You can see it Mondays on National Geographic channel.Damn. I forgot it was on.
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
- Thread starter Valka D'Ur
- Start date
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Am I the only one still watching? 
Well, this was a different way of discussing sound and light, although they kept the part about the bicycle ride in Italy.
I enjoyed the scenes with the organ. I started playing the organ decades ago - first by ear, and then took lessons. Years' worth of lessons, and the Bach piece that Neil deGrasse Tyson picked out is one I had to learn for my Western Board exams.
Spectroscopy is fascinating, and its history was very interesting. I hadn't known who figured it out, and that Newton could have done so a century earlier.
Well, this was a different way of discussing sound and light, although they kept the part about the bicycle ride in Italy.
I enjoyed the scenes with the organ. I started playing the organ decades ago - first by ear, and then took lessons. Years' worth of lessons, and the Bach piece that Neil deGrasse Tyson picked out is one I had to learn for my Western Board exams.
Spectroscopy is fascinating, and its history was very interesting. I hadn't known who figured it out, and that Newton could have done so a century earlier.
He mentions (the reviewer) an "observer crossing the event horizon". Any info on what this is theorised as being? Cause (from an admittedly very brief reading of the black hole theories in Einstein's relativity) i thought that by definition nothing can actually pass the horizon since the theory is that it exists not as a barrier to be passed, but as something which gradually prevents any passing movement till the point when it actually alltogether denies it.
I was of the view that this was why it was termed "event horizon", given that it follows that any event on the other side will have no effect on anything on the side of the observer.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Episode 2 was a massive let down as far as content was about. Showing dogs becoming dogs as if that proves evolution show he doesn't understand what evolution is, since that is not creating new information and is in fact loss of information. I'd thought he would do better than that, but obviously not. Then he "explains" eye evolution. First he explains that bacteria evolved eye so they could see the light and hide from it, then later in the episode he explains that bacteria evolved eyes so they could see the light and seek it. Two contradictory ways, which shows just how superfluous the definition of Evolution is and can mean anything to anyone. If you want to read a more detailed critique of that episode, then read this.
http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2
I think here we are up to episode 5 I have watch all episodes so far and nothing has surprised me at all about the show.
http://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2
I think here we are up to episode 5 I have watch all episodes so far and nothing has surprised me at all about the show.
Your devotion to YECism has really hurt you, intellectually.
Quackers
The Frog
I have watched episode 1 + 2. On the science side I didn't really learn anything new. That has all been covered before.
The Giordano Bruno story was quite interesting. I think that is more history of science, than science though.
I might get Cosmos E3. It hasn't hooked me in yet.
The Giordano Bruno story was quite interesting. I think that is more history of science, than science though.
I might get Cosmos E3. It hasn't hooked me in yet.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Yet the story he told about Bruno was wrong. If he can't get recent observable history right, how can we trust on ancient unobservable history?
@El_Mach, show me where I am wrong. basically Episode 2 was very much a flawed episode sand goes against known evidence. He claims time is the hero as far as human evolution, when those who have studied the problem of harmful mutations being added to our genome with each generation, then time is the enemy, since we should have mutated so badly that we should be extinct, many times over There is simply no mechanism that can stop our general downward decay of our genome. Quite frankly every human being alive now is a mutant hundred times over.
@El_Mach, show me where I am wrong. basically Episode 2 was very much a flawed episode sand goes against known evidence. He claims time is the hero as far as human evolution, when those who have studied the problem of harmful mutations being added to our genome with each generation, then time is the enemy, since we should have mutated so badly that we should be extinct, many times over There is simply no mechanism that can stop our general downward decay of our genome. Quite frankly every human being alive now is a mutant hundred times over.
Darkflight
Prince
Death does.
Quackers
The Frog
I thought you would like the Catholic Church being painted in such a light.
Some people can't even get yesterday's news right. By the above logic, how can we trust ancient unobservable events related in a book that claims to be the word of a deity that the majority of people currently alive don't believe in?
It was made crystal clear in the episode that Bruno did not arrive at his conclusions by using the scientific method (and therefore didn't do proper science). It was also made crystal clear that his trial and execution were about the church condemning one of their own for having an unpopular opinion, thereby stifling free speech.
Since Cosmos was written, produced, and hosted by Americans who value free speech, it's not an unreasonable point for them to raise.
Cheetah
Deity
I suppose I shouldn't bother, but I'm procrastinating at the moment, so what the heck.
1.
You seem to imply that for history to be observable, there had to be a human who directly eye-witnessed the event and documented the observation though writing, photography or recordings. That is an extremely limited understanding of the English term 'observe', and one that is not recognized nor used in any scientific, legal, economic or industrial field in the world.
@El_Mach, show me where I am wrong. basically Episode 2 was very much a flawed episode sand goes against known evidence. He claims time is the hero as far as human evolution, when those who have studied the problem of harmful mutations being added to our genome with each generation, then time is the enemy, since we should have mutated so badly that we should be extinct, many times over There is simply no mechanism that can stop our general downward decay of our genome. Quite frankly every human being alive now is a mutant hundred times over.[/QUOTE]
2.
Natural Evolution is how living beings evolve through generations. That includes both how dogs have achieved such a variety, and how some species of fish ended up being the ancestors of mammals. I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the English term 'evolve'.
Also. there is no such thing as information loss through mutations! Mutations may be both beneficial or harmful, but it is completely wrong to talk of it as increasing or decreasing the amount of information. Mutations are simply a recoding of the DNA.
