How much of what this guy says is actually true? It always seems from his documentaries that he just says whatever he wants and then the editors go through all the footages to make the cut that matches what he says.
Sometimes it even looks like the animals were just placed in a shot to get the story he wanted.
Is Biology just speculation?
The only reason BBC pays this brainlet is because of his voice. He doesn't have any actual knowledge.
>Member of the Royal Society
>Brainlet
Kill yourself, faggot.
No, he is actually a very intelligent man in his own right; certainly not a genius, but gifted.
Besides, all science is speculation, we just create a theory to closely match it and because it matches the predicted result, we call it 'true'.
Just because he believes in evolution doesn't necessarily mean he's intelligent.
>all science is speculation
Look at this faggot. If the predict result is true, then it is true, faggot. Fuck off with your spiritual philosophy.
That's true, but he is a fairly well educated man who has attended somewhat prestigious institutions and comes from a family of achievers. This lends toward the conclusion that he, at the very least, has a gifted intellect.
You know nothing for certain, but your own existence and even that is spurious.
>Fite me. :^)
he once said evolution doesn't effect humans anymore
I thought that was an odd thing to say for someone who should know better
>Arm-chair philosopher pretending like he has insight
Ouch, that really hurt my ego.
Sadly though, no argument was detected.
That's more or less true since fewer people are dying and everyone gets to pass on their genes.
Yes, but not in a generalised way, it would be different dependant upon population.
For instance, whilst someone in Britain is unlikely to die (rapidly) from AIDs, someone in an undeveloped part of Africa would.
consider malaria
it's been around since forever, it's still around and kills people. we didn't know what even caused it until late 19th century.
and yes, some populations evolved defenses against malaria (eg sickle-cell)
One day there will be no more malaria, so no reason to evolve again.
do you think everyone reproduces equally?
I think, maybe anime might be bad for your fitness.
That's hard to argue one way or the other since we don't know if we've already reached perfection or if it's ahead of us.
No, my point is that advances in medicine and other fields of science will eventually make evolution unnecessary.
I'd say evolution will continue to matter until sufficient advances in genetic engineering.
>no reason to evolve
>reason
Evolution is random mutation that is then passively 'tested' via evolutionary pressures, it passes if it manages to breed and proceeds to pass on the 'successful' genetic trait.
The issue is, some traits can be neutral or hampering, but not hampering enough to forbid reproduction, meaning that defective genes can be passed on.
TL;DR: Evolution is and never will be perfect or perfected.
>Evolution is and never will be perfect or perfected.
Do you even know what genetic engineers do?
>Implying artificial selection is evolution
why not? what happens is exactly the same, but since the selection pressures are enforced, it can happen much faster.
As if that's an infallible process! I always thought god complex was just one of those psychology spurious conjectures, apparently it is very much alive within you, user.
Because evolutionary pressures would still play a part in the genetically manipulated organism, just because you alter it, it doesn't remove it from the 'mechanisms' of reality.
When DNA becomes programmable, it will definitely be possible to make permanent sequences that can't be changed.
so you admit it is evolution
Ah yes, because you can control mutation after generations have passed... evolution still applies!
We're talking about humans. We don't have any selection pressures.
I'm not the geneticist, I'm:
What the fuck are you going on about? Re-read that and engage brain.
documentaries are made for a general audience so that they can make money
you can't judge the merits of a scientific field based on that
you don't know anything about biology
I know far better than you, kiddo. I work as a professional dentist with 10 years experience.
I did not read the replies because it smells like shitpost but I was wondering as well the following about those bbc productions
1. how far did he study?
2. how many scenes are staged?
3. how many scenes are digitally manipulated?
I ask 3 because in planet earth 2 there where some scenes where I really doubted the authenticity...
>planet earth 2 there where some scenes where I really doubted the authenticity
Example?
Well he read Zoology and Geology earning a degree in natural sciences from Cambridge, so I imagine that he's fairly knowledgeable about animals and shit.
I couldn't name you a scene where I suspected digital manipulation without watching it again
but I'm pretty sure in the episode about mountains, they placed a carcass at a nice spot for the eagle scene and it seems to me that more than once they positioned some animals in their favor manually.
You do realize that they have several cameras in different locations, filming for months, right? They're almost guaranteed to get "perfect" shots.
There is no perfection, evolution just ensures that things are good enough.