Talk:Episode Four (Primeval)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Where did the anomaly lead to?

Is it made certain the anomaly spaghetti junction was at Mauritius? Yes Dodo's came through from it but could have they come through one of the other anomalies first? If it was 17th Century Mauritius wouldn't it be a bit conspicuous to any passing explorers or hunters? --GracieLizzie 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it said 17th Century on the official site. Secondly, this is an alternate universe as evidenced from the parasites (or do you honestly think that passing explorers or hunters would not have noticed them?) Thirdly, It's a big island and the first people to land there and eradicated the Dodo's through hunting and introducing rats, never colonised it to any extent and the anomalies closed soon after opening, so they may never have noticed it. Fourth, the idea that they came through another anomaly first does not hold water as they where just chased back through the fridge anomaly, not herded through Spaghetti junction nor is their any evidence for that fan theory. The simplest explenation is usualy the correct one. Nubula 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The dodo profile on the website says "Origin: Predator-free islands (like Mauritius). Up until the 17th century, when they became extinct" and the synopsis doesn't mention their origin. Is there a mention on the website I'm missing? If not, I don't see any evidence for the time and location of the spaghetti junction, or whether the dodos came through from another anomaly. Jihg 18:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"Up until the 17th century, when they became extinct" and the synopsis doesn't mention their origin." Allow me to point out the words your ignoring: 17th century and Mauritius, your just trying to nitpick by mentioning that it failed to give an exact date and day. "I don't see any evidence for the time and location of the spaghetti junction, or whether the dodos came through from another anomaly." Firstly, you and GracieLizzie are the ones advocating that fan theory, so YOUR the one who has to provide the evidence to support it even though it contradicts onscreen evidence and Occam's Razor: the simplest workable, accurate theory wins. Nubula 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to disagree with your use of Occam's Razor here. From the website, we know the dodos probably came from a) a predator-free island (like Mauritius) and b) the 17th century or earlier. From the episode we know that c) the anomaly they came through lead to a large grassy plain containing many more anomalies. That's our evidence, and its not enough to determine the location of the plain or the origin of those dodos. The theory that the grassy plain is 17th century Mauritius and home to the dodos is *not* simpler than "we don't know". We'd be making several unwarranted assumptions which don't help to explain the evidence. Occam's Razor is supposed to shave off such unnecessary assumptions. The simplest workable theory is here is that we don't know. Sorry for the long-winded reply, but you are arguing the point quite forcefully. My disagreement isn't based on a particular fan theory (not sure what you mean?), but what I see as the evidence. I suspect that goes for GracieLizzie too. Jihg 13:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you’re just obfuscating. "We'd be making several unwarranted assumptions which don't help to explain the evidence." No we’d be explaining what’s seen onscreen and which explains the evidence perfectly. Burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise.

"The simplest workable theory is here is that we don't know." No, the simplest theory is that the Dodo's came from the grassy plains that the anomaly led too. Trying to say that they came from another anomaly, walked through the grassy plain and then, by remarkable coincidence, just happen to walk through the fridge anomaly (which is the only other alternative) just complicates the matter and violates Occam's Razor for no good reason.

"From the website, we know the dodos probably came from a) a predator-free island (like Mauritius) and b) the 17th century or earlier." There is NO probably. They came from Mauritius (if you can point out anywhere else that had Dodo’s be my guest) and it said the 17th Century. Amazing how you seem to have admitted that fact yet refuse to concede it. Nubula 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I assumed that the "spaghetti junction" (as you term it) was somewhere other than Mauritius, and that the portal place was somewhere totally different (a bit like the wood in The Magician's Nephew). That was, however, just my interpretation. What we actually know is that (a) the dodos came from 17th century Mauritius, (b) they came through the anomaly under the football ground, and (c) the anomaly under the football ground led to the so-called "spaghetti junction". From this we can reasonably assume that (d) the dodos came through the anomaly from the "spaghetti junction". However, we cannot assume that either (e) they arrived at said junction by means of another anomaly OR (f) said junction was Mauritius. Therefore it would be best if we didn't include speculation of that nature in the article.

Hope that's not as unreadable as it looks. RobbieG 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can assume (F) because Dodo's lived nowhere else (if you can prove that they did live elsewhere put your money where your mouth is) their is no proof that they came from a previose anomaly first (what was seen onscreen supports that they where native to "spaghetti junction") and they where just herded back through which would be pointless if they where not native to that place and time to begin with. Nubula 21:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. It never said it was Mauritius, there were anomalies everywhere, and there was no sign of any dodos. Cutter and co. were concerned about getting the dodos out of 21st century London, but I don't think they cared where they ended up. I'm not saying that place wasn't Mauritius, but that we can't say for certain it was.

