A lot more than you though, I think it's fair to say.
I agree. Mainstream science knows a lot more than me, and the more we learn, the more we realise how little we know. Having said that, and to be fair to the original comment, I don't try and make TV programmes claiming to know how the universe works or how evolution works. Again, the truth is, mainstream science doesn't know, and if they don't know they should admit it.
We have no idea whether intelligent life exists or might exist in our galaxy, and for all we know, they use intelligence and technology that we are yet to discover. Respect. :cool:
We also have very little idea how basic life forms exploded into a vast array of complex life forms during the Cambrian explosion. Vast missing links between evolutionary chains are also a total mystery, and it appears that some intelligent force governs the evolutionary process as opposed to it being the result of a series of random mutations. How this works however is again a complete mystery and unknown to us. Respect. ;-)
It was similar with some of his conclusions about evolution. Apparently, the incredible complexity of the human species, not to mention the many other complex life forms on our planet is the direct result of random mutations in the evolutionary process. I'm with the lay scientists on that one who claim there's more chance of a hurricane hitting a junkyard and magically producing a 747 jumbo jet, than there is of an intelligent species appearing as a series of random mutations. I.e. it wouldn't happen in a few billion years, and it wouldn't even happen in hundreds of billions of years. It just wouldn't happen.
Fred Hoyle's old junkyard analogy was debunked years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
If you want to understand evolution I would strongly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
Fred Hoyle's old junkyard analogy was debunked years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
If you want to understand evolution I would strongly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
I'm aware of the article, so I'll put the quote in a different way. 'I'm with the lay scientists who claim that there's more chance of a hurricance blowing for hundreds of millions of years through a junkyard and magically producing a jumbo jet, than there is of an intelligent life form emerging as a result of a series of random mutations.'
As far as the analogy of an intelligent life form and a 'watch', there isn't a world of difference, there's a multiverse of difference. It's a very poor analogy imo.
Another theory which is supported by a number of leading scientists now is that our universe is an elaborate computer program. That might sound crazy, but it would explain the bizarre nature of quantum theory. :kitty:
I'm aware of the article, so I'll put the quote in a different way. 'I'm with the lay scientists who claim that there's more chance of a hurricance blowing for hundreds of millions of years through a junkyard and magically producing a jumbo jet, than there is of an intelligent life form emerging as a result of a series of random mutations.'
And by "lay scientists", you of course mean "people who don't understand how evolution through natural selection works".
Also, even the leading scientists in the area of biochemistry (one of them went to my former school) admit that the leap between RNA and DNA is completely baffling.
If you are a supporter of evolution, you're going to face an insurmountable task explaining how dna 'evolved'. Good luck!
Also, even the leading scientists in the area of biochemistry (one of them went to my former school) admit that the leap between RNA and DNA is completely baffling.
If you are a supporter of evolution, you're going to face an insurmountable task explaining how dna 'evolved'. Good luck!
Game over, thank you and goodnight.
So what? Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers but it looks for the proof. Better than all that intelligent design or god bollocks pumped out by loonies.
I can't comment on Cox's new series, because I've recorded it but not yet watched it. However, a friend of mine with a PhD in biochemistry commented that he found it "hard going", so I suspect the sub-GCSE comment is nonsense, or reflects his lack of attention.
When your friend commented that he found it "hard going" are you sure that he meant "hard going" as in difficult to follow complex ideas ... I'd be very surprised if someone with a PhD couldn't follow this programme.
My feeling is that there is a decent science programme hidden in there somewhere, but the interesting content is dragged out to tedium by far too much padding ... I'm sick of shots of various people from around the world staring into the middle distance, or slow motion shots of children giggling while they play. I'd like to engage with the scientific ideas but the progress is so slow, I get bored waiting.
I've liked previous Brian Cox series, but I think there has been a drop in quality (as in content rather than production quality) with each one. I've watched 3 and a half episodes of Human Universe but I've now lost patience and deleted it from my series record.
