GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Boycott Fox? You've got to be kidding.

POSTED BY: THRAWN
UPDATED: Friday, April 9, 2004 03:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 13095
PAGE 2 of 2

Monday, April 5, 2004 9:57 AM

ROBOT


Hey FOX,
Take all your reality crap and shove it. You've waisted enough of my time. If Wonderfalls wasn't good enough for you, then you're not good enough for me.

Mike Ruggiero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 10:15 AM

GNOC


What exactly is Wonderfalls?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 10:40 AM

ZOID


Thrawn, (good day in class?)

You wrote:
Quote:


But I can give you reasons why stealing is wrong that make sense, outside of just "I think it's morally right". I feel like any system of morals has to be logically/pragmatically based at some level.



Ahhh, but can you pinpoint the "logical/pragmatic" basis of our (Western culture's) moral system?

I can; but I'll not pester further with 'philosophical ramblings'.

Seems to me someone in this thread pled for mutual respect for differing viewpoints...

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.


Respectfully,

zoid



_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 11:34 AM

BADGERSHAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn:
So, especially after Wonderfalls, there seems to be a HUGE number of people with the general thought "That's it. I'm done. I'm never watching a single Fox show ever, period."

I ask you - what are you hoping to accomplish? You think you're going to drive Fox out of business? You have no chance. No CHANCE. If everyone that ever watched Firefly or Wonderfalls never watched another Fox show again, we'd still barely make a dent. Fox's general audience is so completely different from those shows that us boycotting them isn't going to accomplish anything useful.

It will, however, accomplish one thing very well - the NEXT time Fox buys a Firefly, or a Wonderfalls, the audience that would watch it, the audience that would keep it on air, will be boycotting the network, so it will fail AGAIN. And the exact same thing will happen. All you're going to accomplish by refusing to watch anything Fox ever produces is help prevent Fox from ever producing anything interesting. Which, it seems to me, is exactly the opposite of what you'd want.

There is no conspiracy here. The only reason Fox cancels shows is because they tank. If you look at the Wonderfalls ratings, they fell sharply, from an already fairly bad first number. Granted, Fox is worse than most at promoting these shows and placing them in positions where they will be watched, and it's likely that they made a mistake by cancelling it early, but it's not because they're evil malicious conservatives or because they have a death feud against Tim Minear. It's because they don't understand how it takes a long time for cult followings to develop, and aren't willing to grant the time it takes for that to happen.

If we're ever going to get a show like this to stick around, we're going to have to show them that it's profitable for that to happen. Which means, first and foremost, that we have to actually watch it. Fox may be an unusually pathetic and incompetent network, but that's two good shows in a row they've been interested in and bought, and that failed because not enough people watched them. It's mostly their fault, but it's partially ours, too.

Don't boycott Fox, and don't assume that we'll never get one of these to work. All you're doing is causing more harm than good, and reducing the possibilities for more creative shows in the future. By all means, don't watch the bad ones - avoid any and all reality TV like the plague - but if you see one that looks interesting, watch it. And if you like it, get other people to watch it.

You never know what we can do when we try hard enough.




As a matter of fact--as a broadcasting and broadcast marketing major in college--it damn well WILL make a difference. If thousands of people go to the time, effort, and financial expense of sending in reams of handwriteen postcards, demonstrating their displeasure, the execs will have no choise but to scratch their heads and wonder what they did wrong, which will force them to look at their broadcast practices. And, the rule is, for every person who gets off his or her ass and actually writes their displeasure, there's 25 others who feel the same but don't get around to the writing about it part.

It won't necessarily make a huge change, but then again, a little bit is a start.

If we announce our intention to boycott FOX, other networks will see the reason why, and have an indication of the demographic's wants. Then, other, better, NON-FOX networks will be inclined to produce a Firefly or Wonderfalls.

See how it works?

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 12:03 PM

ZOID


Totally off-topic, but...

Is it "Badger Shat" (which means one thing) or "Badger's Hat" (which would be something totally different)?

Or, is the juxtaposition -- like "Shat in Badger's Hat" -- the point?

Just wondering... ;)


Respectfully (Truly),

zoid

P.S.
Mine means nothing. I've just been using it for 9 years.


