Science Musings


How do we tell if we're being fed a line, by experts or so-called experts, to do something against our interests, and what does this have to do with science?

And how is it, if we don't know a little about science, we end up getting the shaft?

Quick & Dirty Summary

modern science is not real science

dirty business in Evolution science

evolution experiment contradicts transitional organisms requirement

bad science and religion complement one another in their deceptions

If science is misunderstood, that can only be through intent. Science itself is pretty simple and something everyone participates in every day — making hypotheses — or guesses, testing things and whatnot. But after a little study, it may look like today's "science" is just the poorly-coordinated mishmash left after tribal consensus and censorship within the "scientific community." It's true: Science has been "politicized."

Practicing science is, at core, practicing logic, but scientists want to carry a mystique. But as it turns out, most scientists actually practice Voodoo, not science. That's where the money is.

But it all works out somehow — for them — for we are led to believe that scientists are some sort of elites that do no wrong. This hornswoggling has manipulated the public to hear the term "theory," as "knowledge," instead of "theoretical" and "unproven." In some instances, the bad consequences of that are easy to spot, which makes it easy to expose the frauds.

To do this, we don't have to look any further than the topic of Evolution.

But first, let me clear the air to say that this isn't an issue of science versus religion. I'm not trying to promote a "Creationist" concept. Both that and Evolution are more full of holes than Swiss cheese. The whole point of this post, is to illustrate that by restricting choice, you can "box in" debate to a minimum, while still having all the accepted options wrong. Both science and religion can support a number of different theories: that is the real point. In other words, there can still be a scientific and religious perspective without Evolution and Creationism, and there are other such perspectives. But we generally only get to hear the two "pet" concepts.

So... Evolution was a theory, and a somewhat interesting one, that said that there is a common ancestor to all life and that life slowly changes or evolves to suit the environment with better adapted creatures surviving to reproduce and pass on their adaptations to their offspring. Recall that Darwin made observations tending to support the theory at Galapagos. Australia also has interesting species that seem to support it.

Looking a little deeper, we see that Evolution, like all theories, is a combination of observation and ideas. Of course we know of, or have seen, animals with unique adaptations or site specific characteristics from various places. And every time we see related people, we see that traits are inherited. Red-headed father with a red-headed son, for example.

Darwin extended the observation of inherited traits to try to answer the nagging question of what the origin of life is. So, the idea was proposed that over time, small changes can add up to gigantic changes in species, leading to huge advancement in their capabilities. For instance, reasoning appears to enhance survival, so evolution led to a reasoning creature, man.

An important part of the idea is that all life has a common ancestor. Now, whenever you have a theory, there have to be elements that make it such. And these elements have to be provable or disprovable, otherwise it's not a "theory" at all. For example, you can never produce a legitimate theory that ghosts exist, since the ghosts can take on any attributes you like. Therefore no one can ever prove or disprove their existence. Science has helped society make great strides — and this may not necessarily be consciously — by applying the requirement that if you have something that is unprovable, you ignore it and don't waste time investigating or making theories about it. At least, if you're doing good science.

It may surprise you that Evolution is not a legitimate theory any more. It has been disproved — inadvertently — by its very supporters.

Since an element of Evolution was that there was a common ancestor to all life, it means that there must also be fossil records of gradual changes within and between species.

Unfortunately for Evolutionists, no clear contiguous records have been found. A lot of old fossils from long years ago have been found that look pretty much like skeletons of today's animals. There's still some attempt to make connections though, but not much evidence.

But the lack of fossil record didn't seem to faze the dogged Evolutionists.

Even though the theory collapsed when researchers failed to unearth compelling evidence of a "fossil record" marking progressive change within species, persistent acolytes were not ones to let facts get in the way. To deal with the lack of a fossil record they tried to "sneak one by."

Evolution was changed to "Punctuated Equilibrium," where, it is said, vast species changes occur at unpredictable times. I recall an outrageous statement: "Birds came from dinosaurs."

"Punctuated Equilibrium," is not even a theory. It is a corruption of the original ideas of Evolution, and it is anti-scientific.

Naturally some will say that they are still looking for the missing links. That's fine, but calls into question of how long to beat a dead horse. Or how long to make wholesale changes to the original theory and then try to pass it off as the same.

