The new COSMOS has met with rather mixed reviews amongst members here, but there is another series, Your Inner Fish, which is currently airing on PBS affiliates which is worth a peek: http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/home/
The series, based on the book of the same name by Neil Shubin, a paleontologist/paleobiologist at the University of Chicago, explores the latest research in evolutionary biology (http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397786636&sr=8-1&keywords=your+inner+fish). The narrative draws on wide range of scientific study, from geologic field research seeking to locate transitional fossils between fish and the earliest land animals to biogenetic studies isolating the common genes responsible for the expression of fins in fish and hands in humans. Here’s a promo trailer:
I’ve recorded two segments of the 3-part series and watched the first episode tonight. I found it both fascinating and entertaining. And it was kind of fun when Shubin and the geologist assisting him in his field studies were talking about the book which provided the spark for their selection of a site in northern Canada to seek the Devonian outcrops which might yield the transitional fossil they were seeking and flipped the cover to the same geology text I used for my historical geology class during my freshman year of college in 1977.
For those interested, I would highly recommend this series.
Most of the criticisms revolved around the “dumbing down” of the subject matter and the overuse of animation. I’m not going to open up the religious discussion, as it NEVER ends well.
Are you referring to spontaneous generation/biopoiesis?
This is one of the more complex topics in the sciences physical. Replicating organisms did not simply spontaneously spring forth from muck; it was a process as slow and involved as any other phase of terrestrial evolution.
As to science shows; the better examples I’ve seen are not as bad as the sensationalized BBC “science” shows, but they’re getting there. Complete with scripted cutaway interviews, bad acting, and obnoxious characters. And this is saying nothing for the animations, as mentioned, which are slid in like morsels to make glossy-eyed morons think they’re becoming educated.
Nope, and the origin of first life is one of the really big questions. We have a reasonable understand of what happened AFTER that but that is the really big one along with where did the universe or the singularity that might have created the universe come from? Again we know a few things about what happened directly AFTER but virtually no factual evidence about where or why that happened.
One is a starting point, the other is where things went from that starting point, if indeed that is the correct starting point. I’m inclined to accept ideas such as cosmic seeding as common throughout the universe but that simply relocates the origin of life question to an alternate starting point with no answer.
Oh I understand them… I just dont’ understand why people always try to lump them together. The something from nothing argument. Or life from non life etc when debating evolution.
Because they believe because we don’t have the answer to A we cannot have the answer for B. Same people also try to suggest we need a comprehensive and complete fossil record before evolution can be accepted. They don’t seem to understand that the existence of two distinct human species in the record is all that is needed to prove things.
But the average person who disputes evolution typically doesn’t have a strong understanding of things beyond the “talking points” given to them by some source (usually religious) and think every alternate idea qualifies as a “theory” in scientific terms.
They also commonly have a misunderstanding that evolution somehow addresses the origin of life itself and might invalidate their beliefs. It’s a lot like the anti gun crowd discussing which sniper rifle is the most lethal and why.
kwelz, relax bro. It was just a question. I’m smart enough to know the difference between debating evolution and the beginnings of life.
The average person who professes evolution doesn’t have a strong understanding of things beyond the “talking points” given to them by some source (usually scientific) and think every religious idea qualifies as “crazy talk” in scientific terms.
Most people, religious and otherwise, tend to have a basic understanding of evolution and accept it. Those who accept evolution simply because it was in their high school textbook but have no real understanding of it are usually the next largest group followed by those who reject evolution for religious reasons.
Just watched the final episode yesterday. Again, very well done and highly recommended. If you have any interest in evolution and the more current research being done, this is a great primer.
And I think I’ll sidestep the religious discussion.