Actually, (a) is wrong. How can we assume the dodos were from the 17th century? It's likely they came from much earlier, which would explain why no-one noticed the parasite or anomalies when they colonised it. So (a) should read: the dodos came from Mauritius in the 17th century or earlier. RobbieG 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

the parasites did not come from Mauritius, but the dodos and the parasites met on the grass plain, which was not Mauritius but a "junction between many worlds" Anthony Appleyard 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you people are just being stupid. If they where not concerned about getting the Dodo's back where they belong their would be no point returning them, in fact leaving them in the wild, in a different time period whould cause more damage than just keeping them in captivity. As for the fact their where no Dodo's seen on the plain does not mean there wheren't any living in the area (no one explored this place did they). We can safely assume they came from the 17th century because the official site says 17th century. Also your theory about the parasites dosn't work because they went extinct with the Dodo's (the site said they specialised in infesting Dodo's and so would have been unable to live without them) and the original colonist never have had the science to understand what they where seeing and such parasites whould always have been rare, that's if we assume history in this universe the worked out the way it did in the real world and I see no reason why it would have, given how inacurate the animals are. And no one would have noticed the anomalies because they closed soon after. Also if the field was the junction between worlds why didn't the characters mention it or even note how otherworldy it was? in fact, apart from the number of anomalies, they didn't seen to find it out of the ordinary at all did they. I'll try to make it as simple for you people as possible. What was seen on screen... Dodo's came through anomaly, anomaly led to grassy field, Dodo's came from 17th century. 2 + 2 = 4 as Occams razor suggests. Also I notice that while I'm providing evidence, you just seen to looking for holes and providing basless theories (you didn't answer any of my points RobbieG, just came up with new ones, that's cowardly of you), Well THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU PEOPLE SO ANSWER MY POINTS. That goes for you to Appleyard. Nubula 22:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so now I'm "stupid" and "cowardly" and "providing basless [sic] theories," am I? Please respect the talk page etiquette, assume good faith and please don't shout (all capitals). I am not causing trouble just for the sake of it, or attempting to push forward a fan-theory. I just don't see why your theory, which I actually find less convincing than the one put forward by GracieLizzie, should be on the article any more than anyone else's. The article is for established facts, not personal theories. Talking about alternate universes merely confuses things. An important point: the website says "the 17th century or earlier" (italics mine), so we can't assume 17th Century. I'm actually in a hurry, so I'll explain further when I get back, but please be nice, and calm down! RobbieG 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are cowardly for refusing to answer my points and ignoring the evidence I've but forward in support of said points. Now I'll ask again... THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU SO ANSWER MY POINTS. Nubula 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nubula, please try and keep the discussion polite and calm. Everybody: let's all remember we're discussing a very small part of an article about a TV programme, not world politics. I suggest from now on we stick to points directly relevant to the content of the article. If you want the article changed, say how and why. Jihg 17:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nubula, please, I wasn't refusing to answer your points, I told you that I was planning to give a full answer when I got back in, but that I was in a hurry when I typed that. The first thing I did when I got in at half three was type out individual answers to each of your points. It took me over an hour and a half (yes, I realise I should get out more:)), at which point I realised that I was eight minutes late for a piano lesson that I'd already paid for. I hastily clicked "Save page" only to find that, by sheer bad luck, I'd edit conflicted with you. Luckily, I copied it onto word before clicking save page, so my full answer was as follows:

OK, so. Now I will answer your points, since you put it so insistently.

"We’d be explaining what’s seen onscreen and which explains the evidence perfectly"

I'm not going to dispute that. I can't disprove your theory, because, well, it works. It's a good theory, and full credit to you. However it is only a theory, nothing more. It is not established canon. I was able to watch the episode without your "simplest explanation" even crossing my mind. Including it on the page like it's some kind of canonical fact is, therefore, misinformative.

"Yes we can assume (F) because Dodo's lived nowhere else (if you can prove that they did live elsewhere put your money where your mouth is)"

I never so much as suggested that dodos lived anywhere other than Mauritius, so I'm slightly confused as to why you want me to prove that they did. The reason we can't assume (f) is simply that there were plenty of anomalies the dodos could have come through to get there. They weren't necessarily native to the anomaly "spaghetti junction".

"their is no proof that they came from a previose anomaly first"

I never said there was. What I did say - or at least, the point I was trying to get across - is that we can't rule out that possibility.

"If they where not concerned about getting the Dodo's back where they belong their would be no point returning them, in fact leaving them in the wild, in a different time period whould cause more damage than just keeping them in captivity."

They were concerned about getting the dodos out of the stadium. I'm not sure they gave a darn about where they ended up. Do you really think that these people are concerned about causality? Keeping them in captivity would be far more trouble than it'd be worth. As long as they're out of the country, they're not threatening UK national security. Besides, what harm are a few dodos going to do in the Cretaceous or wherever?

"no one would have noticed the anomalies because they closed soon after"

A very valid point, I can't argue with that. However, it does perhaps make it more likely that the anomalies occurred prior to the discovery of Mauritius.

"Also if the field was the junction between worlds why didn't the characters mention it or even note how otherworldy it was?"

That was Anthony Appleyard's theory, but I'm going to jump in here anyway because I feel my Narnia analogy might have influenced him. There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the field was a junction between worlds, and we've got no reason to assume that to be the case. I meant that maybe the place was just some random place (could have been anywhere on Earth for all we know) where, by sheer coincidence, lots of anomalies appeared. While they were there, it served as a junction between time periods, just like the wood in The Magician's Nephew was a junction between worlds. In Anthony Appleyard's defence, there is no reason why the characters would know if it was a "junction between worlds," or consider it otherworldly just from the look of the place.

"Dodo's came through anomaly, anomaly led to grassy field, Dodo's came from 17th century. 2 + 2 = 4 as Occams razor suggests."

That would be an example of a flawed argument. I believe that what you're saying is essentially:

The dodos came through the anomaly to London.

The anomaly in London led to the grassy field.

The dodos came from 17th century Mauritius.

The dodos came to London through the anomaly from the grassy field.

Therefore the grassy field is 17th century Mauritius.

