Darwin's Voyage Done Over, Live

thrill12 writes "Almost 178 years ago, Charles Darwin set sail in the HMS Beagle, to do the now famous explorations that formed the basis for Darwin's On The Origin Of Species. Now, a group of British and Dutch scientists, journalists and artists set sail again to redo the voyage of the Beagle. This time, they are taking modern equipment with them and they have live connections through Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and Flickr. As they re-explore, and (re)discover, we can join that 8-month-long trip, live over the internet."

Comments

Almost...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Almost 178 years ago, this piece of news was released to the world. Now, Slashdot reports."

Too much time on their hands?

[Taco Cowboy]

There are indeed a lot of stuffs to research on, a lot of stuffs much more interesting and will benefit the humankind in a much more effective ways

But those "scientists" on the "re-discovery" trip don't care, all they are after is an 8-month adventure

And they want us to watch them doing that?

Re:This is 2009.

[sakdoctor]

By now the finches will have evolved to feed on natural historians, and other assorted crew.

Waste of time?

[Max Romantschuk]

Whoever thinks this should be tagged waste of time is just silly. Hell, if I were single and had the opportunity this would be a really interesting experience. If the media attention helps to remind people even a little of the fragility of the ecological balance on the planet all the better, and surely not a waste of time.

(Disclaimer: I don't believe that an "ecological balance" equals no changes, but we can't honestly claim not to be raping the planet in several aspects at the moment. IMHO anyway...)

Re:Waste of time?

[houghi]

Hell, if I were single and had the opportunity this would be a really interesting experience.

I am sure that a lot of married people would be interested as well to get away for 8 months.

Re:Waste of time?

[moon3]

the media attention helps to remind people

I doubt mainstream media will pick this up, "evolution" is still very controversial stuff. They just virtually banned the current Darwin inspired film in the US.

Re:Waste of time?

[Anonymous Coward]

otoh. in Europe this is proving to be quite popular, in The Netherlands it's getting a prime time slot appaerently

Re:Waste of time?

[owlnation]

They just virtually banned the current Darwin inspired film in the US.

That's just not true. That is what the producers are claiming, however. But that's just propaganda, and an attempt to raise publicity. The truth is that the movie had bad reviews at festivals, and thus distributors didn't pick it up for the US market. Perhaps, potential evolutionist backlash may have played some very small part in that, but controversial movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ" have thrived on the negative publicity. The movie didn't get picked up primarily, because it was regarded as pedestrian, uninspired filmmaking.

Re:Waste of time?

[xaxa]

I doubt mainstream media will pick this up, "evolution" is still very controversial stuff. They just virtually banned the current Darwin inspired film in the US.

Charles Darwin is on the back of the £10 note, he's hardly controversial here.

The Daily Mail calls Darwin, "the great evolutionist", and that's considered a conservative newspaper (Wiki: "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left.")

Re:Waste of time?

[moon3]

Yep, but most people (like 70%) believe in afterlife and similar crap still (US and pretty much rest of the world).

Re:Waste of time?

[thisnamestoolong]

"evolution" is still very controversial stuff

This is, quite unfortunately, true in America these days. I find it positively baffling that 60% of a modern society can find it appropriate to take the word of a goat herder who lived in a tent 4,000 years ago over the whole of modern science. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Evolution is a fact. It is no longer in dispute that all life on Earth evolved over about 3 billion years and that all life has a common unicellular ancestor, and that life tends to become more complex over time, the human race included. This has been proven by biology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, chemistry, and virtually every field of modern science. It is astonishing that this is still controversial and makes it very clear why things like the War in Iraq and Income Taxes are possible -- the vast majority of people out there are maddeningly stupid and proudly ignorant.

Re:Waste of time?

[moon3]

It is astonishing that this is still controversial and makes it very clear why things like the War in Iraq and Income Taxes are possible

Yep, it is painful to realize that we are living in dark ages of sorts still :-(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(378)

Re:Waste of time?

[Chrisje]

Income taxes are a bad idea? Jeez buddy, you sounded logical in the first half of that post, but then you lost it in a hurry.

Re:Waste of time?

[thisnamestoolong]

You really think that the best way for the government to collect funds is by taking your money before you even get to see it? You think that it is fair (and constitutional) for the Federal Government to dig into all of the deepest areas of your personal life to make sure you are compliant? You think that it is just for people to be thrown into jail for misunderstanding the tens of thousands of pages of cryptic legalese that constitutes our tax code? I never said that taxes were a bad idea -- just that the current system we have now borders very closely on fascism. There are plenty of other ways for the government to collect the same amount of money with far less impact to our privacy, and less of a negative impact on the economy.

Re:Waste of time?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that the best way for the government to collect funds is by taking your money before you even get to see it? You think that it is fair (and constitutional) for the Federal Government to dig into all of the deepest areas of your personal life to make sure you are compliant?

Whether or not it is fair, there is no question about it being constitutional. Article I, Section 8, clearly states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This section establishes that Congress can (through law) impose taxes and some other forms of complusory ways to gather income. The section doesn't exclude any type of tax, therefore they only way income tax could be seen as uncostitutional would be if it ran counter some other part of the constitution. So unless you want to agrue that income taxes somehow violate your civil rights I don't think you can question their constitutionality. Oh and you don't have to take my word for it, here is a link or two to the text of Constitution of the United States of America.

