Heads up: ABC1 Sunday 8th Nov 7:30pm - Darwins Brave New World

[Omaroo]

Looks like a very good series.

http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/showcases/charlesdarwin/?gclid=CO_2tcSF8Z0CFRUwpAodWmwuOg

[Esseth]

Cool i've set it to record.

[Ric]

I saw the promo for that Chris.

Definitely looks like a good series to watch.

Cheers

[renormalised]

Yes, looks like a great bit of TV.

[Omaroo]

7:30 tonight remember.... :hi:

[Esseth]

haha what would i do without IQ :D i don't need to remember anything the magic box does it for me

[Omaroo]

Then make sure you remember to push the green button too!

[Esseth]

haha crap, good idea.... i guess i do have to remember some things still

[Omaroo]

Well that was rather well done. Looking forward to the next two.

[Omaroo]

Lack of response suggests that people are just plain not interested in one of the greatest scientists to live, or consider the subject too contentious for some silly reason. What is it everyone? The guy changed the world...

[iceman]

I missed it - i'll look for a replay on ABC2. Looks like a great series.

[FredSnerd]

Chris

My wife and I enjoyed this first episode a great deal and are looking forward to next weeks episode. He certainly made one of the greatest impacts on science ever.

Mike, it is well worth catching up with next week if you can.

regards

Claude

[lacad01]

Lack of response happens to lots of people's posts Chris...;)
Informative and entertaining as well. Dispelled some myths that Darwin was the only one of his time who held these ideas or that the Galagapos Islands was some sort of ephiphany moment for him. Look forward to seeing the rest of the series.

[OneOfOne]

Haven't seen it yet, but it is on the PVR.

I am currently about 75% of the way through an (illustrated) reprint of the first edition which also contains extracts from his Beagle book, personal letters and a number of other sources (about 600 LARGE pages). I am amazed at some of his theories and the clarity of his thought processes, however, to say the man was "verbose" would be an understatement and the style takes a little to get used to. It is incredible to think that he speculated on inheritence when the technology to discover it was more than a century away. It is also interesting that the Galapagos Islands only occupy a relatively small part of his book. I think had he not published when he did, several other scientists were on the verge of the same discovery and he litteraly made it "by that much".

Of all the scientific books to read this year, this would have to be one of the best choices...I started reading it in about April, but can only digest a couple of chapters at a time and have read three or four other books in parallel. When I was watching an earlier show on Darwin, it was interesting to watch and be able to recount Darwin himself talking about the same thing in the book.

[Ric]

I watched it last night Chris, a very fascinating series and well made.

I like the way it cuts to the commentary with the current scientists and professors. It's interesting to hear their point of view.

[matt]

Hold your horses!:lol: This is the first chance I've had to log in since last night.

I thought it was very good. I knew a little about his life and travels, but was still pleasantly surprised at how much time he spent in New Zealand and Australia, and the South Pacific generally, and how central these regions were to his work.

As the show pointed out, everyone makes this big deal about the Galapagos Islands, which in the end were not some kind of Eureka moment.

Very interesting stuff

[Allan_L]

{emphasis added}

Too Contentious ?
Hmmm!
However do you mean .....

... did you see the other side of the story last week?
Amazing animals that challenge Evolution?

Oh, but that could head off down the nasty "R" word track.
And could lead to another locked thread?

[Omaroo]

There is no reason to introduce the "R" word whatsoever - it is irrelevant to the post.

[avandonk]

I really liked the first episode as it showed Darwin's journey from the start. The portrayal of the scientific establishment as a minor wing of the C of E was spot on.

Darwin was contemplating potentially dangerous ideas. These ideas were only dangerous as they did not suit those in power.

What could be more perfect for budding despots than that a higher power ordained everyone's and everything's place in the world. This then justifies all the horrors of nineteenth century England.

As for amazing animals that challenge Evolution. My bet is that the people making these claims barely understand the basic premises of Evolution let alone how science works.

If they could disprove Evolution by scientifically sound means a Nobel Prize would be a certainty.

Bert

[Enchilada]

You can read the actual text on Australia in the book "The Voyage of the Beagle" at Literature.org

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-19.html

As to the amount of time he spent in Australia, 12th January to 14th March 1836. He stayed merely eighteen days here in Sydney, before leaving for cooler Hobart on the 30th January.

As for the summing up of the voyage, I have always loved the following quote, where the number one "spectacles" has nothing to do with the biological, paleontological or evolution; but an astronomical objects! ;

I.e. In the seventh last paragraph of the book, (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-21.html) he says in Chapter 21;

"Among the other most remarkable spectacles which we have beheld, may be ranked, the Southern Cross, the cloud[s] of Magellan, and the other constellations of the southern hemisphere — the water-spout — the glacier leading its blue stream of ice, over-hanging the sea in a bold precipice — a lagoon-island raised by the reef-building corals — an active volcano — and the overwhelming effects of a violent earthquake. These latter phenomena, perhaps, possess for me a peculiar interest, from their intimate connection with the geological structure of the world. The earthquake, however, must be to every one a most impressive event: the earth, considered from our earliest childhood as the type of solidity, has oscillated like a thin crust beneath our feet; and in seeing the laboured works of man in a moment overthrown, we feel the insignificance of his boasted power."

Cool, eh? :thumbsup:

[Rainingstar]

A beautifully presented production. I also thought it interesting just how much the discoveries he made in Australia and New Zealand influenced his work. Looking forward to more.

[Enchilada]

Oh, in thinking. I personally think this programme might have missed one crucial point here, that contradicts its conclusions...

"In conclusion, it appears to me that nothing can be more improving to a young naturalist, than a journey in distant countries. It both sharpens, and partly allays that want and craving, which, as Sir J. Herschel remarks, a man experiences although every corporeal sense be fully satisfied. The excitement from the novelty of objects, and the chance of success, stimulate him to increased activity. Moreover, as a number of isolated facts soon become uninteresting, the habit of comparison leads to generalization. On the other hand, as the traveller stays but a short time in each place, his descriptions must generally consist of mere sketches, instead of detailed observations. Hence arises, as I have found to my cost, a constant tendency to fill up the wide gaps of knowledge, by inaccurate and superficial hypotheses."


From this, I suggest his insight into Evolution happened after New Zealand and Australia. Merely eighteen days in Sydney, and much of it travelling by horse drawn carriage and walking does not leave an enduring legacy. Is this programme an example of Austrocentricism (my current word of the month ?)

[matt]

Thanks!!!

Yeah...I knew he visited Oz...but didn't know he was in the region for a couple of months. Interesting stuff...and thanks for the text.:)

[avandonk]

I read his 'Origin of Species' when I was twelve and it seemed to be all about pigeons!

Bert

[Omaroo]

A fine word indeed - worthy of WOTM.

[Allan_L]

....depending on your point of view. (as I often quote)

I hate being irrelevant, but if I may just say this

When I was a child I believed what teachers told me without question. It was a shock the first time I ever found out they could be wrong. Or even that there could be two different views on a subject.

Evolution is a wonderful theory, but who among us know that it is certainty in fact, in all cases.

Many scientific theories have been held to be irrefutable until they are proven otherwise (or even an unexplained instance is found).

So, scientists may still try to find instances to test any theory, that is scientific method.

Those who rubbish people who look into reported inconsistencies, as unbelievers or crackpots, are themselves disproving of the very scientific method that they purport to support.

I won't try to tell you what to think one way or another.
I simply present that there has been another program on Foxtel last week, that people may have not heard of before.

As in Darwin's time, this is obviously dangerous to do, albeit for the opposite reasons.

But, reportedly the Foxtel program of which I spoke was not from some crank, but, according to the program...
"Dr. Martin was a traditional evolutionist, but as he studied animals, his scientific and medical training was revolutionized as he studied animals that challenged the scientific assumption of evolutionism"

I don't want to debate the issue, because I am not qualified.
But those who are interested can go off and google it.

Let the force be with you!

[Omaroo]

Inconsistencies do not in themselves serve to disprove any theory. They are merely questions.

One theory (and I'll call both approaches "theories - because they are just that) at least attempts to assert itself logically and, if I can look back here, no-one has claimed that it is fact. I'm pretty convinced though, I must add. It will, one day, serve to debunk the second theory when all the loose ends are irrevocably tied up, and I suspect that they will be.

The other.... well... you either believe it or you don't. Nothing more.

Actually - I'm interested to know whether proponents of religion (I'll drop the "R" word - we're grown up here) can typically see and even acknowledge the logic behind the theory of evolution, irrespective of whether they "believe" that it is proven or not, or even can be.

[renormalised]

Well, if he hadn't taken the "dog" for a "swim", that's all he'd be left with to look at...old men in Trafalgar Square tossing crumbs at dumb birds:P:P:D:D

[Allan_L]

Hi Chris,
Thanks for your response.
Firstly let me clarify, that I do not have any strong defensive feelings for either side of the debate.
I went to a Catholic School and they taught Evolution.!
I don't think being a proponent of religoin means you don't believe in the theory of evolution. I am sure everyone understands and accepts the basic principle of survival of the fittest (or best adapted).

But are there some inconsistencies, if this is to be used to explain everything?

Probably Not, perhaps just unanswered questions (as you say)
(And maybe only Unanswered to the questioner at that)

Example: (Perhaps you can help me with this)
If every life form on this planet all evolved from single cell life form(s), which by definition incorporate asexual reproduction, then one day suddenly a critter with a male reproductive system appears, isn't it a bit of an unexplained coincidence that (hopefully for that species) a like critter appeared with female reproductive system, and the two found each other to spawn the new species.?

Oversimplification, perhaps, but a legitimate question.

Gradual evolution seems a poor explanation here, since until they were used, having those separately developing organs would not provide any advantage for a mutation strain. Would they? And to work they must rely on mutual development of both (m+f) organs in the same time frame, wouldn't they.

I appologise, if you still think this is irrelevent and a redirection of your thread. But you did sort of ask for some feedback (and even invited this angle with the word of "contentious")

Did you hear the great talk at IISAC by Professor Geraint Lewis: A universe for me? The anthropic principle in Astronomy. ?
A real mind bender. But not unlike this area. An attempt to develop a theory of everything.

[barx1963]

Allan. You are using the old "what use is half an eye?" argument that seems powerful....until it is carefully examined. In relation to eyes, imperfect eyes are always better than no eyes. In relation to sexual reproduction, what is important is transfer of DNA by combining half from each parent. This can be achieve in all sorts of ways without sexual organs. While I am not sure of the exact answer, bear with me and I will do some research and I am sure I can answer the question, anless one of the good folks here already knows!

In realtion to "rubbishing those who report inconsistencies" , scientists will ALWAYS welcome inconsistencies because that opens up new areas of research. What annoys scientists is those who say, "here's an inconsistency, therefore evolution is wrong the the Bible is right" and then purport to be acting scientifically. An inconsistency does NOT mean evolution is wrong, anly that we haven't figured out all the answers yet!

[Allan_L]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Malcolm.
And I see your point. Well put. I am happy with that answer.
... (again appologies if considered off topic)


And I absolutely agree here too. I hope I never inferred that because of some "loose ends" that any theory could be labelled as "wrong"? If so, it was unintended.

However, I still insist that it is important to allow the other side to put forward their case. A lot more is to be gained by common-sensely answering their objections (as you have done) then to simply dismiss or discredit them.

goodonya mate :thumbsup:

[Enchilada]

… still.

Looking forward to Part 2, and seeing all the 'un-scientific' influence in Darwin by the British establishment. :thumbsup:

[Enchilada]

Looking forward to Part 2.

Just in case….

Tonight, ABC 1 or ABC HD 7.30 !!

[Enchilada]

Looking forward to Part 3.

Just in case….

Tonight, ABC 1 or ABC HD 7.30 !! :thumbsup:

Tonight is all about Charles Darwin and rival Alfred Russell Wallace.

The connection to Australia was Wallace's field work and his ideas on howhow Australian animals were closely related. Good Stuff!

[Ric]

Well that was an excellent series. I totally enjoyed every minute of it.

Cheers

[Enchilada]

I'm presently writing a review of this series.

I'm rather interested. Did anyone get something out of this series that they didn't know about? :shrug:

About to watch it a third time...

[FredSnerd]

Yes I was surprised to discover from this series that the idea of evolution had been around for a long time. People had been proposing that hyposthosis for some time. But Darwin it seems did 2 important things (i) He discovered and explained the mechanism for how how species change and evolve (natural selection) and (ii) he layed out the proof for evolution. I very much enjoyed the series.

[White Rabbit]

Great Docudrama. Anyone who missed an eppisod and has a PS3, check out the new TV update that came out, you can stream ABC programs through your playstation.
I dont have tv reception at my house so this is the only tv that I see.