The Simpsons - "The Monkey Suit" - 5/14/06

[MickeS]

What a great episode! I must've laughed at least half a dozen times... and that was before they even got to the main storyline.

"This is amazing... it feels just like I'm touching the vase!"

The scene with Homer and the bulletproof vest.

Flanders last in line "If we turn around, it's like we're first!"

"To do:

<check> Check out that new store
<check> Find, destroy Atlantis
<check> Fake interest in son"

"To do:
<check> Kiss 100 boys"

Milhouse on the stretch-torture thing.

Bart and Homer seeing the "The history of weapons" exhibit banner.

Bart eating victory pizza.

Melanie Griffith on the museum audio guide.


...and then there were the creationism jokes after that...

Best episode of the season, hands down!

[bidger]

Best episode of the season, hands down!
I can't go that far, matter of fact, I thought it was just OK. I deleted it after viewing.

[jbondsr]

I didn't get the Nelson disguise jokes, what was that about?

[scottykempf]

Think Mission: Impossible. I am assuming that the puzzle pieces fade out was a reference to the original series.

[farleyruskz]

I loved the "Theory of Creationism" exhibit in the museum, complete with "What A Fool Believes" playing in the background.

[Jesda]

LOL, amusing episode. Not one I'll remember years from now but certainly one I enjoyed.

[Raj]

Good episode, but Lisa proclaimed that evolution was a "scientific fact" when it is in fact just a theory.

FWIW, I tend to lean more on the side of evolution that creation but until evolution is proven to be more than a theory, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Bondelev]

Think Mission: Impossible. I am assuming that the puzzle pieces fade out was a reference to the original series.

I thought it was a reference to THE PRISONER. Then I thought maybe MI.

Whatever it was, it wasn't funny.

[JYoung]

I thought it was a reference to THE PRISONER. Then I thought maybe MI.

Whatever it was, it wasn't funny.


The puzzle motif was more remeniscent of a Quinn Martin production.

[Amnesia]

Good episode, but Lisa proclaimed that evolution was a "scientific fact" when it is in fact just a theory.Just like the Pythagorean theorem...but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[scooterboy]

Just like the Pythagorean theorem...but that doesn't mean it's not true.
I also lean toward the evolution theory, but I must confess that having no viable explanation for the Cambrian Explosion does make one wonder.

[MickeS]

Good episode, but Lisa proclaimed that evolution was a "scientific fact" when it is in fact just a theory.

FWIW, I tend to lean more on the side of evolution that creation but until evolution is proven to be more than a theory, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

A scientific theory is essentially something peer reviewed that is not proven to be incorrect. As such, it is usually considered a fact until something better comes along. It's not some idea that someone just comes up with.

Plus, she didn't say it was a fact, but that the theory was widely accepted as scientific fact, if I recall correctly. Which is an accurate statement.

[dimented]

I loved the Big Bang part. :D

[durl]

Wasn't it widely accepted by the scientific community in the 70's that we were entering an "ice age?"

Whether you're evolutionist or creationist, you've got to exercise faith at some point it seems...

[Amnesia]

Whether you're evolutionist or creationist, you've got to exercise faith at some point it seems...Nope. Evolution has scientific fact and experience behind it. Scientific experiments can duplicate (albeit in a limited sense) how the environment and natural selection can influence a population's genetic makeup.

"Creationism" has nothing behind it besides words in an old book.

[TeeSee]

Evolution is a theory that, while supported by scientific precedent and laws of nature, is only a theory that can never be completely proven.

Although that's a lot more substantial than a fairy tale.

I loved this episode.

[MickeS]

Evolution is a theory that, while supported by scientific precedent and laws of nature, is only a theory that can never be completely proven.

No, I guess you can always say "Nah... I don't believe it." without knowing anything about it. :rolleyes:

[jfjellstad]

Good episode, but Lisa proclaimed that evolution was a "scientific fact" when it is in fact just a theory.

Oh, that again.
Gravity (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) is also just a theory. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)

[MickeS]

jfjellstad, thanks for that Onion article. :D

[billboard_NE]

OK and all about the evolution argument, but ....

What did Bart write on the chalk board in the opening, and what does it translate to in english?

Bill

[getbak]

What did Bart write on the chalk board in the opening, and what does it translate to in english?
I don't speak French.

[Figaro]

"Good riddence! Their cartoons suck and they look like hippies!" I had to pause after that one. Was Larry Hagman the voice of the witness or of the prosocuter?

[durl]

Nope. Evolution has scientific fact and experience behind it. Scientific experiments can duplicate (albeit in a limited sense) how the environment and natural selection can influence a population's genetic makeup.

"Creationism" has nothing behind it besides words in an old book.