Personally though, I'd rather tax current wealth (in the form of net worth) rather than income. Thus there wouldn't be an disincentive to earn, just a disinsentive for horading wealth and property. Before you dismiss my idea, consider this quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations about government and property:

Civil Government, so far as it is instituted for the security of Property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those wh have some property against those who have none at all.

Re:Waste of time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution most certainly is still in dispute, and will be in dispute forever, as there is no absolute proof either for or against the existence of a God. One thing evolutionist propaganda won't tell you is that there may be evidence for or against a theory, but it can never be proven unless all variables are known - but for that to be the case, you would have to be for all practical purposes God, rendering the point moot. When a theory becomes unquestionable, science has failed. It's ironic that the so-called 'pseudo-scientists' are the ones who question common beliefs, but 'true scientists' accept whatever the theory of the day is.

Re:Waste of time?

[geekoid]

Yes, they don't, and they don't

Maybe you should try to understand it and check in with really before complaining.

BORING.

[cffrost]

Let's see a live re-creation of RMS Titanic's maiden voyage. Now that would be good television.

Re:BORING.

[sadness203]

But, you see, iceberg are not fitted to survive the rapidly evolving climate change... They didn't adapt to the new reality. Soon, they will be gone like thousand of other species before it, they will be on the wall with the Dodo bird. And we'll hear no more of their rabid and vicious attacks on unwary sea captain! Bastard iceberg.

Re:BORING.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then fuck it, use a railgun!

This type of educational movie making is good

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The last time there was a truly made-for-the-classroom movie, it was called The Voyage of the Mimi. It not only brought the crisis of dwindling humpback whale populations to elementary school students, it provided survival education lessons on avoiding contaminated foods, creating drinkable water, and building shelter. I'd not be so quick to dismiss edutainment, especially when it is in the pursuit of re-enacting one of the most important non-hard scientific studies of all time.

As an added bonus, you never know which child actor will grow up to become one of Hollywood's most popular and gifted actors.

Re:This type of educational movie making is good

[smoker2]

I'd not be so quick to dismiss edutainment, especially when it is in the pursuit of re-enacting one of the most important non-hard scientific studies of all time.

But the original voyage was a hard scientific study. The Beagle was on a mission to verify chronometer readings and thereby confirm readings of longitude around S. America. Darwin did his other stuff on his own time. And he hadn't developed any theory on natural selection at that time, he was just a keen naturalist who took the opportunity to gather samples and make drawings. It was only after seeing all those different forms of life that he started to develop his theory. So he didn't make the facts fit the theory, his theory was based on observable evidence.

Re:This type of educational movie making is good

[R2.0]

Why isn't there a +1 troll mod? I was halfway through typing a response to that last line before I clued in.

Well played, sir!

Re:This type of educational movie making is good

[jnaujok]

Uh, Darwin spent so much of the early part of that voyage seasick, that the rest of the crew finally got tired of it and put him ashore at the Galapagos Islands, and then came back to get him on the return trip. Darwin was left on the island with nothing to do, and being a keen pigeon breeder, noticed the incredibly different and diverse group of pigeons on the islands, like nothing he'd ever seen before, which led him to study the rest of the animals. It was, in fact, one of Darwin's friends who was the naturalist, and who he'd met through the bizarrely English fascination with breeding pigeons, that led to his interest in animals. I believe he humbly says at the start of "Origin of Species" that it should be his friend writing the book, since he's really just a total amateur at natural science and it was only with his friend's help that he wrote the book.

Re:This type of educational movie making is good

[Anonymous Coward]

and being a keen pigeon breeder, noticed the incredibly different and diverse group of pigeons on the islands

He may have been a pigeon breeder, but the birds that captured his attention in the Galapagos were finches, not pigeons.

Re:This type of educational movie making is good

[Hognoxious]

The original voyage was a fake. Take a look, sir, at the drawings and sketches. The shadows are all wrong, by jove!

Deification of Darwin

[SlashBugs]

This does sound like a cool project and I'll keep an eye on it, but I worry about the consequences of lauding Darwin and his work too much. Creationists, IDers and other crackpots often attack evolution by attacking errors or omissions that Darwin made, ignoring almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since his work. They also love to strawman scientists and other people who accept the evidence for evolution by referring to them as "Darwinists", implying that it's a simple case of "faith in God" vs. "faith in Darwin", rather than a matter of evidence.

Darwin certainly deserves to be remembered and respected for the amazing groundwork and insights he gave us. But I think there's a danger of looking too fixated on one personality and his centuries-old pronouncements at the expense of modern and more solid results. It sucks that we have to consider stuff like this, but like it or not there is an ideological battle going on. Because IDers and creationists are basing their arguments on emotion and strawmen, we have to consider what attacks we're exposing ourselves to, even (or especially) if they're unfair and totally illogical.

It does look like the ship will be packed with modern research equipment; hopefully the media they put out will heavily emphasise the modern data supporting evolution and acknowledging where Darwin's work has been improved upon, emphasising the success of the scientific method over the hero-worship.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dangitman]

Creationists and IDers will get their panties in a bunch no matter what you do. Best just to ignore them, because changing what you do for their sake is just a way of being manipulated by them.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[justleavealonemmmkay]

yes, be redoing Darwin's voyage is also an tribute to one of the key features of the scientific method: repeatability.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Jedi Alec]

This does sound like a cool project and I'll keep an eye on it, but I worry about the consequences of lauding Darwin and his work too much. Creationists, IDers and other crackpots often attack evolution by attacking errors or omissions that Darwin made, ignoring almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since his work. They also love to strawman scientists and other people who accept the evidence for evolution by referring to them as "Darwinists", implying that it's a simple case of "faith in God" vs. "faith in Darwin", rather than a matter of evidence.