Another argument using the same pattern could be:

John came on a ferry to America.

The ferry came to America from Boulogne-sur-Mer.

John was born in a European city.

John came to America via the ferry from Boulogne-sur-Mer.

Therefore, Boulogne-sur-Mer is the European city where John was born.

This kind of argument may appear logical at first glance, until you realise that John might actually have been born in Brussels, which isn't a sea town, and merely travelled from Boulogne because it is a sea town. Or, he could even have been born in Iceland or the UK, but travelled from Boulogne because he'd been living there for some time.

"I notice that while I'm providing evidence, you just seen to looking for holes and providing basless theories"

I am not "looking for holes" in your theory. I am just demonstrating that there are other possible theories that would work just as well, and there is no reason why the article should promote one over the others, when in fact none of them has been explicitly confirmed within the episode or on the official website. I haven't gone into any detail about the alternative theories (although some other people here have) because Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. I am not trying to prove that any one theory is right, I'm just trying to show that none of them is definitely correct.

"You didn't answer any of my points RobbieG, just came up with new ones, that's cowardly of you"

Cowardly? I didn't realise it was cowardly to avoid arguments for the sake of arguments 0_0; I didn't really come up with any new points in my response. All I did was say that (a) was wrong. I presume you are referring to that. However, that wasn't a new point, it was an acknowledgement of my having made an error in my earlier edit. I'd said dodos came from 17th century Mauritius, but the profile for the dodo on ITV's official Primeval site says "up until the 17th century," which means they could have come from earlier. The profile for the parasite on the same page says they lived from "15th-17th centuries." So the dodos could have come through in the 15th or 16th century. Minor point, I know it's pedantic of me, but I'm a perfectionist, and I was correcting my own error. I'm sorry if that caused any kind of misunderstanding.

"Well THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU PEOPLE SO ANSWER MY POINTS."

Capitals make RobbieG's eyes hurt. They look like shouting, and being shouted at makes RobbieG sad. Please don't shout at me! I don't feel that I'm under any obligation to prove or disprove anything. All I did was point out that your theory shouldn't be given precedence over anyone else's. I did give my opinion, and I realise now that that was a mistake, but all I'm trying to do is create an unbiased article. Surely you see what I'm saying. Please relax, it's only a minor issue, and I'm really at a loss to see why it upsets you so much. I didn't realise you felt quite so strongly about this, and I'm sorry I didn't give you any answers sooner.

So I have answered your points now. Friends? RobbieG 18:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"However it is only a theory, nothing more. It is not established canon."

But it explanes the workings of the established canon far better than the other overly complex theories.

"Including it on the page like it's some kind of canonical fact is, therefore, misinformative"

Its not misinformative as it does explain what's seen on screen more than adequetly.

"There were plenty of anomalies the dodos could have come through to get there."

They could have, but theirs no reason to assume that they did without proof, without which, the simple explanation that they where native there, is still the most likely.

"The point I was trying to get across - is that we can't rule out that possibility."

If their is no evidence for it, other than the fact that it could be possible, we can do just that.

"They were concerned about getting the dodos out of the stadium. I'm not sure they gave a darn about where they ended up. Do you really think that these people are concerned about causality?"

They cared in episode one where Cutter stated that creatures should be sent back where they belong, they cared in episode three where he confronted his wife about the growing body count, Lester himself used the same argument to try and get her to talk, why should they suddenly act out of character just to make your theory work?

"A very valid point, I can't argue with that. However, it does perhaps make it more likely that the anomalies occurred prior to the discovery of Mauritius."

How does it make it more likly? please explain.

"there is no reason why the characters would know if it was a "junction between worlds," or consider it otherworldly just from the look of the place."

Their hired to investigate the anomalies so they should know and that goes for the white suited scientist guys who where with them at the time. Also if it did not look otherworldy why assume that it was, it looked like a grassy field so why should it be anything other than a grassy field. Also if its not mentioned in again then its further proof that the field was an earthly place abeit from a diffrent time period.

John came on a ferry to America. The ferry came to America from Boulogne-sur-Mer. John was born in a European city. John came to America via the ferry from Boulogne-sur-Mer. Therefore, Boulogne-sur-Mer is the European city where John was born."

This is a Strawman fallacy - creating then attack a distorted, weaker version of your opponent's argument. Find a weakness in my argument rather than finding one in an argument you've created.

"I am not trying to prove that any one theory is right, I'm just trying to show that none of them is definitely correct."

Same argument the creationists use and its still wrong because one theory has the most proof in its favor hence we can assume correctness until otherwise proven.

"The profile for the parasite on the same page says they lived from "15th-17th centuries." So the dodos could have come through in the 15th or 16th century. Minor point, I know it's pedantic of me, but I'm a perfectionist, and I was correcting my own error. I'm sorry if that caused any kind of misunderstanding."

I conceded your point.

"I don't feel that I'm under any obligation to prove or disprove anything."

You are obligated to provide proof for an arguments favour if your trying to advocate or defend it. If you can't or won't then concede.

"Please relax, it's only a minor issue, and I'm really at a loss to see why it upsets you so much."

Some perfectionist! There are no minor issues to me.

"So I have answered your points now. Friends?"

Not until the debate is closed, one way or another. Nubula 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I never realised I could be wasting so much time on such a tiny detail. Here we go:

"But it explanes the workings of the established canon far better than the other overly complex theories."

