BBC Television programmes  permalink

Wonders of Life

Messages: 1 - 50 of 356
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by Geometry_Man (U12739007) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Professor Brian Cox's latest "Wonders of..." series starts tonight, BBC2 & BBC HD 9.00 pm:

    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    I'm looking forward to this one, which seems to have been a long time coming - it's nearly 2 years since Wonders of the Universe.

    Of the previous 2 "Wonders of" series I thought the first, Solar System, was the better - and in an RT interview even Brian says they hadn't really moved things on with Universe.

    However, Wonders of Life will be a bit different apparently; "gone are the lavish, sweeping shots" says RT. Brian still does a lot of globetrotting, meeting animals à la David Attenborough, though it seems we can expect less of the visual experience and more of the underlying science than in Sir David's programmes.

    Reply to this message 1

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by ashleyhr (U14203741) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Sounds like it will be worth watching.

    Reply to this message 2

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Brian still does a lot of globetrotting 
    Who would deny the man his holiday, jollies?

    Also, good to see the BBC is sticking to its guns with its Swiss army knife approach to science. You know one science - you're able to cover any of 'em.

    While I appreciate that Brian Cox is INFINITELY superior to know nothing empty vessels that have attached themselves like limpets to the gravy train (The Horrible Hamster and Kate not-so-Humble spring immediately to mind) but is it so difficult for the BBC to take the radical step of having someone trained in the relevant discipline to discuss it?

    THE MAN IS A PHYSICIST! And yes, I know the old saying that biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics and physics is just maths but would it be so difficult for the BBC to take the radical step of having a biologist present a programme about biology?

    Anyway, we'll see how it goes, I suppose. I'm not prejudging, it's a more general fault with the BBC's and unquestionably a factor of its institutional bias against science, which is of course what happens when you get an organisation populated by middle managers, soap powder salesmen and people with degrees in meeja studies, I suppose.

    Reply to this message 3

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I see a lot of Brian Cox in shot........ hope it has improved from his last outing.

    Reply to this message 4

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by McNigel (U3215979) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    In a closed system energy can not be created or destroyed.
    However as the man with a sandwich board on Oxford Street proclaims, "Entropy is Increasing".

    This program seems to be full of the old trap.
    Yes that's all true, but there is no connection between the statements.

    Reply to this message 5

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I see a lot of Brian Cox in shot........ hope it has improved from his last outing.   How else do they get middle aged housewives to watch, if not with copious Cox, smiling that whimsical smile of his as he looks off into the distance with his boyish good looks?

    Also, clumsy and inaccurate description of natural selection in the first few minutes... sorry, the notion that evolution "fine tunes" is wrong unless you've got very serious selection pressures for certain traits and even then, it's... well, a clumsy and inaccurate way to describe the process. Tsk.

    Reply to this message 6

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I don't really understand what he is saying.... but then I am thick.

    Reply to this message 7

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I don't really understand what he is saying.... but then I am thick.   What I don't understand is why a discussion of life required a copy and paste of his holiday jolly to India. The historical concept of life should be an opening paragraph not the first ten minutes of the programme - if you want to do a historical analysis of cultural explanations or the history of science by all means, do that. It's a fascinating subject but it is one that is one that should be mentioned in only the briefest way.

    But no, I guess that would mean Prof C wouldn't get to trek up and down mountains in the Philippines, which is somehow ESSENTIAL to the topic at hand... and then of course, he interjects some physics - in case we'd forgotten that he's a physicist, rather than a biologist so that obvious and glaring error in his choice to host something entirely about biology can be thrust direct into our face and rubbed in it - before pointing out that's a bit useless.

    So glad you told us that then, Prof C - if only they could have edited it out and dedicated some of the time to covering more of the fascinating subject the programme professes to be about, eh?

    Reply to this message 8

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I wonder if I can get the Horrible Histories team to take up physics..... I am really not getting this at all. smiley - blush

    Reply to this message 9

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I wonder if I can get the Horrible Histories team to take up physics..... I am really not getting this at all. smiley - blush  Surely the baffling thing here is - we've got a huge amount of talking about physics in a very round about way (one that I note requires a rather large amount of Brian Cox in exotic locales - funny that, it's never Hull or Rotherham) that is doing a VERY good joke of actually getting to the point.

