Taken from South Park series 10 episode 12: Cartman can't wait for the Nintendo Wii, which can be found here on you tube (in its entire NSFW 22 minutes).

One of the corner stones of Evolution is that harsh dynamic environments made living organisms evolve over time, I always wondered how much exactly factors such as the moon contributed to the variety of life that exists on Earth. And wonder if such and other conditions are also necessary for the development of intelligent life?

Whatever the effects the moon has biologically (I've heard of a few things)...they'll decrease every year (as the moon's drifting away by 2cm annually). The South Park episode this is from (linked above) is a bit disturbing - I'll have dificulty taking Richard Dawkins seriously for a while!

Hello?! Is Mr. Garrison married? Then it is properly Ms. Garrison (at least until gay marriage is legalized)

Some of these things seem rather important, the moons gravity is the reason there are tidal waves. There are many species of animal who only follow the moon cycle. Where did you read that moon drifting bit Benjee?

"havin butt sex with a fish-squirrel"

you've lost me, farhad... admittedly the moon-earth combination might have some unusual quirks, at least in our solar system, but apart from having a very predictable face and location, helping splash water around, and giving some light at night I don't see your cause for evolutionary interest. if the moon influenced the movement of land masses and seismic events, then that would be something (seperating land masses would obviously lead to increased global diversity; after land creatures can no longer swim/fly between islands/land-masses they can no longer interbreed), but I've never read anything about the moon influencing the Earth's mantle or crust.

(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)

this episode was pretty totally rad, by the way.

More then anything I was reffering to the Moon's effects on world ocean currents. This I believe helps drive the cooling conveyor belt through the ocean. Am thinking wouldn't it also help primordial life when it was all in the liquids?

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.

We only live longer then needed because of our advances in technology and medicine.

All seems a bit far fetched to me.

www.hotfishsquirrelbuttsex.com

for those who haven't seen this episode I recommend searching 'south park 1012' at dailymotion.com

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.

This is brilliant .. and ain't a bad description for evolution, believe it or not

bamdrew, are you a bible thumper?

Hmph. Double post, whoops.

I don't like it

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member deputydog)

*undead

The link to this video has been fixed (undead called by original submitter benjee)

What a candid version of the truth!!

TimothyChenAllen
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.

Ok, I'm almost convinced this is no longer just a coincidence on my end. I'm *blogging this as an example. So if ANYONE else can get this to play then send it back. But there are several google vids that wont even start for me. Is anyone else having this problem? I think the link may be dead but I want to make sure it's not just my computer.

Sending this video to Sift Talk for discussion (sent by Gold Star member gorgonheap)

I can't view it either (running Firefox 2.0.0.6)

me neither. firefox 2.0.0.6

not sure whats up but I just posted this to sift talk with the code and it works.

I'm thinking that the viacom suit took the original for this post, so benjee, I'm going to *dead this and *return it. You can use the link grspec gives to make it live again but I'm betting your current URL is removed.

Returning this video from Sift Talk (Returned by gold star member gorgonheap)

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by Gold Star member gorgonheap)

"TimothyChenAllen
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.

*undead

The link to this video has been fixed (undead called by original submitter benjee)

i'm assuming this is south park's take on the limited understanding of the theory of evolution by your normal bible thumpers. Which, is actually quite funny as noone seems to have noticed that.

At the very least, the moon causes tides, so all those types of life that depend on tidal pools would not exist without it and would probably become extinct if the moon moved away. But more imporantly, if Earth had no Moon, its axis of rotation would wander chaotically, rendering the emergence and survival of life more difficult (according to the European Space Agency)

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.

There is another, fairly obvious, effect of having such an enourmous moon. (The Earth-Moon system is sometimes, incorrectly, being described as a double planet system, as our moon is so big.)
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.

Though natural ocurances may support theories of evolution even the best of scientists has yet to find proof of it. We may find clues but there has never been such a thing as a "good" mutation, much less one that has been passed to following generations. Adaption? yes, evolution? There is nothing to support it any further then a theory.

Huh? There's plenty proof of evolution. If you want an example of a 'good' mutation, just look at the flu virus. Why do you think we need vaccinations each year? It's because the virus evolves to defeat our immune system.

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.

Aww, www.hotfishsquirrelbuttsex.com doesn't work.

Recently an expedition to the southern region of Gaza turned up an entire ancient village preserved underground for perhaps millions of years, which is completely covered in depictions of squirrels having retarded buttsex with fish.

So there you go, Gorgon - PROOF!

Wow! Now that's what I call solid evidence

The great thing is Stone and Parker are staunch skeptics. Satire at its best.

proof of evolution by natural selection? well, if genetics, proteomics, or cell biology are too abstract, fossils are freakin' everywhere!

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

Psilocybe had much to do with our evolution as well......plants and their psychoactive chemicals....

The flu virus adapts to attack immune systems. It doesn't evolve. Adaption and evolution are different. The virus doesn't change its form it changes it's tactic. It, just like everything else wants to survive so it adapts to do so. It doesn't evolve to do so.

" The flu virus adapts to attack immune systems. It doesn't evolve. Adaption and evolution are different. The virus doesn't change its form it changes it's tactic. It, just like everything else wants to survive so it adapts to do so. It doesn't evolve to do so."

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

Bigbikeman, you got to it before me.

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.

Next time you hear someone say that man "didn't come from no monkey", they're actually right - but no knowledgeable scientist has ever made that claim. It is true that we have a common ancestor.

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.

Heh, so viruses think now? That's news to me...

no, but the viruses better suited due to mutation will survive, and the duff ones dont (ala natural selection).

noone said viruses think.

Refuting the theory of evolution, by Christians, who interpret the Bible literally, is the real rub....The story of creation/evolution/origins, may be there, but the misconception the fundamentalist C's lazily parrot or ascribe to, is undeniably lacking, as a means of explanation.....

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......

noone said viruses think.

Sarcasm doesn't come across well in text.

There is some discussion here about how the moon effects life's development here on earth. It reminded me of a good BBC documentary called If We Had No Moon. I was searching for some clips for it when I came across this video that does a good job summarizing the importance of our Moon and how different this planet would have been without it.
http://www.videosift.com/video/If-We-Had-No-Moon

*science

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 5 channels - ignoring all requests by rembar.

*1stTube

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 5 channels - ignoring all requests by Grimm.

*dead
Here is the latest replacement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWwk8I1ou9k

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Fedquip.

Awarding Reylor with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

Hey now ~!

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by BoneRemake.

*dead

Automatically replaced video embed code with backup #2463 (supplied by member BoneRemake) - video declared dead by member BoneRemake.

workin the system baby, workin the system.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Stingray.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=00:01:29

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:29 - length declared by critical_d.