"The Science Book!"

[Smidlee]

.

I am a biologist. I work with other biologists, share offices with them, chat with them in the halls, drink with them in bars, hang out with them at conferences. In many cases, I know about their political beliefs, I know about their attitudes toward religion, about their favorite sports teams. Without a single exception in my professional life, they routinely and instinctively turn to evolution as the explanatory framework for handling a variety of biological questions and for formulating research questions. .

All the Christians I "hang out with them" are creationists so all Christians are creationist (none of them drink either). Birds of the same feather flock together as the saying goes.

.

Airline pilots know that airplanes fly. Does suggest to you that they are some kind of cult? As an engineer, you can see and judge that engineers know what they're talking about, that there is evidence for their claims. How would you respond to someone who told you that there were serious problems with Ohm's Law, and that most electrical engineers just paid lip service to it to avoid confrontation?

.

A common person can see someone fly and land an airplane. Who cares about the Ohm's Law when we have send man to the moon and have build computers, tv, etc. The "little eyeball that could" story is still sci-fi just like beating people up on the Enterprise.

 

[sfs]

All the Christians I "hang out with them" are creationists so all Christians are creationist (none of them drink either). Birds of the same feather flock together as the saying goes.

And ten seconds of looking on the web will find you abundant evidence that millions of Christians are not creationists (heck, you see them all the time here), whereas searching high and low, the only biologists I can find who don't accept evolution continue to be the handful of religiously motivated creationists that I've mentioned.

Remember, you claimed that most biologists know about the problems with evolution and are hiding them. I've worked with, talked to and listened to hundreds of biologists. I've been to conferences on evolution, on human genetics and disease, on tropical medicine. Nobody fits your description anywhere. Just where are these guys hiding, anyway? And why do you know about them and I don't?

If I may summarize our exchange so far:

• You've claimed to have read "some" scientific literature on evolution, and have not named anything that you've actually read.
• You've claimed that The Plausibility of Life reveals the kind of scientific problems with evolution that you're talking about, but you won't say whether you've read the book, and can't point to a single scientific problem in it.
• You've claimed that most biologists are concealing the fact that evolution has major problems, and can't point to a single piece of evidence that this is true.

 

[Smidlee]

It's been a while since I've read The Plausibility of Life. I need to find where I put it and reread it.They were basically trying to address some of the things ID pointed out a few years ago. Yes, this book was written for the layman. When they dealt with biology in the book they read like scientist but when they tried to explain how those evolved they sound like politicians. They talk in circles something about "facilitated variation".

I noticed you didn't comment on the evolutionist who stated you can't trust what you think. If he's right then it would be logical that biologist are lying to themselves without them aware of it so they would have more "evolution-believing" offspring (converts).

 

[sfs]

I noticed you didn't comment on the evolutionist who stated you can't trust what you think.

It didn't seem very interesting. You don't need evolutionary biology to tell you that people deceive themselves all the time, or are more likely to accept claims from those in their "tribe" than from outsiders. As Feynman put it, the easiest person to fool is yourself. That's one reason why science works pretty well: scientists are highly competitive and, while they do form tribes, there's always someone around willing to take a shot at taking you down. I think it was the geneticist Wallace who said that the best thing to have in science is a good enemy.

If he's right then it would be logical that biologist are lying to themselves without them aware of it so they would have more "evolution-believing" offspring (converts).

That's not the kind of argument he's making.

 

[Smidlee]

That's not the kind of argument he's making.

How do you know? He even admit he could be deceiving himself and not aware of it. If he's right then biologist could be lying to themselves about evolution and not even know it.

 

[sfs]

How do you know?

Because I read what he said, and what you said (about converts) had nothing to do with what he said.

He even admit he could be deceiving himself and not aware of it. If he's right then biologist could be lying to themselves about evolution and not even know it.

Obviously. So what? If he's right, you could also be deceiving yourself and not be aware of it. But if he's wrong, he could still be deceiving himself, and you could still be deceiving yourself. Surely you knew without this guy's theory (or "theory" -- it seems pretty much empty speculation to me) that we all could be deceiving ourselves. Or did you think that you were somehow immune from the human condition?

 

[mark kennedy]

Hey Steve,

I was wondering, I lost track of the 1.000 genome project. How's that coming? Anything of interest emerging from the research?