Nonetheless, your theories are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That the other theories are overly complex is merely your opinion. However obvious they might be, none of them is notable.

"Its not misinformative as it does explain what's seen on screen more than adequetly."

Your theory is not misinformative if it is correct, but there is no way of saying that for certain because it wasn't explicitly stated (or even heavily implied) in the episode. What is misinformative is saying that the anomaly led to 17th century Mauritius like that's a canonical fact, when in fact it hasn't been elaborated on.

"They could have, but theirs no reason to assume that they did without proof, without which, the simple explanation that they where native there, is still the most likely."

And likewise, they could have been native to there, but there is no reason to assume that they were without proof, without which, the equally simple explanation that they came through an anomaly at some time is in fact equally likely. I'm not advocating that theory, I'm just pointing out that it's just as valid.

"If their is no evidence for it, other than the fact that it could be possible, we can do just that."

Well, there were plenty of anomalies there, there were no dodos around when he went through the anomaly, and Helen Cutter was apparently expecting sabretooths, which would imply that it was somewhere in the Americas at least 100,000 years ago. Again, I'm certainly not advocating that theory, I just think it's about as likely as yours.

"They cared in episode one where Cutter stated that creatures should be sent back where they belong, they cared in episode three where he confronted his wife about the growing body count, Lester himself used the same argument to try and get her to talk, why should they suddenly act out of character just to make your theory work?"

What theory? How many times must I say that I am not proposing one? Cutter wanted the creatures sent back where they belong, but how was he supposed to know which anomaly to send them through? Just think about it - they could have led anywhere: the Permian, Ancient Egypt, Gondawana in the Jurassic, outer space some time before the Earth came into being, the USA in the year 6058, or Russia some time last week. He wouldn't be able to tell which was Mauritius. Out in a field somewhere they wouldn't do anyone any harm. Which is not to say the field wasn't on Mauritius, but it doesn't prove it was Mauritius either. As for the body count, what harm is going to come from a few dodos (remember they didn't know about the parasites)?

"How does it make it more likly? please explain."

Not much more likely, I'll admit. I'm not sure it's relevant to elaborate, but since you asked a reasonable question, I'll explain: it makes it more likely that the anomalies appeared somewhere where people hadn't arrived because no people were around. If the sailors discovered an anomaly, there could have been trouble. I don't think any human being would ignore a giant glowing magnetic sphere, much less a field of them. Of course, that could simply mean there were no sailors in that area at that time.

"Their hired to investigate the anomalies so they should know and that goes for the white suited scientist guys who where with them at the time. Also if it did not look otherworldy why assume that it was, it looked like a grassy field so why should it be anything other than a grassy field. Also if its not mentioned in again then its further proof that the field was an earthly place abeit from a diffrent time period."

I don't see any reason to assume it otherworldly, and it wasn't me who said it was. I don't see why you seem to think it is "an alternate universe as evidenced by the parasites," when there are many species human beings have never discovered, and the website said they died out anyway. If it was an "alternate universe", it would be another world, and probably wouldn't seem any different from this one. That's all by the by though since most viewers will probably have assumed it was just regular Earth, regardless of what theories you or Anthony Appleyard might hold.

"This is a Strawman fallacy - creating then attack a distorted, weaker version of your opponent's argument. Find a weakness in my argument rather than finding one in an argument you've created."

No, that's not a strawman, because it was a demonstration of the logical fallacy. I considered being sarcastic here, but I'm not in favour of personal attacks, so I'll explain in full. The example I created was identical to your argument, and I thought it would help you to see my point. I was clearly wrong. So I'll repeat my argument, substituting "dodos" for "John," "21st Century London" for "America," "the grassy field" for "Boulogne," "anomaly" for "ferry," "Mauritius prior to the end of 17th Century" for "a European city," etc.:

The dodos came through an anomaly to 21st Century London.

The anomaly led from London to a grassy field.

The dodos originated in Mauritius prior to the end of the 17th Century.

The dodos came to 21st Century London through the anomaly from the grassy field.

Therefore, the grassy field is Mauritius prior to the end of the 17th Century, where the dodos originated.

This kind of argument may appear logical at first glance, until you realise that the dodos might actually have originated on Mauritius, which didn't have an anomaly leading directly to London, and merely travelled from the grassy field because there was an anomaly there that led to London. Or, they could even have originated on Mauritius, but travelled from the grassy field because they'd come through an anomaly earlier and been living there for some time.

Capisce?

"Same argument the creationists use and its still wrong because one theory has the most proof in its favor hence we can assume correctness until otherwise proven."

Although I am not a Creationist, can you please keep your personal beliefs to yourself? That's a sensitive issue and you could offend somebody.

Moving on, I disagree with the statement that your theory has any more proof in its favour than other theories posited here. We cannot assume it to be correct at all. New evidence for the theory of evolution is being found all the time. There is no way you can find new evidence to support a fan-theory because the episode is a linear medium, and it has happened. The only way new evidence can be found is if more information about it is put on the website or appears in a later episode. If that happens and proves you right, then - congratulations! - your formulating paid off! Another, additional, minor point: please stop using the term "proof" to mean "evidence". Proof is absolute, and thus unquestionable. There is a lot of evidence for your theory. If there was proof then nobody would be arguing with you.

"I conceded your point."

That's OK then. I was under the mistaken impression that you had attacked it, so I'm sorry. :( Please forgive me.

