Alice Roberts is......

[mangaman]

When Alice Roberts fist appeared, I remember my PhD supervisor being tactfully, and very professionally, unimpressed, and mentioning her lack of actual qualification and experience in the subject, and I respect his opinion over pretty much anyone's.

I'm not surprised.

The worst and most embarrassing archaeology program was "Extreme Archaeology".

Do you remember that. Alice, and 2 other underqualified but attractive women making possibly the world's worst ever show.

 

[Zoiders]

As to us, we are still evolving, we're taller for a start I think, but we're no longer under the same constraints as other species, and I think more specialised evolution may happen as we tinker more. (Dare I mention eugenics.)
We're even influencing the evolution of some species, elephants now have smaller tusks on average than they used to, as we have shot the ones with large tusks for ivory, leading to smaller tusked elephants passing on their genes instead.

Thats not evolution it's environmental and diet related, we didn't get taller we simply possesed the abilty to be tall if fed a certain way, we respond very quickly to environmental change due to pre-set genetics, not because they change.

For every evolved species with generational differences you will find one that is unchanged over a very long time period, there must be a driver, simply pushing out the reccesive is not something that happens without it.

It's funny you mention Eugenics as some seem to be confusing it with evolution, a system of selection that is guided by sentinence is not evolution.

 

[Fnaar]

I'd happily contribute to the evolution of the species with Alice Roberts

 

[buddha]

Are we actualy evolving at the moment?, right know humanity has plateaud quite a bit as there is nothing driving the evolution.

Yes you might see generational differences in things like height, stature, colouration etc etc but there is nothing selective going on that is going to alter the genome in any major way in the very long term.

It takes something far more drastic to drive it such as disease, environmental change or predation, we have stepped outside of that system and arrested our own natural evolution.

One thing that we haven't been doing, until recently, is moving at high speed. That seems like quite a drastic change IMO. There's even a bit of 'natural selection' thrown in as to who's good at it or not

 

[PBancroft]

Alice Roberts got her break on time team - a program notorious for using female archaeology students with large breasts and low cut T-shirts, filmed from above as they dig.

I know someone who works on Time Team - they're not all students, but paid archaeologists. In order to be on TV you have to be both willing (he isn't, except distance shots) and for proper screen time, a specialist. I understand Arch disagrees that AR has the qualifications, so maybe AR snuck through for unspoken reason 3. I mention this, as having spent many years in university, as both undergraduate and postgraduate as well as quite some years afterwards trying to make ends meet doing really crappy hours (archaeology isn't well paid at the base levels), he gets a little peeved when he is called a student. He even had someone point him out to their kid shortly after he got his Phd and quite loudly say "this is what will happen if you don't work hard at school..."

As for why they wear shorts and T-Shirts? Archaeology is hard, sweaty and dirty work, as I'm sure other people here will attest to, and for filming reasons they tend to make Time Team on bright sunny times of the year.

 

[downfader]

Thats not evolution it's environmental and diet related, we didn't get taller we simply possesed the abilty to be tall if fed a certain way, we respond very quickly to environmental change due to pre-set genetics, not because they change.

For every evolved species with generational differences you will find one that is unchanged over a very long time period, there must be a driver, simply pushing out the reccesive is not something that happens without it.

It's funny you mention Eugenics as some seem to be confusing it with evolution, a system of selection that is guided by sentinence is not evolution.

Zoiders, I think you've missed the point. There are always "drivers". In fact its actually more a case that a change in diet, culture or environment exposes a gene that acts positively to that change.

So what drivers can we point to that would, in time (remembering you and I are stuck in the present, the change comes through offspring), show evolutionary change?

-diet - we have over the past million years developed a taste for meat, and more specifically cooked foods. Our digestive system has adapted to that. Moderly we have eaten far more in the way of sugar and fat, this is actually killing off people who's bodies react to this change. Their offspring may well have a gene that has a coping mechanism (or the scientists may find one)

-environment - we were forest animals, cave dwellers.. we have slowly built our own homes and dwellings. We have raped the resources of the land. We could well find a time when clean water, over population and lack of food occur and as such those who can exist on less food and water will prosper down the line and be more likely to breed.

-disease - this IS an important one. Those who survive disease, just as with the Spanish Flu epidemic in the 20th century did so because they recated genetically positively towards the illness and were able to fight it off.

Current diseases such as flu (and the effects of vaccination) are being studied. The eradication of cancer may lead to other, more horrible diseases down the line. To push one negative thing out always seems to expose another. For the time being atleast.

Eugenics hasnt been confused with Evolution. However what could happen (and we wont know this until generations have passed) is that it creates an offshoot. Families who suffered from problems like mental illness, learning difficulties, etc, may have had some of that line stripped out in favour of other less favourable geneology.

Eugenics is just an example of what Richard Dawkins loosley discussed in the past. We see disease and negative aspects and feel repelled. We are genetically programmed to repell as it is a protective mechanism, just the same as we are genetically programmed to react to the genetically similar. The Selfish Gene, as Dawkins put it.

I know someone who works on Time Team - they're not all students, but paid archaeologists. In order to be on TV you have to be both willing (he isn't, except distance shots) and for proper screen time, a specialist. I understand Arch disagrees that AR has the qualifications, so maybe AR snuck through for unspoken reason 3. I mention this, as having spent many years in university, as both undergraduate and postgraduate as well as quite some years afterwards trying to make ends meet doing really crappy hours (archaeology isn't well paid at the base levels), he gets a little peeved when he is called a student. He even had someone point him out to their kid shortly after he got his Phd and quite loudly say "this is what will happen if you don't work hard at school..."

As for why they wear shorts and T-Shirts? Archaeology is hard, sweaty and dirty work, as I'm sure other people here will attest to, and for filming reasons they tend to make Time Team on bright sunny times of the year.

I work washing dishes. You'd laugh if I told you that people have had that said to them in my place, yet they have degrees, one even had a PhD. A job is a job, some chose my place because they enjoy it and the people. They make just as much money as some undergraduates, yet they get fit at the same time... but in some people's eyes thats a failure, forgetting that a) someone has to do the job, and b) if you cant find a Brit to do it you have to advertise abroad..
..thats a different topic though.

 

[marinyork]

No gimmicks / knowledgable presenters - just giving you information.

I think you're being a bit hard on horizon. If you look back on the last couple of years of horizon, the ones that tend to be on physics/cosmology/astronomy/maths have had people like:-
Michio Kaku
Max Tegmark
Ed Witten
Roger Penrose
Gregory Chaitin
on the show. And that's leaving out relative 'lightweights' like Marcus de Sautoy and Brian Cox. Some of these people like Michio and Max are great presenters in their own rights. The problem with horizon is the directing and writing.

 

[downfader]

I think you're being a bit hard on horizon. If you look back on the last couple of years of horizon, the ones that tend to be on physics/cosmology/astronomy/maths have had people like:-
Michio Kaku
Max Tegmark
Ed Witten
Roger Penrose
Gregory Chaitin
on the show. And that's leaving out relative 'lightweights' like Marcus de Sautoy and Brian Cox. Some of these people like Michio and Max are great presenters in their own rights. The problem with horizon is the directing and writing.

The trouble that has always been for Horizon is that it has to be an everyman. Its watched by people like myself who have little scientific back ground but love it, its a popular science program export (the science equivilent of top gear I beleive), and its played in schools/colleges as an educational program.

This is no bad thing, if you're inspired you look up those involved, find their books, other more indepth programs and take it further. It fosters a love of science without being too heavy.

I love that about Horizon.

 

[just jim]

A Horizon episode wasn't always underpinned by the presenter, which I think it is now. I've gone off it a bit because of the personality drive, starting with Professor Brian Cox. Those cutaways of Dr. Alice Roberts might annoy me a bit. I'll have a look on the old iplayer.

 

[Kirstie]

I found Horizon absolutely fascinating last night - I thought it was a great show, really well made, that communicated the scientific ideas really well to a wide audience. As far as Alice Robert is concerned, she's a great communicator. Her background was that she was a teaching fellow at the University of Bristol, mostly doing lab demonstrations in osteology. Having been directly involved in telly production and presenting as part of my job, i know how incredibly difficult presenting is. Not a lot of people can do it well, to order, on time, and very very few people actually look good on TV. I met Mike Bullivant (Rough Science) once, and although he looks great on TV he looks scary in real life! Naturally I have a face for radio...