But wait, there's more. To "prove" that there is a fossil record, an industrious gang of goons got to work. They got caught faking it by shoving "dinosaur bones" into a modern bird skeleton, if you can believe it. They called the bird-thing an Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis. Swell. If you're going to make an ass of yourself, might as well play it to the hilt. They pulled this stunt in China, and in 1999, National Geographic published an article on it, endorsing it as authentic. And then Nat Geo got called on it — and had to recant. Now why would you have to pull such a stunt if Evolution were so certain?

Okay, that didn't "fly," (little joke there), but the half-assed scientists persist, literally playing a scientific "shell game," ('nother good one), where you can never make any progress. Anyway, they can always jump over to that parallel track they've concocted, where they say evolutionary changes occur, but in huge jumps — "Punctuated Equilibrium" — which negates the very precepts of Evolution in the first place. If there had been some past observation of wild, vast, spontaneous changes in species, then there would be some backing for this new tack, but there isn't. You cannot make a theory based on a claim of something that no one has ever seen or at least had some evidence of. This is a theory in the "ghosts" category. It is pretty much impossible to disprove a speculation of this nature. This leads to argument of the, "You can't see it, so it could be there!" type.

What I object to is the scientific dishonesty of not being straight and saying, "Look, the old theory had a lot of holes, here's a new one." Which has to be done if any element of the original concept is discounted. That's important: If just one stipulation of any theory is discredited, the theory fails. Now, that doesn't preclude another, similar theory from being produced, but first, you have to admit the first one was a failure.

My conclusion is that there is no honest investigating. We've seen this phenomenon before. Things that don't support pet "theories" are swept under the rug. Wholesale changes are made to "theories," but never explained. And the worst part is, this type of behavior has turned science into non-science. For any theory, we should be hearing as much from the scientists in opposition as from the supporting side. This would also help teach people a great deal of science, since the opposition would be saying things like, "Let's look at the evidence," and, "What does your theory predict?"

Unfortunately, since science is so politicized, there is no opposing side, since there would be no financing for the opposition to do research. That is the crux of the matter, and gives us absolute identification of politicization: It occurs when we don't hear from all sides of the scientific argument equally.

Some of the Evolution crowd, in a particularly clueless effort, is now claiming that Evolution is both theory and fact, whatever that means.

There is another conclusive strike against Evolution that really lays it to rest, found while reviewing some of the current research.

Especially damning to Evolution is the lack of fossil record, and another major failing is the fact that we aren't seeing perceptible but small changes in other species. We should be able to see minor changes in shorter-lived creatures in our own lives, since our lifetime can span many generations of shorter-lived creatures. But no, everything remains pretty much the same.

Which leads to my discovery while doing the groundwork for this article. I found a researcher who is doing something called the E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment. There is a lot of hysteria over it. Those associated, are claiming that it has proven that Evolution is a fact. Not just proof of natural selection, but all of the aspects of the theory.

The researchers and their fans make this claim based on the finding of Escherichia coli bacteria, within samples, that can absorb the "citrate" molecule. (The samples are E. coli in containers that are allowed to reproduce over endless generations — it looks like they´re up over 50,000 now.) The E. coli they started with could not absorb the molecule. So, the researchers are claiming that absorbing the citrate molecule is a big new thing, disregarding their own admission that E. coli that can ingest the molecule already exist, "in the wild," if you will.

The blog discussing this result is all aflame over this "proof," but here´s my objection: Evolution is claimed to be the result of many, many small random changes to an organism over many, many generations. If we assume that the citrate ingesters in the experiment are not the result of contamination from outside sources (which is admitted by the researchers to be a possibility), this disproves Evolution. If the same thing keeps "evolving," it can't possibly be random.

Remember, the whole foundation of Evolution is that tiny random changes over generations are propagated, leading to more environmentally appropriate and useful behaviors, reinforced by the fact that they make the possessors more reproductively viable. Were these changes random, we'd expect to see the evolution of many different abilities. Also, (and perhaps the most important thing), these researchers should be able to show evidence of the transitional organisms between the citrate-absorbers and non-citrate-absorbers! This was not even mentioned at all, that I could see, and I wasted a lot of time reading through all that kee-rap. Or are they claiming Punctuated Equilibrium, that only produces wonderful new abilities out of whole cloth? That wasn't mentioned in the hundreds of discussion comments I plodded through.

