The History Channel: Evolve!

[MoonLancer]

These things are boring as they go over the same old evolution propaganda.
The positive thing for creationism is that these producers must be doing the eyes because of creationism often targeting the eyes as impossible for evolution. so even this show is showing the great pressure on evolution by creationism among the American people.
The shows integrity is flawed if they do not allow good creationist criticism as surely this is the origin for a first subject.

I take it any time a show talks about Christianity it must also cover fsm? Teach the controversy i always say.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

The shows integrity is flawed if they do not allow good creationist criticism as surely this is the origin for a first subject.

There is no good creationist criticism, all creationists do is point to holes in scientific knowledge, of which there are many; and then make the statement GOD DID IT IN 6000 YEARS.

There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism; but it ceases to be critical or constructive when you tag magic mysticism to your creationist ars-.

 

[AirPo]

Leave it to Byers and troll a perfectly good thread.

Anyway, I wish I could see this, but I don't have cable unfortunately. I don't watch enough TV to justify the cost. Is it possible to watch this online somewhere?

Check the History Channel web site.

 

[Jan87676]

interesting

 

[juvenissun]

This is how the scenario goes:

1. Primates evolve to occupy forest canopies and become active during the day.

2. Advanced color vision (based on yellow, blue and red) evolves so that primates can identify young leaves (which tend to be more red in color) on trees, which are more nutitrious and comtain less secondary products.

3. Steriovision also evolves so that primates can judge depth while leaping between trees and branches. This requires the eyes to move foward so that both eyes are up front.

4. The position of the eyes up front reduces the ability of primates to detect raptors approaching them from the rear. Predation by raptors puts selective pressure on primates.

5. In order to compensate for their loss of flanking vision, primates develop social behavior so that they can guard against predation by staying in groups.

6. Increased social behavior requires increased intelligence, so that primates can recognise particular members of their social group and understand their body language and facial expressions.

The conclusion thus is that evolution of primate vision led indirectly to increased intelligence and brain size. Neat.

This is of course, just one hypothesis, but I find it to be convincing.

It is a nice story. But it is only a story (another name for hypothesis).

The way to make a good story is to have a few key facts and a goal. Then the rest is anybody's imagination and composition.

As a creationist, this is the way I watch (and learn from) this type of science program (with high interest): take the facts and filtered out the interpretations. The same facts could perfectly be used to argue against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, most audiences just did the opposite: remembered the interpretation, but forgot the facts. Because the interpretation IS the interesting part of any story.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It is a nice story. But it is only a story (another name for hypothesis).

The way to make a good story is to have a few key facts and a goal. Then the rest is anybody's imagination and composition.

As a creationist, this is the way I watch (and learn from) this type of science program (with high interest): take the facts and filtered out the interpretations. The same facts could perfectly be used to argue against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, most audiences just did the opposite: remembered the interpretation, but forgot the facts. Because the interpretation IS the interesting part of any story.

Sorry but, inherited traits is an argument for descent and descent only. Attempts to show otherwise amount to denialism, which creationism is quite clearly a form of.

 

[Danyc]

It is a nice story. But it is only a story (another name for hypothesis).

The way to make a good story is to have a few key facts and a goal. Then the rest is anybody's imagination and composition.

As a creationist, this is the way I watch (and learn from) this type of science program (with high interest): take the facts and filtered out the interpretations. The same facts could perfectly be used to argue against the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, most audiences just did the opposite: remembered the interpretation, but forgot the facts. Because the interpretation IS the interesting part of any story.

Please share the facts that could be used in argue against evolution.

Maybe it was the fact that there are many different creatures showing many different types of eyes, even some with eyes that are better than our own. That in itself is evidence that our eyes our not perfect; no eye is. And it is evidence that the eye does not need a designer, and, in other creatures, the intermediary steps are right there for us to see, and some steps beyond what we have ourselves.

The eye is no longer a valid argument for design or for use against evolution. It never was.

