Comments on: Big Ratings For Darwinius Day. So How Was It, Cable-Viewers?

By: Vetenskapens värld hypar fossilet Ida « Komplexa analyser

Vetenskapens värld hypar fossilet Ida « Komplexa analyser — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:47:18 +0000

[...] starkt påstående. Den har tidigare visats i USA under titeln ”The Link” och verkar vara rätt [...]

By: Gerdien de Jong

Gerdien de Jong — Sat, 30 May 2009 11:48:53 +0000

Is the name Darwinius masillae valid, given that the fossil on slab B was earlier described under the name Godinotia neglecta?
The sequence of names is described on page 4 of Franzen et al PLoS one 19-5-2009.

By: Avi Kaufman

Avi Kaufman — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:01:09 +0000

After watching it I proposed that someone should edit out the tripe and get to the real content. It would probably be 15 minutes of pure riveting science. I have it on my DVR and could do it… but then I would have to watch it again without nodding off.

By: Molly

Molly — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:23:44 +0000

I loved the “look” of the fossil and the beginning of the show was interesting. Then it started to get annoying and I surprised myself by going off to do something else. An hour would have been sufficent. I wonder if the ratings went down for the second hour. I’m hoping for a really good show after its been studied.

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:17:28 +0000

The BBC has it on their website. You might need to go through a UK based proxy server to watch it from abroad I guess.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ksh5y/Uncovering_Our_Earliest_Ancestor_The_Link/

By: Eva

Eva — Thu, 28 May 2009 08:14:01 +0000

I watched it in Norway on NRK, but I suppose it’s the same program except for the Norwegian narration.

It ought to have been a lot shorter. There was lots of interesting information there, but the way some of the graphics and sentences got repeated all the time was frankly annoying and almost put me to sleep. To be quite frank I blamed all the repetitions and the slowness of it all on the frequent commercial breaks and the need to hook new viewers on US-television. I might be wrong however, I don’t even know if the History Channel have commercial breaks.

I hope there will be a new show in a few years when more people have had a chance to study Ida. A better show!

By: Gaythia

Gaythia — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:26:57 +0000

In the last few days leading up to the first showing of “The Link” the History Channel did seem to show some sensitivity to criticism that it’s advertising was over-hyped. They did tone down some of the more egregious claims on their webpage, such as the “Most important discovery in 47 million years!” claim.

Perhaps in spots encouraging the rest of us to watch the reruns, the History channel could be encouraged to run portions of some of the best statements of the show, such as the ones identified by Greg Peterson above.

A wider audience can be reached by snippets of things than entire shows.

By: Greg Peterson

Greg Peterson — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:24:16 +0000

I’ll say this, at least…toward the end of “The Link” were some of the most powerful statements in favor of evolution being a fact, and a theory on par with the theory of gravity, that I have ever seen on TV. I’m not sure if even such a potent and eloquent statement of fact will do for those who get their science from Bronze Age goatherder texts, but it was thrilling to hear nonetheless.

By: dave souza

dave souza — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:55:50 +0000

Not sure, but I think the version I’ve now watched a few times was a bit different – written and narrated by Sir David Attenborough, which makes the missing link / ankle bone proves it’s a human ancestor big ending even more grating.

Oh, and Attenborough dramatically announced as his closing statement (before a last word from Hurum) “And remarkably, exactly 150 years after Darwin put forward the proposition that human beings were part of the rest of animal life, here at last we have a link which connects us with not only the apes and monkeys, but also with the entire animal kingdom.” Stirring stuff, slightly marred by the point that Darwin didn’t put that proposition forward until 1871 – in On the Origin of Species of 1859 he merely stated that “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.” Aaargh.

By: Gaythia

Gaythia — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:32:56 +0000

I haven’t seen the Ida documentary yet because I figure that the History Channel will rerun this at some future, more convenient time.

Although I was in Seattle then, I did not go to see the Lucy exhibit because my friends and I decided that any advantages of seeing the actual fossil were outweighed by the considerably lesser expense of seeing an also enjoyable quilt show instead.

A third set of fairly recent headlines that may have crossed public consciousness are those regarding the “hobbit” fossil.

For the public in general, I am concerned that they are absorbing a message that scientists making such discoveries do over promote the importance of their own work and that later these discoveries are found to be controversial and hence seemingly less significant.

I think that this piecemeal approach tends to detract from educational efforts to explain to the public the importance of the overall fossil record and how it relates to our scientific understanding of evolution.

I believe that more thought needs to go into conveying to the public the methods of science and how evidence is collected and evaluated. Thus, rather than “controversies” the discussion of new finds could be seen as demonstrating credible scientific analysis at work.