I’m sure I’d get more disagreement from the political class, defending at least one of the things I’m pointing out here. The history of evolution, and the detractors/deniers— it’s never so simple, the contentions that go on in the “discussion” of major changes to science, and how Progressives aim to shame people by changing history. It wasn’t much the denial of natural selection, something early and easily accepted, it was some of the things that Charles Darwin alleged; Darwin pushed the envelope, trying to define the history of the human race.
It’s easy to see how people would be justifiably angry with an academia that’s typically (or to the point of being stereotypically) snobbish, belittling the subjects of the moment, when it started ‘seeing what sticks’ on humanity. The human condition, from a sociologist’s perspective, artificial to say the least.
But it doesn’t matter how wrong Darwin was on certain things, how oversimplified his model of the cell was, the many, many gaps that remained in his theories. Political correctness is a conservative thing, mind you; the people with the power keeping power by maintaining the same way of doctrine in education, an evil that defines ‘what will get you ahead in life’… things that inhibit, one way or another (e.g., make you a robot).
Cosmos… and inaccuracies in the program.
Compared to “Nova,” the new “Cosmos” sucks.
Why? How? How about this inaccuracy: DNA is never identical. In fact, not only are there identical twins (and triplets, more rare) with the same main DNA code, but more prolific are the asexual species that reproduce with the same DNA. The epigenetic code may change, may reflect diseases current and future (famine does a number on grandchildren). But the DNA can be passed down the same.
Regardless, the DNA in an organism mustn’t change; it’s the equivalent of a computer’s ROM, to put it technically. Absolutely everything else changes, rebuilds.
And don’t get me started on the claim that genetic mutations are random. I could, and should, give you an earful on how absolutely nothing is random (‘random’ is a concept often used in practice to put things aside), but I should instead get into how mutations work. Mutations occur as a result of multiple scans, fitting the conditions faced.
As a major example of this, we’re seeing superbugs these days because these ‘microbes’ actually contain a mass of information, and they communicate with each other. The survivors carry a data that include: ‘what tried to kill me.’ Bacteria swap genes. The inappropriate use of antibiotics have lead to antibiotic resistant infections. Combating that, a narrow-spectrum approach.
Another example: genetic modifications, and how GMO corn is… it’s ugly. It doesn’t quite behave like corn, and may destroy the corn grass germ as we know it, swapping genes anywhere, while being unable to reproduce.
To the Dogs…
The more I get into it the more an actual picture of evolution develops. The crux of evolution can be seen in how wolves became dogs, which was also featured in the program— but not as comprehensively as in Nova (WGBH Boston). Not some theory, but the symbiotic relationship between survival and comfort.
But the latter isn’t actually comfort. It’s something called “reasonable living.” Reasonable living— part of those ‘engraved prerequisites’ in which organisms come into life, a sort of “terms and conditions,” if you will. I went into that before.
When you get down that small, how gene markers change, how life builds and rebuilds, the spiritual side of things starts to show, the energies at play in the passing of information within the universe having so much influence, contained and emitted.
…But the spiritual side of the reality is, of course, rejected by Atheists and other people that live but misunderstand life. With one red herring after another, I’m right/you’re wrong, despite how statements by myself and others reflect on-going real science, questioning and figuring, positing based on other facts collected, not on… politically established, … establishment facts… defended to the death, harming the questioner, even when they’re wrong.
Neil D.-Tyson may be the one with the Ph.D, but unfortunately he appears more a name, a title, a TV star than a scientist. It shows, like all things a matter of access, Ph.Ds, the doctorates of science— most of it revolves around money, not so much knowledge for the purpose of a better founding/understanding on life, the intent.
To dickishly insert myself into that final matter, I cannot see myself ever getting a degree mainly because of that money factor. No matter how factual I am, I will not be allowed access to advance my own studies— out there, learning to help, blah blah, and probably till death be dismissed by each and every so-called “community” on the planet. The other factor…: pettiness— whatevs…
There’s a junk science for ya’: the evolution of money. And in my own time, recently I have just disproven the saying, “the love of money is the root of all evil.” That’s for another time.