Stumble This | You should also watch “South Park explains Scientology” |
Ms Garrison explains Evolution - South Park style! (from series 10 episode 12: "Go God Go").
tags:
Comments 
playlists with this video
The Easy Entertainment List by rembar
• Sifts of Science by rembar
• South Park Sift by gwaan
• South Park's Greatest Moments by SinCityScarecrow
who voted for this video
benjee
- Farhad2000
- Gervaise
- NickyP
- Fletch
- Fiver2
- AwesomeSauce
- joedirt
- HistNerd
- blue_beastie
- darkrowan
- youdiejoe
- pho3n1x
- bamdrew
- vampirebear
- fastfret79
- ant
- drforeverclear
- davelandy
- FancyL
- wallace
- blindedpilot
- fuzzylumpkins76
- atraeyu
- Zifnab
- southblvd
- TimothyChenAllen
-
(by the way, 2cm annually would mean that there won't be a noticable change in how close the moon is until long after the Earth is very, very different from its current state)
has richard dawkin's in it, and atheism getting made fun of pretty hard core (of course, they also burn teachers who refuse to teach evolution and parents who refuse to let their children learn it due to religious considerations).
I was wondering when they'd get around to atheism. Bravo to them.
Hmmm, I've been wondering recently why we live so long after we get done reproducing. Isn't it terribly inefficient for us to live for another 40 or 50 years after we are done reproducing? It seems like that should have evolved away.
Modern medicine.
Hmmm, I've been wondering recently why we live so long after we get done reproducing. Isn't it terribly inefficient for us to live for another 40 or 50 years after we are done reproducing? It seems like that should have evolved away.
Modern medicine."
No, that's just us living longer, modern medicine isn't the correct mechanism to explain Timothy's question. If you're speaking strictly about why a species is characterized by lifespans extending beyond reproductive age, having older organisms around provides numerous benefits (being around to raise their children, contributing to society / workforce, passing on knowledge and skills). These are explanations beyond "modern medicine", as thousands of species have adults whose life spans well beyond reproductive age without the benefit of modern medicine that humans enjoy: all primates, dolphins, bears, lions, frogs, penguins, the list goes on and on. In particular, higher organisms like mammals are often characterized by these extended lifespans.
On life after 40: I think rembar is right in that it must have some kind of evolutionary explanation. Socrates, for example, had rather little access to modern medicine, but still had to be actively killed in his late 70's to stop him "corrupting" the youth of Athens.
It provides light. Granted, not by itself, but still it lights the dark side of the earth often enough for nocturnal animals to evolve. Without it all animals except bats and stuff would spend the dark (and stormy) nights sleeping. With it you can evolve a reflective surface in your eye and hunt. That can in time lead to a more complex ecosystem and more complex forms of life. Like us, for example.
Also, your statement about it being just a theory is actually very ignorant. Don't forget, in scientific terms, theories are *very* powerful. The theory of evolution is as valid as any other scientifically accepted theory like the theory of relativity, or the cell theory. So, to say that there is nothing to support it further than a theory is ironic, because theories require a lot of support to be a theory in the first place.
Anyways, obvious proof of evolution would be fossil records, but if they don't satisfy you for some reason, there are a few documented cases of modern speciation. Although, they're a bit hard to find, but that makes sense, because speciation takes a long time.
So there you go, Gorgon - PROOF!
A cool fossil showed up recently, which awesomely muddles up the simplicity of the dinosaur-to-modern-bird fossil lineage; http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1951744.htm
Holy crap. I'm trying to stay out of these evolution/religion discussions because they just bore the shit out of me, but I've just got to speak up.
You are just flat out wrong. "Adapts" is synonymous with "evolves" (in the strict Darwinian sense) when you're talking about viruses.
Viruses are very simple organisms that replicate (and thus mutate....read: evolve) rapidly. Does this make them adapt? Yes. Is the adaptation non-evolutionary? Hardly. The changes in their ability to attack their host are derived *directly* from mutation/evolution. Viruses don't use "tactics" in any sense that *isn't* tied to their mutation/evolution. Hint: they don't have brains or consciousness....any "behaviour" they exhibit is in total lockstep with their biological chemistry.
In fact, they are a textbook example of an evolutionary model, and one of the simplest ways of demonstrating evolutionary principles because we can see changes in timeframes that aren't prohibitively gigantic. Successive generations of viruses are genetically different, in a measurable way, from their ancestors.
But, don't take my word for it.
http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/051115_birdflu
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/res_virus.html
But yeah, you're right, adaptation in the biological sense is really the same thing as evolution.
Gorgonheap is wrong, and is using an argument that's based too much around 'wordplay.' It is similar to the 'evolution is only a theory' argument.
As bigbikeman pointed out, the viruses' 'tactics' are basically determined by their biological composition, which, in turn, is determined by successive mutations over generations, AKA evolution.
By the way, gorgonheap - refuting the theory of evolution by suggesting an invisible man who lives above the clouds instead did it in six days isn't exactly critical thinking.
noone said viruses think.
Man may have evolved here, with some help though, help that may have come not only from conditions and timing, but perhaps from the stars...No one can really say they know yet...even the folks who would like it all to fit into a nice little package......
Sarcasm doesn't come across well in text.
http://www.videosift.com/video/If-We-Had-No-Moon
Here is the latest replacement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwk8I1ou9k