    If we want to talk about abiogenesis, here's a radical idea - JUST TALK ABOUT IT! Nope, instead lots of babbling on about energy. If not for the title and the first five minutes, I'd be waiting for the bit where Prof C starts waxing lyrical about black holes or supernovas or the heat death of the universe.

    I'm 30 minutes in and this has done an astonishing job of concealing the fact it's about life - actually, a few times I was having serious deja vu... I was going "Wait, is this a repeat of Wonders of [something else]?"

    Reply to this message 10

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Stop it Prophet, you are starting to scare me. smiley - yikes

    Reply to this message 11

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Stop it Prophet, you are starting to scare me. smiley - yikes  How so, zelda?

    Reply to this message 12

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    You keep using long wordsthat I don't know the meaning of and my little brain can't cope.

    Are you a physicist or scientist? You seem very knowledgeable.

    Reply to this message 13

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Are you a physicist or scientist? You seem very knowledgeable. 
    'Fraid not - just someone that takes an active interest in the workings of the universe.

    To be honest, I don't MIND Prof C using technical language but really, MUST he keep talking about "proton gradients"? And he talks about mitochondria and that is a FASCINATING topic and yet, it's examined it's just "hey, living things need energy! And most of them have mitochondria. PROTON GRADIENTS!

    The importance of mitochondria to multicellular life is really rather hard to overstate and it's fascinating but I guess all that science stuff is too gosh darned boring, let's have Brian swimming in a lake with jellyfish.

    Reply to this message 14

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    We'll get the BBC to let you present a programme...... you'd get me edumacated double quick! smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 15

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by Sue the former ladyparishclerk (U12715623) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Wonderful programme but a slap on the wrist to whoever was doing the graphics, or, rather, checking them.

    DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid not dioxyribonucleic acid as given. Or do I need my eyes testing?

    Other than to chemists it's a minor point and I know I'm being pedantic, but a science programme shouldn't make silly mistakes - after all, the sainted Prof Cox said he wanted this to be on BBC2 so it didn't have to be dumbed down.

    Reply to this message 16

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    We'll get the BBC to let you present a programme...... you'd get me edumacated double quick! smiley - smiley  Ha, I've certainly got the lack of qualifications that the likes of not-so-Humble and the horrible Hamster have!

    But this programme truly is baffling me. Is it about biology or physics? Yes, I know biological processes are ULTIMATELY just physics in action but they aren't separate branches of science for no reason.

    Does this want to be an investigation of life? Or does this just want to be a sneaky way to recut vast amounts of the content from the previous "Wonders of..." needless to say, it feels very much like the latter which strikes me as a phenomenal waste of both Prof C (who I do actually like but think is criminally misused) and time and money.

    I get the sneaking suspicion that you are not the only person who is going to walk away from this programme scratching their head and going "This science thing is all just too confusing for me." When that's no reflection on your ability to comprehend, just the nonsensical and positively garbled way this entire dog's dinner was thrown together in the most bafflingly counter intuitive way possible.

    Reply to this message 17

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Geometry_Man (U12739007) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I have to admit Brian seemed, unusually for him, to be struggling to get his points across for much of the programme. This isn't really his field and I'm afraid it showed a bit.

    We have to take his word for it over the proton gradients and stuff, and there was some jumping about between subjects that didn't really appear to follow from each other. It seemed to get a bit better towards the end.

    Reply to this message 18

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by madboff1n (U15593794) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    you beat me to it....spent the last 35 minutes questioning my education and having a rant at that particular typo

    Reply to this message 19

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by McNigel (U3215979) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Ever get the feeling that Brian Cox knew exactly what he was talking about, but the rest of the production team and editors were totally lost.

    So it's been cobbled together in a more or less random order.

    Reply to this message 20

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Letty2 (U14833928) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    Well, all we need to know is all life contains energy ...... which has always been, cannot be destroyed and is eternal. smiley - smiley

    I enjoyed the programme. And must be the only woman on earth that likes Prof Cox as a presenter but is not in love with him. smiley - laugh

    Reply to this message 21

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I have to admit Brian seemed, unusually for him, to be struggling to get his points across for much of the programme. This isn't really his field and I'm afraid it showed a bit. 
    Indeed, he seemed to stumble into the biology bits, DESPERATELY scrambling to the next completely tangential piece of physics which the show then spent far too long on...

