1. Ogvorbis says

    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)

  2. tccc says

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

  3. doktorzoom says

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

  4. muskiet says

    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.

  5. Aratina Cage says

    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.

  6. trigley says

    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.