1. Comment #55349 by fungaljungle on July 10, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Wow, I really get the first comment?

hmm...all I wanted to say was thanks for the posting Ken!

sorry

Other Comments by fungaljungle

2. Comment #55374 by monkey2 on July 10, 2007 at 9:51 pm

One pictures the hand of God dropping sand onto a table

Sorry Prof. Kauffman I'm having trouble picturing that. Very confusing, unless, perhaps you are trying to picture the Templeton Prize dropping into your lap.

Other Comments by monkey2

3. Comment #55383 by Happy Hominid on July 10, 2007 at 11:23 pm

Quite interesting but badly titled. I was actually hoping to hear a little more about Darwin's impact. It might better have been called "Evolutionary Theory - Legacy". But I qibble. It was still worth watching and perhaps gave me a more favorable outlook towards the Gouldians.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

4. Comment #55386 by Morro on July 11, 2007 at 12:11 am

A well done piece. How old is this? Dawkins looks younger.

Other Comments by Morro

5. Comment #55390 by Beachbum on July 11, 2007 at 1:13 am

I understand that specialization is a key component of efficient, academic understanding of the information garnered by each of these very capable and astute scientists, but it seems to me that an interdiscipline co-operation is at least at hand for a more complete understanding of the genetic power exerted on society and culture as a whole.

Writing this is someone who has observed man from the woods, as apposed to the other way around. And I have noticed many behavioral similarities in all the species, when their niche and class are considered. I have come to understand some of the behaviors that can be altered by free will for current circumstances; environment or maybe symbiotic relationships, and I have also noticed those behaviors that just cannot be "helped".

My point is that if we have to wait for human "fear of the unknown" to subside. Their rejection of evolutionary theory, religion may bolster their misconception of social status, to be subdued with reason, rational understanding and knowledge, before we can get a handle on this Global Warming dilemma. I am afraid we are in for an education in "punctuated equilibrium".

Does anyone know the number for the selfish gene helpline?

Other Comments by Beachbum

6. Comment #55391 by logical on July 11, 2007 at 1:16 am

And if there are a "male strategy" and a "female straegy", why is the whole society, especially economics, built on the male strategy of competition???

Other Comments by logical

7. Comment #55398 by Newton30 on July 11, 2007 at 2:36 am

This is a fascinating documentary, no doubt about it. It is encouraging to see that we've come a long way in understanding the origins of our own behaviour and we are even beginning to see the limits of what we can know about our behaviour, which is a good thing too. This will definitely help us in our plans for the future.

The historical aspect of this documentary in the beginning seems a little disturbing to me. We see the theory of evolution being 'interpreted' by various social classes and individual thinkers into things like eugenics, almost as if it were some kind of new theology to be worshipped. Although this is probably historically accurate, those interpretations (including those of Darwin himself) go squarely against the theory of evolution, and the idea of interpreting a scientific theory to fit one's socio-political interests goes squarely against the idea of science. The documentary does not properly discredit these interpretations, in my opinion, and leaves us with the danger of re-awakening the totally wrong and dangerous ideas that have been disastrous in the past.

Other Comments by Newton30

8. Comment #55399 by HarryHUK on July 11, 2007 at 2:51 am

It's amazing that we are now becoming aware of "punctuated equilibrium"and it's possible future consequences,while at the same time realising that we as a species may be the cause of the next puntuation in evolution.

The mind boggles.

Other Comments by HarryHUK

9. Comment #55419 by Stephan on July 11, 2007 at 3:57 am

this is a great great documentary with great intelligent people talking about things way too many people are completely ignorant about.
it also delights me because I (being a sociologist) have always felt that there is more than merely "nature vs. nurture" but rather a combination of both.
I thoroughly enjoyed watching this!

Other Comments by Stephan

10. Comment #55425 by Ian on July 11, 2007 at 4:26 am

Thanks for posting this, it was good to see John Maynard Smith again. His book, The Theory of Evolution is a pearl of clarity.

Regarding Punctuated Equilibrium, I always felt that this was a solution in search of a problem to solve and this has changed nothing. Studies have shown that life's capacity to evolve far outstrips geology's to track it, so we shouldn't expect a complete fossil record. As for long periods of stasis, we should remember that crocodilians saw the rise and fall of the dinosaurs and then the rise of the mammals, so pointing to a family with a long period of morhplogical stasis cannot justify the assumption that the surrounding ecology has been stable all that time.

Prof Kauffman's sand pile analogy implies that speciation is subjet to chaos - in the modern sense of that word - and I have no great problem with that as an idea. However, I don't see this as challenging classical Darwinism, but refining it.

Other Comments by Ian

11. Comment #55456 by AndyD on July 11, 2007 at 7:05 am

::laugh:: at Dawkins: "Hitler really gave eugenics a bad rep," unintentionally implying that eugenics isn't all bad. hahahahaha

The salt analogy made a lot of sense to me. I think Monkey2 is out-of-hand rejecting it because of the word 'God' thrown in there. Stephen Hawking uses it in his physics books and is palpably nonreligious, so I wouldn't be so quick to recoil whenever anyone invokes religion -- it's a habit. It seemed like he was saying that countless variables and factors build up between the many species co-evolving until they hit a breaking point and 'avalanche' down the side. That's no more chaotic than the actual avalanches in the salt, which happen for very specific reasons. The point, as I take it, is that it's very complex, and the large changes result from the buildup of numerous smaller ones.

Logical, perhaps you might want to elaborate how all of society is built on the male model of competition. It doesn't seem like it to me...

I also think it was good to see John Maynard Smith again. He will be missed.

Great videos, though I also think a bit better job could have been done choosing a title, or else making it more clear how most of the eugenics theories are nonsequiturs from what evolution and natural selection really are.

Other Comments by AndyD

12. Comment #55502 by perkyjay on July 11, 2007 at 10:29 am

I too think that Monkey 2 is being a little over-sensitive over Kaufmann's use of the word "God"; after all, god has become a part of English and many other languages as in the expressions my god, godforsaken, goddamned etc ad nauseam. Maybe Kaufmann is a theist. We can't expect everyone who is ever interviewed on TV programs to be as atheistic as we are, although it would be nice !

Other Comments by perkyjay

13. Comment #55563 by Johnny O on July 11, 2007 at 2:31 pm

A well done piece. How old is this? Dawkins looks younger.

I think it was filmed in 1998.

I sat and watched this plus hours of similar programmes on UKTV on Sunday, it was brilliant

Other Comments by Johnny O

14. Comment #55653 by monkey2 on July 11, 2007 at 10:04 pm

You are quite right Ian. I have no problem with the idea that speciation may be subject to chaos and yes AndyD the sand analogy made a lot of sense to me to.
My complaint was that in order to make something easier for us to understand it does not help to ask us to picture the hand of God pouring sand onto a table. Why not simply the sand in an hourglass or Kauffmans own hand? It struck me as gratuitous religiosity.
Since my original post I've googled - templeton prize steven kauffman - and in the first article I read it appears that two or three years ago he was given the Templeton Award. Since we are told that the documentary was filmed in 1998 his gratuitous religiosity clearly goddamned worked.

Other Comments by monkey2

15. Comment #55741 by keith on July 12, 2007 at 6:20 am

Beachbum,
I have read you comment three times now and still have no idea what you are saying. You're not one of those computers that generates (more or less) grammatically correct sentences at random, are you? I have to say that your comment reads like an internet translation from Japanese. Do you mind trying again? Start out from the part where you are watching us from behind some trees.

Other Comments by keith

16. Comment #55762 by monkey2 on July 12, 2007 at 7:12 am

Apologies - on further digging it does not seem that Prof Kauffman has receieved any templeton award, grant or prize. I apologise for any distress I may have caused to him or his family.

Other Comments by monkey2

17. Comment #55780 by chadvader123 on July 12, 2007 at 8:41 am

"The historical aspect of this documentary in the beginning seems a little disturbing to me. We see the theory of evolution being 'interpreted' by various social classes and individual thinkers into things like eugenics, almost as if it were some kind of new theology to be worshipped. Although this is probably historically accurate, those interpretations (including those of Darwin himself) go squarely against the theory of evolution, and the idea of interpreting a scientific theory to fit one's socio-political interests goes squarely against the idea of science. The documentary does not properly discredit these interpretations, in my opinion, and leaves us with the danger of re-awakening the totally wrong and dangerous ideas that have been disastrous in the past."


I am a christian and I completely agree with this comment; however, it is important for us to understand how easily a theory can be turned into something negative. Ann Coulter is a great example of this. Unfortunately, no theories are immune to corruption!