    The fact the programme ended (unironically, I assume) with "The Universe Song", rather sums up how ill judged this match was and I fear rather proves my point about the right tool for the job... in this case the BBC seem to have taken one of its rather popular square pegs and unashamedly hammered it into a very round hole and the result is predictably discordant.

    We have to take his word for it over the proton gradients and stuff, and there was some jumping about between subjects that didn't really appear to follow from each other. It seemed to get a bit better towards the end. 
    I'd say even that was being rather too generous, GeometryMan - I'd say that having spent the vast majority assiduously avoiding the topic of life, it was really only in the last 5-10 minutes it actually seemed to remember about it.

    And even then, while Prof C seems happy to get very technical with things like proton gradients, potential energy, entropy, the heat death of the universe and so on... he talks in very loose, very vague and just... woolly terms when it comes to the biology side of things.

    It seems almost painfully clear that he was about a thousand miles away from his comfort zone... which repeatedly evidenced itself in how he couched EVERYTHING in the language of physics and that just is totally at odds with what this programme was supposed to be about.

    I don't think I can say that this was subject to the kind of cultural degradation that one expects of the BBC these days when it comes to science content. The fact that it didn't know what it wanted to say explains why it didn't stand a chance of knowing how to say it.

    All-in-all... a sad waste of resources. A hodge podge that says little of anything and too confused to be of use to anyone, really.

    Reply to this message 22

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by ashleyhr (U14203741) on Sunday, 27th January 2013

    I never realised the full significance of proton gradients.

    That may not have been intended, but the scene with the orang utans made me think of Attenborough with the mountain gorillas 35 years' ago.

    Someone on the BCSE Community Forum has flagged this Cox interview in the Radio Times: www.radiotimes.com/n...

    Reply to this message 23

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by saffiewalks (U11222674) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Be fair Zelda, Brian is speaking very slowly so that people like us can try and keep up with his enormous brain. Mind you, I didn't like the smirk on his face when he was rattling through that calculation for/of energy. Talk about "go figure".
    Think I will stick with Sheldon Cooper and that nice Leonard smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 24

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by zelda (U2012536) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Morning saffie.... I am with you there. TBBT is great stuff, I can understands that! smiley - laugh

    knock, knock,knock Penny........knock, knock,knock.........

    Reply to this message 25

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    For his gradients and DNA,
    My neurons do not care,
    The wonder of this show for me
    Is Professor Cox's* hair.smiley - scientist
    (* subject to confirmation by Madauntydawn)

    Reply to this message 26

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    It seems almost painfully clear that he was about a thousand miles away from his comfort zone... which repeatedly evidenced itself in how he couched EVERYTHING in the language of physics and that just is totally at odds with what this programme was supposed to be about.

    All-in-all... a sad waste of resources. A hodge podge that says little of anything and too confused to be of use to anyone, really. 

    I disagree that physics is at odds with what the programme is supposed to be about.

    The idea that life is driven by electro-chemical reactions has been around for decades already.

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 27

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I disagree that physics is at odds with what the programme is supposed to be about. 
    And I never at any point said physics was at odds with it - merely the poorly orchestrated islands upon which Brian Cox perched himself.

    The idea that life is driven by electro-chemical reactions has been around for decades already. 
    And no one is questioning that. In fact, you'll note I repeatedly made comment of the fact that biology is all about atoms.

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone.

    Reply to this message 28

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by olicana_man (U14156932) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Clearly our ability to understand physics is inversely proportional to the number of exotic locations Brian Cox visits!.

    Reply to this message 29

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone. 

    I disagree that it was a hodge podge. As I said in my post, I found it to be lucid and informative.

    Reply to this message 30

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Jan-Ann (U14322193) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone. 

    I disagree that it was a hodge podge. As I said in my post, I found it to be lucid and informative. 
    I agree zencat.

    Reading the above posts - it is like the script of Grumpy Old Men/Women.

    We all are just sacks of chemicals and he delivered it in a way that could be understood by even non-scientific minds.

    He's going to be the equivilent of Attenborough and Patrick Moore in inspiring the next generation of young people into science.

