Alice Roberts is......

[Arch]

What I find most irritating is the that when the expert is talking the camera shows Ms Roberts nodding.
Why do I want to see her nodding? I want to see the expert talking. I expect anyone lip reading would want to also.

It is the same with demonstrating or showing objects. Why does the camera zoom in on the face and not the interesting objects?

Because she's pretty, innit?

I agree. I think there's more of this sort of thing now, but that might be me being a grumpy old woman. I know Attenborough appeared on screen in his landmark series, but rarely to the exclusion of the subject. Give me his style, and immense quiet knowledge, any day, rather than simpering personalitities.

I do like Kate Humble, dunno why. She seems to be less 'me, me!'. And watching her current 'Spice' series, she really seems to have the ability to sit down and get on with all sorts of people.

 

[Arch]

She's not a patch on the god that is David Attenborough and she needs to sort her hair out but I think she's doing a pretty good job of dumbing down to subject to make it widely accessible.

I prefer Brian Cox though

Does accessible have to be dumbed down? OK, you don't bang in with PhD grade genetic theory, but I think many modern documentaries don't credit the audience with enough inelligence.


Brian Cox I hated at first, but came to realise it wasn't him, but his director, who'd decided to shoot him talking over the cameraman's shoulder to some non-existent interviewer. Ian Stewart is fabulously enthusiastic about geology, although he also does the "I'm a geologist...." stuff. We know that, just show us the rocks.

 

[mangaman]

Because she's pretty, innit?

I agree. I think there's more of this sort of thing now, but that might be me being a grumpy old woman. I know Attenborough appeared on screen in his landmark series, but rarely to the exclusion of the subject. Give me his style, and immense quiet knowledge, any day, rather than simpering personalitities.

I do like Kate Humble, dunno why. She seems to be less 'me, me!'. And watching her current 'Spice' series, she really seems to have the ability to sit down and get on with all sorts of people.

I agree Arch.

Alice Roberts is a doctor who became an obscure (globally) osteoarchaeologist. I'm a Dr and I believe you're an osteoarchaeologist - maybe we should combine.

She is, for me, moderately attractive and I think she's probably a nice person (big commuter cyclist BTW), but that doesn't make her an expert on evolution.

In fact it makes her a not terribly experienced specialist in 2 separate fields that aren't evolution. (I believe she worked 2 years as a Dr and can't have done a lot of original osteoarchaeology - given all her TV appearances).

I'd rather see a 1970s, Open University type fellow with enormous sideburns and a kipper tie, in front of a plastic backdrop, just talking for half an hour (like we used to get when us oldies were younger).

No gimmicks / knowledgable presenters - just giving you information.

 

[Night Train]

Because she's pretty, innit?

I don't think that is all it is down to. It happens even with unattractive presenters.

I was wondering why my friend Phil isn't a Brian Cox.
Phil is an astronomer, plays guitar, is young and attractive and has the fashionable 'Northern' accent. He also keeps pygmy goats.
Unfortunately he just does car body work.

Maybe I should suggest it to him.

 

[Becs]

[quote name='Arch' timestamp='1299016647' post=
but I think many modern documentaries don't credit the audience with enough inelligence.

[/quote]

Couldn't agree more. I like my science as detailed as possible, but then I'm a geek that's interested in science!

 

[mcshroom]

The nodding is part of the editing process, and probably wasn't done at the same time as it was shown. The idea is to break up long interviews "to make them more interesting" and also it makes it easier to edit the interview down to remove pauses, 'ums and ahs' and in some cases, important parts of the interview.

 

[mangaman]

I don't think that is all it is down to. It happens even with unattractive presenters.

I was wondering why my friend Phil isn't a Brian Cox.
Phil is an astronomer, plays guitar, is young and attractive and has the fashionable 'Northern' accent. He also keeps pygmy goats.
Unfortunately he just does car body work.

Maybe I should suggest it to him.

It's just luck isn't it.

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.

Your mate Phil doesn't stand a chance (unless they make a sexy reality TV series about car body workers - and stranger things have happened)

 

[Zoiders]

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.

 

[Arch]

It's just luck isn't it.

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.

Your mate Phil doesn't stand a chance (unless they make a sexy reality TV series about car body workers - and stranger things have happened)

Or unless NT has failed to mention his mate's large cleavage...

