Evolution: A Series on PBS tonight

PBS ^ | Sept. 24, 2001 | PBS

[GLDNGUN]

Lame argument, zero? It is brilliant in its simplicity and common sense. I see how you took the opportunity to prove me wrong instead of attacking me. LOL. I'll come up with "something original" when you come up with an answer to this one. Do you think sand castles are created by 'natural selection'? ;-)

[NonZeroSum]

Lame argument, zero? It is brilliant in its simplicity and common sense. I see how you took the opportunity to prove me wrong instead of attacking me. LOL. I'll come up with "something original" when you come up with an answer to this one. Do you think sand castles are created by 'natural selection'? ;-)

Of course not. Nothing that is created in a day can be created by natural selection. You're comparing something purpose built with a process that takes billions of years with many failed approaches. It's a totally invalid analogy.

[BMCDA]

If they are self-replicating entities - well, then I do.

[NonZeroSum]

If they are self-replicating entities - well, then I do.

Yes, another critical aspect in which his "common-sense" analogy makes no sense.

[NonZeroSum]

I see how you took the opportunity to prove me wrong instead of attacking me. LOL.

In what way did I "attack" you? All I said was that your argument was lame and unoriginal. I didn't say anything about you at all.

[strela]

Ah, linearity!

[eddie willers]

Of course the recent discovery of the Wonder Bra gives rise to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the bump! :)

[longshadow]

First episode now complete on the East coast.

Let the whining begin.

[IncPen]

It would seem to me to be completly the other way round. It's the religious people out there who are continually assaulting evolution. But I do not see scientists assaulting Christianity (except perhaps in their own personal opionions, NOT as scientists).

I've recently had occasion to have had close, ongoing (professional) dealings with probably the premier paleontologist in the world. He does alot of work for the magazine with the topless natives...

Were I a better man I would have smacked him for the mocking derision with which he ridiculed 'creationists'... I consider mysef a believer, but I'll not shout down someone with a case and a legitimate point of view.

He certainly gave me no insight into his science; in fact it made me believe his scientific zealotry of the theory of evolution was political, rather than out of any real basis in fact or empirical study. The limited exposure to his science that I had (probably more than most but certainly not rendering me any particular level of genius) was that he and his cohorts were Flaming marxists soaking off of an academic payroll.

What I'm getting at is that the 'science' of evolution seems to me to be as subjective as the 'faith' of Creationism, and given my 'druthers, I'll go with God.

[Physicist]

Let the whining begin.

OK, I'll start the whining: my reception of WHYY in Philadelphia sucked!

Other than that, it was spectacular. The format was similar to the production of Longitude that aired on PBS a year or two ago, a costume drama interspersed with interviews and explanations. It was every bit as well done, too, I might add.

[longshadow]

Other than that, it was spectacular. The format was similar to the production of Longitude that aired on PBS a year or two ago, a costume drama interspersed with interviews and explanations. It was every bit as well done, too, I might add.

Yes, "Longitude" was wonderful, also.

As for your reception problems, I suggest appeasing the gods of propagation (RF, not species). Some type of sacrifice should suffice.

[Stingray]

"Evolution: A Series on PBS tonight"

Fitting that a series on evolution should be run on state-sponsored television, otherwise known as the network whose initials stand for Pure B.S.

Fitting, indeed.

[Eddeche]

What I'm getting at is that the 'science' of evolution seems to me to be as subjective as the 'faith' of Creationism, and given my 'druthers, I'll go with God.

It's not an either/or proposition.

[Rudder]

What I'm getting at is that the 'science' of evolution seems to me to be as subjective as the 'faith' of Creationism, and given my 'druthers, I'll go with God.

Kewl, dude...whatever.

There's nothing here to get lathered up about. There's no dichotomy.

[NonZeroSum]

There's nothing here to get lathered up about. There's no dichotomy.

Well, there is a dichotomy between evolution and creationism, but not between evolution and God.

[GLDNGUN]

"Of course not. Nothing that is created in a day can be created by natural selection. You're comparing something purpose built with a process that takes billions of years with many failed approaches. It's a totally invalid analogy." Ummm, who said the sand castle was created in a day? Take all the time you want with that sand castle by 'natural selection' or perhaps you can tell me about how many log cabins have been formed by windstorms in forests? Again, take all the millions of years you need. ;-) Face it, nature goes from order to disorder. Always has. Always will. If evolution were true we would see every kind of intermediate species, i.e. "missing links". Yeah, they are missing alright. LOL They never existed. Never have. Never will. Even Darwin himself admitted that if the these missing links were not found in the next hundred years of fossil digging, that his theory was wrong. He was right. He was wrong. LOL So tell me...just where are all the intermediatry links between ANY 2 species, much less humans and apes. Evolution is a rip-roaring laugh just on the surface.

[NonZeroSum]

Ummm, who said the sand castle was created in a day?

It would be a reasonable assumption that if one found a sand castle on a beach, that it hadn't been there the day before. Sand castles don't last long on beaches.

Take all the time you want with that sand castle by 'natural selection' or perhaps you can tell me about how many log cabins have been formed by windstorms in forests? Again, take all the millions of years you need. ;-)

If sand castles and log cabins and their ancestors could reproduce with occasional mutations, then I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them eventually appear after billions of years.

But they don't.

To compare a single inanimate artifact with the entire ecological web of life is pointless. This is where your analogy is totally bogus.

[GLDNGUN]

Well sorry if you still can't see the point. Nature goes from order to disorder.

And your explanation of a total lack of ANY missing links in the fossil record is??? I mean with all the zillions of species of animals you'd think there would be all kinds of missing links but there aint. Not one. What are the odds of that? LOL