Bill Nye explains evolution using emoji

Kids growing up in the '90s didn't have the luxury of sending cartoon images via electronic signals to each other. They had to use words. WORDS.

They did, however, have Bill Nye the Science Guy to teach them how much science ruled — so it wasn't all bad. Still, it's clear that kids these days speak a whole different language, what with their Google-y Docs and Tinder snaps.

In an effort to save them, we asked Bill Nye to break down the basic concepts of evolution using only emoji. You're welcome, Generation Z.

Bill Nye explains evolution using Emoji's



As Bill Nye would say: Now you Know

I watched Bill Nye growing up and I remember in science class in high school they would show Bill Nye episodes. The kids would always groan but as soon as the opening theme song started up, everyone was singing along.


In a recent interview, the interviewer said "A lot of times when people talk about evolution, they will say, “Oh, well, it’s just a theory.”

Bill Nye's answer was "Well, that’s where I’ve failed as a scientist and as a leader. The word “theory” – just to parse words – means something that’s not the same as a hypothesis. And you can split words on that, but evolution is the main idea in all of life science. The main thing. You can call it a theory, a hypothesis, an understanding, but no matter what anybody calls it, it is the main idea, very much analogous to plate tectonics in geology.

You’re just not going to get the right answer without it. That’s something you can believe in or not believe in and it still exists. People make this analogy all the time: Do you believe in gravity? On some level, nobody knows where gravity comes from, there’s some deep physics way of looking at the universe, but on the other hand, everybody knows that there’s gravity. I like the teaching of John Oliver, who’s really good, where he says you can’t get an opinion out of a fact. If 59 percent of the U.S. public doesn’t accept climate change, that just means that 59 percent of the public is wrong about something."

This thread was worth a star and flag just
to hear Bill Nye talking about jello-shots.

Why are there so many bubbling test tubes
and beakers behind him that look like
they're filled coloured water with dry ice in it?
To make it look all sciencey?

a reply to: DelegateZero88

Yea it probably was to make it look like the lab had a lot going on.

I guess when you are a scientist talking religion (like evolution) its better that you actively show that you have some credentials that may seem relevant to what the subject may be about.
We see beakers and chemicals and think, wow this guy is smart, though what he is talking is really just

a reply to: borntowatch

Bill Nye does have credentials, he doesn't need to pretend to have them in order to talk about Evolution & he is very intelligent.

Brilliant in math and science, Nye's mother was recruited to become a codebreaker during World War II. His father was held in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, where he had no electricity, for four years: The experience made Edwin Nye a sundial enthusiast, and later, his son would become one himself.

Bill Nye went to Cornell University where he studied mechanical engineering. Upon earning his Bachelor of Science degree, he moved to Seattle to work as a mechanical engineer for the Boeing Company. Nye developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor that is still used in the Boeing 747.

In the early 2000s, he helped develop sundials that were used in the Mars Exploration Rover missions. From 2005 to 2010, he served as vice president and then as second executive director of The Planetary Society, one of the largest space-interest groups in the world.

He is also a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a nonprofit scientific and educational organization that aims to promote scientific inquiry and critical investigation: Nye has said that he is concerned about scientific illiteracy and wants to help teach the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.

In May 1999, Nye was the commencement speaker at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute where he was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Science degree.[60] He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Johns Hopkins University in May 2008. In May 2011, he received an Honorary Doctor of Science degree from Willamette University, where he was the keynote speaker for that year's commencement exercises.[61] In addition, Bill Nye also received an honorary Doctor of Pedagogy degree from Lehigh University on May 20, 2013 at the commencement ceremony.[62] Nye received the 2010 Humanist of the Year Award from the American Humanist Association.

Why didn't you finish your last sentence?

We see beakers and chemicals and think, wow this guy is smart, though what he is talking is really just

Howdy,

As much as I enjoyed the quick and efficient discussion, and Bill Nye's presentation, I am a bit worried that it is a bit too quick and simplified. This video begins with a discussion of organic chemistry, not evolution. You need life before you can talk about evolution.

To be more clear, I find it worrisome that abiogenesis is being conflated with the theory of evolution. They are two separate issues, are they not? Both are important to understanding life, but they both have separate and distinct sets of evidence and are their own distinct theories.

Kindest regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

The whole point was to have it quick & simplified. When you are trying to educate a whole group of people, it is better to have it so that even the simplest of minds can understand what you are talking about. ((Remember: "Nye has said that he is concerned about scientific illiteracy and wants to help teach the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."))