Vast missing links between evolutionary chains are also a total mystery, and it appears that some intelligent force governs the evolutionary process as opposed to it being the result of a series of random mutations. How this works however is again a complete mystery and unknown to us. Respect. ;-)
Well the mutations aren't random in every aspect, but there doesn't have to be any 'intelligent force' either. You just get the odd chance mutation that allows an animal to survive and thrive more effectively than the others around it. It then gets more of a chance to spread its 'more effective' genes around, and you have gradual evolution. Of course, the vast majority of these mutations will founder and die without leaving an effect. But over long timescales, there will be a number of mutations that get to take hold and sweep through entire areas.
It's hard for us to grasp because evolution takes place over such long periods relative to human civilisation. But piffling little changes occurring over what to us would seem quite a long period can, when stretched over the sort of significant timescales evolution covers, amount to dramatic changes.
There's no 'intelligent force' as such, though. If there was, you'd have massive changes occurring within a few generations - just as dog breeders can, within a few years, create large differences in the look of a particular dog, just to suit current tastes or views about what constitutes the 'best of breed'. Indeed, if there was an intelligent force, we'd probably see many of the animals around us changing beyond recognition within a few years - particularly in the case of those animals who breed very quickly. (Many insects would change dramatically year on year!)
Having said that, I do agree with your point that scientists often speak about these matters with much greater certainty than is really justified. There are lots of issues and question marks surrounding areas like evolution, global warming etc. And just because a significant number of scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't mean it must be right.
The majority of the 'big bangs' in science were opposed by a large percentage of the scientists around at the time, so we should always be careful about blindly accepting the prevailing view of the age. At the same time, though, we shouldn't pour water over a theory just because scientists haven't been able to answer every concern. (In this regard, evolution certainly seems more robust as a theory than global warming!)
When your friend commented that he found it "hard going" are you sure that he meant "hard going" as in difficult to follow complex ideas ... I'd be very surprised if someone with a PhD couldn't follow this programme.
My feeling is that there is a decent science programme hidden in there somewhere, but the interesting content is dragged out to tedium by far too much padding ... I'm sick of shots of various people from around the world staring into the middle distance, or slow motion shots of children giggling while they play. I'd like to engage with the scientific ideas but the progress is so slow, I get bored waiting.
I've liked previous Brian Cox series, but I think there has been a drop in quality (as in content rather than production quality) with each one. I've watched 3 and a half episodes of Human Universe but I've now lost patience and deleted it from my series record.
Yes, that is exactly the problem for me too. The drip-drip of information is so ridiculously slow! And when you are told something you realise that you knew it anyway. I hate to use the phrase 'dumbed down' but it does feel that way. Lots of nice photography and very little else.
Also, even the leading scientists in the area of biochemistry (one of them went to my former school) admit that the leap between RNA and DNA is completely baffling.
If you are a supporter of evolution, you're going to face an insurmountable task explaining how dna 'evolved'. Good luck!
I'm surprised it took 4 pages for the fairy tale peddlers to arrive in this thread.
As for this week's edition, yes it was again rather slow going and ponderous and I felt myself urging Cox on to get to the point but instead we got a pointless trip to Marrakesh so he could gaze at the night sky and add in a rather irrelevant piece about a marriage festival. At least going to Venice had a good point (and the history of optics would be a fascinating documentary in itself).
Still, the bowling ball and feather demonstration was excellent and I agree with another poster here who said that it would be a good idea to do a TV show to explore more about gravity as we approach the centenary of General Relativity.
Any honest scientist would admit that evolution is full of gaping holes. How did life begin? The link between RNA and DNA? The jump between species? Science doesn't know. Check your facts. Where religion came into this beats me.
Any honest scientist would admit that evolution is full of gaping holes. How did life begin? The link between RNA and DNA? The jump between species? Science doesn't know. Check your facts. Where religion came into this beats me.
Have you actually read your own links? If you haven't, here's just one extract;
"Sadly, more people hear about the false “reality” of evolution than its many errors. We should not be surprised. After all, Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). What bigger and more destructive lie could the devil sell than atheistic evolution?"
The link between RNA and DNA? The jump between species? Science doesn't know. Check your facts. Where religion came into this beats me.
But just because scientists don't yet have answers to all of the problems, that doesn't make the theories nonsense. Gravity existed long before any humans were able to explain it.
And there are hints as to why species might change. For instance, we can be reasonably sure that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. And much of our reproductive DNA is identical. But there is a tiny sequence in the reproductive DNA that appears to have been 'corrupted' in chimps (or humans, depending on how you look at it).
Quite possibly this would have made it difficult for the 'corrupted' creatures to reproduce successfully with the 'non-corrupted' ones. (It may even have rendered this impossible, assuming there was something afoot in the local area that caused a number of creatures to have their DNA similarly corrupted.) The two sets of creatures would then set off on different evolutionary paths. Obviously that's not the whole story, but it's a decent theory that starts to explain how, over a long period of time, different branches of creatures appear.
And we are talking very long periods of time here. The change from water-based creatures to amphibians, for example, would have happened very gradually over a stretch of time so long that it's hard for us to comprehend. It didn't happen overnight..
Have you actually read your own links? If you haven't, here's just one extract;
"Sadly, more people hear about the false “reality” of evolution than its many errors. We should not be surprised. After all, Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). What bigger and more destructive lie could the devil sell than atheistic evolution?"
Absolute bobbins.
Are you one of those people who believe everything you hear on 'mainstream' media? Are you capable of thinking for yourself? It's called critical thinking. It's what intelligent people do. It's what Copernicus did. Don't tell me he was a nut as well.
"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
Are you one of those people who believe everything you hear on 'mainstream' media? Are you capable of thinking for yourself? It's called critical thinking. It's what intelligent people do. It's what Copernicus did. Don't tell me he was a nut as well.
No, he described a theory which predicted the results of experiments in a particular field better than any other theory that existed.
Science is an experimental subject. Scientists build models that predict the results of experiments. These models are called theories. The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts the effects of the fact of evolution (that the relative frequencies of alleles in a population vary over time) better than any other theory we have at the moment.
If you have a better theory X then there must be an experiment you know of where the two theories X and TOEBNS predict different results. It's then simply a case of performing the experiment and seeing which theory is better.
If there is no such experiment then at best theory X is an equivalent theory to TOEBNS but just using different words (for a simple example, search for " The Demon Theory of Friction".
No, he described a theory which predicted the results of experiments in a particular field better than any other theory that existed.
Science is an experimental subject. Scientists build models that predict the results of experiments. These models are called theories. The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts the effects of the fact of evolution (that the relative frequencies of alleles in a population vary over time) better than any other theory we have at the moment.
If you have a better theory X then there must be an experiment you know of where the two theories X and TOEBNS predict different results. It's then simply a case of performing the experiment and seeing which theory is better.
If there is no such experiment then at best theory X is an equivalent theory to TOEBNS but just using different words (for a simple example, search for " The Demon Theory of Friction".
So: do you have an experiment for us?
Can the theory of evolution predict how life started? No.
Can it predict how dna 'evolved'? No.
Can it accurately predict how a horse 'evolved' from a fish? No.
I'm not alone. Natural selection is not the theory of evolution and it 'predicts' very little. These are facts.
How about this? I know how to build a mobile phone.
Ok tell us.
Well you take some plastic, you take some metal, you add a few electrical components and there's your phone.
Can you be a bit more specific?
No sorry.
So you don't actually know how to build a phone, you just know that a phone exists and what some of its components are?
Yeah, you got me, I admit it. I don't actually know.
I'm honest enough to admit it, while many scientists aren't.
They don't know how we evolved and programmes like BC's are largely nonsense in my opinion.
You don't need to state an alternative theory, you just admit that the one many people accept as fact is full of holes.
