h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So was the BBC4 documentary fair or biased?

For those who missed it (UK only, I believe)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6sbt/What_Darwin_Didnt_Know/

Please base any views on the programme, not the pros and cons re: religion,

As a frustrated Scientist, I will reserve my viewpoint!

MMF

I'm still watching it on iPlayer. Armand Marie Leroi has a history of doing some amazing documentaries, seek them out. Of course the documentary is biased, biased toward facts and evidences rather than bending over backward to humour petty superstitions of credulous.
The question is I suspect - was it accurate and fair?

Thanks for that. I hadn't realised the program was 90 minutes long. Looking forward to the rest of the series!

MMF

Just wondering: I'm outside the UK so I can't see the programme, but, is it related to the cover story with the same title in the February issue of National Geographic Magazine?

Didn't watch it(too late and long for me!) but it did seem like the general synopsis was about how the knowledge of evolution has gone in leaps and bounds since Darwins first discoveries. It is only logical that at the start of such a discovery there will be gaps and mistakes but the basic theory is correct.

One could have a programme called : "What Newton didn't know" and talk about space-time, quantum theory, string theory, black holes etc that all have an impact of gravity but basically Newton got the basic theory correct.

The Newton analogy is interesting.

Newton was able to calculate gravity's effects but he couldn;t explain what gravity was (Einstein's folding of space time) or what it might yet be (the as yet undiscovered graviton particle associated with the field.)

So similarly, Darwin gets the natural selection of inherited features, and says the effect is speciation, and adaptation for survival. But he didn't know (and couldn;t know) how.
One wonder what might have been had Darwin ever taken a stroll with Gregor Mendel in his garden of sweet peas. But genetic iheritence would have to wait, but by the time it does arrive, it confirms Darwin's theories more completly than he could have known.

Just as Einstein enlarges on Newton so the same is true of modern evolutionary theory.

I've not seen the programme, but have recorded it. The above are my thoughts prior to watching. I will report back after I've seen it.

I thought the programme was excellent (except for the very distracting art work and fast camera shots of pretty pictures)

"except for the very distracting art work and fast camera shots of pretty pictures"

I'll give that programme a miss then. Can't stand that style. Oh, well, wonderful BBC, how to lose viewers in one easy lesson.

I was not watching it with full attention, as I had a laptop on and took a phone call in the middle, but I thought it gave a balanced view of Darwin's contribution to the evolution theory.

It stated for example that other scientists had discussed evolutionary change through mechanisms other than survival of the fittest - which was Darwin's big contribution. It also made clear how critical Darwin himself was about his theory, including some ideas how the objections could be overcome.

The programme went on to present what Darwin did not know! e.g. the mathematical analysis which indicated the action of a gene like code; the cell structure and microscopy work that came later, showing chromosomes. It talked about the instances of evolution in progress that have been observed since, e.g. moth evolution in poluted environments. Also the more recent discoveries in the fossil record.

I thought the final conclusion about future evolution was a bit weak and I could criticise the arguments supporting the unique emergence of genes which express, e.g. eye deformity.

(except for the very distracting art work and fast camera shots of pretty pictures)

I gave up half way. I know a fair amount about the subject, just from reading Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, so I wasn't learning much anyway. But I would have watched it on the offchance that there was new information if the style had been less jumpy.

Ford_Mondeo, my geneticist lecturer friend watched it and apart from the artsy fartsy graphics enjoyed it. I'll give it ago later this week.

And welcome to the site, our barks worse than our bite by the way!

Biased in what way?

I thought it did a good job of showing how Darwin had been built on and how the know (by him) gaps in his theory have been filled.

Plus...it had bonobos doing what bonobos do best.

I just caught the repeat earlier on BBC4, I came through half way through and it was painful viewing. Yep lots of unbelievably annoying flashy graphics..really extreme I thought, as if to prove style always is more important than content, (which is certainly doesn't have to be) and a hugely irritating and patronising presenter...that's what put me off.


Yes very annoying as a programme. Maybe it was designed mainly for kids? If so why put it on BBC4? I don't know many kids who watch that. Maybe there'll show it on Cbeebies at some point?

BTW David Attenbrough has a programme on proper BBC about evolution on sunday night at 9pm.

I manage to listen to it, watching became annoying; but it seemed to go for 'safe' in the comments.

>>Plus...it had bonobos doing what bonobos do best.<<

Now I realise what was wrong with it, Edward. The bonobos were on early, and everything went downhill after that.

Thinking about the Newton parallel (posts 5 and 6) there's a major difference.

Newton's work was complete in his own lifetime. It was built on, criticised and superceded later, but it was rock-solid.

Darwin's work was much more tentative and incomplete, and had drifted out of favour/into the background until the rediscovery of Mendel and the discovery of DNA, when it took off again. For this reason, this was a great idea for a programme.

Darwinianism also needs clear explanation more than Newton, whose work is not under attack from zealots and politicians

Pity they did such a rotten job on it.

I'm still puzzling over what's meant by 'fair vs biased' in this context.

'fair vs biased' - I think this was meant in the context of the programme being a science bashing event by 'the religious' i.e. atheists seem to think Darwins discoveries showed a god wasn't necessary but look at how wrong he was on so many things. Hence, biased towards making Darwin's theories look wrong.

Cynical one could say but it does show the sense people are getting these days about how *some* religious people are talking down science.

I doubt whether the BBC would dare do such a programme in a prime time slot.

The programme should go down well on BBC America?