"You are obligated to provide proof for an arguments favour if your trying to advocate or defend it. If you can't or won't then concede."

I have provided evidence that there is no way of knowing. I can't prove you wrong, because your theory is based on the episode, but that doesn't make it canon or notable.

"Some perfectionist! There are no minor issues to me."

I'm a perfectionist in that I'm very fussy. The less polite term for my attitude would probably be "anal". I didn't like having written that we know the dodos are from the 17th Century because that was innaccurate. It's for the same reason I try to avoid typos when I'm writing. However, within the context of the article, the location of the field is not very important, because it doesn't affect the episode's plot. That makes it a minor issue, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

"Not until the debate is closed, one way or another."

*Sobs uncontrollably*. RobbieG 23:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the affected section to say that there are various possibilities. Anthony Appleyard 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That the other theories are overly complex is merely your opinion. However obvious they might be, none of them is notable.

The theory you’re advocating is slightly more complex and slightly less probable, and that’s a fact.

The proof is the fact that they came through that anomaly and where sent back there. Now you provide your proof that they came from somewhere else first please, and no more evasions about notability. Its also interesting that you use the Johnnie Cochrane method of debating, attempt to find inconsistencies in, or alternatives to your opponent's theory and then act as if any weaknesses (real or imagined) in your opponent's theory are proof of your theory.

They never explored it to any extent so to say their where no Dodo’s is a baseless assumption. And as for the Smilodon’s, a Red Herring but I’ll humour you anyway, Helen Cutter was obviously lying in order to escape (she must have known where that anomaly really lead in order to have chosen it specifically.)

Cutter wanted the creatures sent back where they belong, but how was he supposed to know which anomaly to send them through?

You’re doing it again, putting motives and words into the characters mouths when they said nothing of the kind. Did he or anyone else voice any doubt about whether or not they belonged in the grassy field? Just answer, yes or no.

As for the body count, what harm is going to come from a few dodos (remember they didn't know about the parasites)?

Firstly you’d almost certainly change history in some way which is bad. Secondly the parasites are the reason they take no chances and send them back when they can, ever heard of the Cane Toad? They used that same argument your using when they introduced them.

I'm not sure it's relevant to elaborate, but since you asked a reasonable question, I'll explain: it makes it more likely that the anomalies appeared somewhere where people hadn't arrived because no people were around. If the sailors discovered an anomaly, there could have been trouble.

Actually Cutter said in episode three, I think, that their have been legends about stuff like this for centuries, hence his theory that these things have been opening for quite some time.

I don't see why you seem to think it is "an alternate universe as evidenced by the parasites," when there are many species human beings have never discovered, and the website said they died out anyway.

They died out with the Dodo’s so they must have been around when the first people landed. It is an alternate universe because of all the things which are different, Utaraptors in the Jurassic, Arthroplura being carnivores, building being in different locations ect. Whether this is due to the anomalies warping history or just lack of interest in accuracy by the writers (which is sadly becoming more and more likley) is an open question.

Their in lies your problem, the argument is sound until you add unsupported data in order to muddy the issue where as Occam’s Razor says you shouldn’t without proof of which you clearly have none.

Travelled from the grassy field because they'd come through an anomaly earlier and been living there for some time.

I thought no Dodo’s where seen their according to you.

Although I am not a Creationist, can you please keep your personal beliefs to yourself? That's a sensitive issue and you could offend somebody.

I see no reason to humour people who make thinks up as they go along. And they do use the same arguments your using, teach the controversy, its only a theory or it hasn't been proven arguments, even though all scientific models are just theories that can be modified with new data. Have you any new data for your theory other than its may be possible?

Moving on, I disagree with the statement that your theory has any more proof in its favour than other theories posited here. We cannot assume it to be correct at all.

Yes we can because it explains what was seen. So does yours but it violates Occam’s Razor for no good reason and has slightly less proof as your assuming an event happened even though their was no evidence of it occuring.

Another, additional, minor point: please stop using the term "proof" to mean "evidence". Proof is absolute, and thus unquestionable.

Beg to differ. In the popular view, to which you clearly subscribe, the word theory means simply something that is unproven - an assertion which may or may not be true nad proof is unquestionable. In science, however, the word theory has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data in the simplest way possible (Occam's razor). This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say theory). I’ve done that. Your theory has also done that but has one Achilles heel. There is no evidence for the major assumption which is that they came from somewhere else first.

I have provided evidence that there is no way of knowing.

That’s not evidence, in a debate that’s trying to avoid defeat by refusing to surrender.

It's for the same reason I try to avoid typos when I'm writing.

If you think you can bait me and sidetrack me with an Ad-Hominem attack your wrong. Nubula 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't fair; you're forcing me to answer your points again, and you haven't said anything new, you've just asserted repeatedly that you are right and I am wrong. I'm seriously hoping this will end soon.

"The theory you’re advocating is slightly more complex and slightly less probable, and that’s a fact."

Please stop talking about 'my theory'. How many times must I say that I am not promoting one? I don't support any theory over another. Yours is just as relevant as the other main theory advocated here. I like them both! I just think that in the interest of neutrality, yours shouldn't come first. What you have just stated is your opinion. There is nothing complex or improbable about the plain being somewhere other than Mauritius and the dodos having started from one of the other anomalies. It's not a difficult concept. Please stop saying that it is.