Natural selection is not the theory of evolution and it 'predicts' very little. These are facts.
You don't need to state an alternative theory, you just admit that the one many people accept as fact is full of holes.
Maybe people are jumping the gun rather if they accept natural selection as a definite irrefutable fact. However, you're being just as bad in saying that 'natural selection is not the theory of evolution' is a fact.
Natural Selection is a highly plausible concept, and there are plenty of hints that it stands up - even if not everybody agrees with those hints. Until scientists can plug some of the holes in the theory, it shouldn't really be considered to be 'fact'. However, it is the best idea (or set of ideas) that humankind have come up with up to this point. And further research into its darker areas may tell us whether it's fact or not, or, if not, hint at what the real solution is. That, like it or not, is what science is about.
Maybe people are jumping the gun rather if they accept natural selection as a definite irrefutable fact. However, you're being just as bad in saying that 'natural selection is not the theory of evolution' is a fact.
Natural Selection is a highly plausible concept, and there are plenty of hints that it stands up - even if not everybody agrees with those hints. Until scientists can plug some of the holes in the theory, it shouldn't really be considered to be 'fact'. However, it is the best idea (or set of ideas) that humankind have come up with up to this point. And further research into its darker areas may tell us whether it's fact or not, or, if not, hint at what the real solution is. That, like it or not, is what science is about.
Can the theory of evolution predict how life started? No.
Can it predict how dna 'evolved'? No
Please reread my original post. It contains the phrase "in a particular field". The TOEBNS cannot predict the motion of a ball bearing falling under the influence of gravity either.
Can it accurately predict how a horse 'evolved' from a fish? No
Yes actually. In particular, it tells us that we should not expect horses to appear overnight by magic.
I'm not alone. Natural selection is not the theory of evolution and it 'predicts' very little. These are facts.
The TOSBNS is a theory of evolution. There is no better one at the moment. It makes predictions.
They don't know how we evolved and programmes like BC's are largely nonsense in my opinion.
False. We know some facts about our evolution. The TOEBNS explains them and makes predictions about our future discoveries in the fossil record.
You don't need to state an alternative theory, you just admit that the one many people accept as fact is full of holes.
I asked only one question. You failed to address it. You know of no better theory.
Comments
I agree. Mainstream science knows a lot more than me, and the more we learn, the more we realise how little we know. Having said that, and to be fair to the original comment, I don't try and make TV programmes claiming to know how the universe works or how evolution works. Again, the truth is, mainstream science doesn't know, and if they don't know they should admit it.
We have no idea whether intelligent life exists or might exist in our galaxy, and for all we know, they use intelligence and technology that we are yet to discover. Respect. :cool:
We also have very little idea how basic life forms exploded into a vast array of complex life forms during the Cambrian explosion. Vast missing links between evolutionary chains are also a total mystery, and it appears that some intelligent force governs the evolutionary process as opposed to it being the result of a series of random mutations. How this works however is again a complete mystery and unknown to us. Respect. ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
If you want to understand evolution I would strongly recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
I'm aware of the article, so I'll put the quote in a different way. 'I'm with the lay scientists who claim that there's more chance of a hurricance blowing for hundreds of millions of years through a junkyard and magically producing a jumbo jet, than there is of an intelligent life form emerging as a result of a series of random mutations.'
As far as the analogy of an intelligent life form and a 'watch', there isn't a world of difference, there's a multiverse of difference. It's a very poor analogy imo.
Another theory which is supported by a number of leading scientists now is that our universe is an elaborate computer program. That might sound crazy, but it would explain the bizarre nature of quantum theory. :kitty:
It really doesn't.
And by "lay scientists", you of course mean "people who don't understand how evolution through natural selection works".
I'm not alone: Try these links and you might change your mind:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/darwin-debunked.html
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2236
The list is long.. very long..
Also, even the leading scientists in the area of biochemistry (one of them went to my former school) admit that the leap between RNA and DNA is completely baffling.
