Guest Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I felt the narration was worded poorly all throughout the show. Like at the end, they said that Ardi proves that humans did not evolve from chimps. But we knew this before Ardi as well. What should have been said was that Ardi shows that humans and chimps are farther removed than first thought. Earlier in the show, they did explain the common ancestor ideas better, yet they still seemed not to completely dispel these misunderstandings about the human family tree. They also seemed to refer to Darwin as xtians normally assume we do, i.e. as some great authority figure we still look to for answers today. None of it was outright, to me, it seemed like subtle choice of language, which, in light of the ID movement, is a foolish oversight on the part of the producers. Other than that, I enjoyed the show and learned quite a bit. Anyone else feel this way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I felt the narration was worded poorly all throughout the show. Like at the end, they said that Ardi proves that humans did not evolve from chimps. But we knew this before Ardi as well. What should have been said was that Ardi shows that humans and chimps are farther removed than first thought. Earlier in the show, they did explain the common ancestor ideas better, yet they still seemed not to completely dispel these misunderstandings about the human family tree. They also seemed to refer to Darwin as xtians normally assume we do, i.e. as some great authority figure we still look to for answers today. None of it was outright, to me, it seemed like subtle choice of language, which, in light of the ID movement, is a foolish oversight on the part of the producers. Other than that, I enjoyed the show and learned quite a bit. Anyone else feel this way? Yep. You nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpheliaGinger Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 It certainly wasn't done like they normally do for documentaries (this was quite literally a round table discussion), but I did get something quite interesting out of it (the question of why human canines are so small). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 It certainly wasn't done like they normally do for documentaries (this was quite literally a round table discussion), but I did get something quite interesting out of it (the question of why human canines are so small). The most peculiar thing was that while watching the show, I kept thinking that science makes theories that allow for predictions, but no one predicated this creature. But is that true? Prehensile feet would seem to preceed the kind of feet we have now, but then why don't Chimps have that if they are linked to a common ancestor? I would like a better analysis of where this creature fits with 1) existing theory and 2) previous predictions. Is it so "unpredictable"? For cryin' out loud, the creature sure looks like I would have expected. The habitat was unexpected, but the theory about why they walk upright made sense. I still have to carry the groceries in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 For cryin' out loud, the creature sure looks like I would have expected. The habitat was unexpected, but the theory about why they walk upright made sense. I still have to carry the groceries in. I agree. The savanna hypothesis never made too much sense to me, this one makes the most out of all of them, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I didn't see the entire show but I saw the last hour (probably a bit more). I thought the narration was suited the expected audience. What I mean is we're talking maybe 8th/9th grade level on average with virtually no understanding of evolution but a high understanding of xian propaganda including the "fact" we came from a monkey. Given that "fact" they had to explain that we didn't actually do that and further spoon feed a number of other corrections. Simply stating the known facts of the ToE would have lost the vast majority of their audience out of the gate. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I didn't see the entire show but I saw the last hour (probably a bit more). I thought the narration was suited the expected audience. What I mean is we're talking maybe 8th/9th grade level on average with virtually no understanding of evolution but a high understanding of xian propaganda including the "fact" we came from a monkey. Given that "fact" they had to explain that we didn't actually do that and further spoon feed a number of other corrections. Simply stating the known facts of the ToE would have lost the vast majority of their audience out of the gate. mwc I guess you're right. I watched it with my parents (I don't have a TV), and my dads biggest problem with evolution has nothing to do with fossils, evidence, or xtianity. The entire first half of the show he kept asking "But why Africa? Why do we have to come from Africa?" I'd try to explain because that's where we find the fossils, and he would repeat the same things "But, why Africa? You'd think other parts of the world would have been suited for them to evolve." sigh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I found myself asking why they were even including parts of the show, like the making of the video with the stunt woman and all that, but then I realized it was to explain to the layman how the bones go through the process from the field, through years and years of actual research and study with many people looking at these things all the way through to the end product people actually see (in museums or classrooms...especially the latter). (As I said I missed the first half so maybe they explained this up front?) That these things aren't simply off-the-cuff but very carefully done at every single step and take years. Not just the research but the final rendering(s) themselves. They take forever because these people aren't trying to push an "agenda" out the door but are trying to put out a quality product which is the end result of a lot of research. This understanding seems to be lacking, terribly lacking, in the US in particular. The fundiegelical church culture (and their cohorts) seem to do a great job giving out the idea that scientists wander into a field, grab some bones, make some "educated" guesses and put things into a book...pretty much all in the same day. If this can't be overcome then we'll get "dumbed down" programs on all subjects for some time to come. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts