Tuesday, May 6, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

The History Channel might do something right

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

For those in the US with cable TV:

Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/the_history_channel_might_do_s.php

I just got this announcement for a new series to appear on the History Channel in June. This has the potential to be really good — at least it sounds like the focus is on the biology — and we'll have to tune in.

SERIES PREMIERE!
EVOLVE:
EYES

Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species. They exist in many different forms across nature, having evolved convergently across different species. Learn how the ancestors of jellyfish may have been the first to evolve light-sensitive cells. In the pre-Cambrian era, insects, in particular the dragonfly, would take the compound eye to new heights. Find out how dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey. And while dinosaurs remained at the top of the food chain for 150 million years, tiny early mammals developed night vision to populate the night as a survival technique. Finally, learn how primates underwent several adaptations to their eyes to better exploit their new habitat, and how the ability to see colors helped them find food.

Throughout eons of evolution, the natural world has played host to a never-ending competition. Since the dawn of time roughly 99% of all species have become extinct. In order to survive, all creatures, including man, must treat life as a battlefield and master the natural weapons and defenses that have evolved: Tyrannosaurus Rex's 13-inch canines; the gecko's Velcro-like toe pads; the bald eagle's telescopic vision that is capable of spotting a hare a mile away. What is the history of these evolutions and how did they come about? They didn't just appear arbitrarily, they evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare. To evolve is to conquer!

The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today, from the anatomical (eyes, jaws, and body armor) to the behavioral (movement, communication, and sex). This 13-part series will deftly blend spectacular live-action natural history sequences, CGI, epic docudrama, and experimental science to illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth.

PREMIERE: Tuesday, June 17 at 10pm/2am ET/PT
LENGTH: 2 hours
REPEATS: Sunday, June 22 at 11pm/3am ET/PT
PRODUCED BY: Optomen Productions, Inc.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 56 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #176051 by Nova on May 6, 2008 at 12:46 pm

This is brilliant because the public desperately need to learn about evolution; in addition it harms religion which is also brilliant.

Other Comments by Nova

2. Comment #176053 by annabanana on May 6, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I don't know that I would say that the History Channel is doing something right (although they may be). I was sick a couple of weeks ago and stayed home from work where I was sucked into some show on the History Channel and almost every commercial break there was a commercial for Expelled...which is definitely doing something wrong.

Other Comments by annabanana

3. Comment #176054 by Tezcatlipoca on May 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

So, if this is the same History Channel that is number 63 on my basic cable dial, undoubtably there will be a cgi dogfight somewhere in the Evolve series...

or at least mention of human sacrifice on the part of my devotees...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

4. Comment #176055 by Caldur on May 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm

This is me excited!

I'm a bit confused, though. Is this a 13 part series of 2 hour episodes? If there's really 26 hours (minus commercials), that would be absolutely amazing.

Other Comments by Caldur

5. Comment #176056 by Chris Jackson on May 6, 2008 at 1:04 pm

This is ridiculous, we all know that the eye just formed out of nothing. It's far more likely that cells assembled themselves by chance than by some nonsensical system of "evolution"

/sarcasm

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

6. Comment #176057 by Geodesic17 on May 6, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Well, if they take the advertising revenue from the Expelled campaign and pump it into quality programming like this, then maybe we can take a utilitarian outlook towards the channel. The same people that saw the Expelled commercials could end up watching this. Maybe they will realize that they were duped by Ben Stein.

Now they just need to clear up the whole Holocaust propoganda.

It will take several documentaries and miniseries to set the poor victims of Expelled straight.

Personally, I'd like to see a Bertrand Russell documentary on the History Channel. More Americans need to know about him.

Especially after so many rediculous shows like a mini-series on the anti-christ as though it was factual and needed serious investigation and consideration.

Edutainment is a problem. Did they even bother consulting an opposing, scholarly view point like Bart Ehrman on these matters?

Other Comments by Geodesic17

7. Comment #176059 by wiz220 on May 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm

I'm glad to see the History channel doing something useful. Especially after so many rediculous shows like a mini-series on the anti-christ as though it was factual and needed serious investigation and consideration.

