the observable laws of physics to achieve the desired outcome.

You say this is "unscientific garbage" when your only alternative explanation is "everything just happened randomly and here we are." Neither approach, "intelligent design" nor "extremely long chain of random occurrences" can be empirically observed and only argued logically. I find it unscientific to denounce a hypothesis as "unscientific garbage" when it cannot be falsified, while the counter hypothesis cannot be proven.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

your only alternative explanation is “everything just happened randomly and here we are.”

Evolution is definitely not random. The mutations that show up are random, but the selection for them is very directed. If the traits give an organism the attributes to survive, it does and will pass those traits on. If not, it doesn't. Your argument that it's all random is typical creationist nonsense.

Neither approach, “intelligent design” nor “extremely long chain of random occurrences” can be empirically observed

We've observed evolution many many times. From the peppered moth to COVID and the flu, we observe evolution all the time. It's the underlying science for all biology and none of it makes sense with out it.

Evolution is a theory that has thousands of proven data points to support it being true. And not one of those experiments has come back showing "goddidit". Intelligent design is unscientific garbage pulled from a book of fairy tales.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org -2 points 5 days ago

We can observe evolution. We cannot observe if the steps are purely random.

E.g. if you mix eggs and butter and flour in a specified ratio and put it in an oven, it is not random that a cake evolves in the oven.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)