Share it with your kids: this is a clean and simple summary of evolution.
(via Skepchick.)
Frequently Read Threads
Commenting Rules
The Desert Tortoises With Boltcutters Civility Pledge
[Introductions]: Meet the other commenters
The [Lounge]: a safe space; friendly chat; moderated
The [Thunderdome]: no-holds-barred unmoderated chaos

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
![]()
Chris Clarke is a science and natural history writer, editor, and
environmental protection activist in Joshua Tree, California.
• Coyote Crossing
• my writing
at KCET
• Desert Biodiversity
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google
Plus
• Walking
With Zeke
• Walking
With Zeke (iBookstore)
© 2013 Pharyngula.

13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Glen Davidson
14 January 2013 at 12:18 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
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
sinned34
14 January 2013 at 2:50 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Forget the kids, this needs to be shown to most adults.
Ogvorbis
14 January 2013 at 3:08 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
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)
Naked Bunny with a Whip
14 January 2013 at 3:44 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I think Professor Charles Xavier has a video explaining that somewhere.
Naked Bunny with a Whip
14 January 2013 at 4:08 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I just hope it’s not on XTube.
tccc
14 January 2013 at 8:00 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
They got 5 bucks out of me for that one. Very well done. I love the style, animation, voice over, everything.
Leanchoilia
14 January 2013 at 8:34 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
If you like the art, the artist has a website full of biology comics. http://birdandmoon.com/
Charlie Foxtrot
14 January 2013 at 8:52 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Is good! But my favorite is still the Horrible Histories version. :)
doktorzoom
14 January 2013 at 11:12 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I rather liked the reference to “banana trees” at 5:48. I will choose to think that was not coincidental
muskiet
15 January 2013 at 4:15 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
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.
Lofty
15 January 2013 at 5:12 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Potholer54′s vids are cool.
Aratina Cage
16 January 2013 at 4:02 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Larry Moran thinks the video is mostly right but somewhat wrong:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-exactly-is-evolution-stated.html
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.
trigley
19 January 2013 at 10:18 am (UTC -5) Link to this comment
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.