    Reply to this message 31

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Tony J Carey (U15594037) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    100% agree.
    Also, there is nothing in the laws of physics that says life must exist. One could have an entire lifeless universe obeying the current so-called "laws".

    B.C's focus on multi-cellular life ignores the fact that most life on Earth is microbial and does not contain mitochondria!

    B.C, I suspect has not understood that:
    * There is at present not the glimmerings of a real scientific understanding as to how microbial life evolved from inanimate matter,
    * That there is also a huge explanatory gap as how microbial life with its relatively simple cell nucleus could evolve to life based on the incredible complexity of a bunch of chromosomes
    * That it is just one hypothesis that such evolution took place on Earth and that the alternative panspermia hypothesis, that life evolved elsewhere in the universe, cannot be ruled out.
    *That DNA must contain the information not just for the building blocks of bodies but how those bodies develop in 3 dimensions and in time.

    As for the start of the programme about the hypothesis that something about us continues after death there is not the slightest indication that he intends to explore this - something that could be done via the growing literature on near-death & death related experiences.

    I hope the BBC will pick up these comments and review how it was that it allowed such a mistaken series to take place - but perhaps I am jumping to an over harsh prediction about future episodes.

    Reply to this message 32

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Walrus (U2154212) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    "He's going to be the equivilent of Attenborough and Patrick Moore in inspiring the next generation of young people into science."

    I do so hope he remains Brian Cox.

    Surely, Mr Attenborough should be retired without delay. The prince has won his spurs.

    Now. That Dimbleby man. Any sign of his replacement?

    Reply to this message 33

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by saffiewalks (U11222674) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone. 

    I disagree that it was a hodge podge. As I said in my post, I found it to be lucid and informative. 
    I agree zencat.

    Reading the above posts - it is like the script of Grumpy Old Men/Women.

    We all are just sacks of chemicals and he delivered it in a way that could be understood by even non-scientific minds.

    He's going to be the equivilent of Attenborough and Patrick Moore in inspiring the next generation of young people into science. 
    Sweeping generalisation. This non-scientific mind struggled to understand and eventually decided it didn't give a toss.
    Personally I don't find the Professor "adorable" but he seems to be pretty fond of himself judging by the number of moody close-ups of his profile.

    Sir David and Patrick Moore made their subjects very accessible which was one of their main strengths IMO.

    Reply to this message 34

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by germinator (U13411914) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    "As for the start of the programme about the hypothesis that something about us continues after death there is not the slightest indication that he intends to explore this - something that could be done via the growing literature on near-death & death related experiences."
    The programme is Wonders of Life not Wonders of After-Life; most, if not all of the near-death experiences I have read conform to the pre-existing belief system of the subject.

    Reply to this message 35

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Thuban (U8349152) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Not knowing much about biology, I thought this programme was very interesting and informative, though it was rather heavily slanted towards the notion that biology is just physics ... more of an opinion than a fact, I would've thought.

    I suspect biology is a difficult enough subject without trying to explain it all in terms of the laws of thermodynamics, and I'm still waiting for a credible differentiation relating to the difference between non-life and life, and whether biologists can now effect that huge transformation, without starting off with something already living.

    Hopefully, that will be examined in future programmes, though.

    Reply to this message 36

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by mysteryletterboxs (U1950653) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I don't really understand what he is saying.... but then I am thick.   We must be thick as well. Only lasted about 20mins before turning the sound off to admire the locations. We tired of that after about 5mins and turned over and watched Aliens.

    Reply to this message 37

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by silvery (U8422462) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    The BBC, as always, goes into overkill. Get a good idea and batter it unmercifully with a sledge hammer. That's 'science' at the moment. Programme after programme after programme. Two on the same night even, and the same channel.
    'Fraid I didn't watch either of them.



    Reply to this message 38

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Jan-Ann (U14322193) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    This non-scientific mind struggled to understand and eventually decided it didn't give a toss.
     
    I guess you are speaking about yourself. Your choice.

    he seems to be pretty fond of himself judging by the number of moody close-ups of his profile.  There were nowhere near the number of close ups that there were of the presenter on Orbit, She was always talking about herself and showing more of her face than the subject. The same with Polar Bears and Me, Prehistoric Autopsy, the one about medievil manuscripts. I thought BC made a good balance.