What is difficult for the beeb (or, more accurately, the freelance production companies they subcontract to make these things) is to get credible, intelligent people, who can communicate well and look good for series such as Horizon etc. The new crop of young academics (they're not professors either, even though they say they are on telly) they have - Brian Cox, Iain Stewart, Alice Roberts, Alex Krotowsky etc - are really good at what they do. My issue is that they are now involved in so many series it's overkill, both with the format and with their presenting styles. I think they need to move the format on before they get stale.

IMO Kate Humble is like a (posh) bull in a china shop compared to Alice Roberts.

 

[marinyork]

The trouble that has always been for Horizon is that it has to be an everyman. Its watched by people like myself who have little scientific back ground but love it, its a popular science program export (the science equivilent of top gear I beleive), and its played in schools/colleges as an educational program.

This is no bad thing, if you're inspired you look up those involved, find their books, other more indepth programs and take it further. It fosters a love of science without being too heavy.

I love that about Horizon.

I have watched Horizon from the BBC archives and the ones from the late 70s (one programme in particular) was much less dumbed down than it is now. It's a bit like the hoo ha over world maths day yesterday, we revel in being bad at things. I think the programme could have considerably more kick and yet still be accessible and motivational.

 

[marinyork]

What is difficult for the beeb (or, more accurately, the freelance production companies they subcontract to make these things) is to get credible, intelligent people, who can communicate well and look good for series such as Horizon etc. The new crop of young academics (they're not professors either, even though they say they are on telly) they have - Brian Cox, Iain Stewart, Alice Roberts, Alex Krotowsky etc - are really good at what they do. My issue is that they are now involved in so many series it's overkill, both with the format and with their presenting styles. I think they need to move the format on before they get stale.

I thought Aleks Krotoski's series was pretty good, I don't she's been overkill at all. I think it's Alice Roberts and Brian Cox that have had too much tv exposure. I don't rate Brian Cox, I think Jim Al-Khalili is much better at doing material that has strong overlap. Stewart, de Sautoy, Cox and Al-Khalili are all broadly the same age but some seem a lot younger to people than others. I think it's just part of a much bigger trend at the BBC to get presenters who 'look' in their late 30s to present stuff as opposed to others and this has been particularly good for a few presenters (and bad for others).

 

[just jim]

I like Horizon episodes when we are engaging with the scientists themselves, with their mannerisms, pauses, flickers of doubt included. These programmes can be powerful documents without a personality getting in the way.

 

[Kirstie]

Yeah fair enough - Alex Krotoski's just starting out. I think the point that I am trying to make is that it's frequently not the presenter who is to blame for the stale formats and overkill. They don't write their own scripts, nor do they decide the format of the programme. They just turn up and do their lines (usually over and over again). The issue is how the BBC interacts with its outsourced production company, and how that company strike the balance between the 'talent', the message and the format.

It's interesting that these academics (de Sautoy, Cox etc) have job titles that relate to 'public understanding of science' rather than the content of the science itself. It's their job to communicate as widely as they can, and mass media is frequently the way to ensure that the 'communication' happens. I too have seen far too much of the 'public understanding...' lot, but I wouldn't say that it's entirely their fault for being on telly too much! Maybe their shows aren't aimed at me, after all.

Its interesting that someone mentioned OU presenters a while back. Instead of doing those 'lectures in TV' that it used to do the OU is now doing these 'mass appeal' broadcasts (like coast etc) to get people interested in its foundation courses. It's also been outsourced by the BBC and now just advises on their shows rather than producing them outright.

 

[marinyork]

I don't think it is particularly the presenter, it's the writing. I quite like Brian Cox, I just don't think some of his programmes have been quite as good as they liked. I think he's probably got another lighter more entertainment role on tv elsewhere than what he might have liked. I always thought it a bit odd that the Simonyi post was filled by a biologist, perhaps the subject least in need of public understanding so I wasn't complaining when it got handed over to Maths. Not really complaining. My uncle once made the point that the BBC do tend to hook up a lot with people who are/were from Guildford at the University of Surrey or some kind of connection at some point.