"The proof is the fact that they came through that anomaly and where sent back there. Now you provide your proof that they came from somewhere else first please, and no more evasions about notability. Its also interesting that you use the Johnnie Cochrane method of debating, attempt to find inconsistencies in, or alternatives to your opponent's theory and then act as if any weaknesses (real or imagined) in your opponent's theory are proof of your theory."

I can't prove that they came from somewhere else, and I've already told you I can't, so I don't intend to try. Likewise, the fact that they came through the anomaly and were sent back doesn't prove your theory either. It suggests it. It's not a simple case of 2+2=4, it's more like x+y<4. That is to say, we have two points that make it possible for your theory to work, but also make other theories equally possible. My argument has nothing to do with Johnnie Cochran's methodology. The problem is that you keep talking about my "theory." That suggests that you have either not understood, or not paid attention to, my argument, which is that your theory is as good as the other one. I'm not trying to prove the other theory by pointing out weaknesses in yours. I'm pointing out points which you have interpreted one way that could be viewed another way. They aren't holes in your argument, but they allow for the other argument. Therefore, neither argument is superior.

"They never explored it to any extent so to say their where no Dodo’s is a baseless assumption. And as for the Smilodon’s, a Red Herring but I’ll humour you anyway, Helen Cutter was obviously lying in order to escape (she must have known where that anomaly really lead in order to have chosen it specifically.)"

I'm confident that we'll find out more about Helen Cutter's motives as the show goes on. Right now, we can't say anything definite. I didn't assert that there were no dodos, I pointed out that that was possible evidence to promote the non-native dodos theory. Of course it doesn't prove anything. Your theory proves nothing either.

"You’re doing it again, putting motives and words into the characters mouths when they said nothing of the kind. Did he or anyone else voice any doubt about whether or not they belonged in the grassy field? Just answer, yes or no."

No. There, I said it, a straight answer, and guess what? Nothing proven. He never said that. He also never said "This grassy field is certainly where the dodos belong, so let's leave them here." Does that rule out the possibility that he thought so? Of course not!

"Firstly you’d almost certainly change history in some way which is bad. Secondly the parasites are the reason they take no chances and send them back when they can, ever heard of the Cane Toad? They used that same argument your using when they introduced them."

These are the people who let a dangerous suspect carry a knife around. It's not exactly brilliantly planned out.

"Actually Cutter said in episode three, I think, that their have been legends about stuff like this for centuries, hence his theory that these things have been opening for quite some time.

OK, I forgot about that line, so I'll concede to that. Like I said, it was a minor point anyway, because we know it's between the 15th and 17th Centuries anyway.

"They died out with the Dodo’s so they must have been around when the first people landed. It is an alternate universe because of all the things which are different, Utaraptors in the Jurassic, Arthroplura being carnivores, building being in different locations ect. Whether this is due to the anomalies warping history or just lack of interest in accuracy by the writers (which is sadly becoming more and more likley) is an open question."

OK, well I don't like to think of fiction in terms of "alternate universes" except where explicitly stated in a story. I see your point, and it's fine. I don't think the show's very accurate, myself. If you want to regard fictional universes as alternate universes that's fine, I know a lot of other people who do as well.

"Their in lies your problem, the argument is sound until you add unsupported data in order to muddy the issue where as Occam’s Razor says you shouldn’t without proof of which you clearly have none."

No, I'm sorry, but you've missapplied Occam's Razor there. Your theory is no better supported than the other one, but you've been ignoring all the evidence that's been provided in favour of it, and have been referring to the evidence in favour of yours as "proof" which gives it a misleading air of certainity.

"I thought no Dodo’s where seen their according to you."

Well, we both know that no dodos were seen there, but that doesn't prove that there weren't any off-screen. In fact, your theory depends on that assumption, so I don't see why I can't refer to another theory that makes the exact same assumption.

"I see no reason to humour people who make thinks up as they go along. And they do use the same arguments your using, teach the controversy, its only a theory or it hasn't been proven arguments, even though all scientific models are just theories that can be modified with new data. Have you any new data for your theory other than its may be possible?"

Please stop being offensive. This has nothing to do with Creationism, which is not really a theory, but a religious belief.

Moving swiftly on, I haven't been making stuff us as I went along. I'm not trying to prove your theory wrong, which is what I think you're implying. You've read the data in favour of the theory (which is not my theory, and which I do not promote over yours) so I'm not going to repeat it. The other theory makes too many assuptions to be treated as fact, as does your theory.

"Yes we can because it explains what was seen. So does yours but it violates Occam’s Razor for no good reason and has slightly less proof as your assuming an event happened even though their was no evidence of it occuring."

I'd like to quote Murfy from Rayman 3 here. "How many times are we gonna go around in circles? I'm gonna end up... [suppresses a retching noise] ...barfing!"

In other words, I've addressed this concern enough times, so re-read my above responses if you want.

"Beg to differ. In the popular view, to which you clearly subscribe, the word theory means simply something that is unproven - an assertion which may or may not be true nad proof is unquestionable. In science, however, the word theory has a very definite meaning. Under the scientific method, the first step in investigation is to gather data and information, in the form of verifiable evidence. Once data has been gathered, the next step is to form a hypothesis which would explain the data in the simplest way possible (Occam's razor). This hypothesis is, quite simply, nothing more than an intelligent guess. (A hypothesis is, in fact, the closest scientific term to what most people mean when they say theory). I’ve done that. Your theory has also done that but has one Achilles heel. There is no evidence for the major assumption which is that they came from somewhere else first."

