Origins of Us

[johnhanks]

Posters in the UK may have seen the first episodes of the BBC's new human evolution series, Origins of Us. The first dealt with the fossil record, the second with the influence of diet; next week the third and last episode will look at brains.

For those elsewhere, you can (I presume) view the episodes on BBC iPlayer. I think it's worth the time investment, though like most modern-day documentaries it allows its presenter's personality to impinge too much onto the subject matter. That said, it's well researched, and pretty up to date - though not up to date enough for Australopithecus sediba to get a mention.

Needless to say, there's no shilly-shallying about the fact of human evolution: possibly to the chagrin of our resident creationists, that's taken for granted from the start. Will it get an airing in the US, I wonder?

 

[Awoon]

So there was a pattern in the Universe and here we are?

That's how I see it.

 

[johnhanks]

So there was a pattern in the Universe and here we are?

That's how I see it.

An interesting response, but I'm not sure I see the link to the OP.

 

[Awoon]

An interesting response, but I'm not sure I see the link to the OP.

"Origins of us" I see the origin as a pattern.

 

[johnhanks]

"Origins of us" I see the origin as a pattern.

Do elaborate. What kind of pattern? A pattern in what? Of what origin?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Excellent. The inkblot test!

 

[Awoon]

Do elaborate. What kind of pattern? A pattern in what? Of what origin?

I'm not getting into a who what when or where. That's what the evolutionists/creationists do. Plenty of posts about both.

I gave my opinion. Thats all.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It will probably be aired in the US at some point.

 

[outhouse]

"Origins of us" I see the origin as a pattern.

It is actually.

You have a good point as it is a pattern repeated elsewhere. because we are not advanced enought to find them doesnt mean it has not played out somewhere else.

There are universal laws that you will find depending on said enviroment. Part of the pattern would be nose and eyes close to the mouth, limbs/fins for mobility and on and on and on. Everything in a pattern of evolution of all species.

 

[nnmartin]

There are universal laws that you will find depending on said enviroment. Part of the pattern would be nose and eyes close to the mouth, .

What laws would those be exactly?

 

[Secret Chief]

Needless to say, there's no shilly-shallying about the fact of human evolution: possibly to the chagrin of our resident creationists, that's taken for granted from the start.

I appreciate your point but I'd be mightily worried if such a documentary gave any air-time to creationist delusions.

It used to be the case that BBC iplayer was only available in the UK; I don't know if that's changed?

As a fellow veggie I found it amusing when Alice was mock-shocked by the meat chewing test. As they said, vegetarian by choice, not by evolution.

 

[johnhanks]

I appreciate your point but I'd be mightily worried if such a documentary gave any air-time to creationist delusions.

I agree; I'm just relieved it wasn't watered down with an eye on the US market.

It used to be the case that BBC iplayer was only available in the UK; I don't know if that's changed?

I don't either, which is why I hedged my recommendation.

As a fellow veggie I found it amusing when Alice was mock-shocked by the meat chewing test. As they said, vegetarian by choice, not by evolution.

Do you think perhaps we get a little too much of Alice's personal quirks? [Curmudgeonly old git mode] I chafe at the way present-day documentaries encourage glamorous presenters to become the subject rather than the conduit to it, striking impressive poses in spectacular scenery (yes, I mean you, Brian Cox) and sharing their personal musings at the expense of the real subject matter [/Curmudgeonly old git mode].

 

[Cassiopia]

Do you think perhaps we get a little too much of Alice's personal quirks? [Curmudgeonly old git mode] I chafe at the way present-day documentaries encourage glamorous presenters to become the subject rather than the conduit to it, striking impressive poses in spectacular scenery (yes, I mean you, Brian Cox) and sharing their personal musings at the expense of the real subject matter [/Curmudgeonly old git mode].

I wouldn't mind a little more science and a little less personality. On the other hand I am a fan of both Alice and Brian. I hope that their enthusiasm will be infectious (which is of course why they are employed). I could happily put up with even more of their quirks if it meant less Eastenders and XFactor!

Overall, I think Origins of Us is a very good pop science series.

 

[Secret Chief]

Fellow old git replies:
Tough call. I don't necessarily mind personalities as long as there's the content. So far I've found Alice's programmes to have sufficient meat; plus I quite like her on screen persona. I could well be interested in a programme on cosmology but Brian Cox irritates me. I find him rather vacuous. Every time I catch a glimpse of him he is standing on top of a mountain, posing like Christ and breathlessly intoning 'we are made of stardust.' Get over yourself Brian.
I'm invariably disappointed by Horizon these days, two minutes of content spun out to an hour with music, recaps, dead-end musings and quirky visuals. Sexed up science for primary school...
One last thought...
You couldn't separate The Ascent of Man from Prof. Bronowski. Now there was an intellect: 'Dissent is the mark of freedom. And as originality and independence are private needs for the existence of a science, so dissent and freedom are its public needs. The safeguards which it must offer are apparent: free inquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance.'

 

[johnhanks]

Overall, I think Origins of Us is a very good pop science series.

Precisely why I started this thread. I mind Alice a lot less than Cox (Magog's experience echoes mine precisely) but can't help wondering if she'd have got the job if she hadn't been a good-looking blond as well as an anatomy PhD.

 

[johnhanks]

You couldn't separate The Ascent of Man from Prof. Bronowski. Now there was an intellect: 'Dissent is the mark of freedom. And as originality and independence are private needs for the existence of a science, so dissent and freedom are its public needs. The safeguards which it must offer are apparent: free inquiry, free thought, free speech, tolerance.'

Do you think a series like that, with a writer/presenter like that, could be commissioned today?

 

[Secret Chief]

Do you think a series like that, with a writer/presenter like that, could be commissioned today?

I'm thinking you think not and I think you may be right. Although others such as Hawking and Dawkins write and present series. Ascent was probably too cerebral these days.

Afterword: Good grief. Just read the Wiki entry. It refers to Bronowski's UNSCRIPTED monologues