Other Comments by wiz220

8. Comment #176070 by Don_Quix on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm

My wife and I used to refer to The History Channel as "The Hitler Channel", due to the ridiculous number of WWII and Nazi/Hitler documentaries they used to play all the time. Fortunately they've gotten away from that (mostly) and have started to broaden their programming, although they do tend to frequently over-dramatize and dumb-down things still.

The Universe is about the only History Channel show I watch anymore. Although I'm interested in seeing this Evolve show too.

Other Comments by Don_Quix

9. Comment #176071 by Devolution on May 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm

The most disgraceful show on the History Channel has to be "The Naked Archaeologist". It features a Jewish fellow with a silly yamika running around the Israeli desert trying to find evidence for myths out of the Torah.

The problem is the guy isn't even an archaeologist! LOL

Other Comments by Devolution

10. Comment #176074 by Geodesic17 on May 6, 2008 at 1:52 pm

More like, "The Faux Archaeologist".

Other Comments by Geodesic17

11. Comment #176078 by Stephen Maxwell on May 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Don_Quix that avatar is brilliant!!!

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

12. Comment #176082 by HourglassMemory on May 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Bring it on, then!

When it comes out in dvd, the whole thing, I might buy it. But only if it looks good...and if it comes out in my country...

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

13. Comment #176088 by quill on May 6, 2008 at 2:14 pm

They should show intermittent clips from Ben Stein throughout the series just to highlight his ignorance on the subject. "And somehow that MUD..."

Other Comments by quill

14. Comment #176091 by Geodesic17 on May 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm

It is ironic how creationists often mock their own beliefs.

"Lightening striking mud? HA!"
"The eye just magically forming? HA!"

Other Comments by Geodesic17

15. Comment #176092 by Fiesoduck on May 6, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Well, the announcement reads promising. But then, I don't know what to think of "insects in the pre-Cambrian era". As far as I know there were no insects earlier than the Devonian era.

Other Comments by Fiesoduck

16. Comment #176094 by MorituriMax on May 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm

@Chris Jackson,

. . .you mean a tornado roared through a room full of blind people and suddenly they could see?

Oh, and there was a fully assembled 747 out front too with hooters girls on board.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

17. Comment #176104 by RSP on May 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

This is good, but it's still paltry in comparison to the constant barrage of ghost hunting and UFO shows they put out.

The discovery networks channels sure do love their computer animation.

Other Comments by RSP

18. Comment #176105 by Goldy on May 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Hope this comes to NZ soon - I'm just about all done with WWII and dogfights and hero ships and stuff.
Mind you, there was a pretty good doco on Qin Shi Huang (Ch'in Shih-huang for you Wade Giles supporters)...

Other Comments by Goldy

19. Comment #176107 by BW022 on May 6, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Well... I guess evolution is history? Rather distant and unwritten history, but still history? :)

Other Comments by BW022

20. Comment #176108 by nalfeshnee on May 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today,

I do hope they consider the fact that the bacterial flagellum represents a major step in the evolutionary arms race :=)

2 hours on that would surely finally shut some people up.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

21. Comment #176116 by LBraschi on May 6, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions, equipping approximately 95 percent of living species

Excuse me? 95% of all living species?

So, do bacteria have eyes? do fungi? plants?

I don't want to read too much on it, but this kind of gross error makes me think about what kind of 'experts' they've called up for this.

Other Comments by LBraschi

22. Comment #176139 by cyris8400 on May 6, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Y'know, a good amount of History Channel stuff is worth watching, like "Modern Marvels" and "The Universe", and they did a top-notch debunking special on the 9/11 Truthers. Not that that makes up totally for "UFO Hunters" and "Monster Quest".

If they aired Jonathan Miller's Brief History of Disbelief, then they'd definitely be on my good side.