Considering this trip is a dutch/english project and the creationist/id crackpots are mainly located in the US of A, I fail to see the problem. I can't speak for the folks across the channel, but over here in the netherlands the kind of people that believe in creationism are generally speaking quietly ignored, right along with the alien abductees, the moon landing hoax proponent and other similar characters ;-)

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dogmatixpsych]

It's not a strawman to refer to people who accept evolution as Darwinists. Besides, many staunch evolutionists (like Richard Dawkins) do profess their belief in "Darwinian evolution" and "Darwinian life" and so forth (see this article by Dawkins {scroll down to his portion of it}: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html).

Dawkins is one of the main faces of anti-Creationism / pro-evolution and he does exhibit Darwin worship. Sure, he's only one person but I've met many like him in their beliefs of evolution.

Further, many people in our world may not worship Darwin but they worship science and have science as their object of faith. Science is great but it is not perfect (I mean both that science is not perfect and the scientific method is not perfect). A study of the philosophy of science and epistemology should help people understand that. We can't get too hung up on evolution because like you said, we've had "almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since [Darwin's] work" and will have many more in the future; we might have discoveries or advancements or refinements that will completely revolutionize and change what we know about evolution!

I'm not anti-evolution; I'm a scientist working in the fields of neuropsychology, neuroscience, and neurobiology but I think it's important to not put too much faith in the scientific method either.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Ihmhi]

Science can be tested and proven, and it's constantly being improved and refined. That's about as perfect as it gets.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[tapanitarvainen]

[...] many people in our world may not worship Darwin but they worship science and have science as their object of faith. Science is great but it is not perfect (I mean both that science is not perfect and the scientific method is not perfect).

One of the major features of science is that it can never be perfect, and it is the very opposite of accepting things on faith, so "worshipping" it or having science as an object of faith sounds a bit strange. Then again, people do worship things they don't understand... hmm, actually I'm not sure one can worship and understand the same thing.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Richard Dawkins talks about "Darwinian Evolution" as opposed to the other methods of evolution people have come up with. Darwin does deserve to be associated with the current Theory of Evolution since he got so much of it correct. That is not "Worship" as you say, but giving credit where credit is due.

From what you've said, me thinks you don't know what the Scientific Method is.

It isn't something to have faith in. It is a method of finding out truth from non-truth and it is the best way anyone has found to discern the difference. The Scientific Method is also self-correcting so if we have refined Darwin's theory, that is Science working as it should.

If we don't rely on the Scientific Method to find out the truth, what do you propose we use instead?

Re:Deification of Darwin

[mdwh2]

Dawkins is one of the main faces of anti-Creationism / pro-evolution and he does exhibit Darwin worship. Sure, he's only one person but I've met many like him in their beliefs of evolution.

What acts do you mean by "Darwin worship"?

I think it's important to not put too much faith in the scientific method either.

Now that sounds like a straw man - do you have an example of this?

Most scientists, and atheists for that matter, are aware of the limits of science (the objection is just to people claim that if science can't answer something, there is something else that somehow can provide answers).

Dawkins himself did a programme on the dangers of misusing science, for example, people convicted of crimes solely on dodgy scientific evidence.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[vlm]

Further, many people in our world may not worship Darwin but they worship science and have science as their object of faith.

.jpg or it didn't happen... I've never even heard of anyone participating in the following "science faith" activities:

1) Interpretive dance in the full moon-light at the solstice in hope that my copy of "science news" magazine will be delivered.

2) Sacrificed a goat or chicken before organic chemisty lab in hopes of my grignard reagent not having moisture contamination.

3) Prayed to the "pharmo-industrial complex" to cure an illness. (their only god is money, anyway)

4) Sing hymns of praise for the AAVSO website having an easily downloadable light curve for a star I'm interested in.

Now there are borderline activites, that I think still do not qualify based on intent.

1) Meditation before a test, doesn't count because its purely for anti-anxiety effects not supernatural communion.

2) Worshiping the ground the professor walks on doesn't count, although it is treating him as a diety, it is done with the full knowledge he is merely a powerful human.

3) Reading from scientific "holy books", or even worse, reading the literal word of a powerpoint presentation, is not worshiping the book or its author or even the content, but is merely a (poor) teaching technique. Although people whom read powerpoint presentations to their audience should be burned at the stake, but not for religious reasons.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[thisnamestoolong]

Referring to 'Darwinian Evolution' is simply a general term crediting the father of the theory -- it is in no way a statement that the father's formulation was conclusive -- it is exactly the same as referring to 'Newtonian Physics' -- we are not worshiping Newton nor are we suggesting that his word on physics is final -- we are simply giving him credit for his vast contribution to science.

As for science worship, I am going to have to simply disagree with you. Placing your 'faith' in science is not faith at all due to one major difference between science and every religion in history -- science works. We have used science to accomplish many mystical feats thought to be the realm of magic -- we can communicate instantly over vast distances, cure disease, fly through the air and into space, predict the future, and many others. It does not take faith to believe in science -- it WORKS. It takes faith to believe in anything else, as all other belief systems are religions are based on nothing, and prayer provably works no better than chance. Religion has never increased the human lifespan by a single hour, whereas science has increased the average human life span by 40 years over the past century.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[SlashBugs]

Here in the UK, we have our very own Creationist Zoo that markets itslf to local schools as fulfilling curriculum requirements but pushes a strong and consistent creationist adgenda.

