1. Comment #61168 by Darwin's badger on August 4, 2007 at 2:32 am

First?!

Other Comments by Darwin's badger

2. Comment #61171 by monoape on August 4, 2007 at 2:56 am

First? Yes, you're first on this thread to add nothing to the discussion. Can mods start deleting the growing number of idiots who add these "woohoo, I'm first!"-style comments? And then delete this comment as well. TIA.

Other Comments by monoape

3. Comment #61173 by Konradius on August 4, 2007 at 3:00 am

Hah! I could have had first, but at least I started to listen to this event.
I think one question was a bit bungled. I think it's *easy* to get a mouse to fly.
Select for bigger paws, select for webbing between the digits (it's already there for a large part), select for a higher placement of the legs, select for the mouse that actually knows how to fly.
Sure, it'll take you some million generations (with lots of offspring per generation), but you have the advantage that you can feed the mouse, it doesn't have to do that himself.

And perhaps it is less than so many generations. Look what we did with wolves (now dogs) in 10.000 years.

Lastly feathers. Well, you may eventually get a mouse with hair that has hairs themselves. Cherish that mouse and breed him till you get more "real" feathers.

Other Comments by Konradius

4. Comment #61176 by Rtambree on August 4, 2007 at 3:25 am

I wish I would have known about this - I would have attended. Where are these type of events announced before they occur? Was it on the Upcoming Events section on the left hand side of this page? I don't recall it being there.

Other Comments by Rtambree

5. Comment #61180 by LeeC on August 4, 2007 at 3:32 am

I would listen to it, but the download rate is rather slow at the mo... I'll come back later.

As for attending such events, I just wish we had them where I live. Oh well, my own fault - I did move here.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

6. Comment #61181 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 3:42 am

What a great trio, RD with his schoolmasterly clarity, Steve Jones with humour and insight in equal measure and Lewis Wolpert, who is like a thunderstorm that clears the air. It makes me regret that I was not turned on to science at school, it left me completely cold and what really horrifies me, in the UK 45 years on, it hasn't improved much, my kids have shown the same lack of interest.

My question to the panel would be, how do you turn the young on to science?

Other Comments by gcdavis

7. Comment #61182 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

On a rather more specific point, the last question wasn't answered completely. Take the evolution of a wing, presumably it doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage until it becomes a functioning wing, so what is it the "drives" the intermediate stages, having a couple of "stubs" might even be a disadvantage?

Other Comments by gcdavis

8. Comment #61183 by rufustfirefly on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 am

I like the "t-shirts".

Other Comments by rufustfirefly

9. Comment #61184 by Ilovelucy on August 4, 2007 at 4:14 am

Monoape, you seem a lot more curmudgeonly than the lovable scamp in your avatar...

Ninth!

Other Comments by Ilovelucy

10. Comment #61191 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 4, 2007 at 5:21 am

gcdavis wrote: "On a rather more specific point, the last question wasn't answered completely. Take the evolution of a wing, presumably it doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage until it becomes a functioning wing, so what is it the "drives" the intermediate stages, having a couple of "stubs" might even be a disadvantage?"

Hasn't that already been dealt with somewhere on here? I distinctly remember RD talking about the advantage of being able to glide even a little distance - e.g the ability to survive longer falls that otherwise, ability to better control and slow falls when leaping to lower branches, perches, etc.

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

11. Comment #61193 by beeline on August 4, 2007 at 5:32 am

Wolpert showed his usual, somewhat ossified misunderstanding of natural selection, when asking whether it was possible to wake up tomorrow morning as a platypus.

As Dawkins pointed out in the answer to an earlier question, evolution acts not on individuals, but on populations of individuals.

Come on Wolpert - you're not really thinking very clearly, and actually muddying the waters rather a lot with your 'I don't believe this' and 'I don't believe that'. Think about things a bit more, and try to rely less on your past achievements.

Credibility and respect cannot be bought: you have to rent them, by making regular 'payments'.

Other Comments by beeline

12. Comment #61196 by gcdavis on August 4, 2007 at 5:40 am

atticus_of_amber

You're right he did say that but in the very early stages of an adaptation this would not be the case. As evolution does not have a road map to where it eventually ends up why does an adaptation commence in the first place? (You can tell that I am not a scientist).

Other Comments by gcdavis

13. Comment #61199 by Atticus_of_Amber on August 4, 2007 at 5:53 am

I would have thought it would begin as something like a mutation to have a flap of skin connecting the thighs to the arms. But there may even be a more subtle mutation that I can't think of that could get it started.