    Reply to this message 39

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    It was a good first programme - and a lot more to tell.

    My feeling at first was why was a leading Physicist talking about living things -
    But his presentation was so good - and the thoughts that the writer was putting over where far more the "natural philosophy" which predated our naming of this subject as Science.
    it was a very different view - and covered and linked so much ....
    and gave us all a lot to think about as well as information.


    Reply to this message 40

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Reservoir Hamster (U14288323) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I struggled a bit with this. I have never been able to fully understand what entropy is. I don't understand why on the one hand energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe is moving from order to disorder. What's this "conservation of energy" idea? How exactly is heat classed as "disorder"? I don't get it. I also got lost when Brian Cox started talking about proton gradients.

    What I did get was that it was a waste of time these people praying to their ancestors, that there was no immaterial soul, that the Universe was a doomed enterprise, and that all human activity is ultimately futile. Apart from that it was a very uplifting programme.

    Reply to this message 41

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Thuban (U8349152) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    It was a good first programme - and a lot more to tell.

    My feeling at first was why was a leading Physicist talking about living things -
    But his presentation was so good - and the thoughts that the writer was putting over where far more the "natural philosophy" which predated our naming of this subject as Science.
    it was a very different view - and covered and linked so much ....
    and gave us all a lot to think about as well as information.


     



    Yes, there is that, but I hope the tendency towards Natural Philosophy will be resisted for the devil is in the detail, not in broad, sweeping generalisations.

    In short, answers to the question: 'Yes, but how and why exactly?', and not just to: 'Can it be done in principle?'

    The linking was, as you say, most unusual but maybe all the more interesting for that, though I'm not entirely convinced it made things any clearer, except perhaps to physicists.

    Reply to this message 42

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by StudioTwo (U1523477) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    <>

    The show seemed to sufer from an identity crisis. It was entitled "What IS Life?". What makes something "alive".

    I enjoyed it, but there was no reason to even visit the topic of how life "began". I'm not even sure we neded to visit "natural selection" either.

    Reply to this message 43

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Twinkles (U14947618) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Well I certainly learned a lot from this programme, and Prof Cox actually took time with a Biologist to learn more about Biology so he could present that part more succinctly.
    He is a great communicator, and although life/evolution is a huge subject to cover, I think this first episode gave us plenty to think about.

    I enjoyed it immensely, and I think that some on this board just like to pull Prof Cox up on every minute thing, simply because he is on TV, is in the public eye, and is young and successful.
    Perhaps if he were old, eccentric with wild hair and spent the majority of his time in his underground lab, you would be more amenable to him. smiley - winkeye

    He is making a huge impression of youngsters especially, getting them interested in science and surely that alone is something to be praised.

    Back to the programme; Re the mistake made about 'dioxy' instead of 'deoxy', Prof Cox himself tweeted that the graphics were wrong.....'Bl**dy artists'....as he himself put it, so not his fault, wouldn't you agree?

    I will continue to enjoy this series, and although I am the first to admit that I am no scientist myself, I really feel that I am learning so much through programmes like this, and surely that is the point? It has to be entertaining to engage some to watch it in the first place, and the globetrotting has been watered down in this series.

    For those wanting pure science, I'm sure there are science lectures and courses available, if this programme is not to your taste.

    Reply to this message 44

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by olicana_man (U14156932) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I struggled a bit with this. I have never been able to fully understand what entropy is. I don't understand why on the one hand energy cannot be created or destroyed yet the universe is moving from order to disorder. What's this "conservation of energy" idea? How exactly is heat classed as "disorder"? I don't get it. I also got lost when Brian Cox started talking about proton gradients.

    What I did get was that it was a waste of time these people praying to their ancestors, that there was no immaterial soul, that the Universe was a doomed enterprise, and that all human activity is ultimately futile. Apart from that it was a very uplifting programme. 
    Love it, your not Richard Dawkins by any chance.

    O come on, it all makes sense, there's useful energy and not very useful energy but it all adds up.

    Happy to see there's not much God in this series - good.