Meanwhile, a recent survey says that half of Britons either don't believe in evolution or say they're too confused to have an opinion.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion has never increased the human lifespan by a single hour,

I'm not sure this is true. Even though religion is basically a pile of bollocks, apparently it has a calming effect on some people - and reduced stress levels can lead to longer life.
That's not to say that (for example) some form of non-religious meditation couldn't provide the exact same benefits.

Effectively it's a relation of the placebo effect - a sugar pill for the mind, which benefits you because you think it will.

Of course, there's the flip side such as people killing themselves or at least being miserable and stressed all the time because they can't live up to some nonsense religious requirement (e.g. you're gay and your church says you're wicked and should be punished or 'cured', results disastrous).

Re:Deification of Darwin

[MistrX]

People talk about evolution as it is an religion. Terms like 'Worship' and 'belief' are posted. I don't get this.
Evolution is nicely proven by observation and not just a theory people 'believe' in. Evolution is science. Science is derived from Latin: 'scientia' which means 'knowledge'. Faith/religion/beliefsystem is a total different aspect which when combined with a scientific subject is a fallacy in terminology.

Actually MY theory is that (especially religious) people tend to call it a beliefsystem so they can relate to their own mindset. Darwin was a naturalist. And naturalists study the science behind plants and animal life. One might call it a 'flora and fauna scientist' but thats quite the mouth full.

I also like to think that faith combined with science makes a whole.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

Although people whom read powerpoint presentations to their audience should be burned at the stake, but not for religious reasons.

Absolutely! It's to create selective pressure and evolve better teachers...

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dogmatixpsych]

Ahh, the old troll modding! I guess I wasn't clear enough with my post. I unfortunately do not have the time (or space here) to really explain an alternative to the scientific method - there are alternatives though. People devote their careers to the philosophy of science and I've been studying it on and off for a number of years. What we currently call science is only one of a number of different approaches to knowledge.

At its core, science really is about finding out facts, not truth (I learned this distinction in an epistemology class I had in college - I know many might disagree with it though). We use the words interchangeably a lot but they are not strictly synonymous. But that's mainly semantics for most people.

Anyway, I'm not opposed to the scientific method - it's the foundation of my career! If my post came out as opposed to science or the scientific method or evolution, that was not my purpose; I am not opposed to them at all. I just do not believe science (and the scientific method - they are different things) is perfect - scientists know that but consumers of science often do not. Consumers of science can be brilliant - they can be lawyers or doctors or whatever - but if you are not actively doing science, you often just are not aware of its limitations. Wikipedia actually has pretty decent articles on the history of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method) and an article about the philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science).

That is where I'm coming from. I wasn't trolling, I was offering a brief and somewhat unwieldy philosophical critique of science. If we cannot take the time to question our methods of science and even science itself (again, the scientific method != science; it is the methods of science, not the science itself), then are we not exhibiting faith, even blind faith in science? Some of us take classes where they say "Here is the scientific method now go and do likewise" but how many people take the time (in classes or elsewhere) to understand how the scientific method came to be and why we use it. How many of us question the philosophical foundational assumptions of modern science?

I believe we should use whatever we can to understand truth. It can come from science, philosophy, art, religion, or wherever else. I just do not believe that the scientific if the "best way...to discern the difference [between truth and non-truth]." It's an awesome way but best? That discounts a lot of non-science (and not just religion).

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dogmatixpsych]

I posted a reply to an AC down below that might help clarify some of my original post. Here's the link to my rely: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1367441&cid=29414563

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dogmatixpsych]

I think your post should be modded funny. It made me laugh (in a good way). Thanks for replying even if you were sarcastic. :)

Re:Deification of Darwin

[CrimsonAvenger]

Science can be tested and proven

Falsified. Science can be tested and falsified.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[dogmatixpsych]

Science works. Science is wonderful. There are few bigger proponents of science than I am; however, we also should not discount the benefits of religion or anything else outside of science. Religion is not about increasing how long people live (although as the AC said below, studies show that in the U.S., people who are more religious - everything else being equal, at least as far as we know - they are healthier and live longer than non-religious people do) or how fast they communicate or most of whatever else we get from using science. Your bias with your post was towards science. In it you (inadvertently) discounted the benefits of literature or art or sports or just about anything else. Is science better than agriculture? Depends on how you look at it. Can you use science with your agriculture? Yes but agriculture is not science. That's my point. We can't get so fixated on science - as wonderful as it is - that we lose sight of the good we get from everything else. That's where science becomes a religion of sorts. :)

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

(the objection is just to people claim that if science can't answer something, there is something else that somehow can provide answers).

Ok I'll bit, what part of Science is supposed to answer questions like "How should people treat each other?" or "What should individuals and/or societies value most?". I suppose disciplines like History, Sociology, and Anthropology can tell us what was done in other times and places, but there aren't any obtective tests or falisable theories that can be constructed for moral or ethical considerations. Science can give us more information to make a determination, but it can't by itself determine which set of values or ways-of-life are superior or inferior to others. Therefore even the firmist atheist has to get some of their answers from non-scientific sources, because even basing their ethical and moral codes on something like "Social Darwinism" is innately non-scientific (for the reasons I'm mentioned previously).