I'm not a scientist either (except to the extent that all rational humans are scientists now).

Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber

14. Comment #61201 by uzi on August 4, 2007 at 6:12 am

RD spends a little time talking about the development of (and precursors to) the wing on his "Growing up in the Universe" DVD. The talks are aimed at children, and it aren't especially deep, but still remain interesting. Surely he has talked about this elsewhere too, though I can't say exactly where. It seems like a safe guess that he would cover it in some depth in at least one of his books.

Other Comments by uzi

15. Comment #61202 by LeeC on August 4, 2007 at 6:23 am

gcdavis wrote:

My question to the panel would be, how do you turn the young on to science?

I wish I knew… I never thought about it until I had a child of my own (he is only 2 at the moment so has no interest in the world.)

I only hope to distil a curiosity and a questioning nature into his mind– I will try and trick him into thinking about the universe. It is amazing that the simplest of questions require some of the most complex answers.

So what would it be like to travel at the speed of light?
What is gravity?

Simple questions with no easy answer (just ask Einstein).

But I suppose one of the major problems is that science is (or can be) rather dull at school.

"Here is a Bunsen burner, here is a tripod, now heat up this crucible and the liquid will turn from blue to brown…." WOW?

Hey ho… at least now that we are all older, we all know how great science is right?

This is too deep, it must be the wine… sorry.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

16. Comment #61203 by BAEOZ on August 4, 2007 at 6:39 am

LeeC, I see your point. I'm not a good teacher, but I'd do this; if your child likes trains, mention how they are moved. If he likes animals, mention morphology as result of need....
Hang it LeeC, I now understand why my wife glazes over when I discuss science. It's not that science is boring, it's not, it's just that I'm not RD. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

17. Comment #61206 by Yorker on August 4, 2007 at 7:01 am

15. Comment #61202 by LeeC

I think you just have to see what they naturally become interested in and foster it.

My son showed an interest in so many things that it became impossible to keep up with him and very expensive. Telescopes, dinosaur models, music, you name it! Nearly bankrupted me!

My daughter on the other hand showed a great interest in animals, music and art, even at eight years old she would sit with her headphones on and tears running down her face. It amazed me that Beethoven could have that effect at such a young age.

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #61208 by LeeC on August 4, 2007 at 7:19 am

Thanks Baeoz,

At the moment my son loves "choo choo's" but he is too young to understand them.

I personally love science, have done so all my life and have an astrophysics degree to show for it. However I have no idea why I love science or how to pass that on to the next generation.

I guess I have to just show him explosions and stuff - that always works for me?

Hi Yorker
(I am still trying to work out your avatar - just a little to small to make out the details)

I think you are right of course, foster their interests... I just want to make sure their interests are the "right ones" - whatever that is.

I will certainly being buying my son a telescope, I just have to explain to the wife why it should cost $2000 - he he he - I will enjoy that.

Now I must stop this drinking this wine… OK just one more.

Thanks again

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

19. Comment #61209 by Yorker on August 4, 2007 at 7:36 am

18. Comment #61208 by LeeC

I can't make the avatar any larger, it's at the site's maximum size. I'ts Dawko The Dog with David The Flea on his back.

The telescope my son has now cost way more than 2K but luckily I didn't have to buy it for him! :)

Keep in mind the 2K is just the start, how are you going to tell her that it needs a CCD and a computer driven interface on it so your son can use it from the comfort of his room? Best of luck - you're going to need it! :)

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #61216 by icanus on August 4, 2007 at 7:54 am

On a rather more specific point, the last question wasn't answered completely. Take the evolution of a wing, presumably it doesn't offer an evolutionary advantage until it becomes a functioning wing, so what is it the "drives" the intermediate stages, having a couple of "stubs" might even be a disadvantage?

As others have pointed out, even a stubby wing that only very slightly improves the ability to survive falls can give enough of a benefit to get the process of selection going.

There's also a lot of adaptations that may have started out doing something completely unrelated to their eventual purpose - a skin flap that later becomes a wing could have begun life as an adaptation to lose excess body heat in a hot climate and only much further down the evolutionary road have been converted into a gliding surface.

Other Comments by icanus

21. Comment #61218 by kaiserkriss on August 4, 2007 at 7:57 am

gcdavis,uzi,Atticus : Richard discusses the evolution of wings, eyes etc. in "The Blind Watchmaker".

AS one of you pointed out, the argument goes along the lines of 1% wing, although no where near as useful as a 100% wing, is better than no wing. Ditto for a 10% wing etc. Same arguments for vision, echo location. When you think about it the argument is quite simple and elegant. JCW

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

22. Comment #61219 by LeeC on August 4, 2007 at 7:58 am

Hi Yorker,

Thanks for the detail... my eye sight is not want it use to be.

As for the telescope, as I said, my son is only 2 year old, so a $2000 telescope probably will be enough for him at this early age.

Of course I understand he will need a CCD and a laptop - these are details I hope he wife understands. When he is 4 years old - he may need to upgrade, he is after all only just starting down the astronomy road.

I am sure my wife will understand that I only want the best for my son.

(Having said all this – I probably cannot afford all that I want for my son - the cost of shoes alone is killing me at the moment, I want to know why a shoe for a child of 2 years old cost more than a adult who is 6 ft 4 ins. This just does not make sense… and has nothing to do with this thread – it must be time for me to leave.)

Cheers

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

23. Comment #61225 by Dr Benway on August 4, 2007 at 8:48 am

How to encourage a love of science in kids?

In the pre-school years, I think sharing active exploration of novel things with an adult is important. Many parents sit kids in front of TV for hours, or they give the kids a toy, but then walk away to go make dinner. We're all so busy, unfortunately. But exploring something with an adult right there, making little comments and comparisons, lays a good foundation for the learning process. TV lays a foundation for being entertained.

Trips to see weird stuff help kids realize there's a big, interesting world out there. When I was 3, we went to an animal park and I got to ride on an elephant. Seeing, smelling, and feeling this enormous creature I'd only seen in pictures left an impression upon me. What do elelphants think? Is this elephant happy? What do elephant babies like to do? The curiosity wells up naturally when you're impressed.

Around age 7, my dad started taking me to the planetarium every month or so. Being enveloped in the stars is awe inspiring. The space program offers a number of great anchors for scientific interest: astronaut training, weighlessness, the problems of staying alive in a lifeless environment, rockets, astronomy, etc.

Objects that can be touched help focus kids who live in a high stim world now, where nothing stands still for more than a few seconds. I collected seashells, star fish, rocks, and pennies. What to do if you live in a small apartment? Well, after the touching and exploring of something interesting, perhaps a digital pic uploaded to a flickr collection would suffice. I've started one for my backyard birds here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tuff_titmouse

Drawing encourages careful observation. You have to sit still and look closely at things in order to draw them.

When I was a kid, you could ride your bike around the neighborhood, and you could make friends with adults without people suspecting something weird was going on. Kind, smart, funny adults intersted in the world and willing to talk with a kid without condescension are an inspiration.

In high school, I had a class in logic and rhetoric. We learned about logical fallacies and brought in examples from popular media for discussion. Invaluable. I was in the midst of my Christian phase at the time, and this class forced me to recognize that my "rational" arguments in support of faith were cribbed from others, and actually were all post-hoc. The real basis of my faith was emotional, and I had to admit that emotion isn't a good guide to factual truth.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

24. Comment #61231 by RickM on August 4, 2007 at 9:16 am

I give up...I can't get the files here or at the original site to run more than 12-15 minutes. Should be one hour plus.

Am I the only one?

Other Comments by RickM

25. Comment #61234 by fungaljungle on August 4, 2007 at 9:32 am

RickM

You aren't the only one. I can't seem to listen to the file for more than 10 min. or so, nor can I download more than 11 MB of the file.

Can anyone out there help us?

Other Comments by fungaljungle

26. Comment #61236 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 9:48 am

me too! i got as far as steves reply to 'why males'. previous attempts including download havent worked either.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

27. Comment #61238 by Yorker on August 4, 2007 at 9:59 am

To people with problems.

The site itself is capping download speeds and network traffic is high, you may be also be suffering from timeouts. I got the MP3, it's 48Meg.

Best I can suggest is to try at a less busy time or give the MP3 download another try directly, stop multi-tasking for a while. I just went for a cup of tea.

Other Comments by Yorker

28. Comment #61242 by Zzyx1170 on August 4, 2007 at 10:14 am

Could someone who managed to download it please upload it to rapidshare.com/ and post the rapidshare link here?

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

29. Comment #61265 by Yorker on August 4, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I'm uploading to RapidShare right now but it's pretty slow, I'l post the link when I get it.

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #61271 by fungaljungle on August 4, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I'm uploading to RapidShare right now but it's pretty slow, I'l post the link when I get it.

Thanks Yorker, I really appreciate that!

