Posted by Basil Greber on October 11, 2006 at 3:30 AM
In case anybody has not yet seen Lanting's most recent book & accompanying website, I highly recommend having a look here:
http://www.lifethroughtime.com/
As always, I find Lanting's work to be of fantastic beauty and very inspiring. I'm a student of biochemistry and molecular biology, and one of my biggest interests is how life and the macromolecules associated with all living things came into being and were subsequently shaped by evolution. Therefore, I'm not only fascinated by this piece of work from a photographic & artistic standpoint, but also by the science behind the beauty, so to say. Maybe this is why I like this so much.
In any case, have a look for yourself!
Basil
Posted by Lyle Bergman on October 11, 2006 at 1:52 PM
Wow, that's a neat site. Great photos and music; definitely left me with a sense of awe. Thanks for pointing it out!
Wow, amazing photos (what else is expected from Frans?) and very well presented, but what's more important to me is the subject. Handled in such a simple manner only Frans Lanting seems to be at ease doing it. Thanks for posting the link, Basil.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on October 12, 2006 at 12:23 AM
I love his "timeline" presentation. Thanks for the recommendation.
Posted by Jim Goldstein on October 12, 2006 at 12:45 AM
Amazing presentation.... the Life presentation is beautiful.
Posted by Jim Goldstein on October 12, 2006 at 3:16 AM
Thanks for the correction Basil. Apparently I had my focus on the microscope more than my other studies. After I saw your post the light went on above my head.
Posted by Kent Mearig on October 12, 2006 at 8:48 PM
I watched a narrated slideshow through a link from a Nikon email, so I'm not sure it was exacly the same as what you're pointing out. I thought that the images were beautiful and very nicely presented. I think that the subjects of the photos are absolutely beautiful. I guess I still have a question though, and that is: if it's a product of millions of years of evolution and chance and I'm a product of millions of years of evolution and chance, why do I think that it is beautiful? It makes so much more sense TO ME that the subjects of the images, the images themselves, and my feelings about them are a product of intentional design. It made me sad this morning to hear about another book that pushes the opposite viewpoint through photography. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but would you mind telling me why you don't.
Posted by Basil Greber on October 13, 2006 at 1:46 AM
I don't think it makes any sense to start a discussion on evolution vs. intelligent design or whatever viewpoint you prefer. For me as a scientist, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution shaped life. I am aware of the other ideas, but I have yet to come across one that stands on a scientific basis rather than belief or religious wishes. So let's agree to disagree...
Basil
BTW, if you really are interested in the subject, have a look at "Evolution", written by Mark Ridley. He explains these things much better than I ever could.
Posted by Lyle Bergman on October 13, 2006 at 8:25 AM
I thought Lanting's photos came as close as one could short of actually building a time machine and going back to photograph what was there. Surely, I would jump at the chance if offered a such a machine to go back and photograph. Though I doubt my photographic abilities would be up to the task.
For me, I appreciated the presentation used in the context of what is already proven. Knowing that our species evoloved over a few hundred thousand generations over millions of years, this planet is 4.6 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around 14 billion years old with trillions of trillion of stars (which we still haven't seen the end of yet, but are getting close!), is far more awe-inspiring for me than believing a creator made it all with a wave of the hand.
I think the evolution "debate" boils down to: the theory has vast evidence supporting it, the belief has nil. My own personal belief is religion should never superseed science when it comes to what is fact. If science proves a particular belief wrong, then it's wrong and that's the end if it.
Posted by Basil Greber on October 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Couldn't have said it any better (for sure not in English, maybe not even in German, my native language).
Basil
Posted by Kent Mearig on October 13, 2006 at 1:18 PM
Your post is sums up what I find disheartening about the book. Through amazing photography, it presents a theory as though it were indisputable fact, when in fact it is, at the very best, just a theory. At worst, it is a poor hypothesis, but we live in a world full of people who have embraced evolution without a real grasp of the implications and nuances. In a sense, evolutionary theory has morphed into a religion all its own. The statement, "I think the evolution "debate" boils down to: the theory has vast evidence supporting it, the belief has nil," shows a refusal to look at the facts and physical laws of the universe that refute the notion of evolution. My reason for posting is so that people will think about the agenda and role of this book. If they agree that it is good that the book supports the idea that all intelligent people agree that evolution is a fact of life, then they can purchase this work and be happy. If they don't want to support that thought, I would suggest not buying this book. That is all.
Posted by Lyle Bergman on October 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM
To delve into scientific terminology a little bit, the theory of evolution is as much a theory as the theory of gravity. Even though many details and exact workings are still being discovered and worked out, both theorys are quite sound as they fit the available evidence. Indeed, all the arugments I've read against evolution have either been based on misinformation, faulty logic, ignorance, or misrepresentation of the facts; they've all fallen apart when carefully reviewed.
But one's view on this should really be secondary to one's enjoyment of the photos. The photos are simply great, no matter how they're presented.
Posted by Basil Greber on October 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Kent, I really am annoyed by you & those statements. This thread is about a phantastic photographic achievement, not about intelligent deisgn vs. evolution. There is no hidden agenda or conspiracy theory about this book (there isn't one about evolution either), it's about photography. And I enjoy these forums because there is usually no political or "world view"-mud slinging going on here, but since you jump right in with accusations all over the place, I'll respond.
> we live in a world full of people who have embraced evolution
> without a real grasp of the implications and nuances.
