Evolution. You may have breathed the same air as dinosaurs did millions of years ago, if you don't think that's the tightest , then get the outta my face... Purple is the missing link evolution science fact fuck You jk me Love Long Time
x
Click to expand

Evolution

Evolution. You may have breathed the same air as dinosaurs did millions of years ago, if you don't think that's the tightest , then get the outta my face... Purple is the missing link

You may have breathed the same air as dinosaurs did millions of years ago,
if you don't think that's the tightest **** ,
then get the **** outta my face.

  • Recommend tagsx
+705
Views: 29841
Favorited: 85
Submitted: 04/26/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to cantremember submit to reddit

Comments(203):

[ 203 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - blandknight (04/26/2013) [-]
Purple is the missing link
#2 to #1 - anon (04/26/2013) [-]
Pick a point that is between purple and blue or purple and red then.
User avatar #16 to #2 - koobzacc (04/27/2013) [-]
indigo is the missing link
#127 - lolidragon (04/27/2013) [-]
That was beautiful...
pic unrelated
#37 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
as soon as you find a "missing link" it just creates two more holes

as in 1-2-3
" look, we found '2.5' "
" well where's '2.25' and '2.75'?????" said the creationist
User avatar #41 to #37 - patrickmiller (04/27/2013) [-]
The catholic Church teaches evolution as fact any creationist are retards who shouldn't be allowed to think.
#169 to #41 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
Im not a creationilst but Wow. Just wow. Do. not. breed.
User avatar #68 to #41 - thezillis (04/27/2013) [-]
Catholicism is foolish
User avatar #124 to #37 - subbajubba ONLINE (04/27/2013) [-]
Reminds me of the Futurama episode
#157 - sparkieemae (04/27/2013) [-]
OH YAH? If your "theory of evolution" is so true, and blue can become red, then why come there still be blue? Checkmate, atheists.
OH YAH? If your "theory of evolution" is so true, and blue can become red, then why come there still be blue? Checkmate, atheists.
User avatar #184 to #157 - walcorn ONLINE (04/27/2013) [-]
Because not everyone is born with a red mutation
#38 - jacklane (04/27/2013) [-]
MFW reading the comments section today.
MFW reading the comments section today.
#12 - cupotruth (04/26/2013) [-]
You know evolution isn't actually gradual?

It's a sudden change through a mutation and if the mutation is proved useful then the organism gives it to it's offspring and it's offspring gives it to it's offspring and so on and so forth.

For example: Rabbits live in a forest with trees and rocks and dirt and the dominant color for rabbits it brown. The recessive is white. Rabbits born white usually die off because they are easily seen. Then a sudden change in the environment occurs like an ice age for example. The white rabbit is hard to see while the brown one isn't. The brown ones die off and the white ones become dominant. Than say the ice age ends then the white ones dies off and the browns become the dominant color.

This isn't a slow process it is a sudden change that happens at random.

So really, to follow the example above say someone was drawing it on a piece of paper and started with blue and then meant to mix it with red. Then suddenly he ran out of blue and switched to red with out mixing.

You are working off of the original theory that Darwin stated because he believed it to be gradual as well, but it has since been revised.

Boom, science.
#34 to #12 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
Look judging by how many people are replying to my comment I'm gonna make this clear.   
   
There many theories to evolution.   
   
What I was taught was "Punctuated Equilibrium" google it if you care.   
   
The example I gave was a short example used by my professor.   
   
If you care enough that you want to comment just comment here because I want this to be read first.   
   
Come on down for a good old fashion internet brawl.
Look judging by how many people are replying to my comment I'm gonna make this clear.

There many theories to evolution.

What I was taught was "Punctuated Equilibrium" google it if you care.

The example I gave was a short example used by my professor.

If you care enough that you want to comment just comment here because I want this to be read first.

Come on down for a good old fashion internet brawl.
#89 to #34 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
>"professor"
>implying you're not still in middle school
Seriously, by college you should be familiar with countless theories and be aware that no single one can be generalized to all evolution.
User avatar #46 to #34 - Kennyalways (04/27/2013) [-]
While your theory is true, this is for an entirely new species, one change wouldnt make it instantly a new species, it would take many, many years until enough changes are made to produce a new species
#44 to #12 - gopak (04/27/2013) [-]
What the person that made this picture was talking about is gradual evolution of one species to another, while you are just talking about a small part of this evolution. So it does happen rapidly to make species better, but not to create completely different species, since white rabbits aren't different species than brown ones.
User avatar #65 to #12 - bothemastaofall (04/27/2013) [-]
You are right about micro evolution

Macro evolution is totally different.
#67 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
But it doesn't happen overnight, it takes time for it. It took hundreds of millions of years for all of these species to evolve into what they are today.
#86 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
Boy, you're ******* stupid. Most mutations are small enough that you don't notice them until you examine the phenotypes. And even those are not passed down unless they are favorable. These "sudden" changes are actually very, very ******* small. In short, large changes do, in fact, emerge after long periods of evolution.

