Jan 7 2010David Attenborough And Jane Goodall Join Carl Sagan To Sing 'The Unbroken Thread'

Oh man, I love David Attenborough. And I know a certain lil girl who loves Jane Goodall. And now they're BOTH featured in the latest Symphony of Science, 'The Unbroken Thread'. This is a good one. Especially Jane Goodall's part when she says, "there isn't a sharp line dividing humans from the rest of the animal kingdom -- it's a very wuzzy line -- it's a very wuzzy line -- and it's getting wuzzy-er all the time time time time time time time. That part gave me the shivers. In my timbers. YAAARR!!

Symphony of Science

Thanks to Kelly C., whose beats remain the freshest.

Related Stories
Reader Comments

pee pee


finally a biology-themed Symphony of Science!

I <3 Attenborough almost as much as the GW

WOO!!!! :)

@2 yes, I could've told you that

If you start out with nothing, 4 Billion years later, you will still have nothing. That's all I'm gonna say.

Awsome.... Its just too bad some of us evolved to be theists..... LOLZZZ

long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I fckn hate this!

Fucking hippies can't even sing a fucking hippie song right! Go smoke some more granola, ya fucking tree-hugging hippie!

loved it. p.s. Take that Creationism!

I danced

@11 Take what??? LOL Your close minded dogma?

I can't believe that the evolution theologists still pedal this swill..... darwins theory is broken and has completely failed. But the 'priests and true believers' of "natural selection" still pitifully cling to their empty faith. Even in face of the STAGGERING evidence shown by Intelligent Design science. Just have a look at any of the REAL science and not the leaps of logic or out rite lies perpetrated by the pitiful fools back in the stone age that still cling to evolutionary theory! I, and the rest of the genuine scientific world LOL @ them!

@13 Intelligent Design is a crock.

There is no proof.

@13 Patin:

You have it completely backwards. There is absolutely no scientific evidence supporting intelligent design/creationism. Absolutely none. Zilch. You won't be able to find any no matter how hard you look. I can 100% guarantee that. Meanwhile, there are mountains of evidence supporting evolution, such that anyone who can call themselves a scientist accepts it as fact, even the highly religious scientists like Francis Collins. We understand evolution well enough now that it has even become an applied science, in agriculture, medicine, engineering, and computer science.

Ask yourself this: if you were given solid evidence proving that you were wrong, would you accept it and admit it? Now who's the closed minded one here?

I am so high right now...

.... yea. Alright, yea. That wasn't too too bad at all. You guys impress me. The evolution/creation post over at failblog is running up on 2,000 posts. And that one is less than two days old.

Thank you, Geekologie readers, for your restraint and maturity.

yeah these are getting retarded.

After I watched this I watched other carl sagan videos on youtube for at half an hour. Well, an hour. Ok, two hours.

I have to admit it's getting wuzzier. A little wuzzier all the time.

I like wuzzy lines.

@13 If you're a troll, then that was the most beautiful piece of trolling I've ever seen. If not, then your account of what is scientific astounds me. The scientific society (which has rules to ensure its honesty and reason) has accepted evolution as a fact so vastly likely that it rivals the theory of gravity. This, to be clear again, is not just a product of 'many people say so, so it must be true', this is the culmination of years of research and debate regarding the issue. Any argument against evolution has ALWAYS failed, due to the evidence in support of evolution. Any scent of irreversible complexity has always been shown to be non-existent, through reasoning. I defy anybody to show one cell which is irreversibly complex. Oh, and to start you all off, the flagellum on that particularly famous cell has been explained - it evolved from a different form of motor, a gas-propulsion biological device.
The scientific method is to find the truths which are unknown and to back up those that are by studying physical evidence. Evidence, just to be clear, is any item which shows a specific event to be certain. The system is backed up by peer research, which ensures that the original researcher's studies have operated within the realms of reality and science. If the research lacks evidence, or the interpretation of that evidence is deemed to be flawed, then it is not accepted as science.
Evolution passed the test so massively that it has been deemed absolute scientific fact. If evidence which argues against the theory comes to light, and the evidence is strong enough to guarantee a flaw in the theory, then the theory will no longer be considered as a scientific fact. It is generally regarded that in the case of evolution, however, that this will never happen. If it does, it will need to be extremely strong evidence.

Take it from someone with their finger on the vein, you are wrong. Go read some Dan Brown novels.

Just because you can set it to music does not make it true.
Just because today's scientists all agree on something does not make it true.
Just because you said someone is a troll does not make you better than them.

@22 And by the way, even in middle school science you learn that a hypothesis is a theory until it is proven true. It is NOT the case that a theory is considered a fact until it is disproven. And for someone who says science is absolute, you used an awful lot of conditionals in your last paragraph.

Take it from someone who has seen it from both sides, you are wrong. Go read something, anything.