 

[mark kennedy]

It's been a while since I've read The Plausibility of Life. I need to find where I put it and reread it.They were basically trying to address some of the things ID pointed out a few years ago. Yes, this book was written for the layman. When they dealt with biology in the book they read like scientist but when they tried to explain how those evolved they sound like politicians. They talk in circles something about "facilitated variation".

I noticed you didn't comment on the evolutionist who stated you can't trust what you think. If he's right then it would be logical that biologist are lying to themselves without them aware of it so they would have more "evolution-believing" offspring (converts).

Never let Darwinians make you think your anti-evolution, it's a lie. To be a Creationist is pretty much to take the Bible literally right? Well, when did Noah's Ark touch down on Ararat? How many creatures emerge and how many of their descendents exist today. The only real difference between the Darwinian and the Creationist is that we credit God with the original creation and the timeline. All creationists are radical evolutionists and that is the dirty little secret no one will tell you in these debates.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

I was wondering, I lost track of the 1.000 genome project. How's that coming? Anything of interest emerging from the research?

1000 Genomes is doing fine -- still adding more samples and more populations, but basically in cruise mode now. The project itself is designed to be a resource, so it's not focusing on using the data to make discoveries, but many groups are using it for many purposes. For example, on the last day of the conference I just attended, several studies used 1kG data. One dissected mutations. One result was that deletions (and leaving out slippage deletions) are more likely to be 4 base pairs long; this because the enzyme that trims back the ends of broken chromosomes in double-stranded break repair removes 4 bases.

Another study identified genes that have probably been under long-term balancing selection in apes and humans, and found an enrichment for genes involved in immune function. A third study surveyed likely sites of recent positive selection in humans and found various things that I won't repeat because they haven't been published yet.

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

All creationists are radical evolutionists and that is the dirty little secret no one will tell you in these debates.

Really, mark? I've often pointed out that many creationists believe in hyper-evolution, both in real-life conversations and on these boards. I can show you the posts if you like. It's hardly a "dirty little secret" if it's being told left and right by both myself and others.

The fact that so many creationists support the rapid evolution (hyper evolution) from the hundreds of animals on an "ark" to the literally millions of species today require evolution hundreds of times faster than usually observed in the geologic record, in just 4,500 years since the mythical "flood" certainly doesn't help the creationist position.

mark himself is a great example here. mark says that the evolution of the human brain over the ~3 million years since ancestors like Lucy is "too fast", but then turns around to claim that the evolution of millions of new species in 0.0045 million years is just fine.

Doing a little math.

Human brain evolution from 400 to 1200 cc in 3 million years:

1200-400 = 800 = 270 cc per million years, mark says "too fast"
3 my . . . . 3 my

compare with marks hyper evolution of chimps from homo habilis:

600-400 = . 200 = 44,000 cc per million years, mark says "hey, no problem!"
0.0045 my . 0.0045 my

270 >> 44,000?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg in thinking that the mythical global flood was real.

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition


Papias

 

[lucaspa]

I noticed you didn't comment on the evolutionist who stated you can't trust what you think. If he's right then it would be logical that biologist are lying to themselves without them aware of it so they would have more "evolution-believing" offspring (converts).

It doesn't work that way in science. Everything we "think" is tested against reality. This is the most succincta and accurate description of what is called the "scientific method":

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

Look closely at #1. We can't "lie to ourselves" because everything we "think" must be tested against what they really are.

What is worse for your theory, scientists earn fame by showing other scientists to be wrong. Why is Darwin famous? Because he showed all those scientists who adhered to Special Creation to be wrong! Why is Einstein famous? Because he showed Newton to be wrong! Why is Hawking famous? Because he showed Einstein to be partly wrong. The list goes on and on and on.

So, there is no human motivation for us to lie to ourselves. What's more, we continually work to uncover sloppy thinking or experiments that coud lead to falsehoods. Have you ever peer-reviewed a scientific paper? I do about 6-8 per year. My job is to look for flaws. Not to whitewash so we can perpetrate a "lie". But to uncover flaws to avoid possible falsehoods.

One final thing. At one time all scientists were creationists. If scientists engage in self-deception, then why did they give up creationism for evolution? You are caught in a forked stick and can't have it both ways: if scientists perpetuate a favored theory then we would still be creationists. OTOH, if scientists dropped such a favored theory as Special Creation, then they would be equally ready to drop evolution if it is wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

.

So, there is no human motivation for us to lie to ourselves..

