Ricky Gervais attempts to explain Evolution To Karl Pilkington
Posted on 23. Jan, 2010 by in Comedy
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Ricky Gervais attempts tο ехрƖаіn Evolution Tο Karl Pilkington аnԁ karl slags οf Steve. Thіѕ іѕ a preview tο thе natural history episode οf thе Ricky Gervias Shοw. Click here tο see a preview οf Thе Ricky Gervais Guide Tο Philosophy – www.youtube.com
_________________________
Sh1t Tv
Embed
25 Responses to “Ricky Gervais attempts to explain Evolution To Karl Pilkington”
Leave a Reply
Browse
nbarrett100
23. Jan, 2010
“If their was some sort of check up, if someone went around going what do you do? and you went nothing and the got rid of you the slug would have gone a long time ago.”
Would Karl have survived that cull?
spinaker7081
23. Jan, 2010
“Probably because some spider’s lookin after it” lol… what a statement!!!
sexdrugsnemail
23. Jan, 2010
hahaha, head like a fucking orange
ahabthewhaler
23. Jan, 2010
giraffes eat grass off the ground
coosoorlog
23. Jan, 2010
Pure genious.
nbarrett100
23. Jan, 2010
lol
12345l6789
23. Jan, 2010
that head looks fucking round in that picture
billgrant88
23. Jan, 2010
“D’ya want a fried flug – a slug. D’ya want a frief slug?”
Hahaha my ribs are hurting
872463051
23. Jan, 2010
@Aaberg123 Well, we are all different from our ancestors if we go back far enough… But the point is, we only have to go back 200,000 years to go back to the earliest known Homo sapien (and, based on dna we can get from these sites, as well as information like brain capacity and general bone structure, we can tell the species)…
From that 200,000 years ago, there hasn’t been much evolution because we have intellect to get around shortcomings, which, to an extent, limits further ecolution
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
My problem with you wording was that you stated: “[...]humans haven’t been around for all that many [years]“, which implies that we’re something significantly “new” and different from our ancestors, which we’re not.
As I said, that was my only point of contention.
Sidenot: Seeing as fossils are but snapshots in a film, determining species –within one relatively continuous line– based on fossils alone becomes somewhat arbitrary.
872463051
23. Jan, 2010
@Aaberg123 Well, relatively speaking, 200,000 years is quite recent.
Also, determining what is and is not a certain species is actually quite easy, as there are guidelines to what the definition of each species is. We can look a parts of certain fossils and determine whether this is a Homo sapien, another member of the Homo genus, or another group of organisms entirely.
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
That’s simply a taxonomical problem. Since evolution is a seamless process, determining what is and what is not a homo sapiens sapiens, become somewhat fuzzy. And does your argument only have to apply to the latest, recognized taxonomical chain?
You wording make it sound as if our species was something drastically new. It wasn’t. That was my only point of contention.
872463051
23. Jan, 2010
@Aaberg123 Well I don’t know what the hell you are, but me and the rest of the humans on earth are Homo sapiens, a species that has been around for about 200,000 years…
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
Depends on your definition of humans. My kind of human has only been around for roughly 25 years.
So depending if you want to go into details, or have a broader strokes with the pen, humans (or hominids) have been here for quite some time.
872463051
23. Jan, 2010
@Aaberg123 well, actually, thought it isnt related to survival, the number of redheads is dramatically decreasing, and it is predicted that in a few years, there will be no more redheads left. This is probably due to the fact that is is a recessive gene, and is often not as attractive to the opposite sex.
Things like that is where more of the evolution in humans is taking place in modern times. Also remember that evolution takes many generations, and humans haven’t been around for all that many
meaning1
23. Jan, 2010
people speak of intelligence*
meaning1
23. Jan, 2010
Very true; however, peoplespea of intelligence as if it is only now that it is determining selection to a degree. Hundreds (thousands, even) of years ago, those who were more intelligent also stood a greater chance of survival. Strength and intelligence were crucial – now, I think personality and accomplishments/geographic determinants will be the biggest factor. You clearly don’t need intelligence to be successful anymore, but it was helpful in the middle ages when trying to survive!
EminemBase
23. Jan, 2010
Well of course. This is it and this is what most people cannot grasp is that obviously Evolution hasn’t just stood still now.
It’s just that we don’t live long enough to see signifigant evolutionary changes. Plus it wouldn’t matter anyway, you can only see a sort of… Progressive Evolution in retrospect. You need things to HAVE happened so you can then compare and see the chain of life.
Also people don’t get we’re not FROM Apes. We are Apes and us and Chimps have the same common ancestor.
TBlake34
23. Jan, 2010
No worries, it happens.
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
Never mind. My reading comprehension seems to be completely suspended in this thread :S
TBlake34
23. Jan, 2010
I believe that a close reading of my post will reveal that I said the frontal lobe has evolved more in the last couple thousand years, since Rome, basically, than it did in the previous 40,000. There is evidence to suggest this process is speeding up, even with in that 2 thousand year interval.
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
Sorry, I agree that selective pressure still applies, but no longer based on survival. It’s not because of death, that people no longer pass on their genes.
Regarding your argument about the frontal lobe developing over 40k years: How does that in any way apply, when my argument is about modern medicine(100 years)? It doesn’t. Do you have any evidence for evolution in humans this past century?
Put a comma behind “left” in my previous comment. That might clear some things up.
TBlake34
23. Jan, 2010
You said, “Modern medicine has basically put a stop to any kind of evolution in the human species.” This is not true. Homo Sapiens Sapiens are still evolving. The pressures of natural selection are different, but still present. Hence the continued development of the frontal lobe.
That’s all I can really respond to because the rest of you statement was unintelligible.
Aaberg123
23. Jan, 2010
What is not true?
Are you really going to counter-argue 20th/21st century medicine with 40000 years of evolution?! Oranges and apples.
If you’re going to disagree with something I’ve said, make sure I actually said it.
Selection based on survival has been close to eradicated in the human species.
The only pressure left is lacking offspring of educated people, and the abundance of poor, uneducated people’s children.
lubermanl
23. Jan, 2010
Evolution hasn’t stopped. We still have variations in DNA. We just have pretty much eliminated natural selective pressures. Which means that we -could- degrade slowly. That said we seperated from other apes 5 mil yrs ago. while selective pressures have only been gone ~100 years. Medicine now advances faster then our DNA could degrade.
Our future ‘evolution’ will probably be through social selection (int/looks) or medical selection (age/illness res). Rather then Natural selection (reproduction).