I almost made a thread about this, but didn't for some reason.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I first saw Carl Sagan's Cosmos when I was about ten years old. It was one of the only gifts I have received from my biological father. It has a special place in my heart.

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson was the perfect guy to take on a redux of this series. I've seen many interviews and I listen to his radio show all the time. The torch has been passed to the right man, IMO.

I really liked that they went into detail about Giordano Bruno. He's one of my favorite historical figures. That segment has created some controversy, but what do you expect when a show about science starts treading into somewhat theological territory. I think their depiction of Bruno was fair and it didn't necessarily 'demonize' the church. Some people will find anything to argue with. Personally, I like that Bruno is being given such recognition as he is often ignored or ridiculed.

I cried when he showed Sagan's date book with his own name - Neil Tyson - written in, then the description of NDT's day with Carl. From all I have heard and read that was Sagan in a nutshell.

I cried when he showed Sagan's date book with his own name - Neil Tyson - written in, then the description of NDT's day with Carl. From all I have heard and read that was Sagan in a nutshell.

I also figured the part with Bruno would be controversial. It's funny, though. For people to be angry about that (history) means they either condone the actions of the church at the time, or they don't want the truth being available. For the second one, I wonder why.... Oh boy do I wonder....

I watched an episode yesterday, it was about evolution and possible life on other planets.

To be honest I didn't like it, the show is visually stunning but it's not very scientific, it pushes his ideas in a way that is intellectually dishonest when there's no evidence and lies here and there to get his point across.

for this show.

Care to mention any examples of that? I've seen both episodes and thought the second was significantly better than the first.

There's plenty of evidence for all of the things discussed in the episode except for those explicitly mentioned as speculation.

In his account of the evolution of the eye, Tyson says that "a microscopic copying error" gave a protein the ability to be sensitive to light. He doesn't explain how that happened. Indeed, Sean B. Carroll cautions us to "not be fooled" by the "simple construction and appearance" of supposedly simple light-sensitive eyes, since they "are built with and use many of the ingredients used in fancier eyes."6 Tyson doesn't worry about explaining how any of those complex ingredients arose at the biochemical level. What's more interesting is what Tyson says next: "Another mutation caused it [a bacterium with the light-sensitive protein] to flee intense light."

This raises an interesting question: It's nice to have a light-sensitive protein, but unless the sensitivity to light is linked to some behavioral response, then how would the sensitivity provide any advantage? Only once a behavioral response also evolved -- say, to turn towards or away from the light -- can the light-sensitive protein provide an advantage. So if a light-sensitive protein evolved, why did it persist until the behavioral response evolved as well? There's no good answer to that question, because vision is fundamentally a multi-component, and thus a multi-mutation, feature. Multiple components -- both visual apparatus and the encoded behavioral response -- are necessary for vision to provide an advantage. It's likely that these components would require many mutations. Thus, we have a trait where an intermediate stage -- say, a light-sensitive protein all by itself -- would not confer a net advantage on the organism. This is where Darwinian evolution tends to get stuck.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews...tml#sthash.3enQ73ze.dpuf

Here is a video of Richard Dawkins (one of the foremost experts in evolutionary theory) explaining how the eye could have evolved in greater detail than discussed in Cosmos. Keep in mind that Cosmos is targeted at a wider audience and so I am ok with a little leniency with respect to scientific rigor.