Other Comments by fungaljungle

31. Comment #61279 by Yorker on August 4, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Here's the RapidShare link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/46980629/evodebate.mp3.html

Hope you enjoy it!

Other Comments by Yorker

32. Comment #61282 by Zzyx1170 on August 4, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Yorker, thank-you for the rapidshare link!

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

33. Comment #61308 by bockman on August 4, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Good man Yorker, thanks for doing that.

Other Comments by bockman

34. Comment #61312 by CJ22 on August 4, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Cheers Yorker, something to listen to when I go for my walk tomorrow :)

Other Comments by CJ22

35. Comment #61314 by Chris Rijk on August 4, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Firstly, many thanks for the rapid-share link!

I felt a little disappointed with some of the answers. For example, the question on existence of males and why (typically) the are two genders. I thought the proposed answer in "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane was good: when two gametes merge by sex, the organelles (not just the mitochondria, all of them) almost always come from just one of the gametes, and having one large cell (egg) with lots of organelles and one small cell (sperm) with very few is one of the better (but not only) ways of achieving that. That tends to result in two distinct genders (at least for the gametes they produce). When organelles from both gametes survive, that tends to cause problems, particularly later in life.

There's also some good stuff on advantages (or not) of size and what that means for complexity.

It's just a damn good read in general, and personally, I think that turning it into a good quality TV series could do a lot to "raise consciousness".


Some links:
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/customer-reviews/0192804812
http://www.nick-lane.net/

And since it's not a commonly used word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organelle

Other Comments by Chris Rijk

36. Comment #61316 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 3:18 pm

yorker, got it, thanks!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

37. Comment #61323 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 pm

the discussion of the underweight mothers resulting in underweight grandchildern was interesting.

I suppose there are many ways this could happen. Maybe the underweight mother produces an underweight child who then can never realises its full genetic potential and this could run to the next generation (simply becaus her child is carried by the smaller than she could be mother) and so on for a while. Then again, how does one determine the 'weight' of the child or person. Ultimately I guess its the size and density of bone that detemines the size of muscle which is of course highly variable depending on usage, and fat levels obviously vary too. The character of reduction in size/weight (or however it is measured) is not carried in the genes of course but is simply the action of environment on the genes. One can almost see an advantage of small resources leading to smaller than average offspring. I guess a child who is genetically potentially 6 foot 3 inches needs way more resources and would suffer more than a child who is genetically 5 foot and half the weight. Maybe its not just the nutrition constraint, maybe poor nutrition actually triggers some genetic developmental response in the child to be smaller, and that in turn continues into the next few generations, if food shortages hit past populations for decades than this 'downsizing' could be advantageous. pure speculation on my part, but there it is.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

38. Comment #61324 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:14 pm

I remember reading that if one gamete has all the organelles and the other contributes just DNA, the theres less microscopic parasites to transfer, ie non from the DNA only gamete. manybe this is old hat or falsified, im not sure where i read it.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #61326 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:33 pm

I like steves point that intellignet design is vacuous, thats exactly how i feel. If i were somehow to accept intelligent design I wonder if i would have to think about the natural world atall, well one would but more like watching an episode on discovery of the guy making a drum or a plane engine, its intersting BUT for me it is the BLINDNESS of natural selection that makes it so engaging, indeed so fulfilling.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

40. Comment #61335 by Veronique on August 4, 2007 at 6:12 pm

I can't get it to play either, at least, it stops at 9.03 mins. I'll try again later. So I can only comment on the comments:-)

37. Comment #61323 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Nutrition is interesting. If you go poking around on old sailing ships, or the blueprints for their being built, you find that the headroom allowed then is way less than allowed for now. The ships that brought people to this prison colony (as Henri so quaintly terms it – I think he is caught in the 1850s as well:-)) were definitely constructed for people who appear to have been shorter than we are now.

Ahem – not me, I am afraid. I am 5'2" and don't weigh much (half your weight Yorker). It would be worth finding public medical records to see what the median height was in, say, the 1700s, if such records exist.

Maybe its not just the nutrition constraint, maybe poor nutrition actually triggers some genetic developmental response in the child to be smaller, and that in turn continues into the next few generations, if food shortages hit past populations for decades than this 'downsizing' could be advantageous. pure speculation on my part, but there it is.

I don't know enough either. I know that rickets affected a substantial number of people in urban populations particularly, so that not only a reduction in bone density but obviously, but bone distortion resulted as well.