If you are a supporter of evolution, you're going to face an insurmountable task explaining how dna 'evolved'. Good luck!
Game over, thank you and goodnight.
So what? Science doesn't pretend to have all the answers but it looks for the proof. Better than all that intelligent design or god bollocks pumped out by loonies.
You are wasting your time trying to argue with the god squad, you might as well argue with your cat.
When your friend commented that he found it "hard going" are you sure that he meant "hard going" as in difficult to follow complex ideas ... I'd be very surprised if someone with a PhD couldn't follow this programme.
My feeling is that there is a decent science programme hidden in there somewhere, but the interesting content is dragged out to tedium by far too much padding ... I'm sick of shots of various people from around the world staring into the middle distance, or slow motion shots of children giggling while they play. I'd like to engage with the scientific ideas but the progress is so slow, I get bored waiting.
I've liked previous Brian Cox series, but I think there has been a drop in quality (as in content rather than production quality) with each one. I've watched 3 and a half episodes of Human Universe but I've now lost patience and deleted it from my series record.
Well the mutations aren't random in every aspect, but there doesn't have to be any 'intelligent force' either. You just get the odd chance mutation that allows an animal to survive and thrive more effectively than the others around it. It then gets more of a chance to spread its 'more effective' genes around, and you have gradual evolution. Of course, the vast majority of these mutations will founder and die without leaving an effect. But over long timescales, there will be a number of mutations that get to take hold and sweep through entire areas.
It's hard for us to grasp because evolution takes place over such long periods relative to human civilisation. But piffling little changes occurring over what to us would seem quite a long period can, when stretched over the sort of significant timescales evolution covers, amount to dramatic changes.
There's no 'intelligent force' as such, though. If there was, you'd have massive changes occurring within a few generations - just as dog breeders can, within a few years, create large differences in the look of a particular dog, just to suit current tastes or views about what constitutes the 'best of breed'. Indeed, if there was an intelligent force, we'd probably see many of the animals around us changing beyond recognition within a few years - particularly in the case of those animals who breed very quickly. (Many insects would change dramatically year on year!)
Having said that, I do agree with your point that scientists often speak about these matters with much greater certainty than is really justified. There are lots of issues and question marks surrounding areas like evolution, global warming etc. And just because a significant number of scientists believe in a theory, that doesn't mean it must be right.
The majority of the 'big bangs' in science were opposed by a large percentage of the scientists around at the time, so we should always be careful about blindly accepting the prevailing view of the age. At the same time, though, we shouldn't pour water over a theory just because scientists haven't been able to answer every concern. (In this regard, evolution certainly seems more robust as a theory than global warming!)
Yes, that is exactly the problem for me too. The drip-drip of information is so ridiculously slow! And when you are told something you realise that you knew it anyway. I hate to use the phrase 'dumbed down' but it does feel that way. Lots of nice photography and very little else.
As predicted, creationist nonsense
I'm surprised it took 4 pages for the fairy tale peddlers to arrive in this thread.
As for this week's edition, yes it was again rather slow going and ponderous and I felt myself urging Cox on to get to the point but instead we got a pointless trip to Marrakesh so he could gaze at the night sky and add in a rather irrelevant piece about a marriage festival. At least going to Venice had a good point (and the history of optics would be a fascinating documentary in itself).
Still, the bowling ball and feather demonstration was excellent and I agree with another poster here who said that it would be a good idea to do a TV show to explore more about gravity as we approach the centenary of General Relativity.
Not as low quality as the theory of evolution. It's full of holes, as any scientist would admit.
Any honest scientist would admit that evolution is full of gaping holes. How did life begin? The link between RNA and DNA? The jump between species? Science doesn't know. Check your facts. Where religion came into this beats me.
Have you actually read your own links? If you haven't, here's just one extract;
"Sadly, more people hear about the false “reality” of evolution than its many errors. We should not be surprised. After all, Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). What bigger and more destructive lie could the devil sell than atheistic evolution?"
Absolute bobbins.