DNA can be represented with sequences of the letters G, C, A and T, but to do it even simpler, let's say this binary string is encoded DNA information: '101010110101110101010101010101'. Exactly how this encoding is done is not important, but here we have a string with 30 bits of information. If a mutation occurs in the DNA, the binary string might change to: '001010110101110101010101010101' (first bit is now 0). Barring any discussion of possible data compression, this is STILL 30 bits of information! The mutation itself might be harmful or beneficial, but mutations in themselves do not lead to a loss of information!
3.
@Valka: I'm still watching. And still enjoying it.
1.
You're using the term wrong: the only unobservable history that exists is whatever happened outside of the observable universe. And Tyon has made it quite clear that we don't know what is outside of the observable universe.
You seem to imply that for history to be observable, there had to be a human who directly eye-witnessed the event and documented the observation though writing, photography or recordings. That is an extremely limited understanding of the English term 'observe', and one that is not recognized nor used in any scientific, legal, economic or industrial field in the world.
@El_Mach, show me where I am wrong. basically Episode 2 was very much a flawed episode sand goes against known evidence. He claims time is the hero as far as human evolution, when those who have studied the problem of harmful mutations being added to our genome with each generation, then time is the enemy, since we should have mutated so badly that we should be extinct, many times over There is simply no mechanism that can stop our general downward decay of our genome. Quite frankly every human being alive now is a mutant hundred times over.[/QUOTE]
2.
Tyson knows what he's talking about. You, on the other hand, do not seem to grasp neither Information Theory or what Natural Evolution actually is.
Natural Evolution is how living beings evolve through generations. That includes both how dogs have achieved such a variety, and how some species of fish ended up being the ancestors of mammals. I would also recommend that you familiarize yourself with the English term 'evolve'.
Also. there is no such thing as information loss through mutations! Mutations may be both beneficial or harmful, but it is completely wrong to talk of it as increasing or decreasing the amount of information. Mutations are simply a recoding of the DNA.
DNA can be represented with sequences of the letters G, C, A and T, but to do it even simpler, let's say this binary string is encoded DNA information: '101010110101110101010101010101'. Exactly how this encoding is done is not important, but here we have a string with 30 bits of information. If a mutation occurs in the DNA, the binary string might change to: '001010110101110101010101010101' (first bit is now 0). Barring any discussion of possible data compression, this is STILL 30 bits of information! The mutation itself might be harmful or beneficial, but mutations in themselves do not lead to a loss of information!
3.
For everyone who is not preconceived that would read as two good reasons for evolving sight. Not two mutually contradictory reasons.
@Valka: I'm still watching. And still enjoying it.
Classical_Hero, if you cannot understand how a motor response to light perception can lead to natural selection, and a selective advantage, then you're really lost.
And seriously, how are you still confused regarding 'genetic information'? Like I said, your devotion to YECism has really stunted you intellectually
And seriously, how are you still confused regarding 'genetic information'? Like I said, your devotion to YECism has really stunted you intellectually
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
If only there was some sort of mechanism that could select for the best hereditary traits...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Not unlike your response to the show.
@Valkyrie D'Jour, I'm watching, I'm watching. And I'm liking what I see so far.
Y U No answer? :\
woody60707
Deity
This was the part I hated about the last episode. We can never know what goes on beyond the event horizon or the singularity.
But to clarify, time doesn't stop at the EH. It only looks like everythings stops at the EH from our outside view. If you crossed a EH of a supermassive BH, you wouldn't notice any change of time. It would flow normally.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Things can respond to light, but eyes are a far more complex thing that you can ever imagine. I mean the episode gave two opposite examples of why eyes first "evolved", and they are completely contradictory to each other, so they both can't be right. But the eye is an extremely organ that had s many parts to it and many parts needed or it to work to somehow have evolved at the same time. You have not shown any information that wasn't there before. And this is the fatal flaw of evolution, it can sort out what it already has or lose information, but never increase information.
There is a difference between a desired trait and one that is an increase of new information. Take blue eyes as a desirable trait, or the various dog breeds. Both of these examples are loss of information, even though some of the traits are desirable to have. But what is being selected is information that is already there, not information that was never in the creature before. What you need to show is how the information that we have was able to come from a "simple" bacteria. The problem is that the examples of mutations we have are either neutral or deleterious. There is no known mechanism for an increase in new specific information, only loss of information. It is a similar theme going on here that evolutionists don't know what the difference between a trait that is desirable and a trait that has new information that was never there before. Information is the problem with evolution since we only ever see sort the information we already have, or lose it, but never gain any. Now if you think gene duplication is an increase of information then try this if you are at uni and see how it goes. Only write half of what you need for an essay or whatever and then duplicate it and see if you get full marks for writing the assignment as written. It doesn't work in the real world and it doesn't work on a molecular level.
http://www.eurogentest.org/index.php?id=611
So the fact is that when yo have duplication it means that the information is too much for the body to handle and causes the body problems as a result of it, certainly not good news for evolution.Section on Duplication said:
If you want to talk about the possibility of double mutations, then read this article. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/mystery-death-of-daughters-solved/story-e6frg153-1226086219327 No help either for evolution of life from less "complex". I used the quotation marks because that is just a comparison, but even the most simple form of life is far complex than anything any human could make.
Still on 'information' eh? After all these years? Seriously, we've held your hand through this, very gently, but you YECism has caused a cognitive deficit that cannot be overcome.
C_H, nearly all of your conclusion regarding genetic information are wrong, because you've been taught a skewed and incomplete version of the facts.
C_H, nearly all of your conclusion regarding genetic information are wrong, because you've been taught a skewed and incomplete version of the facts.