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 12:30 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:


More places for good shows to go. If that can't happen, then Fox not buying them in the first place might be an alternative, but when Fox buys a good show I still think it's worth at least trying to support it rather than dismissing it out of hand because it happens to be on Fox, don't you?



The trouble with that is it is not just one show we are dicussing here, it is a long list of shows cancelled dispite having a following. Many of us feel like we wasted our time watching a show, enjoying it and having it canceled over and over again.

While I agree a boycott would not have an effect apon the management of this company, it is a display of the honest disgust we feel towards their programing choices.

In a perfect world, one would be able to choose the channels in their cable packages and rating as well as advertising fees could be based on this. In this case I would simply cancell FOX with my provider and if two or three thousand went with me an effect would be felt. From this perhaps stockholders may make personnel choices differently and we will have change.

To me reality TV is a worse choice than no TV at all. the way things are going soon I will only watch NHL hockey and simply try to work my way though the local library for amusment.

BTW What is your major?? You picking this fight for a paper or something

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 12:46 PM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal


Quote:

Originally posted by infra172:
People abandoned network news for CNN and Fox News. News coverage on television is better than ever.



In a recent study http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf (See an excellent CSM http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1009/dailyUpdate.html summary), PIPA looked at where people got their incorrect info from:

80% of Fox News viewers were likely to hold one of the three incorrect beliefs.
71% of those who relied on CBS for news.
61% ABC.
55% NBC
55% CNN.
47% of Americans who rely on the print media as their primary source of information.
23% of the NPR/PBS audience.

"Interestingly, the study found that these misperceptions are not the result of a lack of attention to current events. The more people watched commercial TV, the more likely they were to hold a misperceptions (only CNN reversed this trend)."

45% percent of Fox viewers believed all three misperceptions
12%-16%: other commercial networks
9% of print readers.
4% NPR/PBS.

20% of Fox viewers had none of the 3.
30% CBS
39% ABC
45% CNN
45% NBC
53% print media
77% NPR/PBS

“No people can be both ignorant and free.” - Thomas Jefferson

“One of the intentions of corporate-controlled media is to instill in people a sense of disempowerment, of immobilization and paralysis. Its outcome is to turn you into good consumers. It is to keep people isolated, to feel that there is no possibility for social change.” - David Barsamian

“When nations grow old, the arts grow cold and commerce settles on every tree.” - William Blake
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 2:13 PM

LTNOWIS


As usual, I enter a thread after it's already developed a lot. I mostly agree with Thrawn here, but it's not a very important topic for me. The way I see it, if you like a show, watch it, if you don't, don't. That way you support the networks with the good shows and shun networks with shows you don't like. It's pretty damn simple.

I was, of course, saddened by Firefly's cancelation. I felt a lot like Mal when he loses the war. But I'm not that mad at Fox. Fox may have mishandled Firefly in every way, not given it enough of a chance, and replaced it with evil reality crap. But they probably weren't being actively malicious, or part of a vast conspiricy.

They started Firefly not to spread good stories or quality entertainment, but to make money. They mishandled Firefly due to incompetence and apathy. They had crappy adds due to idiocy and ignorance of what the show's about. They skipped the pilot so they could play the John Doe pilot, not realizing how important it was. And while Firefly could have been their next big income generator, it had been getting bad ratings and baseball was a certain source of good ratings. It seems to me that Fox's only crimes are incompetence, greed, and reckless disregard to quality entertainment greatness. And misleading news coverage, but that's a different story.

Here's how it could have happened:
Fox exec #1: We're gonna have to cancel Firefly. It doesn't have high enough ratings.

Fox exec #2: But I like Firefly!

Fox exec #3: Yeah, but it just didn't catch on for enough people. We have to do this for our stockholders.

I'm really much angrier at the American TV-watching public, who for the most part love reality TV. Fox isn't playing these reality shows for fun, they're doing it because that's what most Americans want, and because they're cheap. Still, Fox is one of the most evil TV corporations.