Also, this does not count as one of your forums for "research and debate regarding the issue". So take it off your list of places that the issue has been decided. You've proven nothing. If you're right, why do you care if I know the truth or not? We're all just worm food anyways. Stop trying to make me believe you. If intelligent design or creationism is right, I can see why they'd want you to understand the truth.

The reason people care is because religion can be beautiful or ugly depending on peoples approach to it. If a person that visited Afghanistan spoke to a person that visited Malaysia they would have such different views of Islam that they wouldn't be sure they were even talking about the same religion.
I'm not trying to claim that young earth creationism is the only thing that stands between someone of faith either deciding to volunteer in a soup kitchen or to start burning witches, but many people do consider it a step away from being moderate, and towards fundamentalism.
At least this is why I think people care, but I guess I'm not really someone that would know anyway, and sometimes these things are counter intuitive.

It just seems to me that a theory that has observable evidence such as evolution is a lot more believable than "A guy pulled a planet out of a hat and had some dude named Adam that he also made name all the animals ever made EVER and nothing has developed or changed in any way since that time. Also he put fake Dinosaur bones in the ground... just to fuck with us".

you know... I'm just saying.

I think i'll take the answers provided by modern scientists and researchers over the fables conjured by men thousands of years ago who had the universal understanding of a modern day pre schooler.

@23 Just because something is fallible doesn't mean it isn't true. Scientific facts are accepted as true when it is agreed that the evidence in favour of the theory outweighs the evidence against. The idea of something being 'proven' true is a very vague one. Science accepts that all truths that are established now are likely to be shown as false in some way in the future.


I AT NO POINT said that this was a place where science is decided. Are you that massively mongoloid? I care that you know the truth because the scientific ideal is that everyone knows the truth about everything. You sir, are retarded. When something is accepted as fact, then it must be disproven. That is what I said. I'm fairly confident, actually, that that is ALL I said, and clearly your inability to read speaks worlds about your personal philosophy.

And by the way, I said that IF it was a troll, then they had done good. It was the idea of it not being a troll that made me rant.

You know what, just shut the hell up, grow a brain, learn how to correctly interpret communication, and then come back and rejoin society as an intelligent person.

@25, The reason I care is that the deist ideas are flawed, regardless of their form. Religion based on a god, or gods, is flawed due to the remarkable odds against this universe being watched over by a deity, benevolent or otherwise. None of the religious thought behind a deity is justified. The only justified thought on the subject is the idea that the very start of the universe was caused by an outside force, however this idea only serves to raise questions, not answer them. It's a possibility, but a massively unlikely one.

Here's why I don't believe in God(s).

Because Santa told me not to.

@ Cabbo

My bad dude, it was never my intention to put words into your mouth.

I just wanted to say something because it's such a common question I hear in these discussions, i.e. "Even if I am wrong about young earth creationism, why do you care? It doesn't affect you at all." But I think it does effect me. if you get too many people taking a literal, fundamentalist view of a religious book you're getting closer and closer to backsliding into a theocracy. Which would totally suck balls, for obvious reasons.

@31 oh, I wasn't claiming that you were. I was just clarifying my stance on the subject. No harm done. I agree with you.

hello to all whom will listen.

in the belief of evolution its taken as a fact that the earth was once was a molten ball of lava. (going along with the big bang theory) this being said if their was proof that the earth was never a molten ball of lava the big bang theory along with evolution would be dis proven,(being that time is one of the things that evolution requires) anybody disagree yet?????

there are tiny little halos found in granites around the world. this is a fact google it. these halos were formed by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as alka-seltzer bubbles in water. but if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing"(To emit small bubbles of gas) specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
these facts have been published for over fifteen years not one person has ever disproved this or creation.

i hope that you are open minded enough to research this on your own.

thank you for reading this God bless you weather you believe in him or not.

That video was amazing. Not gonna bother getting on the troll about his flawed science... On a different subject-is it just me or does the guy singing the chorus "every cell is a triumph of natural selection," etc sound like Kermit the Frog?

@ 33

You clearly dont understand the psuedo-science you are parroting, which has been entirely disproven and was not even a hypothesis of a geologist but a physicist.
Not only that but evolution has a much more thorough basis than the forming of the earth or the big bang, geneology, fossil records, embryo shape and form, everything conforms to darwins models, even though his ideas have been refined he was astoundingly accurate.
Evolution is as much fact as gravity, in fact we understand it better, but do you think god is pushing you down with a massive magical hand or that mass is attracted to mass?

moncler mens

moncler dames

moncler jackets for men

moncler vanoise

moncler mantel

moncler jas dames

moncler down coat

abbigliamento moncler

moncler ski jackets

moncler herren

moncler clothes

moncler price

moncler weste

mountain equipment down jacket

moncler munchen

moncler discount

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to the post. Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are required to confirm comments but will never be displayed. To create a link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments.