Jan 14 2013

Nice and simple

Share it with your kids: this is a clean and simple summary of evolution.

(via Skepchick.)


Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Glen Davidson

    Doesn’t explain the evolution of a demigod like Jesus, thus is inadequate.

    Or at least why it won’t be watched by the kids who need to see it.

    Glen Davidson

  2. 2

    Forget the kids, this needs to be shown to most adults.

  3. 3
    Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human.

    Wow. After watching that shocking and disgusting video, I understand why the religious view evolution by natural selection as the horror story that it is.

    (attempted humour)

  4. 4
    Naked Bunny with a Whip

    Doesn’t explain the evolution of a demigod like Jesus

    I think Professor Charles Xavier has a video explaining that somewhere.

  5. 5
    Naked Bunny with a Whip

    I just hope it’s not on XTube.

  6. 6

    They got 5 bucks out of me for that one. Very well done. I love the style, animation, voice over, everything.

  7. 7

    If you like the art, the artist has a website full of biology comics. http://birdandmoon.com/

  8. 8
    Charlie Foxtrot

    Is good! But my favorite is still the Horrible Histories version. :)

  9. 9

    I rather liked the reference to “banana trees” at 5:48. I will choose to think that was not coincidental

  10. 10

    I would like to point out Potholer54′s “made easy” series on YouTube.
    It’s not this fancy, but every episode explains things like natural selection, evolution and the origin of life in a simple way while at the same time making fun of people like Hovind.

  11. 11

    Potholer54′s vids are cool.

  12. 12
    Aratina Cage

    Larry Moran thinks the video is mostly right but somewhat wrong:

    According to the video “evolution … has officially occurred.” This is incorrect. Populations evolve, not individuals. It’s quite possible for the individuals in a given generation to have different combinations of traits than either of their parents while the frequency of alleles in the population remains unchanged. Thus, evolution has NOT occurred.


    It seems like all the video needs to do is change the word “occurred” into “started”, or perhaps the word “officially” into “potentially”, to align with Larry Moran’s thoughts.

  13. 13

    I know that the biologists and evolutionists believe they have an airtight accounting for the amazing variety of organisms and genes in the world, but the variety of domestic dog breeds doesn’t seem to convincingly demonstrate the process by which new genes arise. Aren’t domestic dogs pretty much just expressions of artificial sorting pressure on genes already present? Am I right to think that, since all the dog breeds appear able to interbreed, that speciation hasn’t occurred? Seems like the Darwinian “new synthesis” might have problems explaining how truly new genes arise. It seems that processes that alter the frequency of expression of a gene, or alter its regulation in some way, can change the superficial appearance of a species, but won’t easily give rise to new features. And, in creatures that reproduce sexually, wouldn’t a speciating change have to appear simultaneously in both a male and female for it to survive? Just asking.

Comments have been disabled.