Re:Deification of Darwin

[thisnamestoolong]

Firstly, I would argue that agriculture, if not directly a science, was created through "scientific" methods, and has since been tightly interwoven with science as to make it more productive.

To get more to the meat of what you are saying here, I don't feel that my statements discount art or agriculture in one bit -- both of those things are extremely effective at the things they claim to do. Agriculture at saving lives, art at entertaining and often educating us. Religion claims to be able to improve you in ways that are impossible, and easily falsifiable.

The "power of prayer" is thrown around left and right, despite the fact that it is easily proven that this sentiment is rubbish. While it is true that belief has a positive placebo effect, I have a hard time seeing how this can be anything of a reasonable argument for faith.

I may find it extremely comforting to believe that 2+2=5, but that does not change that fact that it is wrong. This delusion would be harmless unless of course I were to propagate my silly fantasy wide enough that 60% of the country believed that 2+2=5. It would be even worse were I to infiltrate the classroom and have a warning label put on math books, stating that it is only a "theory" that 2+2=4, and that students should come to their own conclusion. Or if I were so incensed by a cartoon depicted 2+2 equaling 4 that I decided to issue death threats against its creator.

I guess what I am trying to say is that even if the BS makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it is still BS, and basing your life around BS can only lead to bad things. We need to work more diligently to ground ourselves in reality so that we can make sane, rational choices that benefit all of mankind.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[mdwh2]

I never said science could answer those things - yes, there are some things we can't give definite answers to.

What I question is the idea that there's some other thing - usually religion - that gives us these answers. So come on, what method can we use to provide objective answers to "How should people treat each other?" or "What should individuals and/or societies value most?"

The only answers will be answers that are a matter of opinion - and good opinions will still be those that are based on reason and scientific evidence. I don't know of any scientist who claims that science can provide definite answers to moral questions, so I think it's still a straw man.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[mqduck]

If we don't rely on the Scientific Method to find out the truth, what do you propose we use instead?

Goat entrails, obviously.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

And for falsifying religion you don't even need testing, go figure...

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Anonymous Coward]

ID/creationism isn't based on emotion and strawmen. It is entirely logical.

Let me explain. Every single animal on the planet has the ability to reproduce its species, and somehow nurture its own kind. Chicken and egg problems exist in almost every case. A baby human grows from almost nothing into a fully formed baby inside its mother's womb, and there is a birth "mechanism" and the mother then naturally produces milk which just happens to be exactly what the baby needs to survive...and is still better than anything we can produce with all the technology in the world.

So then which is more logical - to believe that all of this happened by chance, or that there must have been an intelligent designer behind it all?

Also, just because you can prove that object A plus effect B = object C, this does not prove that object C must have been formed that way. You can prove all kinds of things about nature, but you absolutely cannot prove that it wasn't created that way "as is".

Re:Deification of Darwin

[khallow]

Creationists, IDers and other crackpots often attack evolution by attacking errors or omissions that Darwin made, ignoring almost two centuries of refinements and advancements since his work.

The ones that do that often fail in the process. I really don't see a material effect on evolution science, if someone really did deify Darwin. It might even provide an amusing distraction for Creationists and similar folks.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Hognoxious]

Scientific hypotheses can be falsified.

How exactly would one set up an experiment to falsify science itself?

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Hognoxious]

That's all superstitious mumbo-jumbo, right alongside reading tea leaves. Astrology and graphology are where it's at these days.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[Hognoxious]

So come on, what method can we use to provide objective answers to "How should people treat each other?" or "What should individuals and/or societies value most?"

Religion can answer those questions. And if you don't like the answers it gives you, just try a different one.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[mdwh2]

And if you don't like the answers it gives you, just try a different one.

Your definitions of definite and objective seem to differ from mine.

Re:Deification of Darwin

[geekoid]

Dn't ignore them. If you do they end up on your school board and getting sceince facts removed fromt he class room and replaces witha belief system.

Best crush their skull^H^H^H^H^H beliefs, with rocks^H^H^H^H^H Logic.

cute but no cigar

[youn]

wake me up when they do an intergalactic voyage with an FTL drive to see the evolution of life across the universe... darn, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to sleep a long time :)

So sayeth the book of Darwin

[Supurcell]

And so the first of many blessed pilgrims set out to become one niche closer to He Who Was Fittest, Darwin. By standing in His very foot prints, they too wouldst experience what was experienced through his highly evolved sensory organs. In their specialized grasping limbs, they wouldst wield the implements by which scrolls of eldritch knowledge would be wrought. As men they did die, but proven to be fit themselves, they too shall survive yet; not through their mortal vessels, but through story and song they outlive the ages.

Re:So sayeth the book of Darwin

[Hurricane78]

You don't know how deep/true the last sentence is, considering that one can see ideas/mindsets/realities as lifeforms, growing, reproducing, feeding, and perhaps... having thoughts themselves?

Re:So sayeth the book of Darwin

[BB_Cat_3k]

Mod this Profound instead of Funny.

Re:So sayeth the book of Darwin

[ovu]

I'm romantically attached to this notion, but am having difficulty producing an example of an idea having a thought. Do you have any you can share with the class?

Any usefulness?

[VincenzoRomano]

Apart of rising some attention about the Evolution Theory in the (funny) battle against the Intelligent Design, I don't see any usefulness.
Have those scientists, journalists (?) and artists (??) gained any new knowledge from this trip?

