Richard Dawkins: Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species - Nebraska Vignettes #5

Richard Dawkins explains how microscopic algae called Diatoms uniquely evolved in Yellowstone Lake.

Download Quicktime version (720p HD):
http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c116791/Diatoms3.mov

Get the RDF TV podcast through iTunes!
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=331182596

If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you'd like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,donations

During Richard Dawkins' 2009 American tour, we visited Judy Diamond's "Explore Evolution" exhibit at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. This exhibit has now been replicated in six museums around the country. While visiting we filmed a collection of short unrehearsed and unscripted videos—just inspired by the "Explore Evolution" exhibit.

See the "Explore Evolution" web page here:
http://explore-evolution.unl.edu/

Special Thanks to:
Dr. Judy Diamond
The University of Nebraska State Museum
http://www.friendsofthemuseum.org/

Produced by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell


Camera & Music by
Josh Timonen

See more at:
http://RichardDawkins.net

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Richard Dawkins
• Diatoms
• Evolution
• Biology
• Natural Selection
• Algae
• Science

[Swarm509]

@peyupsgurl When does one science become "True" and when does one become "Untrue/False?" Is this when the church says that is so? If that is the case then it has been giving up a lot of ground. If you think evolution is "false" then then it is up to you to show that, much as Darwin and others had to spend their lives to show that evolution is a provable fact (for lack of a better word). True scientists would love to see an alternative to evolution if it works.

[MrGralgrathor]

@peyupsgurl

"axed because he dared to publish"

1) He was never employed at the journal. He was an unpaid associate.

2) He was never axed. He retained his position until long after the incident.

3) The problem is not that he dared publish: the problem is that he bypassed procedure and peer review. In science, that's a hanging offence.

4) The paper didn't really question Darwinism; it was about the Cambrian Explosion. Nevertheless, it was bad science and wouldn't have passed peer review.

[MrGralgrathor]

@NotEnoughLions

"Nobody has a vested interest in evolution"

I do. I think evolutionary theory describes a fascinating and beautiful biological reality. It'd be a shame if it turned out that there were gods responsible for all of it after all. That'd make the universe a whole lot less interesting.

[NotEnoughLions]

@peyupsgurl 200 years ago almost without exception all great scientists believed in God and were creationists. What changed? Knowledge. Discoveries that showed that those who wrote the bible weren’t inspired by a creator but just made stuff up. That’s why today most eminent scientists don’t believe in god and Christians continue to quote historical scientists to support their position.

[NotEnoughLions]

@peyupsgurl Nobody has a vested interest in evolution. It is simply what has been discovered. Nobody cares if it's one thing or another as long as we discover the real truth. If a scientist finds a provable alternative or shows Evolution by Natural selection is wrong that scientist will be the most famous in all history. Christians however DO have a vested interest in evolution being wrong. That vested interest leads to lies and deceit. You are a victim of those lies.

[peyupsgurl]

True science is not an opinion but it is sad how facts are distorted under the false pretense of science. It's easy to say that Christianity is against all modern medical knowledge but it isn't. Louis Pasteur is a great scientist with lots of scientific discoveries and He believes in God. Newton also believe in God and said that he hoped that his discoveries would inspire others into the belief of our Creator. The scientists in the movie can neither be called unknowing and uneducated bigots.

[NotEnoughLions]

@peyupsgurl Science isn’t opinion. Science is fact. That’s why you computer works and modern medicine save lives. You have no idea. Would you destroy all modern medical knowledge and risk the lives and well being of millions of children to rescue a religious belief threatened by science? It appears so. You think science is opinion. Show the science explained in the movie Expelled. You can't because it's religious rubbish playing to the emotions of unknowing, uneducated bigots.

[peyupsgurl]

@NotEnoughLions that is your opinion

[NotEnoughLions]

@peyupsgurl The movie Expelled is rubbish and contains not one single scientific fact supporting the crybabies it claims to represent. Secondly making unsupported claims will get a scientists sacked and rightly so. It's because we have these rules science can be relied on to work. Science is a study of nature and how things work. Not a support for political and religious beliefs.

[peyupsgurl]

@NotEnoughLions hello :) ..historically you can explain the bias against the Intelligent Design or Creationism explanation and that is researches on these theories are suppresed. One example is when the director of the smithsonian institute who was axed because he dared to publish one article in a peer reviewed scientific journal that question darwinism.. you can see the movie "expelled".. you can watch these two documentaries /watch?v=BOTlNNsBqbA and watch?v=obqWnzAcWWA&feature=fv­st ..thanks