    Reply to this message 45

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by RodgerDrains (U14941124) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    "As for the start of the programme about the hypothesis that something about us continues after death there is not the slightest indication that he intends to explore this - something that could be done via the growing literature on near-death & death related experiences."
    The programme is Wonders of Life not Wonders of After-Life; most, if not all of the near-death experiences I have read conform to the pre-existing belief system of the subject.

     
    I thought he did Germ. At least in suggesting that the period that any living thing experiences as "being alive" is only part of a process through which the constituent parts of the human (or any other living thing) come together for a brief period and then, once reproductive ability can no longer be continued, the parts break up and go back to being chemical elements that may, in time, become part of yet another "living" process in another plant or creature.

    So, as far as the "life after death" scenarios you refer to, I suppose he has finished discussing it as his "process" hypothesis has already dealt with it.

    I suppose, at the very least, it shows the importance of continuing to have as much sex as possible through your life as you may fool your body into thinking that you're still capable of reproduction and it won't go shutting down on you.....smiley - laugh

    I have to say that, on the whole, I love the way Brian Copx uses simple examples to get across the meaning of some quite complex theories. His enthusiasm and obvious sense of humour is also very infectious and adds to the lightness of touch he brings to serious subjects.

    Reply to this message 46

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by Tweeet (U15280056) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Quite enjoyable...will watch a few more before I make up my mind but Brian Cox is easy to watch so no probs there. smiley - winkeye

    Reply to this message 47

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by Prophet Tenebrae (U5995226) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone. 

    I disagree that it was a hodge podge. As I said in my post, I found it to be lucid and informative. 
    And yet, zencat - you FAILED to answer my question. If this hodge podge was so elucidating, surely you can elaborate at some length (or perhaps even wax lyrical) about what Prof C conveyed.

    Reading the above posts - it is like the script of Grumpy Old Men/Women. 
    I'm afraid I'll remain unrepentant for posting my opinion on a forum that is called Points of View.

    We all are just sacks of chemicals and he delivered it in a way that could be understood by even non-scientific minds. 
    Did he? When did he even get around to describing life? He went into agonising depth about potential energy and entropy but I think you've actually out done Prof C in your description of life. If only he'd spent as much time on it... but I guess holiday jollies > science.

    He's going to be the equivilent of Attenborough and Patrick Moore in inspiring the next generation of young people into science. 
    I can only assume that you're giving him a few decades to mature, like a good wine... although I think the fault is almost entirely with the BBC and it's sickening to see them waste Prof C's talent.

    There is at present not the glimmerings of a real scientific understanding as to how microbial life evolved from inanimate matter, 
    Uh... yes, there is. From the rest of your post though, I'm just waiting for a "IT WAZ GOD WHUT GUN AND DUN IT!" So, I shan't waste my time with you.

    Sir David and Patrick Moore made their subjects very accessible which was one of their main strengths IMO. 
    And at least when they were on camera in an exotic locale IT WAS FOR A REASON! Oh, right - that twenty minutes of Brian frolicking with jellyfish was totally necessary to us understand the "proton gradient" he kept banging on about. Nice that he uses all the physics terms but few (if any) of the biology ones.

    What does a fish out of water look like? A physicist presenting a programme about biology.

    No, I know the show's supporters are groaning at that. Let me correct it. A physicist presenting the leftovers of Wonders of the Universe PRETENDING to be a programme about biology. There. Must better.

    Reply to this message 48

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by ashleyhr (U14203741) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    Message 41

    Please see my response at the other thread a few minutes' ago. The question is really whether the energy is 'doing' anything useful. Increased entropy would mean that it is not.
    www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mb...

    Reply to this message 49

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by zencat (U14877400) on Monday, 28th January 2013

    I found the explanations lucid and informative - and Brian Cox, as always, adorable. 
    About WHAT? Please do tell me, I am genuinely interested to know what this dire hodge podge could tell anyone. 

    I disagree that it was a hodge podge. As I said in my post, I found it to be lucid and informative. 

    And yet, zencat - you FAILED to answer my question. If this hodge podge was so elucidating, surely you can elaborate at some length (or perhaps even wax lyrical) about what Prof C conveyed. 

    I prefer to let Brian Cox wax lyrical - he has much better teeth for the job than I do. smiley - smiley

    Reply to this message 50

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.



Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.