There has been a lot written, beginning with Darwin, about how the existence of the monkey proves man could have developed without God.
I think those who make such arguments have skipped a few steps. Specifically, they have skipped over the banana. Man is complex to be sure, but he is flawed. The banana is perfect, and if the banana is perfect it, never should have survived.
First, the banana is the perfect size. It fits perfectly into one’s hand, regardless of the size of one’s hand, and it’s slight curvature makes it easier to hold. The banana is the ultimate hand fruit.
The banana also comes in a natural wrapper. Because the skin is not meant to be eaten, one needn’t worry about rinsing before eating it, unlike an apple or pear. Carry it around with you. Lay it on the desk. Drop it on the floor. No big whoop. When it’s time to eat it, just crack the stem (a natural opener) to the left or right, and it pops right open, ready to be peeled back so you can eat the naturally sanitized fruit inside.
The banana also has the best and brightest color, a loud color easy to see even by monkeys with some color blindness. They may not have been able to distinguish a grapefruit from an orange, but they would have had no problem spotting a banana?
And the banana is sweet. Forget refined sugar and fructose; it is not necessary. A banana is never bland, even when it is not fully ripe. And when it is too ripe, it just gets sweeter.
Here is the point. How did the banana survive? If it is so good, shouldn’t natural selection in monkeys have guaranteed bananas would have been eaten at a higher rate by the smart monkeys who were being naturally selected to become humans? And wouldn’t that mean that the more monkeys evolved, the less bananas should have survived. Shouldn’t grapefruits have dominated the planet instead, while the bananas naturally disappeared from the earth?
So, you see, man could not have evolved from the monkey because if he had, there would be no bananas, and there are bananas. In fact, I had one this morning. GS