Other Comments by cyris8400

23. Comment #176148 by beelzebub on May 6, 2008 at 5:13 pm

It'll probably be a few months before it gets over here, but I hope it will be an informed and intelligent overview of evolution. Alas, there are at least two errors in the write-up that I can see (And others here have noted) -
Insects in the pre-cambrian?????
95% of living species have eyes????
...and I'm not too sure about the "To evolve is to conquer!" bit - surely to 'survive' is to live long enough to reproduce? It's not about !!conquest!!

Other Comments by beelzebub

24. Comment #176152 by DasSquid on May 6, 2008 at 5:19 pm

This could be an interesting development, as pointed out this has the ability to take the people who watched Ben Stein's Movie's ad, and get them to watch this, could possibly plant some seeds of doubt, which is fantastic... however a lot of the language here disturbs me.

...equipping approximately 95 percent of living species...

Either they don't count Bacteria as alive, or they all have eyes, something that's pretty new to me. Plants included too! Shit... maybe the bushes are watching me take a pee... I'll be more wary next time.

...In the pre-Cambrian era, insects...

Lies! Only rabbits existed in the Pre-Cambrian! Note: I do believe that insects were post-cambrian.

Either way I hope they don't fuck this up too much, it has the ability to reach an audience that are fairly retarded... especially in science knowledge, and from what I've heard of this... 'History' channel... I'd likely fail even High School history if I referred to anything in it.

Other Comments by DasSquid

25. Comment #176159 by Partisan on May 6, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Looks better than nothing; so long as it's in standard documentary format and involves interviews from experts, I can't see how it could go wrong, so yea, I'll be tuning into the History channel come mid-june =]

Other Comments by Partisan

26. Comment #176169 by rod-the-farmer on May 6, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Re LBraschi

So, do bacteria have eyes? do fungi? plants?

Plants with eyes.....potato.....tapioca, sort of.....stuffed olives.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

27. Comment #176171 by Geodesic17 on May 6, 2008 at 7:00 pm

Hopefully they will minimize the sensationalism.

I'm reminded of how Indiana University Northwest's marketing department advertised their ID vs Evolution debate: God vs Science.

Hopefully they have consulted some solid sources and minimize edutainment sensationalism.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

28. Comment #176175 by HappyPrimate on May 6, 2008 at 7:31 pm

I will definitely watch this series and hope there is something I can learn from it. Unfortunately, I would guess that 99% of the people who would benefit greatly from watching will not watch any of it. Too bad.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

29. Comment #176177 by Ty_Webb on May 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Find out how dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey.

I don't know about anyone else, but I get uneasy about phrases like this. It implies that animals adapt themselves to evolve. I'd far rather they said something like "Find out how dinosaurs' eyes adapted (or maybe even evolved) to make them such successful hunters of prey".

Other Comments by Ty_Webb

30. Comment #176184 by Goldy on May 6, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Ty_Webb, I dare say the blurb for the films are written by what I would stereotypically see as some ponytailed arty type with maybe a diploma from some polytechnic on film and advertising. I think science, in this case, is something that ispreseted adn dumbed down severely during editing to make it understandable to the general population.
Now, how this population can somehow differentiate between the allegorical and the literal in books like the Bible yet completely fall for the cack-handed shortcuts used in pop-science documentaries would make for interesting research :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

31. Comment #176207 by BrandySpears on May 6, 2008 at 10:49 pm

I love the History Channel and most of the media from the Hearst Corporation. Considering the Hearst Family was major donors to The National Cathedral,DC and Grace Cathedral, San Francisco, I'm glad their shows are entertaining even if some are sensationalized. To bad they don't broadcast the music coming out of Grace Cathedral though.

Other Comments by BrandySpears

32. Comment #176209 by darlets on May 6, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Slightly off topic, but how do we get more stuff like this made?

Krause put the price tag on a movie at $50 million in his chat with Dawkins.

Is there room for a science movie in the market?

Is there anything people can do at a grassroots level to try and increase the amount of science content produce in a movie or documentary format?

Ideas/Suggestions?

Other Comments by darlets

33. Comment #176212 by riandouglas on May 6, 2008 at 11:07 pm

darlets: Is there room for a science movie in the market?