I did actually audition for the beeb once, they sent out a general email to uni departments. Looking at the flush of new presenting faces that appeared the year after, I came to the conclusion that my chest wasn't big enough - funnily, the new crop of male presenters at that time were much more 'characterful' as opposed to conventionally handsome. Bitter? Maybe.

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've nothing against a good professional presenter covering a subject they don't have lots of qualifications in - look at Jonny Ball, or the Deity Attenborough. Or, highly qualified people presenting on their subject, if they happen to be good presenters (and anyone who's been to an academic conference will know that some experts are less good at communicating). But banging on about being an expert doesn't automatically make the information any better, it just lends a spurious credibility.

 

[downfader]

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.

We are evolving and will continue to do so regardless of technological advances. We havent plateued. Cultural impact is merely a part of evolution, we naturally select and are drawn to cultural and technological beneficiaries.

When gene research gets past a certain point I can see us using that to boost intellect (maybe it will cure my spelling, haha), stength, healing and disease etc.

It would be arrogant to assume we've stopped evolving. We may not be changing to green skin, and growing a big tail, its more subtle than that. Evolution is often about subtle change. One gene at a time. With recessive geneology being pushed out...

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Arch - you make some excellent points. But I must disagree over the Kate (not so) Humble question. You may keep her AFAIAC.

Now that gene tracking job. What a deep mine of stuff. I can't wait till it's mined a bit more.

 

[Night Train]

Or unless NT has failed to mention his mate's large cleavage...

I did actually audition for the beeb once, they sent out a general email to uni departments. Looking at the flush of new presenting faces that appeared the year after, I came to the conclusion that my chest wasn't big enough - funnily, the new crop of male presenters at that time were much more 'characterful' as opposed to conventionally handsome. Bitter? Maybe.

When Alice Roberts fist appeared....

I didn't know it came to blows over the job!

 

[Night Train]

I think we are evolving and noticably but we are also being actively selective. In the western world possibly socially selective in that the 'acceptable' people, either for appearance or personality have more chance of breeding then those who are socially inept or are seen as unacceptable for some other reason.

However, with the advent of cosmetic surgery the appearance side is going to be counter productive in that, lets take for example enhanced breasts, people are going to be attracted to an aspect of a person that isn't genetically there. The gene for small breasts will then persist despite the desire for large breasts resulting in more enhancement surgery for future generations.

It will be the same thing happening for, say, crooked teeth, grey hair, myopia, all the things that 'might' have been selected out will persist.
As surgical enhancement becomes more commonplace we will aesthetically evolve backwards.

 

[Zoiders]

We are evolving and will continue to do so regardless of technological advances. We havent plateued. Cultural impact is merely a part of evolution, we naturally select and are drawn to cultural and technological beneficiaries.

When gene research gets past a certain point I can see us using that to boost intellect (maybe it will cure my spelling, haha), stength, healing and disease etc.

It would be arrogant to assume we've stopped evolving. We may not be changing to green skin, and growing a big tail, its more subtle than that. Evolution is often about subtle change. One gene at a time. With recessive geneology being pushed out...

The idea of the recessive is over stated. Right now the human genome is going in circles.

We do not evolve unless something drives it, there are no major drivers right now, a lot of changes that are seen are the direct result of diet and life style but it's not a genetic process unless that kills off all the people who can't survive that diet and life style and right now we are not there yet. Inuit's don't get heart disease from their high fat diet, that took a very very long time to come about, we are not going to see such a continous and linear form of selection again with our current level of technology.

We do not simply continously evolve with no driver, you can see short term examples of selection but it's not a major evolutionary change.

When a killer virus kills 95% of us and the survivors repopulate the earth then get back to me.

 

[Amheirchion]

Evolution is often about subtle change. One gene at a time. With recessive geneology being pushed out...

I just wanted to post on this which is pretty much spot on in my view.


A good way to visualise this I was told about, is to take an animal.
Now magic that animals entire maternal line back into existence (further if you discount the maternal bit for any asexual reproduction near the start of it al) and line them all up from newest to oldest. As you look down the line there will be superficial differences in the animals, but from one generation to the next they will be recognisable as the same species, every animal will be recognisable as the same species as their offspring and parents.
Now with the same line, look at every 1000th animal, the differences will be much more marked, and in some species you would not recognise the older generation as being a relative of the newer one.

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.