That is correct, it is a hypothesis. A theory can be proven. Neither hypothesis can be. Intelligent guesses are not verifiable facts, and shouldn't be stated as such.

"That’s not evidence, in a debate that’s trying to avoid defeat by refusing to surrender."

You must have missed the point of my argument. All that I'm trying to prove is that neither theory is a verifiable, proven, encyclopaedic fact. I've proven that your hypothesis is not definite, while you yourself have proven that the other hypothesis is not definite either.

"If you think you can bait me and sidetrack me with an Ad-Hominem attack your wrong."

I'm really, sincerely sorry that you thought that was an attack on you. Rereading my wording there, I could have put that in a way that made it clearer. I was not criticising your typing, I was merely drawing attention to the way I type because you'd objected to my description of myself as a "perfectionist" and I was showing the respects in which I am one. I didn't say that that was a good thing either; the term I used was "anal." That wasn't an attack on you, and I'm sorry if you thought it was one. I would never direct an ad-hominem argument at anyone, because I know how that can cause offence. No hard feelings, I hope?

That really was the last time I would repeat or attempt to explain my argument. I have spent a lot of time addressing each of your points individually. Unless you come up with any new points, I'm not going to argue further. However, having read your latest edit, it seems to me that this whole argument is just a misunderstanding, so I hope it can be resolved easily and painlessly now. RobbieG 17:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop talking about 'my theory'. How many times must I say that I am not promoting one?

Your defending it aren’t you.

It's not a simple case of 2+2=4, it's more like x+y<4.

Yes it is. My entire argument is based on simple follow through logic after reviewing what was seen.

My argument has nothing to do with Johnnie Cochran's methodology.

Yes it does, your just trying to evade the point by using reasonable doubt ala O. J. Simpson even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scientific investigation or Occam’s razor.

No. There, I said it, a straight answer, and guess what? Nothing proven.

A lot suggested though. And what’s more

Your theory proves nothing either.

Theories don’t prove they explain as I tried to state earlier.

These are the people who let a dangerous suspect carry a knife around. It's not exactly brilliantly planned out.

Red Herring. The stupidity of Captain Ryan has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You've missapplied Occam's Razor there.

Occam’s razor is the concept of logical parsimony, which says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. This somewhat cryptic principle makes the principle that the simplest theory is usualy correct. The idea that the Dodo's came from the graasy field is simpler than having them wander from anomaly to anomaly via that field which is an unnecessary assumption given we did not see that happening.

The other theory makes too many assuptions to be treated as fact, as does your theory.

Technically my theory makes three less assumptions.

That is correct, it is a hypothesis. A theory can be proven. Neither hypothesis can be. Intelligent guesses are not verifiable facts, and shouldn't be stated as such.

Either you’ve totally missed the point or I’ve failed to explain it properly. In scientific terms theory, Fact and hypothesis are the same thing and neither means what the laypeople think they do. Hence the creationists are right when they say evolution is a theory but wrong when they say it’s not fact because fact and theory are one and the same. Although there are exceptions I’ll admit.

No hard feelings, I hope?

None what so ever.

Unless you come up with any new points, I'm not going to argue further.

That’s fast becoming my sentiment as well. I’ve stated all my points and each one makes sense from a scientific standpoint where as the alternative makes one last leap without visual evidence too many, although it’s coming clear that you’re right when you say this is a misunderstanding as I’m approaching it from a scientific standpoint and your approaching it another angle. Nubula 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Gets fire-extinguisher out). Please can we simmer down all this flamage? Please: (1) List all genuine known original data with source references, and nothing else, about this anomaly and what it leads to. (2) Then we can argue from a known base. (3) Or we can take this dispute to Wikipedia:Mediation. (4) Or, is it possible for us to ask the script writers? Anthony Appleyard 18:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already done that but here we go again... The dodos came to 21st Century London through the anomaly. The anomaly led from London to a grassy field. No one found anything strange about the field. Cutter stated, Repeatedly, that creatures should be sent back where they belong. The Dodo's where just sent back through the anomaly. The dodos originated in Mauritius. Therefore its safe to assume that the grassy field is Mauritius prior to the end of the 17th Century, where the dodos originated. Nubula 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have:-

(1) The dodos came to 21st Century London through the anomaly.

(2) The anomaly led from London to a grassy field.

(3) No one found anything strange about the field.

(4) Cutter stated, repeatedly, that creatures should be sent back where they belong.

(5) The dodos were sent back through the anomaly.

(6) Dodos originated in Mauritius.

But (3) contradicts the scene where the grassy plain had many anomalies.

Re (5), as all previous anomalies were single, perhaps Cutter thought that this anomaly was also a single anomaly leading to Mauritius in or before the 17th century AD, and thus the dodos were sent back through it; but later someone looked through it and found that it was a big cluster of anomalies. It could be that the parasites came through another anomaly and met the dodos on the grassy plain.