Your describes an incorrect theory from the early 19th century (before Darwin).
User avatar #87 to #12 - BroadSword (04/27/2013) [-]
Theres Gradualism and Puntcuated Equilibrium, two different theories for evolution. You just described Punctuated Equilibrium.
User avatar #51 to #12 - gorginhanson (04/27/2013) [-]
Ok well seeing as how you have 16 replies, you've probably already heard this, but you're dead wrong. Each one of those mutations is one tiny attribute, and after millions of these changes, you have evolution. So no, it's not sudden in the slightest.
User avatar #189 to #12 - ningyoaijin (04/27/2013) [-]
Statistics says many infinitesimal changes (to which mutations are a close approximation) equates to a gradual change.
#49 to #12 - ejdantes (04/27/2013) [-]
uh...no...un-boom that   
   
Your theory nor the gradual theory has never been proven. Scientists just move 			****		 around till it makes sense to themselves, then something new comes along and they change their theory to fit it..   
   
			*****		 all over the place, to prove either theory there would have to be monkeys, humans, and the missing link between co-existing at the same time, otherwise evolution is 			********		. We would have to see half humans walking around to be like 'evolution is real' but the only proof we have (which in reality we don't and if you want to prove me wrong please site your source) is couple of incomplete skeletons (which people argue over all the time because carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate), and natural selection, which in fact is not even close to being the same thing as evolution.    
   
Natural selection is saying a white bunny will survive in the Artic, while a brown bunny will be killed off before it has the chance to reproduce. Or that a hairless dog breed will die off in Alaska while a huskie will endure. That's not evolution asshole, that's logic.   
   
TL;DR evolution can't be proven either way
uh...no...un-boom that

Your theory nor the gradual theory has never been proven. Scientists just move **** around till it makes sense to themselves, then something new comes along and they change their theory to fit it..

***** all over the place, to prove either theory there would have to be monkeys, humans, and the missing link between co-existing at the same time, otherwise evolution is ******** . We would have to see half humans walking around to be like 'evolution is real' but the only proof we have (which in reality we don't and if you want to prove me wrong please site your source) is couple of incomplete skeletons (which people argue over all the time because carbon dating is incredibly inaccurate), and natural selection, which in fact is not even close to being the same thing as evolution.

Natural selection is saying a white bunny will survive in the Artic, while a brown bunny will be killed off before it has the chance to reproduce. Or that a hairless dog breed will die off in Alaska while a huskie will endure. That's not evolution asshole, that's logic.

TL;DR evolution can't be proven either way
#30 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
It's funny you talk about reviewing Darwin theory, when you're working with an outdated view of evolution yourself. You say:
"It's a sudden change through a mutation and if the mutation is proved useful then the organism gives it to it's offspring and it's offspring gives it to it's offspring and so on and so forth." Which is complete ******** . Mutations are not useful or not useful. They are random code in DNA. The manifestations may help to thrive the species, or not, but the mutation is not the only factor, and the usefulness of it even less.
You correct a Darwinist, but you need to read about NEUTRALISM yourself.
Scienced.
#31 to #30 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
Ah **** it.

Sure, why not. No one can know everything.

I tried.
User avatar #119 to #31 - Faz (04/27/2013) [-]
You are on the internet, if you are not 100% sure about something just google it, its not hard.
#69 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
while punctualism has some evidence it has been disputed in more recent years by people such as dawkins and the process still isnt even as quick as you say.
Only in disasterous change is it that quick and gradualism is still occurring noenetheless even with out major enviromental change simply due to randomized mutations
#98 to #12 - hankiepankie (04/27/2013) [-]
You just described mutations, and (somewhat) punctuated equilibrium. Evolution is typically--unfathomably--gradual. Even if that mutation of white fur is advantageous to a particular rabbit, it will take a very long time for the allele frequency of the entire rabbit population to indicate so. Stop preaching like you know things.
#118 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
but it wasn't like all the brown rabbits died off in the same day, or that the same kind of white rabbits all survived and passed on the same unihibited white fur color genes. What you described is really just the super paraphrased process of what would have taken a good deal of time and many generations to properly cement (ie, gradually).
#23 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
I think evolution is a bit like sand, you can't add less than 1 grain at the time, but adding 1 grain to a pile is much less then noticeable
#18 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
Your example....is not evolution what so ever.
If we killed off all the black\asian\mexican people and left only whites, that doesnt ******* mean that humanity evolved to become white. The rest just ******* died.
Everytime a cell splits it has a chance to mutate slightly.