But just because scientists don't yet have answers to all of the problems, that doesn't make the theories nonsense. Gravity existed long before any humans were able to explain it.
And there are hints as to why species might change. For instance, we can be reasonably sure that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. And much of our reproductive DNA is identical. But there is a tiny sequence in the reproductive DNA that appears to have been 'corrupted' in chimps (or humans, depending on how you look at it).
Quite possibly this would have made it difficult for the 'corrupted' creatures to reproduce successfully with the 'non-corrupted' ones. (It may even have rendered this impossible, assuming there was something afoot in the local area that caused a number of creatures to have their DNA similarly corrupted.) The two sets of creatures would then set off on different evolutionary paths. Obviously that's not the whole story, but it's a decent theory that starts to explain how, over a long period of time, different branches of creatures appear.
And we are talking very long periods of time here. The change from water-based creatures to amphibians, for example, would have happened very gradually over a stretch of time so long that it's hard for us to comprehend. It didn't happen overnight..
Are you one of those people who believe everything you hear on 'mainstream' media? Are you capable of thinking for yourself? It's called critical thinking. It's what intelligent people do. It's what Copernicus did. Don't tell me he was a nut as well.
Try this: http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php
"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.
No, he described a theory which predicted the results of experiments in a particular field better than any other theory that existed.
Science is an experimental subject. Scientists build models that predict the results of experiments. These models are called theories. The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts the effects of the fact of evolution (that the relative frequencies of alleles in a population vary over time) better than any other theory we have at the moment.
If you have a better theory X then there must be an experiment you know of where the two theories X and TOEBNS predict different results. It's then simply a case of performing the experiment and seeing which theory is better.
If there is no such experiment then at best theory X is an equivalent theory to TOEBNS but just using different words (for a simple example, search for " The Demon Theory of Friction".
So: do you have an experiment for us?
Can the theory of evolution predict how life started? No.
Can it predict how dna 'evolved'? No.
Can it accurately predict how a horse 'evolved' from a fish? No.
I'm not alone. Natural selection is not the theory of evolution and it 'predicts' very little. These are facts.
How about this? I know how to build a mobile phone.
Ok tell us.
Well you take some plastic, you take some metal, you add a few electrical components and there's your phone.
Can you be a bit more specific?
No sorry.
So you don't actually know how to build a phone, you just know that a phone exists and what some of its components are?
Yeah, you got me, I admit it. I don't actually know.
I'm honest enough to admit it, while many scientists aren't.
They don't know how we evolved and programmes like BC's are largely nonsense in my opinion.
You don't need to state an alternative theory, you just admit that the one many people accept as fact is full of holes.
Maybe people are jumping the gun rather if they accept natural selection as a definite irrefutable fact. However, you're being just as bad in saying that 'natural selection is not the theory of evolution' is a fact.
Natural Selection is a highly plausible concept, and there are plenty of hints that it stands up - even if not everybody agrees with those hints. Until scientists can plug some of the holes in the theory, it shouldn't really be considered to be 'fact'. However, it is the best idea (or set of ideas) that humankind have come up with up to this point. And further research into its darker areas may tell us whether it's fact or not, or, if not, hint at what the real solution is. That, like it or not, is what science is about.
Good point Bob :cool:
http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/148977/the-nonsense-of-evolution-which
'LEARNING DARWINIST FAIRY-TALES IS COMPULSORY, WHILE THE TEACHING OF THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS IS BANNED!'
Critical thinking and not academic didacticism will always be the way forward imo.
Please reread my original post. It contains the phrase "in a particular field". The TOEBNS cannot predict the motion of a ball bearing falling under the influence of gravity either. Yes actually. In particular, it tells us that we should not expect horses to appear overnight by magic. The TOSBNS is a theory of evolution. There is no better one at the moment. It makes predictions.
False. We know some facts about our evolution. The TOEBNS explains them and makes predictions about our future discoveries in the fossil record.
I asked only one question. You failed to address it. You know of no better theory.