Anthony Appleyard 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is sound, but we also know:

(7) The parasites came from the same place as the dodos. (official website)

(8) The parasites were alive only between the 15th and 17th Centuries. (official website)

(9) Stephen Hart and Tom Ryan went through the anomaly into the field before the dodos came through, and explained to the others. (episode)

(10) There were no visible animals in the field when Hart and Ryan went there. (episode)

(11) Helen Cutter seemed to genuinely believe there were sabretooths through the anomaly. (episode)

(12) Nick Cutter described said sabretooths as smilodon. (episode)

(13) Smilodon were native to the Americas. (real-world fossil evidence)

(14) Helen Cutter was just using the anomaly as a means to escape. (episode)

Also, to clarify (3), it should say "No-one found anything strange about the field, other than the presence of so many anomalies, which they found surprising." RobbieG 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I also add, I hope this discussion isn't going to end "theory X is most likely given the evidence so it should go on the main article without further qualification." A theory should never be regarded as fact. A theory only becomes fact once it has been proven beyond all doubt, at which point it becomes a theorem. RobbieG 20:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that (15) Helen Cutter did not realy belive that there where Smilodons through the anomaly because she previously knew the anomaly in the block of flats was a false alarm (strange how she should be wrong about this one anomaly even though she knew about all the others).

(16) The characters claimed she was lying to escape after the fact.

(17) She must have known what was realy behind the anomaly in order to know their would be lots of anomalies open at the same time in order to loose her pursuers in. And I wish you would stop saying theory should never be regarded as fact because in scientific terms it does until it is later modified, I've already tried to explain that to you but you apparently didn't read it or understand it. Nubula 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read it, but no, I didn't understand it. So, rather than just sit here puzzling over it, I looked it up. The problem now is that I've been using theory to mean a fan-theory - that is, "an idea that fans have come up with that is at no point contradicted by the show or spin-off media, explains what is on screen but hasn't been confirmed by the writers." When you started talking about the scientific sense of the word I muddled it with mathematics, in which a theory is merely any unproven idea. Both your theory and the one suggested by GracieLizzie and Jihg are theories in the "fan-theory" sense. Also, we can't be sure about (15), because we haven't seen enough of Helen Cutter to know her motives or abilities. What we know is that she did know the snake thing was a false alarm. Plus (16) and (17) are correct as you state. RobbieG 17:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't have a theory about the location of the anomaly, and Nubula convinced me a few hundred words ago that his theory is the best. I also agree with all his points on scientific method. On the other hand, Anthony Appleyard's recent edits seem fine to me: the article should say Nubula's theory is most likely, but it *may* be somewhere/time else" (i.e. the writers could in future make it clear it wasn't Mauritius without being inconsistent). If I read Nubula's objections right, the danger here is - as with creationism in his and my opinion - a weaker theory is presented as equal to a stronger one. I don't see this as a danger in this case because a) we don't have to say they're equal and b) it's a TV programme. It could also be argued that both theories violate WP's Wikipedia:No_original_research, but they are harmless and informative providing they're not presented as the writer's intent. Jihg 19:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with Anthony Appleyard's current version of the article as well, although I'd like to tweak it slightly:

"The anomaly led a grass field which had many anomalies. It may have been Mauritius between the 15th and 17th centuries, or wildlife in it may have come through these other anomalies from another place and time, if one of the anomalies led to Mauritius between the 15th and 17th centuries."

My reasoning for that is that we know the parasites were from between the 15th and 17th centuries (from the website) and we know that both they and the dodos came from Mauritius.

I could now really mess things up by pointing out that (at least within the Primeval fictional universe, where, as Nubula points out, Utahraptors lived in the Jurassic) we don't even know that the dodos came from Mauritius. The website says dodos originated on "predator-free islands (like Mauritius)," while the parasites came from "tropical islands inhabited by the dodo." That's twice they've used the word "islands" (plural form). So, at least within the Primeval fictional universe, dodos probably lived elsewhere. On second thoughts, I don't think I could stand another argument, so if people want to object to that, we should probably leave it out. RobbieG 20:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Technicaly there where related species living on the smaller islands of the coast of Mauritius such as the much debated white dodo and the Rodrigues Solitaire but I suspect that more of accurancy by accident rather than accuracy for factual sake by the writers. Nubula 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of episode

Do we know where in England the majority of this episode was set? I have never heard of the Matchroom Football Stadium. Does it exist? If so, I'm guessing it's in London, given episodes 2 and 3, coupled with the general belief held by British TV producers that the world revolves around London. On the other hand, Episode One was set in the Forest of Dean, of all places, so I'd like some confirmation of whether this episode really was set in London. RobbieG 18:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I belive the map on the official site gives its location. Nubula 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Matchroom Stadium is home to Leyton Orient FC, as mentioned in the map popup, but they've placed it in the west rather than its real location in the north-east (between Stratford and Wanstead on the map). The map is totally unreliable: the Forest of Dean is in Gloucestershire, not just outside London. And the roof where they shoot the Pteranodon was clearly central London, not near the M25!

But it seems they intended the stadium to be in London. I don't know whether they filmed at the Matchroom or somewhere else. Jihg 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the episode it was filmed at the New Den Stadium [1] in South London. There's a BBC London advert in the background that says "First for the Lions" and you can see the Millwall badge in another shot. Jihg 10:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that map. Can you provide a link for it? RobbieG 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in the background on the main page (cutters office) and to activate you must click on it. Nubula 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! RobbieG 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

On the errors part of the page, it says the Helen saw a Utaraptor in the Jurrsassic, even though they are from the cretaeceous. How could this be an error. It might have come through the anomaly?

Potentially, yes, but that's just a theory, and it was probably an error, however explicable it might be. RobbieG 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/p/i/Talk%7EEpisode_Four_%28Primeval%29_db8f.html"

Talk:Episode Four (Primeval)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Where did the anomaly lead to?

[edit] Location of episode

[edit] Errors

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search