Howdy, I'm back from some NY interviews!
Anyway, I watched Evolution and read some of your arguments and here are my two cents...
1. Over long periods of time, new genes can arise from pre-existing genes. The mere fact is that we can do this in the laboratory with ligases and recombinases suggest that there is a chance nature does the same things. The only thing that makes it hard for us to prove is the fact that it takes long periods of time (in accordance to the probability of good mutations, which someone claimed to be 1% or less). Junk genes for example may give clues to the randomness of natural selection among genes. And since there is variability between each person's junk genes, it is safe to say that the process of new gene formation could be going on. Combine that with natural selection in the real world, and we get a very sound theory. I'm not taking anything away from religion, but science is much more devoted to the truth while religion is much more devoted to happiness. As one would say, if you want to be content, believe. If you want the truth, inquire. Religion is useful for ethics and morality, while science functions to better understanding and application.
2. I find it interesting that a successful matriarchal society is one based on sex and a patriarchal society is one based on violence. More philosophically, a matriarchal society may be one where the goal is to gain pleasure while that of a patriarchal society is the avoidance of pain. There might be some truth that in a primitive society, if the conditions are right, groups of women bond easily than groups of men. But the struggle lies on whether these bonds are good enough to counter male hormonal aggression. While the authors of the show seemed to portray fascination with banobo society, I might disagree that peace may not be nature's way, as the lack of female choosiness and male competition stagnates evolutionary emergence of quality genes. But, with the way we are now, is evolutionary theory chauvinistic? It can be implied that if females conitnue to be choosy and males continue to fight and hone attractive traits, then would natural selection work faster (in a grand scale, of course) on males than females? Sex trait lethalities for example are more common in men, simply because of their genetic makeup... but the tradeoff fore lethality is selection. This is in a genetic perspective. Add the behavioral perspective, we see male competition to act the same way, and so if the natural urge of women are to select from the pool, there will be a tendency for a more aggressive selection on males. It becomes clear why we began in a patriarchal society... honing traits such as innovation, intelligence, fighting, etc., superseded the primal reason for sex into a societal reason for leadership, protection of the many and organization.
I would like very much for scientists to continue to study chimp and banobo society and chart each societies' evolutions.
3. Undeniably, near perfect forms of life are already in existence... bacteria. Perfect, as defined to be the property to be the most resilient, self-sufficient and adaptable life forms. In fact, I believe that we are not evolving, rather we are devolving in a sense. Intelligence, strength, mobility, cellular associations, societal associations, etc. are all selective traits tailored to accommodate certain deficiencies.
4. Finally, there is nothing nerdy about PBS. Notice that PBS do not have useless ads and other negative effects of media. Those who do not recognize this significance are presumably ignorant and would be one easily swayed by propaganda.
