Evolution. . Question: If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys? Evolutionary theory does not state that humans evolved FROM monkeys. In
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Evolution

Question: If humans evolved from monkeys,
then why are there still monkeys?
Evolutionary theory does not state that
humans evolved FROM monkeys. Instead, it
proposes that we evolved from a common
ancestor. This is easier to explain if we go
back to the very beginning.
This is a single cell, lets call him Bill.
At some point it Bill copied himself to form two cells.
However, something went wrong during the copy
and the second cell came out different in some way.
This is called a mutation.)
Despite this unexpected and unplanned mutation,
the new cell, let' s call him Ralph, is actually better at
surviving in his environment. The mutation actually
helped him.
Over time, Ralph proves to be better than Bill at surviving in
their environment.
This is what we call Adaptation.
Time
This continued to happen with all life. As life spread, it adapted
to different environments, with the best adaptations surviving
and the worst dying out Life was fighting a battle with the
environment, innovating itself into new shapes, colours and
sizes, one adaptation at a time. This adaptation on all fronts
created the beautiful diversity of life we see today.
Slowly these adaptations accommodate until life looks very
different from when it started, with only the best of the best
managing to survive. Darwin called this process:
Survival of the Fittest
Just like with the previous example, Bill was not fit enough to
survive the environment, but Ralph' s adaptation allowed him
to survive.
At some point, the same thing happened with primitive man.
The traditional image we are presented with is this:
However, this process is more accurately conveyed through a
different image:
So while we have a common ancestor with monkeys, we didnt
evolve from them directly. It' s not like monkeys started having
human babies and then all of a sudden there was humanity.
This process happened very slowly, one little mutation
at a time until humans were fundamentally different from our ape
ancestors.
Yes this process is complex. But it' s not unreasonable.
trt/' fsi
Please Nate: While this image attempts to accurately portray the process of evolution, l is still a grossly
oversimplified version of a very complex process If you are intrigued, go to wikipedia and read into it
some more,
...
+2198
Views: 60607
Favorited: 510
Submitted: 06/03/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to HGOnethreeone Subscribe to fucking-science E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(682):

[ 682 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #740 - wisdombranch (06/10/2012) [-]
Main flaw with this flowchart.... where did Bill come from? Honest question here, no trolling.
User avatar #737 to #740 - SenorButtPlug (08/01/2012) [-]
It isn't a flaw. The process by which the first cell was created is a matter of abiogenesis, not evolution.
User avatar #738 to #737 - wisdombranch (08/02/2012) [-]
So, the begged question is: "And how did that happen?"
User avatar #739 to #738 - SenorButtPlug (08/02/2012) [-]
Science doesn't know yet. But to discredit evolution because we don't know how it started is like saying a roller coaster cannot possibly move unless we have a clear line of sight of the person pushing the buttons.
User avatar #740 to #739 - wisdombranch (08/03/2012) [-]
But to claim that science explains everything, when, by your admission here, it does not, is an equally ridiculous.
User avatar #741 to #740 - SenorButtPlug (08/03/2012) [-]
You seem to not know what science is. Of course it doesn't explain everything. The principle behind science is reasoned logic, backed by empirical or mathematical evidence, and scrutiny by the rest of the scientific community. This system that every piece of "science" goes through is what makes it so great. There is very little room for error. Recently the Higgs Boson was "discovered" after many decades of it being mathematically theorized. There was strong evidence that it existed, and there were many tests done to try to find it. The media may make it sound like they had performed a specific experiment to find it, which succeeded on that day. However, the real significance of that day is not that they proved it 100%, but that they proved its existence up to 5 sigma, or within 5 standard deviations. Basically, they proved that the experiments they had done only had a one in a few million chance of being flawed. Science is not about finding an idea and sticking to it. It's about finding a reasonable idea, testing it thoroughly, and assuming it is correct until there is evidence to strongly discredit it.

In any case, I never directly stated that science explains everything. Which leads me to believe you are religious. If that is the case, I would love to teach you more science, but I fear it would be futile if your default position is "god did it," as many religious people seem to believe.
User avatar #742 to #741 - wisdombranch (08/03/2012) [-]
>Not all of the religious have their heads stuck as far up their respective asses as you assume.
>For the record I have 3 associate degrees in various sciences (rather I have one and the other 2 still need to be processed in the paperwork.)
>You gave a strong, clean definition of what science is meant to be, but not what it is; you forget the ... shall we say, "the human component."
Humans have money. Humans have intelligence. Rarely do they have both. In order for the intelligent to get the money or funding, they need to cater to the ones that have the money.
>Those with money, but not intelligence (Paris Hilton, Al Gore, Pat Robertson) have certain ideological views which will not waver, no matter what information is presented to them.
>If the studies do not go as planned, if the results are unpleasant, then the results are shoveled off and the funding may be cut.
>The human component comes into play here again; if a honest scientist realizes that the only way to get the funding for a pet research that is worth doing is to cater to some junk studies of a wealthy benefactor--that is to say, the ends justify the means--then why not if the ends will indeed outweigh the fault of the means.

>The human component will also come into play concerning the issue of power. If you have both intelligence and money, but that money/power/influence hinges on your specific stance on a topic (say, relativity; poor example, but bear with me.), and all of that would be wasted and stripped from you if the world found you were wrong...how quickly would you tell the world that the stance you had held, the stance the world loved, was, in fact, a proverbial load of fetid dingo kidneys?

User avatar #743 to #742 - SenorButtPlug (08/03/2012) [-]
I said "many," not all. Don't assume I am assuming anything.

An associates degree, no matter how many you have, is not something to be flaunted as though it gives you credibility. Even if you had three PhD's it would still not be impressive if you boasted about them. An appeal to credibility is only valid if it pertains specifically to what is being discussed, and it is only useful if the credibility in question was actually difficult to obtain. No offence, but an associates degree is pretty easy to get.

The "human element" as you have called it is not what drives science. In fact, as I stated before, the very nature of science weeds out power hungry jerkoffs that try to use science for their own benefit. You can not fake science, it is impossible.

It does not matter if I had discovered relativity, then discovered that it would be false. All science is publicly verified and therefore my input after my initial discovery would be invalid unless further verified by the scientific community at large.
User avatar #744 to #743 - wisdombranch (08/03/2012) [-]
I don't know if you are still in middle school so yes mentioned that I am familiar with science. I am also aware of you beautifully science meshes with religion. Given your tone I would guess I am speaking with a peer (as far as~order [base e] of magnitude of intelligence on a percentile basis with respect to the general population.)

You are absolutely right, the nature of science DOES wee out the, as you say, "power hungry jerkoffs." Nevertheless, the system takes time--centuries sometimes in the case of Galileo and Kepler. No wait, I am thinking of Copernicus, not Kepler... I cannot remember if Kepler's reception is relevant.

In our day and age it will not take as long, I would think, but it may still take just as long. The force necessary to fully discredit a ideology is enormous to say the least. For Christian Creationism Vs non-Darwinian Macro-evolution, the only thing to discredit creationism to such a high degree would be varifiable RANDOM abiogensis. Such would make an intelligent designer irrelevant. It would not take down other young-earth arguments down. But it would be the headshot to the ideology as a whole.

Again, "ends justify means" is a well-accepted philosophy by a large portion of the world. And, if the status-quo is valued above being right and knowing the truth (or rather, informing the rabble around you of what is true, whether or not they want to hear you, and whether or not they will believe **** you say, because you will have the credibility or a crack-pot, from now on...) then even "removal" of some "uncomfortable issues" if fully acceptable if it is done for the good of the whole.
User avatar #745 to #744 - SenorButtPlug (08/03/2012) [-]
I am actually having a hard time following what you're trying to argue. I was simply stating that what you pointed out as a flaw was not actually a flaw. How does a human element to science as a whole relate to this discussion?
#728 - jimminy (06/04/2012) [-]
Remember when funnyjunk was funny?
#734 to #728 - bfandgfthumbwar (06/06/2012) [-]
**bfandgfthumbwar rolled a random image posted in comment #13257 at Slice of Life thread II ** i remember when retards think everything is funny
**bfandgfthumbwar rolled a random image posted in comment #13257 at Slice of Life thread II ** i remember when retards think everything is funny
#714 - bobbysnobby (06/04/2012) [-]
Actually we did evolve from monkeys. Our distant ancestor would be classified as a monkey. A better example might be Americans by and large are decedent from Europeans but there are still Europeans.    
   
Natural selection is a minor process Gene Drift, and Gene Flow are larger components. Every child has mutations that is partly why you look different than either of your parents its called Decent with Modification.    
   
There is miss understanding about natural selection its less about advantageous traits being passed along, and more about all but the most disadvantageous traits being passed along.
Actually we did evolve from monkeys. Our distant ancestor would be classified as a monkey. A better example might be Americans by and large are decedent from Europeans but there are still Europeans.

Natural selection is a minor process Gene Drift, and Gene Flow are larger components. Every child has mutations that is partly why you look different than either of your parents its called Decent with Modification.

There is miss understanding about natural selection its less about advantageous traits being passed along, and more about all but the most disadvantageous traits being passed along.
#713 - anonymous (06/04/2012) [-]
“[Reason tells me of the] extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”
-Charles Darwin
#697 - stevenking (06/04/2012) [-]
poor bill
#695 - bazda (06/04/2012) [-]
Show me one observed, documented case where mutation benefited the organism that had it.

Go ahead. I'll wait.
User avatar #741 to #695 - wisdombranch (06/10/2012) [-]
As a creationist, I stand forth.

I have an economically conservative mutation: I will never develop wisdom teeth. Wisdom teeth in my family are a thorn on the genetic tree. No one has them come in correctly. For my aunt they actually came in sideways, and took more than a decade to fully emerge.

So, given the genetic history of my family (all blood relations), my mutation is indeed beneficial. Sorry about the 6 day wait; Creationism takes a while.
#686 - meatymanbearpig (06/04/2012) [-]
worth the read!
worth the read!
#685 - omgiloveboobies (06/04/2012) [-]
If people evolved from monkeys than why are there still monkeys? That's like saying if Americans came from Britian why is there still Britian. Stupid.
User avatar #744 to #685 - wisdombranch (06/10/2012) [-]
sir... this is the simplest and most comprehensive analogy i have heard to date on the subject of evolution... I am stealing your comment sir.
#677 - killedkenny (06/04/2012) [-]
This was my favourite unit back when I had Biology class. Though it was funny; my teacher was Jewish and strongly disagreed to what he was teaching.
#675 - litlbrnboi (06/04/2012) [-]
Oh look in the sky it's all the ***** i give
User avatar #673 - Winnipeg (06/04/2012) [-]
your concept of primate evolution is seriously flawed
#679 to #673 - pretzelz (06/04/2012) [-]
prove it
#672 - anepicnub ONLINE (06/04/2012) [-]
**anepicnub rolled a random image posted in comment #5483030 at FJ Pony Thread **

Listen here, I didn't come here to read a novel.
#671 - hardcoreman (06/04/2012) [-]
** *********** rolled a random image posted in comment #131 at A man's plight ** Something something Darwin
#667 - anonymous (06/04/2012) [-]
you lost me at bill...
User avatar #666 - cullenatorguy (06/04/2012) [-]
Dear OP,
In return for being awesome, I'd like to give you a virtual hug (or sexytime if you are willing). Thanks.
-Me
#665 - benedicto ONLINE (06/04/2012) [-]
**benedicto rolled a random image posted in comment #5249539 at FJ Pony Thread **
#663 to #660 - HGOnethreeone (06/04/2012) [-]
**** the Dolan meme with a thousand rakes.
#659 - pandadiablo (06/04/2012) [-]
Mfw I'm in biology and I've had to study this **** over and over and over and over again
[ 682 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)