I've heard that natural selection can't fully explain how something like an eye can come into being. Something so complex with it's many components seems unlikely to just mutate. Especially when mutations are almost always harmful. As I think about it, it's not like an organism can look in to the future to determine which of it's mutations might be beneficial in the long-term. To me, natural selection could be called a true exercise in faith.

[vman41]

As I think about it, it's not like an organism can look in to the future to determine which of it's mutations might be beneficial in the long-term.

The organism isn't deciding, it's just does the best it can with what it gets. Nature is selecting the most beneficial long term (hence term natural selection).

[Amnesia]

I've heard that natural selection can't fully explain how something like an eye can come into being.It doesn't happen all at once---it's by gradual increments.

Especially when mutations are almost always harmful. Says who?

As I think about it, it's not like an organism can look in to the future to determine which of it's mutations might be beneficial in the long-term. That's not how it works. All that's needed is for a particular trait to have an influence on survival or health. It doesn't need to be a "mutation" per se.

You do have at least a high-school knowledge of genetics, right? You know how certain traits pass down from generation to generation? For example, how if both parents of a child are very tall, chances are that the kid will be tall too? (Not 100% positive, but more likely)

Well, take giraffes. Those with longer necks have access to leaves that other, shorter giraffes do not. Perhaps shorter giraffes have to compete with other animals for those leaves. That makes the taller giraffes healthier and more attractive to mates. When two tall giraffes mate, chances are that their offspring will be tall as well. Over many years, that has a tendency to cause the population of giraffes to have taller and taller necks.

The same effect can be seen in breeding of "toy" dog species, though in this case, the selection is not "natural", but rather influenced by the desires of the dog breeders.

To me, natural selection could be called a true exercise in faith.Since this effect can be seen quite easily in numerous experiments, the influence of genetics and natural factors on population phenotypes is hardly a matter of faith.

[Figaro]

"Now Lisa's the Ralph!"

[MickeS]

Figaro, that line made me laugh so hard! :D

And as for this line "I've heard that natural selection can't fully explain how something like an eye can come into being." from a comment above... think of a computer chip. It's not like the Pentium D 3.2 MHz dual core CPU was invented out of nothing. It was a gradual improvement upon fairly primtive semi-conductor technology.

I'm guessing it's the same with the eyes. It's not like human eyes are the best there are, either... so maybe the eyes of the first creatures didn't work particularly good either, but those who happened to have slightly better eyesight managed to live longer, and have more offspring. Who the hell knows. But I'm pretty sure that they weren't created in one day from some dirt. ;)

[Worf]

It is believe the first eyes evolved similar to the following:

1) Some creature evolves special cells that react to light (on the skin). Said creature has slight advantage in that it can detect nearby objects and possibly predators. Creature survives over non-light-sensitive cell creatores, passes trait onwards.
2) Creature gets more light sensitive cells to get advantage over less-celled creatures.
3) Creature's cells form a slight dimple to "protect" them from rubbing. (Conjecture)
4) Eventually, the dimple forms the inside of a sphere, and the beginnings of a lens form, giving sharper vision.
5) Give a few more evolutionary cycles, and the eye is formed as we know it today.

Nothing is particularly "magic", just one step at a time. Some steps were revolutionary (light-sensitive cells, lens), others were logical followings. Trace the evolution of something else, like say, the computer from Babbage, to punchards the US Census, Eniac, bombes, and eventually you'll come across something similar - some revolutionary steps, but a steady evolution from gears to tiny handhelds, desktops, laptops, game consoles, etc.

[MickeS]

Of course, mine and Worf's last posts leave open the possibility that there is some sort of being that somehow oversaw this - similar to how humans created the computers, in other words "intelligent design". THAT, I know nothing about one way or the other. But I know that those who propose that ID is taught, are mostly just using it as a codeword for teaching religion. One could argue that ID doesn't really contradict evolution in any way, but try and get a fervent ID proponent to accept this...

[Figaro]

"I like stories."

[aintnosin]

Everyone repeat after me:

Nothing is every 'proved' in science (especially biology). Proof is for mathematics.

A theory in science is not subordinate to a law. A law is a principle that can be proven mathematically (like Newton's Laws). A theory is a collection of well-tested explanations for observed phenomena.

In other words, the Theory of Evolution (that all life is related to each other through descent from a common ancestor via natural selection) is a thoroughly tested explanation for the observed phenomenon of evolution, such as the appearance and disappearance of species in the fossil record as well as the close genetic similarity between species that also appear to be related.

[NoThru22]

I don't speak French.
No, but what does it say? :D

[Sherminator]

One way to understand Evolution is by observing the growth of a baby from fertilized egg to birth.

How does one cell turn into billions, creating everything that makes a human (or other animal) so? I know, genetics.

Evolution is merely mutation at birth which makes a being more suitable for living within it's surroundings or more attractive to the opposite sex.