I think Mr. Nye talked about Abiogenesis & Evolution because most creationists assume/argue that Evolution is about Abiogenesis. One common way this is done is to argue that evolution cannot explain how life began while creationism can and, therefore, creationism is superior to evolution.

I can't say for sure as I'm not the one who decided what would be talked about.

I hope that helps Hydeman,
~Sabi

a reply to: Sabiduria

Howdy,

I certainly agree with your assessment of things, but my experiences lead me to a different conclusion. In my experience, people like to "discredit" evolution by saying scientists do not have models for the origin of complex organic molecules becoming life (abiogenesis). However inaccurate that belief may be, I have seen it used to "discredit" the theory of evolution, which in no means requires such a model. All I'm saying is that it might lead to more problems than it solves.

That said, I too am deeply concerned about scientific literacy in my country. Scientific knowledge has progressed to highly technical and empirical ends, and laypeople (as well as scientists) can often become confused. This video was a nice, simple to understand, and quick look at the fundamental biological understanding of life, and for that, I appreciate the work.

Unfortunately, it may be the case that we are both correct with our assumptions...

Sincerest regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: borntowatch

I think an important aspect that is sorely overlooked in your equation of mental gymnastics is that science has several attributes that simply are not incumbent in any theological philosophies which separates it from any religion . It is testable, repeatable and most importantly debatable. Not a single one of those can be applied to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc... I suppose you can test some aspects of religious claims but they aren't repeatable and when your Bronze Age scripture is THE definitive answer to any and every thing in the universe both known and unknown it is in no way debatable. You can't and won't argue the possibility that the scripture is or may be fallback and incorrect whereas in a system that includes peer review, questioning everything is a fundamental aspect. So no, science in general and evolution specifically are not religions. It's an asinine position to take particularly when there is no mutual exclusivity. You can be a catholic or a Jew or a Muslim and still believe in the reality of evolutionary theory which in all honesty is a bit of an oxymoron because as far as the biological sciences are concerned, evolution is indeed a fact both verified and documented. It doesn't need you to believe in it to perpetuate unlike the bible, Q'ran or Torah for example. Those three examples require adherents for the religion to perpetuate. the various different sects of Christianity can't even get on the same page and agree yet I'm supposed to take your word that the religion as a whole is accurate and true? And you think those who take a scientific approach are nuts?

originally posted by: borntowatch
I guess when you are a scientist talking religion (like evolution) its better that you actively show that you have some credentials that may seem relevant to what the subject may be about.
We see beakers and chemicals and think, wow this guy is smart, though what he is talking is really just

That's funny, are you saying religion is a bad thing?
It's like somehow deep down you know that the scientific argument is the correct explanation. Seeing how you use the word "religion" as a term of derision when talking about evolution. In almost every thread you see creationists claiming that evolution requires too much faith, or is just another religion. When do you see a scientist or "evolutionist" proclaiming that creationism is just another science, or that it requires too much logic, reason, and evidence?....Never!

originally posted by: hydeman11
Howdy,

As much as I enjoyed the quick and efficient discussion, and Bill Nye's presentation, I am a bit worried that it is a bit too quick and simplified. This video begins with a discussion of organic chemistry, not evolution. You need life before you can talk about evolution.

To be more clear, I find it worrisome that abiogenesis is being conflated with the theory of evolution. They are two separate issues, are they not? Both are important to understanding life, but they both have separate and distinct sets of evidence and are their own distinct theories.

Kindest regards,
Hydeman

I agree with this. Bill Nye often dumbs it down for kids, and I believe that's what he is doing in this video. It's clear that this is no college level explanation, he's keeping it very simple because the video is intended for children rather than grown adults that deny evolution LIKE they are children. Big difference. Personally, I would rather that he left abiogenesis out of it because creationists will latch onto that and go , "See! I told you evolution relied on abiogenesis! Nannynannybooboo!"

a reply to: flyingfish

Creationists who label Evolution a "religion" have one, single-minded goal in mind: To cast doubt on the word itself. Which is quite hypocritical, as you point out. But main reasoning behind it is that Creationist ideas aren't taught in schools because they are in the purview of religion. So, they try to make Evolution look like a "religion" as an attempt to get Evolution pulled from school curriculums. Because if they can't be in schools, by golly nobody else can either.

Aron Ra is a pretty strait forward dude imo. The little series on science and evolution he's started up is informative and makes a good jumping off point for further study. For those interested of course. This episode is called 'Evolutionary Predictions'.

"This is the high school lesson on falsifiable predictions in hypotheses. We focus on historical predictions made for and against Darwin's theory of evolution."