Heads up: ABC1 Sunday 8th Nov 7:30pm - Darwins Brave New World - Page 2

Rainingstar (Lorraine) · #21 09-11-2009, 01:44 PM

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 · #22 09-11-2009, 01:52 PM

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 · #23 09-11-2009, 01:58 PM

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 · #24 09-11-2009, 02:23 PM

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

Bert

Omaroo (Chris Malikoff) · #25 09-11-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enchilada

Austrocentricism ...my current word of the month.)

A fine word indeed - worthy of WOTM.

Allan_L (Allan) · #26 09-11-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

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

....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 (Chris Malikoff) · #27 09-11-2009, 05:20 PM

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 (Carl) · #28 09-11-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

Bert

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

Allan_L (Allan) · #29 10-11-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omaroo

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

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.

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 (Malcolm) · #30 10-11-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan_L

Hi Chris,

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.

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 (Allan) · #31 11-11-2009, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barx1963

Allan. You are using the old "what use is half an eye?" argument ..... !

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)

Quote:

An inconsistency does NOT mean evolution is wrong, anly that we haven't figured out all the answers yet!

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

Enchilada · #32 11-11-2009, 07:02 PM

… still.

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

Enchilada · #33 15-11-2009, 05:12 PM

Looking forward to Part 2.

Just in case….

Tonight, ABC 1 or ABC HD 7.30 !!

Enchilada · #34 22-11-2009, 04:04 PM

Looking forward to Part 3.

Just in case….

Tonight, ABC 1 or ABC HD 7.30 !!

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 · #35 23-11-2009, 11:01 AM

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

Cheers

Enchilada · #36 24-11-2009, 02:20 AM

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?

About to watch it a third time...

FredSnerd (Claude) · #37 24-11-2009, 08:06 AM

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 · #38 24-11-2009, 09:30 AM

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.