Edit: I'll still watch all or their 1/2 hour Sunday shows, from M*A*S*H to Arrested Development, simply because I find them to be the funniest things on network TV at that time. Of course, usually I spare my brain and turn off the TV.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 2:13 PM

BADGERSHAT


Zoid--

I was drinking a Dunkin Donuts Vanilla Bean Coolata as I read your post, and laughed so hard I literally threw up on my monitor. After carefully wiping the last traces of vanilla-flavored slush away, I was able to reply.

It's Badger's Hat, but you can't type that as a name.



***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 2:58 PM

ZOID


Why do far-left types skew questions and rig results to their own polls? Brother.

And I'll trump your quote:

“When nations grow old, the arts grow cold and commerce settles on every tree.” - William Blake

...With one of my own:

"William Blake? William... Blake... William Blake?!?" - Kevin Costner, Bull Durham

BTW, Crash's belief system and mine are pretty much the same, except I've always hated 'charlie', hanging or otherwise...


Respectfully,

zoid (middle of the road, like C. Hynde said it)


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 5, 2004 3:08 PM

ZOID


Badger's Hat:

I kinda suspected as much, but it's dangerous to make assumptions. Anyway, glad you took it as intended, not serious or offended like...

Quote:

"It's Badger's Hat, but you can't type that as a name."


...And a fine hat it is, too. Sorry about the mess.


Respectfully,

zoid


_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 6:20 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Thrawn wrote:

Quote:

... What happens? The company -- like any organism -- evolves in accordance with Darwinism. Darwin was wrong, but we'll take it as read, still playing along



I know this is way off topic, but this has been sticking with me a couple days. First of all, the analogy is a poor one- Organisms don't evolve, species do. Second, Darwin wasn't wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 2:08 AM

ZOID


Veteran:

You wrote:

Quote:


I know this is way off topic, but this has been sticking with me a couple days. First of all, the analogy is a poor one- Organisms don't evolve, species do. Second, Darwin wasn't wrong.



First, 'species' or 'organism' is hair-splitting, since it's only an analogy. Suffice to say, what is intended is that this particular 'organism' -- which it's not by definition -- reacts and adapts to environmental pressures. Sorry if I hung you up on words that don't literally correspond in the first place... I was being figurative.

Second, Darwin was wrong, in the way he stated evolution worked. It's official, everyone knows it, because the fossil record doesn't bear it out. So people (as individual organisms, not the entire species) are evolving their theories to more accurately reflect the experimental result. Right now, one of the more promising is 'punctuated equilibrium'. Do a phrase search; here's an excerpt I found, with reference:

Quote:


The concept of punctuated equilibrium (PE) is explained. The development of the idea since its inception by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge is traced, as well as some of the controversies. PE consists of two aspects:

(1) an observation -that the fossil record is characterised by

(a) abrupt appearance of species, and

(b) stasis, or lack of substantial change, throughout a species' range in the fossil record; and

(2) a theoretical attempt to explain how this pattern can fit an evolutionary (naturalistic) model for the origin of species.

Follow link for more from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_punc_
equilibrium.asp




In short, there is no fossil record of the slow change of one species into another. There is only one species that seems to spontaneously arise from no direct predecessor, which carries on unchanged until its extinction, then another species follows without the intermediate forms Darwin supposed. Even if it's off-topic, it's still nice to know people think about more than what sorta firearms Jayne owns...





Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 3:41 AM

SPLIBERTARIAN


EDITED thrice(!)to close the html properly

Quote:

Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:

In a recent study http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf (See an excellent CSM http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1009/dailyUpdate.html summary), PIPA looked at where people got their incorrect info from:

80% of Fox News viewers were likely to hold one of the three incorrect beliefs.
71% of those who relied on CBS for news.
61% ABC.
55% NBC
55% CNN.
47% of Americans who rely on the print media as their primary source of information.
23% of the NPR/PBS audience.



I'm sorry, I'm trying to stifle my derisive snickering...

Gotta go with Zoid on this one - I guarantee I could get you opposite numbers by choosing three different legitimate misconceptions.

No people can be both ignorant and free, indeed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 6:22 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
The person or persons responsible for cancelling Firefly, in particular, have no business being in the field of entertainment. As soon as I hear they are no longer working at Fox, I'll tune in their shows again.