Re:Any usefulness?

[AHuxley]

Kon-Tiki for this generation? Its just nice to read about and reflect?
A young person might get into science?

Re:Any usefulness?

[VincenzoRomano]

Nice. Quite expensive, but nice.

Re:Any usefulness?

[Sterling_Aug]

How can we know if there WILL be any usefulness to this project since it just set sail yesterday September 13, 2009. Lets check back and answer this question sometime in May 2010 (assuming the trip completes as scheduled).

Re:Any usefulness?

[geekoid]

Maybe it's just something fun they want to do?

I don't consider it fun, but I'm not going to project that on them and come to some conclusion that it is a waste of time.

Re:I gotta get a piece of this.

[MrMr]

You are aware that this is project is sponsored by the TV companies and commercial partners, not by the 'national science foundation'?.

Live Video?!?!?

[t0qer]

Anyone know how they're doing live video at sea?

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[MichaelSmith]

If its on youtube it won't be live. Perhaps they use a sat phone to do a daily upload.

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

satellite

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[illustir]

If you have the money it is actually not that difficult to do live video links using smallish satellite receivers. A laptop and an antenna the size of a briefcase is all you need to go live on television from anywhere in communication satellite range.

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[Norsefire]

They've enlisted help from the Pirate Bay.

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The main partners in this project are the Dutch and Belgian broadcasting corporations. I saw the first episode and they seemed to be using the same satellite setup they use for live reports.

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[ThoughtMonster]

With pigeons, because, apparently, they're better than most broadband connections.

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're using a satellite receiver. If you want to know the exact details you might want to ask the producer via twitter: http://twitter.com/lexrun

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[p_trekkie]

Marine satellite broadband. It ain't cheap (cheapest plan is $400/month), but seeing how much they're spending on the rest of this boondoggle, it should be affordable for them....

Re:Live Video?!?!?

[p_trekkie]

Oops, I wasn't looking carefully... the minimum cost for true bluewater broadband is $1500/month.....

Re:I gotta get a piece of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am fully aware that this is sponsored by Dutch public television. Taxpayer's money.

They just would not settle for Gregor Mendel's study of peas, which form the basis of genetics and without which Darwin's theory was rubbish. I guess taxpayer's money is better spend on a trip around the world than on a bunch of peas.

Dupe - similar story on Slashdot 178 years ago

[GNious]

Dupe - similar story on Slashdot 178 years ago

Twitter etc...

[Lord Lode]

Why do these things always need to use live connections through twitter and facebook etc...? Why don't they just make their own website which shows the info in a more personal way to them? All the rest are just dumb hypes.

Re:Twitter etc...

[Dak RIT]

Bandwidth?

Re:Twitter etc...

[IBBoard]

Bandwidth?

Comparatively cheap these days. Scripts for micro-blogging, standard blogging, etc? Freely available. Not just being another hype-follower? Priceless.

I suspect their are arguments like "because people use it" and "because people know it" and "because people don't need to make separate registrations". All it means is that you get buried in junk instead, or force people who wouldn't otherwise bother with an account on one of these "trendy" services to get an account just to comment (while avoiding the rest of the spam).

Re:Twitter etc...

[draco664]

Potential audience size?

Re:Twitter etc...

[Arrawa]

Actually they did. and quite exentsive with that. But as its a Dutch/Belgium cooperation, the site is mostly in Dutch. http://beagle.vpro.nl/ But there is a section in English (and in Spanish and in Portuges) http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/page/item/12/english/

Re:Twitter etc...

[MistrX]

My guess would be that more people visit Facebook, Twitter and Youtube then some obscure educational/informative/scientific website where only specific magazines and Slashdot news items refer to the URL.

Re:Twitter etc...

[mdwh2]

Comparatively cheap these days. Scripts for micro-blogging, standard blogging, etc? Freely available. Not just being another hype-follower? Priceless.

So why are you here on "trendy" Slashdot like the rest of us? Surely you're better off building your own site to post your opinions to, instead of following the hype, right?

I suspect their are arguments like "because people use it" and "because people know it" and "because people don't need to make separate registrations". All it means is that you get buried in junk instead, or force people who wouldn't otherwise bother with an account on one of these "trendy" services to get an account just to comment (while avoiding the rest of the spam).

But if you can be bothered to even RTFS, they do have a website ( http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/page/item/12/english/ ), for those people who don't want to sign up to Facebook or Twitter, etc. Those things are provided in addition, for the convencience of people who are on those sites.

Re:Twitter etc...

[Arrawa]

It is not obscure! You have to get in mind that the VPRO is one of the large Dutch public broadcasters with lots of airtime on tv and radio. The co-host, VRT is the Belgium public broadcaster. They have a beagle site at http://multiblog.vrt.be/canvasprogrammas/beagle-kaart/ Many public broadcasters here in the Netherlands, endorse the idea of 'Don't care where and how you watch or listen to us, if you are listening to us'. In that adagium, Youtube, facebook, twitter fit very well.

Re:Twitter etc...

[Arrawa]

Erhmm... that should be: 'Don't care where and how you want to watch or listen to us, as long as you are watching and listening to us'.

Re:Twitter etc...

[MistrX]

Yeah, but on an international platform I think they did right by using Twitter, Youtube etc. then just a website. You either have to watch the VPRO and go to the website to learn what the website is where the expedition is hosted on or read it on forums like Slashdot.

Thats what I ment with obscure and I was referring to the website. ;)

Also I fully endorse this expedition. Many people see it as a waste of time but a lot of new discoveries and/or insights are found when recreating an old scenario or walking an old path. New understanding and technology also helps a great deal.

Re:Live Video? Green Video!

[AliasMarlowe]

Anyone know how they're doing live video at sea?

The first few weeks of video would be quite educational, if they actually used a ship like the Beagle. Puking over the side every few minutes as the ship rolls at the least ripple on the sea, puking in horror on discovering what a state-of-the-art "marine head" was in the 1830s, puking at the sight of the maggoty gourmet cuisine served to officers and VIPs, puking at the smells of one's fellow voyagers (want a shower? dream on!). Almost like a twisted reality TV with green faces. Then there's the little issue of all that sodomy, grog, and the lash.

Re:I gotta get a piece of this.

[darinfp]

"Wow. I am immediately going to apply for a national science foundation grant to recreate the historic of Hunter S Thompson. "

Bags Shotgun...

Dutch AND Belgian!

[NaughtyNimitz]

British, Dutch AND Belgian participants please! It's not because Kim Clijsters speaks Dutch, she is Dutch. Also, The Netherlands celebrates 'their' foundation of New York. But apparently, New York was also founded by Belgians (Walloons) and French. Hoboken for example is also a community near Antwerp. It's so convenient to leave the others out...

Re:Dutch AND Belgian!

[Anonymous Coward]

VOC was dutch.

Re:Dutch AND Belgian!

[NaughtyNimitz]

Of course VOC was Dutch, but they brought Dutch, Belgian and French colonists with them (as paying customers). It's not because I pay KLM to bring me to island X , that KLM is settling on island X...

Re:Dutch AND Belgian!

[MistrX]

The Dutch founded New York (then: New Amsterdam). The other colonists lived, or within that city, or outside but did not found that particular city. It were colonists of the VOC so to speak and that last company was Dutch.

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=7712

Re:Dutch AND Belgian!

[Hognoxious]

It's not because Kim Clijsters speaks Dutch, she is Dutch.

Bollocks, she's Belgian.

Re:I gotta get a piece of this.

[draco664]

Maybe we could get a grant to recreate the Mayflower and the Titanic in one go. Stuff a ship full of fundementalists and sink it in the Atlantic.

probably meant live-action video

[Anonymous Coward]

Who framed Darwin Rabbit?

Re:Live Video? Green Video!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

On the plus side, the soundtrack picks itself.

Re:This is 2009.

[Thanshin]

By now the finches will have evolved to feed on natural historians, and other assorted crew.

"If you watch closely the lower left corner of the picture, you'll be able to see an impressive specimen of Dr. Johansson's newly discovered Devoratrix Historiator; or, as the team liked to call them, a 'skullfucker'"

"On the next picture you can see a closer image, slightly darkened by some of Dr. Johansson's blood and brain pieces on the camera."

As an American, I must protest

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there's a 61% chance I don't believe in evolution. I also eat children.

Re:This is 2009.

[BrightSpark]

Aparently 50 other countries wanted to supply crew for the re-enactment but the British and Dutch won out highlighting Darwin's law of national selection. There is talk Beagle II may stop off in California to replace the first crew to prove the theory of survival of the hippest. I can't keep this up - mod me to death, I deserve it.

Horrible

[The Cisco Kid]

Looks like a great project, however the website has got to be one of the most horrid and difficult to use things Ive seen in a web browser. Ever. Add that apparently they have been drinking from the MS Silverlight koolaid machine, and despite my interest in the project, I can say it will not be a site I will waste my time visiting anymore.

Re:Horrible

[jeremyp]

No kidding!

That's the first time I've seen a multi-document interface implemented inside a web page. What were they thinking?

Re:Horrible

[Arrawa]

Thats why they have also a twitter/hyves/youtube account :-)

http://vprobeagle.hyves.nl/
http://twitter.com/beagleproject
http://www.youtube.com/user/VPROBeagle

And a fan-site:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=57984394055

Alfred Wallace says - Been There, Done That

[mrheehee]

As too often happens, the wrong person is deified. Alfred Russel Wallace, at the least, co-authored the Theory Of Evolution. Like Nicola Tesla, he faded, or was trampled, into obscurity by a publicity seeking opponent. Google it and see, although many articles attempt to downplay Wallace's contribution because he dared to venture into "unscientific" areas of research. In any case, evolution as they both proposed is long since obsolete.

Re:Alfred Wallace says - Been There, Done That

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, evolution as they both proposed is long since obsolete.

However, Alfred Russel Wallace's views on land management and the environment seem to have be largely upheld. It was also interesting that he devised a way to demonstrate the curvature of the Earth because of a flat-Earth believer's public challenge.

Next up!

[erroneus]

I plan to reproduce the famous "Franklin lightning, kite, key in the thunderstorm" experiment. If you don't hear from me again, you'll know how it went.

Re:Next up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder if Franklin had grad students.

BBC Documentary

[CopaceticOpus]

Anyone who is interested in this topic should watch the BBC documentary "Galápagos: The Islands That Changed the World". It is fascinating and beautifully shot. You can buy it on DVD or BD, or rent it from Netflix.