Other Comments by chadvader123

18. Comment #55804 by yoursdhruly on July 12, 2007 at 11:30 am

Very interesting though I thought the title was slightly mis-representative. Thanks for posting. I must confess that I was not aware of the Punctuated Equilibrium theory as being such a controversial subject - sounds more like "big changes are more significant than small changes" and I feel very comfortable with that. Must read more though...once again, thanks for posting!!!

Other Comments by yoursdhruly

19. Comment #55827 by flyingscot on July 12, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Thanks for posting, I enjoyed this too.
So, it looks like George Carlin was right when he said, 'the earth's not going anywhere, we are. It is going to shake us off like a bad dose of fleas!'

Other Comments by flyingscot

20. Comment #55830 by D'Arcy on July 12, 2007 at 2:12 pm

chadvader123, quoting Newton30, above says:

"The historical aspect of this documentary in the beginning seems a little disturbing to me. We see the theory of evolution being 'interpreted' by various social classes and individual thinkers into things like eugenics, almost as if it were some kind of new theology to be worshipped. Although this is probably historically accurate, those interpretations (including those of Darwin himself) go squarely against the theory of evolution, and the idea of interpreting a scientific theory to fit one's socio-political interests goes squarely against the idea of science. The documentary does not properly discredit these interpretations, in my opinion, and leaves us with the danger of re-awakening the totally wrong and dangerous ideas that have been disastrous in the past."


I am a christian and I completely agree with this comment; however, it is important for us to understand how easily a theory can be turned into something negative. Ann Coulter is a great example of this. Unfortunately, no theories are immune to corruption!

As a Christian chadvader should ask itself whether the "theory" of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, (and presumably omniverous), God, is a viable theory to explain reality. The answer is a resounding NO!

In scientific terms a theory is the next best thing to the "truth". It is the best current available explanation for observed events.

The "theory" of evolution needs no more justification than the "theory" of relativity, special and general which included gravitation, or quantum chromodynamics. These "theories" happen to be well founded in empirical observation.

There may well be "missing links" in the fossil record, and problems related to punctuated equilibrium, but this does not give the theists room for their god of the gaps.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

21. Comment #55832 by D'Arcy on July 12, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Sorry bad editing. Message 20 is mine after 3 paragrapghs ( para starting "As a Christian....")

What follows I agree with!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

22. Comment #55916 by marcdesm on July 12, 2007 at 8:54 pm

"And if there are a "male strategy" and a "female straegy", why is the whole society, especially economics, built on the male strategy of competition???"
--Logical

That's in TV Land. I see no evidence that "the whole society" is built on the male strategy. The media mostly focus on the extremes, that's how this impression is taken by those who let Hollywood educate them.

Other Comments by marcdesm

23. Comment #56329 by TomS on July 15, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does anybody happen to know what the music is that is playing in the background of the last segment?

Thanks!

Other Comments by TomS

24. Comment #56333 by Flagellant on July 15, 2007 at 5:52 am

Tom S - I'm pretty sure it's from Bach's B minor Mass, a lovely piece of music. The specific part is, I think: 'Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi': Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World.

Why should God have all the good tunes, eh?

Other Comments by Flagellant

25. Comment #56347 by TomS on July 15, 2007 at 7:36 am

Flagellant - Thanks very much. I'm a big fan of choral music (especially that of Mozart). I've always thought it rather unfortunate that this beautiful music can provide ammunition for those that would argue for the virtue and innocuousness of moderate religion.

Still, it certainly won't prevent me from continuing to enjoy it!

Thanks again.

Other Comments by TomS

26. Comment #56498 by Brian Maximus on July 16, 2007 at 3:47 am

Great to see some social psychology. When I studied social psychology it felt like I discovered new truths. I recommend everyone too study social psychology and I think it should be a subject that is mandatory in school. It gives you so much understanding of the society and people.

Other Comments by Brian Maximus

27. Comment #56555 by Ewan D on July 16, 2007 at 11:46 am

Re Comment #55456 by AndyD

::laugh:: at Dawkins: "Hitler really gave eugenics a bad rep," unintentionally implying that eugenics isn't all bad. hahahahaha

For a further intro to Dawkins' thoughts on Eugenics, and evidence that they can indeed be willfuly misread, see the following -

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,353,How-Predictable-Richard-Dawkins-Supports-Eugenics,Wesley-J-Smith

Other Comments by Ewan D