And obviously it was a hypothesis. Nobody can know exactly how the evolutionary path of the eye went; but this is an interesting hypothesis on that path, and it could very possibly be true. The correlation between eyesight and social living and thus intelligence is a very reasonable pathway.



This is a great post of yours in your usual fashion; why don't you tell us how you watched the show, and how you took the facts, and how you interpreted those facts to argue great points against evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

It is a nice story. But it is only a story (another name for hypothesis).

No. A story is not another name for an hypothesis. An hypothesis is formed after a number of observations and is a testable explanation for those observations. A story can be completely made up. I could tell you a story about the invisible pink unicorn that lives under my bed, but it would be just a story, not an hypothesis.

The way to make a good story is to have a few key facts and a goal. Then the rest is anybody's imagination and composition.

An hypothesis does require imagination, but must still explain the observations made. And it must make predictions which are testable. The only "goal" is to explain the observations.

As a creationist, this is the way I watch (and learn from) this type of science program (with high interest): take the facts and filtered out the interpretations. The same facts could perfectly be used to argue against the theory of evolution.

Go right ahead and do so for us.

Unfortunately, most audiences just did the opposite: remembered the interpretation, but forgot the facts. Because the interpretation IS the interesting part of any story.

Indeed, without theories, science is nothing but a collection of observations that bear no relation to each other. The goal of science is to make sense of these observations. While it is nice to be able to remember all the facts, as well as the interpretations, the facts themselves mean little without the explanation and are quickly forgotten.

 

[Danyc]

I'm waiting for Juvenissun's explanation of how he watched the show and interpreted the facts to work against evolution.

So, in hopes of hearing an explanation from the other side, as Juvenissun is always so quick to point out it has, I bump this thread. (also bump so we can discuss the next episode tomorrow)

We're waiting, J.

 

[AirPo]

Guts!

 

[USincognito]

Guts!

Glad to know I wasn't the only one who caught it Tuesday.

(for those of you who missed Eye, they are rerunning it and I believe Guts will rerun tonight)

I love this series.

 

[Blackrend]

I unfortunately forgot to watch Evolve: Guts, but I read PZ Myers's play-by-play. I think it's a bit of a shame that they spend more time discussing vertebrates than invertebrates... But after all, what would the general public prefer to see: Conodonts or Chimpanzees? :\

 

[Danyc]

This one wasn't as interesting as Eyes, but I still loved it nonetheless.

I wonder what the next one will be about.

 

[Split Rock]

This one wasn't as interesting as Eyes, but I still loved it nonetheless.

I wonder what the next one will be about.

JAWS!! (dun, dun...dun, dun...dun, dun...)

 

[Danyc]

JAWS!! (dun, dun...dun, dun...dun, dun...)

Ah! Should be good.

 

[mpok1519]

he probably watched it and though "heh. This is about monkeys. Luckily, I'm no monkey."


lol

yes, we are monkeys; monkeys with nuclear weapons and space ships.

 

[USincognito]

I unfortunately forgot to watch Evolve: Guts, but I read PZ Myers's play-by-play. I think it's a bit of a shame that they spend more time discussing vertebrates than invertebrates... But after all, what would the general public prefer to see: Conodonts or Chimpanzees? :\

Try and catch a replay... and I think P.Z.'s bias towards calamari might be showing.

 

[USincognito]

This week is about sex.

Guess we won't be seeing anything about Bdelloid Rotifers, Whip-Tailed Lizards or CF members.

 

[Blackrend]

Does anyone know if they plan on making this series available for purchase in the near future? =\ I've been forced to miss the past couple episodes because of work. *frowny face*

 

[USincognito]

Does anyone know if they plan on making this series available for purchase in the near future? =\ I've been forced to miss the past couple episodes because of work. *frowny face*

I just checked Netflix and they have it on "save" status. If you want to purchase it, nearly every show on History is availible for purchase or, in the case of Evolve preorder