That statement itself sounds like you are deceiving yourself like the claim in the article.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: So, there is no human motivation for us to lie to ourselves..

That statement itself sounds like you are deceiving yourself like the claim in the article.

LOL! And how am I doing this? I gave the reasons -- personal gain -- for us not to accept the current theory. Even if you a scientist who lies to himself, all the other scientists have motivation to disclose that lie!

 

[lucaspa]

Evolution is way too simple after 150 years. All we got from evolution is still the "little eyeball that could" story and about some unknown Frankincell that has no evidence of ever existing.

Wow, you haven't read much about evolution, have you? Eyes have a whole series of intermediates in living organisms that we can look at, including the genetics. I suggest Climbing Mt. Improbable by Richard Dawkins for a full discussion.

The oldest known fossil cells look just like artificially fossilized cells made by abiogenesis. That's evidence of them existing.

Please don't confuse your ignorance with something that is not known at all.

 

[Smidlee]

LOL! And how am I doing this? I gave the reasons -- personal gain -- for us not to accept the current theory. Even if you a scientist who lies to himself, all the other scientists have motivation to disclose that lie!

To reproduce of course.
'+windowtitle+'

For example, half the scientists admitted to having only reported the experiments that gave the results you wanted.

 

[lucaspa]

I remember one scientist admitted (I would say he was being honest) often if you want to be funded you have to go along with the current theory. The theory he was referring to was the Big Bang.

You need to be more specific with the quote. Particularly in this area. For instance, Stephen Hawking has gotten funding for doing work against Big Bang. So has Turok and Martin Bojowald.

Karl Wegener got funding for years pursuing his plate tectonics at a time when that was not the current theory.

I got funding 20 years ago when people thought that the only adult stem cells were hematopoietic stem cells and we were proposing there were more stem cells than that.

 

[Smidlee]

Wow, you haven't read much about evolution, have you? Eyes have a whole series of intermediates in living organisms that we can look at, including the genetics. I suggest Climbing Mt. Improbable by Richard Dawkins for a full discussion.

The oldest known fossil cells look just like artificially fossilized cells made by abiogenesis. That's evidence of them existing.

Please don't confuse your ignorance with something that is not known at all.

Sorry but I want more than a fairy tale when it comes to science. Let scientist show the "Little Eyeball that could" story can exactly happen outside their imagination

Climbing Mt. Improbable doesn't solve the problem with Dawkin's baby steps up the mountain because even with steps everything naturally goes downhill unless it has a purpose or goal to go up hill. Those who climbs mountains has reaching the top of the mountain as their goal. Often climbing large mountains requires planning.

 

[3 Angels Messages]

[Dinosaurs in the Amazon? Special Report from Genesis Week with Wazooloo, season 1 - Ian Juby; aka "Wazooloo" Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:

Dinosaurs in the Amazon? Special Report from Genesis Week with Wazooloo, season 1 - YouTube

[Fishapod flop! This is Genesis Week, episode 16, season 1 with Wazooloo - Ian Juby; aka "Wazooloo" Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:

Fishapod flop! This is Genesis Week, episode 16, season 1 with Wazooloo - YouTube

[Debate's over! This is Genesis Week, episode 17, season 1, with Ian Juby aka Wazooloo - Ian Juby; aka "Wazooloo" Youtube, not a Seventh Day Adventist, though I wish he were]:

Debate's over! This is Genesis Week, episode 17, season 1, with Ian Juby aka Wazooloo - YouTube

 

[gluadys]

Sorry but I want more than a fairy tale when it comes to science. Let scientist show the "Little Eyeball that could" story can exactly happen outside their imagination

Climbing Mt. Improbable doesn't solve the problem with Dawkin's baby steps up the mountain because even with steps everything naturally goes downhill unless it has a purpose or goal to go up hill. Those who climbs mountains has reaching the top of the mountain as their goal. Often climbing large mountains requires planning.

Clearly you don't understand the analogy. Since "Mount Improbable" is a fitness peak, there is no way to get down. Natural selection acts as a ratchet preventing roll-backs whether the way up was planned or not.

Read the book for details.

 

[Smidlee]

Clearly you don't understand the analogy. Since "Mount Improbable" is a fitness peak, there is no way to get down. Natural selection acts as a ratchet preventing roll-backs whether the way up was planned or not.

Read the book for details.

Natural selection can't in itself keep things from going downhill. NS only removes the most unfit. Mount Improbable completely ignore this fact.