Take a look at the common cold. If you were sick once, why could you get sick with it again? Its because as it splits and reproduces asexually, it mutates and when that gets far enough away from the first, it counts as a new strain. So different in fact that your body cant fight it with it's current antibodies.

You are retarded and are awarded no points.
#21 to #18 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
I'm sorry for trying to explain highschool science in the easiest possible way because we're on the internet.   
   
The usual attention span is shorter than a nat's forskin.   
   
I'm trying to introduce the idea of genetic traits being passed down from generation to generation easily because the numpty who posted this stuff thought it was gradual rather than sudden.   
   
I understand my example isn't exactly "up to standards" but I'm not your goddamn biology teacher.   
   
The 			****		 you want? A in depth explanation of the theory of evolution?   
   
A few pictures down is a photo of a 			*******		 cat.   
   
Science isn't exactly on the fore front of the minds of those who visit this site you simpleton.   
   
I can't believe we evolved fingers for you to use them to use them to embarrass yourself on the internet.
I'm sorry for trying to explain highschool science in the easiest possible way because we're on the internet.

The usual attention span is shorter than a nat's forskin.

I'm trying to introduce the idea of genetic traits being passed down from generation to generation easily because the numpty who posted this stuff thought it was gradual rather than sudden.

I understand my example isn't exactly "up to standards" but I'm not your goddamn biology teacher.

The **** you want? A in depth explanation of the theory of evolution?

A few pictures down is a photo of a ******* cat.

Science isn't exactly on the fore front of the minds of those who visit this site you simpleton.

I can't believe we evolved fingers for you to use them to use them to embarrass yourself on the internet.
#58 to #21 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
You are wrong on so many levels it physically hurts. What you described as evolution was in fact a change in allele frequencies which is only tangentially related to evolution. Besides that the white rabbit and the brown rabbit would still be of the same species. Evolution happens in populations as a build up of mutations that are beneficial to the survival of an organism and this isn't even going into allopatric and sympatric speciation and the like. this is freaking highschool biology and you failed, you failed hard.
User avatar #54 to #18 - rhc (04/27/2013) [-]
You misunderstand evolution. If all colors of human, but white, died off, for any reason, then humans would have evolved. Evolution is just a change in allele frequency in a population. If the genes for pale, pinkish skin were more common than they once were, then humans would have evolved.
#20 to #18 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
Well, I should point out that the post you replied to is looking in a completely wrong direction. So was the picture.

You can notice one of the first changes in the blue above. It's not red yet in the beginning, that's correct. However, you can see the change. You can point out the change.

The person you replied to seems to have mistaken natural selection to be all of evolution. Evolution - in the idea that the organism mutates - is gradual, as it has to mutate little by little before the entire mutation is complete. This is measurable, as is the gradient above. Natural selection is a completely different story here, and is probably what caused a missing link. The organisms that had the trait, but hadn't developed it fully, had probably died off while the rest went on. The ones without the trait probably just found another area to live, or... Well I'm rambling now, but you get my point.

If any of this is wrong, then I'm very sorry for my stupidity.
User avatar #25 to #20 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
You were slightly kinder and I understand that I did not fully include all of the theory but I was trying to explain natural selection and why it would create a missing link and in doing so I made the explanation a little skimpy on detail.

I was focusing a little to much on one thing. Thank you for your consideration.
User avatar #24 to #20 - ananamouse (04/27/2013) [-]
my family has blue eyes...we are mutants...
User avatar #161 to #12 - MrMustacho (04/27/2013) [-]
he's taking about populations
every offspring has hundreds of mutations (most of which benign) that doesn't make each baby its own species

the picture is pointing out that macro evolution is just a series of micro mutations
#26 to #12 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
You are describing micro-evolution. Macro evolution is the gradual buildup of these little, sudden changes.

A rat doesn't just suddenly give birth to a ******* pidgeon one day.
User avatar #27 to #26 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
I'm just gonna keep saying it.

I made it short and not very descriptive because we're on the internet and I didn't want to waste people's time.
#32 to #27 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
"You know evolution isn't actually gradual?"

Is not a short and not very descriptive version. It is an outright fallacious statement.
User avatar #33 to #32 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
Look you people can google this **** if you want.

I was told that it was sudden change and I found the correct term "Punctuated Equilibrium" whether or not you think it's true or not I don't give a **** ..

But what ever I don't ******* know what's true anymore.
#88 to #33 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
We have looked it up. We are also taught that your statements are reductionist, inaccurate and quite frankly, stupid. "Sudden" changes are mutations, which are generally pretty ******* small (e.g. rabbits get a favorable mutation- 0.1mm larger eyes and this builds. If this is a dominant allele, it gets passed down. Rabbits cannot, say, evolve 2cm larger eyes in the course of a generation).

You were sadly misinformed, and the theory of punctuated equilibrium has been refuted by countless scientific studies.
#108 to #88 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
No, punctuated equilibrium has not been refuted.

Homosapiens are a classic example of punctuated equilibrium, where the previous species remained unchanged for around 60,000 years.

Punctuated Equilibrium and Gradual change are both perfectly valid in explaining evolutionary concepts, as each system applies differently to different organisms.

What neither of you are taking into account are the different forms of speciation: Allopatric, Parapatric and Sympatric. These 3 different forms of speciation can drastically influence evolutionary change over a very short period of time.
User avatar #3 - tarnis (04/26/2013) [-]
why ya gotta be hating on big foot ***** .
#107 - theonetruespitfire (04/27/2013) [-]
as a matter of fact I can't point out where the blue becomes red because it turns into 			*************		 purple first
as a matter of fact I can't point out where the blue becomes red because it turns into ************* purple first


0
#121 to #107 - Faz has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #192 to #107 - MrMustacho (04/27/2013) [-]
you're looking at a computer screen, there's no such ting as a purple LED
User avatar #123 to #107 - Faz (04/27/2013) [-]
Thats totally not what the content was getting at or anything.....


Sarcasm
#42 - extravix (04/27/2013) [-]
MFW description
#29 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
Points in something we visualize as a continuum. But since it's actually a chain of individuals, there ARE links missing. Not that they are as important as the progression itself, but there are as many missing links as non-discovered individuals.
#80 to #71 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
I still see blue in the red to the left.
User avatar #81 to #80 - thisisspartah (04/27/2013) [-]
No you don't.
#113 - bitchplzzz (04/27/2013) [-]
It stops being blue after it turns purple, actually.
User avatar #114 to #113 - silverzepher (04/27/2013) [-]
violet, there is a difference, i mean they are different crayons for the love of the nine.
#85 - tehavatar ONLINE (04/27/2013) [-]
there is a part that no longer has purple, and therefor no longer has blue/red
I checked. the whole thing has ******* blue/red in it.
User avatar #115 to #85 - silverzepher (04/27/2013) [-]
yes but the point where blue ends, one stops being X, is different that where Y begins, in the middle of X, and Y there is what we will call W. X can breed with X, at some point some of the X's born become W's unable to breed with the older X, but still sharing some of their properties, then W becomes Y in a similar process. so yes there are still X characteristics but they are so diluted that they become basically recessive. just like the wolfman, he holds genes that make him appear closer to our X or W, than us Y's.
#129 to #125 - erf (04/27/2013) [-]
no
#131 to #130 - erf (04/27/2013) [-]
much better !
User avatar #17 - justanotherzombie (04/27/2013) [-]
This is the one and only time I will share on FB just because I have too many friend that are creasonalists.
User avatar #43 to #17 - patrickmiller (04/27/2013) [-]
Are they Catholic? because if they are tell them they're doing it wrong, the church has come out and said that evolution is indisputable fact.
#19 to #17 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
I think you accidentally that word.
#39 to #19 - justanotherzombie (04/27/2013) [-]
(apparently I don't) I spell phonetically so if it doesn't tell me its wrong for whatever reason I won't notice
(apparently I don't) I spell phonetically so if it doesn't tell me its wrong for whatever reason I won't notice
#147 - delivering (04/27/2013) [-]
I can't see where it turns from blue to red, because it first turns from blue to purple, and then from purple to red.

******* .
#160 to #147 - anon (04/27/2013) [-]
That's because purple is a transitional species between blue and red. :)
User avatar #36 - brettyoke (04/27/2013) [-]
No, you can't because it becomes purple first. What a silly question.

I'm fairly certain that apes didn't become frogs, then humans, did they?
User avatar #47 to #36 - mightyohm (04/27/2013) [-]
This is why I hate people...THAT"S THE POINT
#186 - cupotruth (04/27/2013) [-]
You know what.

We may be acting like complete **** shillelaghs to each other but at least we're doing it about science.

We could be burning each other over whether or not Jesus rubbed one out with left or right hand.

So we get some humanity points.
#151 - mcmonsterkitty (04/27/2013) [-]
Actually, thats a very admirable theory....I like it. and that means something from me, I'm Christian.
#154 to #151 - sparkieemae (04/27/2013) [-]
Not really a theory as much as a metaphor.
#213 to #154 - mcmonsterkitty (04/27/2013) [-]
well i still love it. let me dream! I WANNA BE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN! BUY ME FLOWERS!!!
well i still love it. let me dream! I WANNA BE BEAUTIFUL WOMAN! BUY ME FLOWERS!!!
[ 203 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)