No, Your Uncle Wasn't a Monkey...

How many times must a fundie be hit over the head with facts before they relinquish their hold on fairy tale? I know, now the commercial is stuck in my head too. ("Mr. Owl, how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?" "Hmm, let's find out... One... Two... Three... Crack! Three.")

Please pay attention, and keep hands and feet in the vehicle at all times:

WE ARE NOT DESCENDED FROM MONKEYS.

Anyone need me to repeat that?

Evolution, for the record, does NOT state that we are descended from monkeys. I don't know what rock you claim to have found this "fact" under, but it is patently false. Evolution does state that we, as are most primates, descended from a common ancestor. If one is to take an objective, hard look at the fossil record and archeological sites and records, man's history throughout the ages has never been a simple: "And once there was a monkey who stood up one day, shaved off his fur, and became a man." It took millions of years a lot of adaptation along with natural selection and microevolution to get to where we are today.

Let me explain the three key tenets of evolutionary theory, and then I'll attempt to reasonably explain the use of the word "theory" as it pertains to science, okay?

1. The first tenet is microevolution, when mutations occur (whether through external or internal factors) in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are random and occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation, or both.
2. The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a process by which the fittest members of a species live to pass on their DNA, and the weaker ones die because they are unable to compete in the wild. Sometimes called "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest."
3. The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when a species mutates to the point where they can no longer breed with other members of the same species. (Science has already proven that this happens quite frequently.) The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group.

Read it again if you need to. There's no shame in that.

I once explained it on another website (God Vs. Darwin) like this on this post:

---

Of course all change is within a species... that's how it happens. There's a fish. That fish learns that the bugs that live above the water are better. Gradually, as the fish tries to reach these insects on the banks of the river, the ones with fins better adapted (whether through muscle structure or bone structure through mutation in small bone and muscle genes) are the ones that survive and breeding continues with small mutations over many years until, if you go back and look at this fish compared with the other fish that didn't try to reach bank insects and instead preyed on smaller fish or underwater life; they don't even look the same and can no longer interbreed because the changes are now too drastic at this point (like a tiger and a lion--their genetic offspring is still a cat, but cannot produce offspring of its own; as opposed to wolves and chiuhuas, which, while both still dogs, cannot interbreed at all and produce no offspring). Soon these fish that have developed stronger fins to flop on land to catch the bugs develop other mutations, small, minor ones that make their front fins a bit stronger, maybe a little bent. Given another few hundred to thousand years (barring any major genetic mutations or leaps), that fin is no longer recognizable as a fin, but a leg. But the "fish," while no longer a fish, hasn't changed "species" per se. It is still the creature it was but has so adapted to its environment, that, while we as people categorize it has having changed species (as we like to categorize things: i.e., find design and categories where none exists in reality), it hasn't really--it's just an adapted creature. Same creature, but looking very very different after a few thousand years...

---

Now this is a major simplification of all the ramifications that go into evolution as a whole, but nonetheless still true. Some examples that we know of that show a bit of this process that are still alive today are the lungfish, the Walking Catfish, and the more recently discovered Walking Shark.

Now, a common argument is that "there are huge gaps in the fossil record that cannot be explained by science." A semi-valid point. Do you know how many conditions need to be in place for something to fosilize or mummify? Of course not everything is going to leave behind a nicely preserved skeleton or impression, and living things, when they die, typically decay. The fact that we can even find as many fossils and artifacts as we have is amazing in and of itself! But when one looks at the evidence, there is little wiggle room for not holding to evolution, as it is our best working model that can be tested, retested, measured, and recorded. So-called "missing links" are everywhere if you know how the dots are connected, but I'll digress for the time being (unless some of you really feel the need to push the issue... and I know some of you will...) Simply because all the supposed "gaps" haven't been filled is no reason to claim "It must be God! It must be God! Evolution is bunk!" Believe it or not, just because you haven't yet figured out the answer to something is in no way a road to attributing it to something supernatural. Lack of evidence in no way equals concrete evidence for the workings of a god--it simply means we need to keep looking, and if it leads to concrete proof in a god (i.e., not faith, but facts), than you may have something...

Now, on to scientific jargon:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact to explain an action or set of actions. It is accepted to be true and universal, and can be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true. Examples: Law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observations made. It is a rational, logical explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what has been observed, but not been proved. Almost all hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation and continued observation.

Theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

Any questions at all?

Now, on to man's and ape's common ancestors:

To see a relatively user-friendly map of man's evolution, click here.

To discover what separates primates from other branches of the evolution tree, click here.

To see a nice visual of the primate family tree, click here.

---

---

I'd actually like to go into this more in the future, but for now, just leave your thoughts or arguments or whatever have you. I'll be out of town for the next three days, but didn't want to leave you guys totally hanging out with nothing to discuss... :)

I'll pick this thread back up in the future, though, and go into more depth about our evolution as humans, what all was entailed, how it happened as best I can discover, and so on....

Hope you all have a great weekend! Oh, and Happy Friday the 13th!