I heard, from a reliable inside source, that there was one person who had it in for Firefly, and that person is no longer in the same position at FOX.

It is not the same thing as an apology or being fired, but it gave me some small comfort.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 7:35 AM

TALLGRRL


Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn:


It will, however, accomplish one thing very well - the NEXT time Fox buys a Firefly, or a Wonderfalls, the audience that would watch it, the audience that would keep it on air, will be boycotting the network, so it will fail AGAIN.



The NEXT time Fox buys a Firefly or Wonderfalls, they'll just mis-handle it, muck it up and dump it just like they always do.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 7:37 AM

DRAGONLORD


Quote:

Originally posted by Thrawn:
So, especially after Wonderfalls, there seems to be a HUGE number of people with the general thought "That's it. I'm done. I'm never watching a single Fox show ever, period."

I ask you - what are you hoping to accomplish? You think you're going to drive Fox out of business? You have no chance. No CHANCE. If everyone that ever watched Firefly or Wonderfalls never watched another Fox show again, we'd still barely make a dent. Fox's general audience is so completely different from those shows that us boycotting them isn't going to accomplish anything useful.

It will, however, accomplish one thing very well - the NEXT time Fox buys a Firefly, or a Wonderfalls, the audience that would watch it, the audience that would keep it on air, will be boycotting the network, so it will fail AGAIN. And the exact same thing will happen. All you're going to accomplish by refusing to watch anything Fox ever produces is help prevent Fox from ever producing anything interesting. Which, it seems to me, is exactly the opposite of what you'd want.

There is no conspiracy here. The only reason Fox cancels shows is because they tank. If you look at the Wonderfalls ratings, they fell sharply, from an already fairly bad first number. Granted, Fox is worse than most at promoting these shows and placing them in positions where they will be watched, and it's likely that they made a mistake by cancelling it early, but it's not because they're evil malicious conservatives or because they have a death feud against Tim Minear. It's because they don't understand how it takes a long time for cult followings to develop, and aren't willing to grant the time it takes for that to happen.

If we're ever going to get a show like this to stick around, we're going to have to show them that it's profitable for that to happen. Which means, first and foremost, that we have to actually watch it. Fox may be an unusually pathetic and incompetent network, but that's two good shows in a row they've been interested in and bought, and that failed because not enough people watched them. It's mostly their fault, but it's partially ours, too.

Don't boycott Fox, and don't assume that we'll never get one of these to work. All you're doing is causing more harm than good, and reducing the possibilities for more creative shows in the future. By all means, don't watch the bad ones - avoid any and all reality TV like the plague - but if you see one that looks interesting, watch it. And if you like it, get other people to watch it.

You never know what we can do when we try hard enough.




The only thing I watch on FOX now is "Tru Calling". Use to watch "Wonderfalls" but the bastards cancelled it. So, for one hour a week, I watch FOX. Thursdays at 8pm. I gave up watchin' Survivor(one of my fav shows ever) to watch it. I hope they don't cancel "Tru Calling" as well.

Dragon Lord

Summer: Jane's a girls name
Jayne: Well I ain't no girl! I can prove it!
Simon: I'm trying to picture you more vulgar... but, I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 10:51 AM

DORAN


My boycotting of Fox has nothing to do with trying to meed out a penlty for their cancelation of Firefly.. though that did leave a particularly bitter taste in my mouth. Instead my 'boycott' is more about not finding anything on Fox I want to watch anymore.

On the rare occasion that Fox does come up with something I may feel inclinded to watch, I have twice the difficulty forming any emotional attachment to the show.. or characters as I would for another channel.. mainly because I no longer trust Fox will keep anything I like.
It's about trust and violation of that trust.

Reality TV appeals to folk who don't want to get involved in a good progressive plot and story line.. It's easy for short attention spans to skip and come back two weeks later and jump right in.. It's easy for Fox to preempt, postpone, or cancel and not worry about losing what audience they have. This is not what I'm looking for, but this is what Fox likes. Xfiles and other shows Fox has aired in the past would never have done so well as they did if Fox had treated them and their audiences the way they treated Firefly and other newer Fox hopefuls.