"Expelled" shows there is room for a "non-science" or "nonsense" movie in the market.
Unfortunately I think you'll have trouble pitching a movie which contains "actual" science to the masses.
Seems you'd need some kind of controversy and some personal stories. Conspiracy's also rate well.
Bonus points if you appeal to a persecution or martyr complex :-)

EDIT: Even though I think it would be a hard sell, I also think it would be great to something happen.

Other Comments by riandouglas

34. Comment #176216 by njwong on May 6, 2008 at 11:43 pm

Comment #176209 by darlets on May 6, 2008 at 10:55 pm

Krause put the price tag on a movie at $50 million in his chat with Dawkins.

I too was surprised at the US$50 million figure thrown up by Krauss. I believe BBC produced the amazing Planet Earth series (12 one-hour episodes) with a budget of only US$25 million. (Although 5 years to make it seems a tad too long...) But then, perhaps the US$50 million only applies to US productions. I do believe if they make a Cosmos like series today using effects from Australia or New Zealand, it can be done for much less.

Other Comments by njwong

35. Comment #176219 by darlets on May 7, 2008 at 12:14 am

I think it would be cheaper in N.Z and Australia also.

As long as you didn't waste money marketing it at the U.S I think you could re make the initial investment in the E.U and Asian markets.

(Assuming someone front money as an investment not a donation.)

If it takes off in America great, but I'd aim it outside the u.s to start with.

Other Comments by darlets

36. Comment #176227 by hmcook87 on May 7, 2008 at 12:57 am

Do we really think that people who don't accept evolution watch History Channel? I really can't see them being into "fact based" programming.

Other Comments by hmcook87

37. Comment #176228 by Nephite on May 7, 2008 at 1:00 am

I'm glad they sometimes have sound programming on the History Channel. I watch it a lot, and I think they should change their name: to the Bullshit Channel. About a third of their programs are about UFOs, Atlantis, mythical monsters, Biblical mythology, and other pseudoscientific topics. A few days ago I saw a program on Monster Quest about a half-man-half-dog. Arrrrrrrrrrrr! And who's that silly Bosnian guy who's always trying to find the Ark of the Covenant or the tomb of Jesus or whatever? He worked with James Cameron on a few programs.

Other Comments by Nephite

38. Comment #176239 by 8teist on May 7, 2008 at 1:31 am

Who the burning pits of hell is Qin Shi Huang ? The father of feng shui ?
Dont knock the cgi dogfights or i`ll headbutt your nana

Other Comments by 8teist

39. Comment #176247 by bachfiend on May 7, 2008 at 2:14 am

I suppose when they say 95% of living species have eyes, they are not taking it literally and also exaggerating, including simple photoreceptors as eyes, and other senses as eyes too, such as bats seeing with sonar, dogs seeing by smell, racoons seeing by touch, platypuses seeing by electrical currents with their bills, etc. But even then 95% does seem high. Hopefully, they will include an account of how rhodopsin developed. That was a problem with Richard Dawkins' account of eyes (I forget which book it was in), but he stopped at the ultrastructural level. Behe gave an account of rhodopsin in his book, and then declared ignorance, sorry victory, declaring that it had to be designed.

Other Comments by bachfiend

40. Comment #176257 by Goldy on May 7, 2008 at 3:06 am

Who the burning pits of hell is Qin Shi Huang ?

First Qin emperor, the feller responsible for the terracotta army. Absolute ruler and rather ruthless to boot but admired for being responsible for the unification of China. Standardised script, measures, roads, etc, etc and killed untold numbers by burying alive, slavery, worrking to death, etc.
Cgi dogfights are all very well, but once you seen one... And there are people that will dispute the facts - ASMarques is one...

Other Comments by Goldy

41. Comment #176265 by njwong on May 7, 2008 at 3:30 am

Qin Shi Huang was also responsible for the Great Wall of China.

Other Comments by njwong

42. Comment #176267 by agki on May 7, 2008 at 3:37 am

I'm so tired of the History Channel's showing of nothing but crap about Nostradamus, the Knights Templar, Adolf Hitler, the Masonic plot to rule the world, and UFOs. Maybe this will redeem them.

Other Comments by agki

43. Comment #176270 by Grumpy Max on May 7, 2008 at 4:18 am

If we rule out plants and fungi, this 95% doesn't seem too far wrong to me. Insects make up three quarters or more of all animal species, and I'm having a hard time thinking of too many insects who don't have eyes.

Cheers, btw, Bachfiend, I'm now plagued by images of eyeless dogs, bats and platypuses.

Other Comments by Grumpy Max

44. Comment #176271 by bluebird on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 am

This 'Evolve' program looks promising; the proof of the pudding is in the tasting...will check it out this June.

Amongst the motley assortment of H.C. programs, "The Universe" stands out as our fave.
http://www.history.com/minisites/universe

Other Comments by bluebird

45. Comment #176279 by j.mills on May 7, 2008 at 4:52 am

The blurb sounds sensationalist to me. (Would it hurt them to say "95% of ANIMAL species"?) Isn't Dawkins working on an evolution series? That's probably the one to look out for.

I'm always kinda disappointed by those fabulous Attenborough BBC wildlife shows, "The Blue Planet", "Life On Earth", etc. They present lots of wonderful footage but they're less good at hammering home the messages, perhaps aiming too low. I'd welcome some computer graphics in those things - not CGI dogfights and rendered dinosaurs, but evolutionary trees and simulations of DNA replication.

As for science movies - "An Inconvenient Truth" was pretty good and did well.

Other Comments by j.mills

46. Comment #176291 by squinky on May 7, 2008 at 6:12 am

Covering the evolution of the eye is brilliant since it slays one of the Intelligent Design's sacred cows. Just illustrating how many different eyes exist in nature destroys that lame argument (to say nothing of the evolution of rhodopsin and the photoisomerization of cis to trans-retinal) but there's nothing quite so good as a well-done science documentary.

Other Comments by squinky

47. Comment #176305 by glittergulch on May 7, 2008 at 6:47 am

This sounds great! Can't wait.

Other Comments by glittergulch

48. Comment #176312 by Border Collie on May 7, 2008 at 6:57 am

Hey, it'll be great if we don't have to sit through half the program each time listening to some YEC and or IDist argue their side of the "debate" ... I guess National Geographic channel is too busy showing it's usual nonsense about big foot, alien abduction, Biblical "science/archeology" and, of course, sharks, snakes and crocodiles ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

49. Comment #176369 by aquilacane on May 7, 2008 at 8:01 am

I guess this is good, but it will probably still do more to make people ignorant of how evolution works with language like this:

Eyes are one of evolution's most useful and prevalent inventions (evolution does not invent)

Dinosaurs adapted their eyes to become such successful hunters of prey (Dinosaurs did not adapt their eyesto hunt prey, they can hunt prey because their eyes adapted. Their eyes adapted them in other words)

Tiny early mammals developed night vision to populate the night as a survival technique (There is no such thing as a survival technique. Survival is a byproduct of evolution. In other words, tiny mammals could populate the night because night vision developed, thus surviving)

learn how primates underwent several adaptations to their eyes to better exploit their new habitat (Primate eye adaptation
didn't happen to better exploit their habitat, they could better exploit their habitat because eye adaptation occurred)

The ability to see colours helped them find food (got this right)

They evolved for a common reason - to give these animals a critical edge in interspecies warfare. (There is no reason to evolve only a cause of evolution. The byproduct of which is survival)

key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today (innovation requires intelligence. I don't think supporting ID is the goal of this piece; however.)

To illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth (We don't struggle to survive, survival is neither positive or negative in the eyes of genes; however, it is hard to study genes that cause death because they don't last, so we are left with the only alternative, which is to study genes that have resulted in the byproduct of survival. We have merely assumed that this means there is intent to survive, but that's impossible unless you follow the ID model)

Other Comments by aquilacane

50. Comment #176449 by Raiko on May 7, 2008 at 11:15 am