This made me chuckle. .
Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - gertoja (12/21/2012) [-]
User avatar #7 to #4 - xedeid (12/21/2012) [-]
I laughed my ass off when i first saw this, ever since then it still makes me chuckle a bit
User avatar #8 to #4 - trojanmannn (12/21/2012) [-]
I'm a christian, but that doesn't necessarily mean I don't believe in evolution. The one thing I can't understand is that one of the "criteria" for something to be living is that it must be born from another living organism, right? Then what about the first organism? And if unisexual reproduction is much easier and efficient, why did some cells evolve to dual sexuality as we know it now. There are just some confusing aspects to it I don't understand
User avatar #11 to #8 - fosforgasxiii (12/21/2012) [-]
The first "living" things were organic molecules which could reproduce themselves, this sounds weird but scientists have already made such molecules so it isn't unthinkable that something like this happened in nature around 3.8 billion years (or you can beleive that God has created those organisms).
Sexual production has some real advances because it gives more variety to different organisms from the same species, which gives a certain species an advantage in case of a changing enviroment. Organisms that have sexual reproduction have more mutations (good or bad) so they can adapt faster.
That's why evolution went very slow in the beginning and sped up when sexual reproduction appeared.
I hope this helps, just ignore the spelling errors, English isn't my first language.
User avatar #10 to #8 - Zeigh (12/21/2012) [-]
Your first point, that's abiogenesis and isn't really covered in the theory of evolution.
As for the human race not being unisexual, it's most likely because with the introduction of a different sex with which to copulate with the genetic potential is increased and the possible amount genetic possibilities also increase.

Keep in mind I'm not a biologist, I'm like a jack of all trades, but master of none.
#12 to #8 - anon (12/21/2012) [-]
Sexual reproduction is a lot harder than asexual. It requires more energy, time and most importantly a mate; but it is so beneficial to have a decent amount of genetic diversity that nearly all Eukaryotic organisms adopt it. If you're an asexual organism you can colonize an area quickly with little fuss, but because your offspring are essentially clones all your detriments will be passed on. You're a bit sensitive to heat? Entire generation dead if there's a heat wave. You get the idea.
#39 to #12 - StevieMaxis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #40 to #8 - Zeratul (12/21/2012) [-]
Open a biology textbook. There are answers there.
#27 to #8 - loulougia (12/21/2012) [-]
Evolution isn't about the creation of life!
But the start of life is a very interesting subject.
What I saw the most is that the first cell was just a double phospholipid cell with some acid amines inside (sorry not english so I don't know how a lot of scientific words translate.).
Already evolution was being involved:
Acids would be destroyed normally but when trapped in phospholipds, it "survived"!
After that, it's a long history on how the cells increased in complexity.

Furthermore for the dual sexuality it's a mix of randomness and this sexuality increases the genetic diversity, which is a good thing.
#22 - phanact (12/21/2012) [-]
This image has expired
Garfield learned well from Darwin
User avatar #65 - jakefenris ONLINE (12/21/2012) [-]
There is a big difference between a Scientific Journal and Science Journalism
#71 to #65 - thefriendlymoose (12/23/2012) [-]
yeah and?
User avatar #72 to #71 - taintedangel (01/04/2013) [-]
Scientific journal is actual facts.
Scientific journalism is a bunch of **** stories about science that make any idiot who read them think he's smart.
#9 - invadingaliens has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #17 to #9 - myrtille ONLINE (12/21/2012) [-]
Please, if you're still learning grammar in 6th grade, remember that you haven't learned everything yet.
If you are above 15, then that's even worse. You should know better by now.
User avatar #55 - itrooztrooperdown (12/21/2012) [-]
Well but... but... Darwin was sorta wrong.

This is why the modern accepted theory is Neo-Darwinism. If science was about "yes" or "no" answers we would have no science...
#21 - fecal (12/21/2012) [-]
No, it's just a more interesting way of stating "why darwin isn't wrong", which would dis encourage a lot of readers from reading it in the first place. Come to think of it it's probably the best way to get people from both sides of the argument to read your stuff and learn from it or consider your opinion
User avatar #23 to #21 - thexxtalonxx (12/21/2012) [-]
User avatar #33 - rupertthepink (12/21/2012) [-]
But isn't that the whole point of science? To look into the possibilities that what we have always known to be true, may not be true?

otherwise lolidunno
#29 - anon (12/21/2012) [-]
that awkard moment when darwin was wrong...
User avatar #57 to #29 - bazzingabitch (12/21/2012) [-]
shut up meg...
#38 to #29 - ravyen (12/21/2012) [-]
I don't remember that moment...
User avatar #56 - shiifter (12/21/2012) [-]
Watch everyone get mad. it's 10 times better than the content.
#51 - lolallday (12/21/2012) [-]
**lolallday rolled a random image posted in comment #80 at Camera **
User avatar #1 - thatnerdyguy (12/20/2012) [-]
Source: Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
You need to login to view this link
#32 - gorillaztwentyfour (12/21/2012) [-]
Speaking of universal cures, there's actually a potential universal vaccine for cancers being tested in Israel. I think that's great since I had cancer and all...   
Tests ought to be finished between 2012 - 2013   
In other news, a frighteningly strange gif.
Speaking of universal cures, there's actually a potential universal vaccine for cancers being tested in Israel. I think that's great since I had cancer and all...

Tests ought to be finished between 2012 - 2013

In other news, a frighteningly strange gif.
#15 - willindor (12/21/2012) [-]
Is Darwin wrong?
#37 - anon (12/21/2012) [-]
Darwin was wrong.
User avatar #45 to #37 - wardenofthenorth (12/21/2012) [-]
1/10 made me reply
User avatar #18 - drtrousersnake ONLINE (12/21/2012) [-]
I still have yet to meet a single person that believes in creationism
User avatar #5 - wizadry (12/21/2012) [-]
i really can't agree
User avatar #6 to #5 - HarvietheDinkle (12/21/2012) [-]
which one?

Or the caption in general?
User avatar #70 to #6 - wizadry (12/22/2012) [-]
well there were a lot of things Darwin was wrong about that is what i can't agree on. Sure he was right about SOME things but certainly not a lot and this post just annoys me because of this. To clarify i cant agree that Darwin was right.
#69 - pukingrainbows has deleted their comment [-]
#64 - veenet (12/21/2012) [-]
**veenet rolled a random image posted in comment #2236056 at MLP Friendly Board **
#63 - spartusee has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #31 - grpeephole (12/21/2012) [-]
If the article was written and isn't from a science magazine than No its not science journalism
 Friends (0)