Tag Archives: Evolution

New Battlefronts

While conservative Christians focus on the near stalemate on evolution, this is happening. This is coming hard and fast. It’s like a heavy cavalry charge where all of us will be trampled to death if we refuse to face the changing threats… and everyone seems happy to argue about the interior volume of the ark…

WATCH: Leftist Students Freak Out When Panel Agrees Men And Women Are Different

Advertisements

Bill Nye: The Red Car

Introducing red car Friday!
From now on, until I get bored of it, every Friday will feature a red car, like last week’s post on the middle ages. Also, whenever I can there will be other posts too… but here is today’s red car.
bmw-z4-red-car
Bill Nye… the science guy…. You see him here and there on the news, expounding, pontificating, telling people what they should believe and what they shouldn’t believe. Here he is at Smithsonian magazine where the subtitle is: ‘The famous scientist cuts through the global warming noise and lays out the facts.’

And by the way, if you go watch it (embedding wasn’t working for some reason.) the bottles are absolutely nothing like our atmosphere with its many, barely understood equilibration systems. It is a horrible example.

Anyway, that’s Bill Nye… ‘famous scientist’ here is another situation, at the commencement speech at Lehigh University, where he said that overpopulation is a huge world problem….

And Bill Nye, apparently a real scientist…. Talking about the OK tornado.

Bill Nye is an expert in basically everything!

He also really hates the idea of creationism

So, Bill Nye is apparently an expert in: Climate science, Evolutionary biology, demographics, basically he’s like a scientist at everything!!!! So I wondered… what, exactly, are his credentials as a scientist (other than, you know, being called ‘the science guy’ which is catchy and cool because it rhymes with his last name…)

Well, according to Wikipedia

‘He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where one of his professors was Carl Sagan)[9] and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977.[10] Nye began his career in Seattle at Boeing, where, among other things, he starred in training films and developed a hydraulic pressure resonance suppressor still used in the 747. Later, he worked as a consultant in the aeronautics industry. In 1999 he told the St. Petersburg Times that he applied to be a NASA astronaut every few years, but was always rejected.[11]

I see… he took a class from a real physicist… and… he was repeatedly rejected by NASA so, that makes him a real scientist I guess. I don’t want to deny the possibilities of him being an autodidact, and mechanical engineers are certainly practical and solid thinkers by and large…. But his scientific credentials are remarkably…. thin. For instance in his scientific work, he made a sundial for the Mars rover… which sounds exactly like a project that would be given to a person who was included for the celebrity, rather than for their science…

It seems to me that his scientific credentials are:
1: He has a catchy name with Science in it
2: He endlessly repeats the most popular scientific shibboleths
3: ?????

Am I missing something that would give us good reason to listen to what Bill Nye (Real Scientist) says over someone (anyone) else?

Science Abuse

More on the dangers of extrapolating back. I talked about this a bit before in the context of global warming. Today I have to discuss a brand new example of science abuse. Most have heard of Moore’s Law, that the number of transistors on a chip will double about every two years, and so we will eventually get too small for lithography to work, and computers will hit a wall. Well, if you plot transistors on a chip versus year, and look at where there should be ‘0’ on a chip, this works pretty well. Well enough that you could say that the relationship is realistic. The article also gives the example of scientific publications working out to right around Newton’s time as ‘start’ for scientific publications.

Here is the kick though, the article is about extrapolating back life to calculate a ‘start’ time for life. Origin of LifeThe most abusive part of this article is that it conflates measured and verifiable data, like on average how many transistors were on a chip in 2000, or when might be the ‘first’ scientific publication with unobserved theoretical data, as if they have the same value. There are layers upon layers of reasoning for why biologists date Prokaryotes before Eukaryotes but I have a sneaking suspicion that one of the reasons is that Prokaryotes are simpler than Eukaryotes and therefore must have come first. Basiclly, it should be redundant that these complexities fit a log scale if, in fact, they were dated by a log scale fitting depending on how complex they were with the initial assumption that evolution 1) happens and 2) works exponentially.

The other obvious issue is that even if we had incontrovertible data to prove when different organisms evolved you still cannot scientifically extrapolate beyond your data points and obtain anything useful. There is one way that using such a plot would be scientifically correct. If evolutionary dates were measurable (but difficult to measure) you could use it to estimate  a new species’ ‘evolution date’ which then might be verified if needed. However, all suspicion about the data aside, this is actually abuse of science. It is basically like using bad science to impress the woman in red; it is picking up an ignorant date by showing off what you know. (And the reality is so much less interesting than The beginning of all life calculated by SCIENCE!)

Of course the hilarious part of this article is that life is supposed to start way before the earth, so the article ends on a bit of a stammer trying to explain how that might be.

‘Settled’ Science

In these days of constant discussion of global warming (or ‘climate change’) or whatever is the fancy new term used to misdirect, I thought it would be good to discuss a little the very notion of ‘settled science’ and question why, when anyone wishes to discuss or hypothesize against these assumed cornerstones of modern thought they are instantly, and ruthlessly, labeled a Neanderthal, and immediately presumed irrelevant.

Now, I actually have no intention of discussing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Instead, let us look at another, much more deeply rooted theory that even a whisper against gets one labeled an unscientific, backwater idiot. Let us think for now about the theory of evolution. Not the theory of natural selection, which is commonly and purposefully conflated with the idea of macro-evolution. Natural selection, namely the theory that certain genetic traits can be more favorable to certain environments, and this leads over time to different subspeicies, is actually observable. However, the idea to discuss, the idea I will call evolution from now on, is the idea that this process can yield a gain in genetic information, and ultimately lead from some initial ‘life’ to everything form of life if given enough time.

This theory, expounded by nearly every academic and scientist, is treated as settled science. Every single new discovery is forced into the evolution mold, every single scientific thought is forced, by academics, by editors, by the international mockery machine, to comply with and never question the theory of evolution.

This is preposterous. The very nature of science is sold out entirely when scientists are not allowed to ever propose different theories, competing ideas, and exert their full scientific abilities to try and prove or disprove any theories they like. As soon as a theory becomes ‘settled’ and embedded with no dissent allowed, it is effectively, religion. Any scientist who tries to silence anyone with an opposing idea of the origin of life immediately surrenders his right to call himself a scientist. Instead, he is become a priest of the modern religion.

As for the theory of evolution itself, no one can accurately gage its merits for one simple reason. No one has either had the motivation, the money or the ability to actually inspect it with skepticism and modern scientific technology. Since everything affected by the theory (biology, anthropology, biochemistry etc.) is forced to start with a 19th century theory based on 19th century technology, the theory itself has not been tested.

Aha, one might say. (Indeed, aha!) The idea of God creating life is even older, and certainly impossible to study. But this is a pointless argument, since religion is not bound by the rules of science. Science cannot, must not, make pronouncements on what cannot be observed with the eye (or some awesome instrument) or deduced from those observations. Religion by its very nature, discusses what cannot be seen or observed. So for now, let’s focus on the claims made by those who pretend to be discussing what is observed and incontrovertible, but in reality has never been tested or tried, especially not with modern scientific techniques.

So, settled though the world might want to believe evolution is, all the persistence in forcing every scientist, every public person, into going along with the theory, only perverts the true aim of science, to test every idea that is testable with skepticism, and makes it into a pseudo-religion that oppresses the thoughts and actions of its adherents without so much as a whisper of a benefit. Congratulations evolutionists, you have made the ultimate nihilistic religion out of a scientific theory without even testing it.

Update:  Read Darwin’s Black Box for more about the biochemical challenges to evolution.