Fox has no patience and they have lost me as a trusting viewer. I wish things were different.. but Fox hasn't changed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 1:19 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
...still nice to know people think about more than what sorta firearms Jayne owns...B]



You mean like a Callahan Fullbore Autolock with a custom trigger?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 1:20 PM

ECMORGAN69


Quote:

Originally posted by infra172:
Want to know how you can hurt the networks who cancel your shows? DONT BUY THE DVDs! Don't buy the Wonderfalls DVDs when they come out. Download pirated versions.



They cancelled that wonderful program after only four weeks. Do they even make up DVDs for shows cancelled that fast? They should call that "Drive-by-programming"... My second wedding, at the County Courthouse, lasted longer than the run of "Wonderfalls"...

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 1:24 PM

SERGEANTX


I really can't understand how anybody tolerates broadcast television to begin with. It's patently offensive by its very nature. The fact that a few quality programs manage to squeeze out through the cracks is hardly justification. More and more people seem to agree and are moving toward alternatives that don't treat the viewers like ignorant cattle. Just let it die.


SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 4:34 PM

KARENKAY99


i don't think you can exactly call it a boycott but we don't watch fox. they don't have anything we want to see. wonderfalls was the first thing they had that interested us in a very long time.

"They say the snow on the roof is too heavy. They say the ceiling will cave in. His brains are in terrible danger."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 6:20 PM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE


Quote:

In short, there is no fossil record of the slow change of one species into another.


Ok, way off topic here, but:

Punctuated equilibrium, depending on its interpretation, is either wrong (major change happens overnight, or in a generation or 2), or a no-brainer (change can happen over several thousand years). The difference between what Darwin said and what Gould said is in their different definitions of the word "slow." Darwin interpreted it the way most people do: if it happens over 1000 generations, in increments so small that they can't be measured from one generation to the next, that counts as slow. To a paleontologist, that's immeasurably fast.

Also, the fossil record can't possibly show that there's "no change" for long periods of time. It can show "no gross skeletal morphological change, at least among a portion of a species", but that's a far cry from "no change." Never mind that Darwin never said there would be slow, steady change; he said that change happened in response to selection pressures. If there's no selection pressure against a certain morphological shape for a couple hundred thousand years, there won't be evidence of change in the fossil record. In the meantime, there will be no evidence left of changes in diet, behavior, coloring, and major biochemical change, rendering 2 organisms from the same "species" (according to paleontologists, based on shape) entirely unable to reproduce with each other given adequate time travel or frozen embryos.

There's a whole lot more to evolutionary theory and study than what's in the fossil record, and even more to it than natural selection ("what Darwin said"), which is still the only explanation for things that appear to have been designed.

[edited to fix a sentence fragment.]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 8, 2004 9:10 PM

ARAWAEN


The next time FOX buys a Firefly or Wonderfalls? They will cancel it after a few episodes and replace it with filth like the Swan. When a store regularly provides me with bad service or a company continually produces a defective product I stop patronizing them. Granted with television it is more indirect as I don't pay for FOX, the advertisers do. I am boycotting the advertisers who support FOX. If they want to reach me with their commercials they are going to have to do so elsewhere.

While it would be much more cathartic to lopp off a few executive heads and mount them on pikes outside the corporate headquarters, I think my decision to say 3 strikes and your out FOX is reasonable and doesn't lead me to any fire and brimstone.

I am not trying to change their minds or habits, I am simply saying good riddance to bad customer service and a refusal to buy defective products like dwarfsploitation and gold-digging spouse hunts.

Arawaen


Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2004 2:26 AM

ZOID


FireflyTheMovie:

Nice answer and well thought out.

But there is no denying the "staccato" burst of -- as yet -- inexplicable emergence of new species. Certainly, while Darwinism appeals to the logic, it's more closely akin to Kipling's "Just So Stories" ( http://www.sff.net/people/karawynn/justso/leopard.htp) than to the evidence, as represented in the fossil record. It's misleading to speak of speciation here; it's well known that a single species divided, can over time become speciated, i.e., unable to reproduce and provide viable offspring. (BTW, to any fatheads who believe that Blacks and Caucasians are of differing species, put that in your pipe and smoke it)

Punctuated equilibrium (PE) attempts to address the gross morphological changes the fossil record displays and which Darwin got wrong. He held that a marmot slowly changed -- climbed the evolutionary tree -- into a man. 'taint so... Furthermore, if PE is correct, they still haven't figured out the how. But I suspect science will one day get it figured out.

For further reading into one possible how, I recommend "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots : The Evolution of Complexity" by Brian Goodwin. A synopsis of the book may be found at http://tinyurl.com/2pkao

Here's a very brief reviewer's excerpt:

"Do genes explain life? Can advances in evolutionary and molecular biology account for what we look like, how we behave, and why we die? In this powerful intervention into current biological thinking, Brian Goodwin argues that such genetic reductionism has important limits.
Drawing on the sciences of complexity, the author shows how an understanding of the self-organizing patterns of networks is necessary for making sense of nature. Genes are important, but only as part of a process constrained by environment, physical laws, and the universal tendencies of complex adaptive systems. In a new preface for this edition, Goodwin reflects on the advances in both genetics and the sciences of complexity since the book's original publication."

For everyone: Don't take me as a source. Read what the folks on the cutting edge are thinking. Then read some differing viewpoints, including those that disagree with how you feel. Then make up your mind, and be prepared to do a one-eighty as new evidence arises. That's the scientific method...





Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River didn't fix faith. Faith fixed River."

- Senator Richard 'Book' Wilkins, Independent Congress
author of A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 9, 2004 3:37 AM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE


Zoid-

The major difference between Darwin's main point and "Just-so" stories (which he certainly came up with, and got wrong in many cases, along with a lot of other details, especially considering that there was no known mechanism for heritability of traits) is that Darwin's main point was that outside selection pressures shape species so that they appear to be designed for a purpose. As I stated above, the "staccato" changes and speciation are entirely consistent with natural selection, because "staccato" to a paleontologist is tens of thousands of years. Is natural selection the only source of change? No. Was Darwin's theory anywhere near complete? Not at all.

If we're talking about sudden speciation across many species all "at the same time" (from a paleontological point of view, anyway) that generally coincides with some kind of major climate-changing even, evidence of which can also be found in the geological record. If we're talking about a single instance of speciation, you wouldn't expect a record of that to be found in the geoligical record.

Does Darwin's theory explain the "staccato" effects you're talking about? No. (Keeping in mind that "explain" and "be consistent with" are two entirely different things. And that "staccato" is just another word for "fast", which has just as many problems as "slow".) Does punctuated equilibrium? No. It's more of a description than an explanation. Is there any evidence that punctuated equilibrium exists in a biological sense, rather than just a paleontological sense? Not really. Is there evidence that natural selection exists in a biological sense? Tons. Ask any epidemiologist.

Quote:

He held that a marmot slowly changed -- climbed the evolutionary tree -- into a man.


There's that word "slow" again. And Darwin never said that a marmot turned into a man. A marmot is an animal that exists today. He held that marmots and humans had a common ancestor (which the fossil record indicates bore more resemblance to a marmot than to a man, morpholigically speaking). Over time, that ancestor speciated, etc., etc., but he never said anything about a constant rate of change.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, November 24, 2024 06:15 - 13 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Fri, November 22, 2024 13:49 - 22 posts
Here's how it was.....Do you remember & even mourn the humble beginnings?
Mon, November 18, 2024 09:38 - 13 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Sat, November 16, 2024 20:08 - 54 posts
Serenity Rescued by Disney!
Fri, November 15, 2024 00:31 - 5 posts
What is your favourite historical or war film/television show???
Fri, November 8, 2024 07:18 - 37 posts
When did you join poll?
Tue, November 5, 2024 04:28 - 69 posts
Joss was right... Mandarin is the language of the future...
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:19 - 34 posts
Best movie that only a few people know about
Mon, November 4, 2024 07:14 - 118 posts
Halloween
Sun, November 3, 2024 15:21 - 43 posts
Teri Garr, the offbeat comic actor of 'Young Frankenstein' has died
Thu, October 31, 2024 20:20 - 5 posts
Poetry in song
Sat, October 26, 2024 20:16 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL