this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2025
787 points (99.7% liked)

Science Memes

18023 readers
1778 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
[–] Eq0@literature.cafe 23 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I haven’t heard of since there was a clear explanation of how the eye evolved - since that one was a specific example they were referring to

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Considering the human eye is basically backwards, I always found it funny people would try to use it as an example of an intelligent creator

Like we seriously have all the working bits in the path of light, permanently blocking our vision in spots. We just hide it with some post-production brain magic, and I'm supposed to believe that's evidence of an intelligent creator?

[–] Kepion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 1 week ago

'We'll fix it in post' has been plaguing us longer than expected.

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago

While you're right, it's also funny to say that god was a software developer under deadline pressure

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago

When the bible says "created in god's image" it was originally talking about octopus, it just got mixed up in transcription at some point.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago

Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" is a great and easy read to introduce the idea of making something complex and seemingly designed for its purpose a much more probable thing to happen if broken into small changes over huge amounts of time. And it's like 30 years old, so probably outdated with more and better evidence now.

There is an old Youtube video by cdk007 (that's still up!) that tackles a related fallacy, where finding a watch on the beach implies a watchmaker because nothing complex can evolve. He created a simulation using watch parts and evolutionary rules to show complexity does arise with the right conditions and enough time.