This completely discredits the concept of Evolution. Before any debate, evolutionists, though, must present exact claims as to concretely define "Evolution," and all its characteristics, so there can be no waffling or backtracking! Let's not confuse Evolution theory with the observation of natural selection — that needs to be investigated separately in greater depth.

Side point: There's one in every crowd, and so, someone might say, "Hey, it's possible for something random with low odds to happen more than once. Look at some lottery winners." Sorry to burst your bubble, Sunshine, but any time you have multiple high-stakes lottery winners, you're looking at a scam. Really, we have to examine statistics a little deeper, understanding the limits of their applicability, and realize that when the odds are, say, a trillion-to-one against something, what it really means is that it is effectively impossible. And what with the number of random steps required to go from citrate non-ingester to ingester, we are talking impossible.

No, I mean really impossible. Look — that crazy talk you've heard about 1000 monkeys sitting at 1000 keyboards, for 1000 years, producing one of Shakespeare's plays out of a bunch of random nonsense is a fallacy. Those monkeys, for whatever period of time, will never produce a Shakespeare play, despite that old saying. It would be surprising if they produced even a decent sentence. The idea doesn't take into account that order never rises from chaos without external factors of influence. Monkeys would hit multiple keys at once, slap the keyboard, poop on the keyboard, etc. The idea doesn't appreciate order. I wonder if the originator was conflating the idea of evolution into the mix. That the monkeys would evolve to write Shakespeare. Which also makes no sense. If the monkeys learned to type and express themselves in writing, they would type out, "How about a banana over here, Egghead?"

In conclusion, and this is really the main thing, there is a blatant logical fallacy at work here. Why is there an unstated assumption that Evolution is the only scientific possibility, with Creationism the counterpoint? I don´t think the origin of life has been explored fully enough for anyone to go presenting "theories" of any kind, we´re still at the "ideas" stage. Why put all your eggs in one basket with this Evolution idea? If you spend a little time doing research, you will find that there are other scientific ideas and concepts regarding the origin of life. (Though these other explorations require a little digging. It appears that science and religion have somehow worked to frame the whole thing as some sort of Evolution vs. Creation battle.) It astounds me, why anyone would want to box himself into just one theory — unless he didn't want to derail the Gravy Train, of course.

Ah, but there's the crux of the matter. That's the way everything is presented these days. You have "Big-Bang Theory" or "Steady-State Theory," and anyone with any other ideas is an arse. This forced dichotomy is the real scam that's being pushed on us. Mustard or mayo. Red or white wine. Why, though, this false sequestering of scientific research into these narrow, dead-end areas? Simple: These preening, posturing clowns have no clue, but have to make it look like they do. By arguing over how many angels fit on a pin-head, they seem to be just ironing out details, meanwhile, keeping anyone away from real research. Why inhibit real research? They're afraid of what we might find out and don't want any upsetting of the apple cart. Some real information might interfere with religion or make the so-called scientists look bad. Which is saying both the religionists and scientists benefit from the situation as it stands. And look how: The religionists can point to the holes in the Evolution story, and the scientists can point to the holes in the Creation story, so everyone's happy!

This isn't to condemn all scientists, but those who are perpetrating these frauds. A real scientist would be creating charts comparing and contrasting every individual theory and working to find out which is true, or if we needed to do more work to come up with a better, altogether new one.

Finally on this topic, one of the latest "scientific" cons has made news, where "Researchers" have been caught tampering with climate data to support their faltering "Climate Change" nee "Global Warming" scam. (I just came across a researcher who has revealed and published the whole fraud, with the exchanged emails proving the incompetence and incorrigibility of the Climate Clowns, here. It's a rather lengthy .pdf file, but just a scan of the paper will quickly reveal the facts.)

Bottom line is, it appears that many nominal scientists don´t represent science in any way, and a lot of tax money is going to fund a lot of useless endeavors. There needs to be full investigation and full disclosure of what all publicly-funded scientists are up to and why. 'Nuff said.


Popular Posts