I recall reading about a child in rural England in the 60s. He was an illegitimate child and was hidden in the chook house for the first 6 or 7 years of his life. If memory serves, he was fed some sort of gruel. When he was found by the authorities, he did have rickets (and a whole raft of attendant nutritional deficiencies, as well as sociological deficits). His spine was distorted and his weight and height were severely under the normal stats for his age group. He was obviously malnourished. I don't know what happened to the poor little blighter after the media had moved on to some other public interest 'gasp' story.

Food shortages were common in the growing cities and agriculture hadn't honed itself to feeding a growing population.

There is more abundant food, at least, in the western world. We are taller. But look at the looming decades of malnourishment in some African populations. It's already taking a massive toll. There are probably no stats to compare current heights and weights with earlier ones when the 'dust-bowl' was the 'bread basket' of Africa.

I somehow don't think it triggers a genetic response. Could be wrong though. Why are the majority of Asian populations shorter than your average western populations? How come Nordic populations are, an average taller?

Great questions and I can't answer them.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

41. Comment #61337 by phasmagigas on August 4, 2007 at 6:24 pm

veronique, an area for reserch no doubt. it is interesting for sure. I think an important influence on humans continuing height and weight (even ignoring obesity) is that to a greater degree we develop without many of our past parasites, be they worms or bacteria. That could have other negative effects eg I read that eczema/asthma may be connected with out 'underused' immune systems (and im not sure if there is any truth in that)that seems reasonable considering that for millions of years our ancestors have probably had a substantial parasite load much reduced in the last century. The reduction in weight of the people mentioned in the video (veronique, go to yorkers rapidshare link and it should work)seemed to be without known cause. very poor nutrition obviously does have devastating consequences, i remember a heatbreaking (how could an atheist possibly be heartbroken!!) programme in the UK of orphan elephants in thailand being fed a diet of rancid rice water, the animals were rendered blind and deaf and generally underdeveloped from the lack of required nutrients. actually that reminds me, a few weeks ago I spent an afternoon simultaneously entertaining some guests (who happen to be believers) and ensuring my dogs wern't to eat this fledgling that was in my garden on the soil. For hours my dogs were kept out the garden. I slowly came to realise that the guests showed not the slightest bit of interest or empathy for the red mawed hungry bird i was so desperate to at least give a fleeting chance of survival, another of those interesting little life lessons.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

42. Comment #61349 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 10:48 pm

I can't get this discussion, either via streaming or download; in both cases it times out at about half-way through the file. Does anybody have it on a server that does not use a 1980s RS Tandy?

Other Comments by PsyPro

43. Comment #61351 by PsyPro on August 4, 2007 at 11:08 pm

I apologise: I should have read the comments before I commented. Apparently, I am not alone; many are having problems viewing the last half of the discussion. My only excuse is that I don't comment or even read comments until I have viewed/read the focal piece; clearly, in this case, that strategy failed.

Other Comments by PsyPro

44. Comment #61354 by Veronique on August 4, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Well phasma.

I don't know about the gradual loss of, or maybe just different parasites or bacteria over time. The only population I really know, of course, is my own. I would certainly agree that, due to better sanitation, awareness of our environment and just what lives in it, we don't seem to be subject to as many infestations of internal worms!!

Here's a bit on asthma (with the usual cautions). It's from wikipedia.

Another theory of pathogenesis is that asthma is a disease of hygiene. In nature, babies are exposed to bacteria and other antigens soon after birth, "switching on" the TH1 lymphocyte cells of the immune system that deal with bacterial infection. If this stimulus is insufficient, as it may be in modern, clean environments, then TH2 cells predominate, and asthma and other allergic diseases may develop. This "hygiene hypothesis" may explain the increase in asthma in affluent populations. The TH2 lymphocytes and eosinophil cells that protect us against parasites and other infectious agents are the same cells responsible for the allergic reaction. Charcot-Leyden crystals are formed when crystalline material in eosinophils coalesce. These crystals are significant in sputum samples of people with asthma. In the developed world, the parasites that eosinophils are programmed to combat are now rarely encountered, but the immune response remains and is wrongly triggered in some individuals by certain allergens.

Seems to agree with the study you read.

Here's eczema (same source)

Other than direct treatments of the symptoms, no cure is presently known for most types of dermatitis; even cortisone treatments and immunomodulation may often have only minor effects on what may be a complex problem. As the condition is often related to family history of allergies (and thus heredity), it is probable that gene therapy or genetic engineering might help.
Damage from the enzymatic activity of allergens is usually prevented by the body's own protease inhibitors, such as, LEKTI, produced from the gene SPINK5. Mutations in this gene are known to cause Netherton's syndrome, which is a congenital erythroderma. These patients nearly always develop atopic disease, including hay fever, food allergy, urticaria and asthma. Such evidence supports the hypothesis that skin damage from allergens may be the cause of eczema, and may provide a venue for further treatment.[17]
Another study identified a gene that the researchers believe to be the cause of inherited eczema and some related disorders. The gene produces the protein filaggrin, the lack of which causes dry skin and impaired skin barrier function.

There you go, except one appears to have been triggered; the other one suppressed.

As for atheists' heartbreaks, if I come across people who are unaware of their environment and/or appear not to care, I usually make the subjective and value judgement that they are not my sort of people:-). I am quite emotional about animals in general and my cats and fish in particular. Wildlife shows often bring me undone. Inhumane behaviour does the same thing with more than a dash of anger.

Interestingly, I saw part of a program about a doctor working in third world countries where so many children have severe night blindess; some children had melted corneas!! The doctor persuaded one woman to let him treat her kids with a capsule of vitamin A each. The next day, the kids could see. With the mother's support he treated all the village kids, however, his peers refused to accept that something so simple could represent treatment. The corneas regenerated themselves (not sure if it was in every case). It took him ages fighting for acceptance in order to treat other children with government aid. He did the same in some part of Africa as well. Great story isn't it? Several years ago now, I think.

Did you see Steve Jones' lecture on why creationism is wrong? Haven't got the link now but can find it.

I'll try Yorker's rapidshare link now. I just looked at his link - it's for mp3s. What do I do to get it to dowload to my computer? Sorry, I am not that good at this stuff:-)

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

45. Comment #61360 by gcdavis on August 5, 2007 at 12:45 am

Good points Dr Benway. Where I live in rural South Cambridgeshire UK a group of lads ranging from 9-15 have built a BMX bike track in a set aside field, it is truly amazing. Using just earth they have created a series of jumps that get bigger and bigger so that on the final one they leap about 12 feet from the ground. Each jump comprises a take off ramp and a landing ramp, as they get higher the distance between them increases. The whole thing has been created instinctively using trial and error, no calculations about increase in velocity etc. I walk my dog in the same area and always think to myself there is a lot of science on display here even though the kids are probably not aware of it. Harness that and we may get somewhere.

Other Comments by gcdavis

46. Comment #61401 by 601 on August 5, 2007 at 3:42 am

@Yorker, thanks for the rapidshare

This was enjoyable, but I would hardly call it a "debate", and "complexity" was rarely mentioned.

Regarding bottom up (evolution) vs. top down (design), the most important difference is intention.

Building highly complex systems top down becomes exponentially more difficult, and I suspect, eventually impossible. In contrast, evolution manifests profoundly complex systems but what these systems do is unpredictable (short of providing a selection advantage).

A simple example is a garden. A gardener toils to maximize beauty (or some designed goal). Left unattended, the garden will quickly maximize energy efficiency, but we can't predict how it will look.

Other Comments by 601

47. Comment #61418 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 5:12 am

Veronique

If you have a Windows machine, then Windows Media Player will play the MP3 file natively.I uploaded the MP3 because the vast majority use Windows so they'd have no problem. I can't help you with Apple because I don't know it well, I'd have starved to death trying to make a living off writing software for Apple :)

Edit

If you have a problem, send me a PM and I'll explain it to you without boring others here, make sure you tell me about your computer and operating system, i.e. Windows version.

Other Comments by Yorker

48. Comment #61422 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 5:30 am

46. Comment #61401 by 601

"Left unattended, the garden will quickly maximize energy efficiency, but we can't predict how it will look."

I think we can predict it will look unkempt and ruled by the stongest plants. Actually your words reminded me of what the minister said to a gardener who'd turned an unkempt allotment into a thing of beauty.

"Well my fine fellow", said the minister. "With God's help you've transformed this allotment!"

"God's help my arse!", said the gardener. "You should have seen it when he had it all to himself!"

Other Comments by Yorker

49. Comment #61424 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 5:39 am

43. Comment #61351 by PsyPro

Aha, a man with the courage to admit his error. I've said on more than one occasion (naggingly) that RBP (Read Before Post) is the best policy even though it can be a pain. It avoids repetition and prevents one making an arse of one's self.:)

Other Comments by Yorker

50. Comment #61496 by Veronique on August 5, 2007 at 11:13 am

Thanks, Yorker,

Download complete. Must sleep, it's 4.13am here.

Night
V

Other Comments by Veronique