Re:BBC Documentary

[American Terrorist]

I recommend "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright. The book is mostly about modern evolutionary theory related through Darwin's works and life. I really liked that Galapagos documentary too, I felt like after watching it I never really need to go there myself, which is a good thing for the islands' wildlife.

Re:BBC Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that that documentary is great, I'd recommend actually going to see the Galápagos in person. It's an amazing experience and something every science geek should do at least once in his/her lifetime. And sooner is better than later as it was designated to be an endangered a couple of years ago.

Summary error : Dutch & Flemish, not British

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary calls this a project by "a group of British and Dutch scientists". However, as all of the links in the summary indicate, this is a project run by the VPRO, a Dutch tv station and the VPRO web site clearly states that this is a VPRO project together with the (also Dutch) Teleac and the Flemish Canvas.

I wonder why the summary put the British contribution first....

Re:Nice holiday

[Arrawa]

The Dutch and Belgium tax payers (they pay for the public broadcasters VPRO and VRT (and the educational broadcaster Teleac/NOT) who co-host the show) with additional funds from the Dutch and Belgium governments and private sponsors.

Job opening?

[R2.0]

"Hell, if I were single and had the opportunity this would be a really interesting experience."

I'm sure the position of "peg boy" is wide open.

Shut Up...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

... you... you scientist!

Re:Nice holiday

[MistrX]

Why do you think it's a waste of time?

Re:Just more timber

[Anonymous Coward]

Just more timber,
for the fire of curiosity of the mind.

Here, fixed that for you.

Must be a entertaining read

[Coren22]

Eight month trip huh? Must be real entertaining read.

"At sea, the horizon is empty in every direction"

"Still at sea, nothing to do, playing WoW"

So, who would read this log of travel long enough to get to them making landfall?

Gentlemen, we need a new word.

[GameboyRMH]

Upon reading the summary I realized that we need a new word for people obsessed with the latest inane online social networking/banter sharing/privacy destroying fad services. I looked for one but could not find a suitable word with which to tag the story. Neophile is close but not specific enough, and carries too many negative connotations for the user. Blogtard sort of says it all but I think we can do better. Can anyone offer any suggestions?

Re:Gentlemen, we need a new word.

[geekoid]

Social networking is not a fad, and isquite importnt.

For example:
DUring the Iran protest, Twitter change there upgrade times to lesson any impact on the copmmunication between protestors.

Right there shows how damn important social networking is.

Here is a suggestion:

Communicator.

I can't believe the tards on this site the poo-poo new ways to communicate. It's like saying writing is a waste of time becasue most people only write crap that isn't useful to anyone else.

It's a Luddite position to take.

And no, you post didn't contain any humor.

Re:Gentlemen, we need a new word.

[GameboyRMH]

I'm not trivializing social networking on a whole, I know it has real, non-trivial uses - what I'm talking about here is the neophilic obsession with twittering, facebooking, geotagging and photo-sharing every damn thing like a puppy with a new toy, just for the sake of doing it.

Re:Gentlemen, we need a new word.

[Anarchduke]

I know its off topic but I had to reply to your signature. Snarky has already been done.

maybe it's worth noting that...

[Anonymous Coward]

there are also belgian scientists on board (not only dutch and british)

Since this is a Do over

[Idiomatick]

Since this is a do-over there is an albeit small chance they'll come back like:
"Huh... I guess Darwin was a scam artist. That sucks, he really had us going there with that whole 'evolution' thing. You think someone would have tried to verfiy."


Ok... very very small chance but still.

Re:Since this is a Do over

[geekoid]

No, the discovery of DNA pretty much solidified Darwin's Hypothesis pretty firmly.

OF course new evidence may be forth coming to change that, but it will need pretty strong evidences. In fact so many scientific discoveries confirm evolution that even if Darwin 'made it up' it would be irrelevant because it's true. I mean, he would get called out as a sham artists, but that doesn't mean all the other evidence goes away, it just means he got lucky with his 'sham'.

Since it's been confirmed on the islands by other scientists, your speculation is pointless

Re:Summary error : Dutch & Flemish, not Britis

[Arrawa]

Actually, there are British scientists on board.

And ...

[Anonymous Coward]

They're going to patent the results ! No more evolving without paying first ;-)

Inevitably...

[BB_Cat_3k]

Let's see a live re-creation of RMS Titanic's maiden voyage. Now that would be good television.

It'll be a new reality show, and it will air on Fox.

Evolution and laws of physics

[Singri]

How is Evolution explained using the laws of physics? Does Evolution imply that life is written into the laws of physics?

Re:Evolution and laws of physics

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way chemistry, geology, and dermatology are: emergent properties.

Geek Cruises has been doing this for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really news. Cap'n Neil Baumann's Insight Cruises (http://www.insightcruises.com, formerly http://geekcruises.com) has been doing this just about every year for the past four or five years in association with Scientific American magazine. Called "Evolution Emanation," they set sail to the Galapagos in late February or early March.

Amsterdam completes Darwin's Voyage!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what technology advances did the Dutch get as a result?

The Voyage of the Beagle

[zoeblade]

If anyone's interested, Charles Darwin's book The Voyage of the Beagle is available from Gutenberg, free in both senses of the word.

Why they changed it I can't say.

[Hognoxious]

The Dutch founded New York

Then a few years later they losted it.

Re:I gotta get a piece of this.

[Anarchduke]

Since you are throwing the Titanic in the mix, we are going to need a selection of the wealthy and powerful to drown. I vote to add the executives of AIG and the rest of their ilk.