Molecular biologist/biochemist here, ok? I've seen evolution at work in the lab. Usually, things don't evolve quickly enough for us to see, but on the level of viruses and bacteria, it's amazingly fast and well documented in hundreds of cases, for sure. Besides of that, the signs of evolution are everywhere in our genomes and the genomes of everything that surrounds us.
> when in fact it is, at the very best, just a theory.
You seemingly don't know what theory means in science. In public use, the word theory means what hypothesis means in science. In science, theory means that it is extremely well fundamented, widely accepted, and in fact basis for a lot of research being done. Einstein's laws of relativity are also theories.
> a refusal to look at the facts and physical laws of the universe
> that refute the notion of evolution.
Well, I'd say the same about those who are blindly trying to prove scientifically that evolution doesn't happen, when in reality they simply follow their religious beliefs. There is no room for "supernatural forces" in science - what you can't measure or observe will not be accepted. What are those "physical laws of the universe" that refute evolution? I haven't heard of any...
On a further note: There is no reason for scientists to push evolution if it isn't true. There's simply no point, there's no motivation to do this. Nothing can be gained by claiming evolution is happening when in fact it's not. However, there IS motivation do negate evolution. Religion is one possibility. Evolution for some conflicts fundamentally with their faith - and since those usually don't want to give up religion, evolutionary theory has to be "eliminated". So where are the reason for "conspiracies" now?
Sorry for this long and not very nice post.
Basil
Posted by Kent Mearig on October 13, 2006 at 2:55 PM
This thread is about a certain work/collection being worth our attention and fabulous. My post was meant to point out that this work has a theme (not a conspiracy, just a theme) that I don't think should be separated from the images themselves (which are very attractive in their own right). The idea of all life originating out of no life was the inspiration for each image, and Mr. Lanting has made that very clear in the narrations for the images that I've listened to. Many if not all works of art have a purpose or message, and that is good. I was only trying to say that wise to consider your feelings on the intended message before praising or buying this artwork.
Additionally, I certainly never meant to make you feel like I was accusing YOU of having a blind belief in evolution. On the other hand, after my first post here, I was already being accused of refusing to believe "facts" and otherwise being intellectually inferior. Mr. Greber, your detailed description of the reasons you accept evolution as accurate, was precisely what I asked for in my first post, thank you for sharing. I was not looking for a scientific debate, only an answer as to why the book resonated so easily with you.
Discussion
13 replieshttp://www.lifethroughtime.com/
As always, I find Lanting's work to be of fantastic beauty and very inspiring. I'm a student of biochemistry and molecular biology, and one of my biggest interests is how life and the macromolecules associated with all living things came into being and were subsequently shaped by evolution. Therefore, I'm not only fascinated by this piece of work from a photographic & artistic standpoint, but also by the science behind the beauty, so to say. Maybe this is why I like this so much.
In any case, have a look for yourself!
Basil
Basil
BTW, if you really are interested in the subject, have a look at "Evolution", written by Mark Ridley. He explains these things much better than I ever could.
For me, I appreciated the presentation used in the context of what is already proven. Knowing that our species evoloved over a few hundred thousand generations over millions of years, this planet is 4.6 billion years old, and the universe somewhere around 14 billion years old with trillions of trillion of stars (which we still haven't seen the end of yet, but are getting close!), is far more awe-inspiring for me than believing a creator made it all with a wave of the hand.
I think the evolution "debate" boils down to: the theory has vast evidence supporting it, the belief has nil. My own personal belief is religion should never superseed science when it comes to what is fact. If science proves a particular belief wrong, then it's wrong and that's the end if it.
Basil
But one's view on this should really be secondary to one's enjoyment of the photos. The photos are simply great, no matter how they're presented.
> we live in a world full of people who have embraced evolution
> without a real grasp of the implications and nuances.
Molecular biologist/biochemist here, ok? I've seen evolution at work in the lab. Usually, things don't evolve quickly enough for us to see, but on the level of viruses and bacteria, it's amazingly fast and well documented in hundreds of cases, for sure. Besides of that, the signs of evolution are everywhere in our genomes and the genomes of everything that surrounds us.
> when in fact it is, at the very best, just a theory.
You seemingly don't know what theory means in science. In public use, the word theory means what hypothesis means in science. In science, theory means that it is extremely well fundamented, widely accepted, and in fact basis for a lot of research being done. Einstein's laws of relativity are also theories.
> a refusal to look at the facts and physical laws of the universe
> that refute the notion of evolution.
Well, I'd say the same about those who are blindly trying to prove scientifically that evolution doesn't happen, when in reality they simply follow their religious beliefs. There is no room for "supernatural forces" in science - what you can't measure or observe will not be accepted. What are those "physical laws of the universe" that refute evolution? I haven't heard of any...
On a further note: There is no reason for scientists to push evolution if it isn't true. There's simply no point, there's no motivation to do this. Nothing can be gained by claiming evolution is happening when in fact it's not. However, there IS motivation do negate evolution. Religion is one possibility. Evolution for some conflicts fundamentally with their faith - and since those usually don't want to give up religion, evolutionary theory has to be "eliminated". So where are the reason for "conspiracies" now?
Sorry for this long and not very nice post.
Basil
Additionally, I certainly never meant to make you feel like I was accusing YOU of having a blind belief in evolution. On the other hand, after my first post here, I was already being accused of refusing to believe "facts" and otherwise being intellectually inferior. Mr. Greber, your detailed description of the reasons you accept evolution as accurate, was precisely what I asked for in my first post, thank you for sharing. I was not looking for a scientific debate, only an answer as to why the book resonated so easily with you.