The New Science 2
Taking Out the Trash
This article, we’ll look at the case to retire bad old theories, and the steps necessary to do it effectively. Evolution is so miserable a theory, it’s easy to discredit, so we’ll use it as a reference and example. Being preposterous, it is one of the best of all the examples of bad science. In fact, it can only be supported by bluster, BS and a very dedicated pack of goons with endless buckets of glue and band-aids.
Despite that, it is notable that there is a bizarre sparsity of arguments against it, especially since its tottering foundation makes it an easy target, which makes it feel like going out on a limb to criticize it. That’s not to say there are no critics. And some of their arguments are devastating.
We already put Evolution to rest back in Science Musings, but we’ll introduce some new details here, with a somewhat more formal treatment, and some postulates that act as a solid guide to make our point.
Evolution
It’s fatiguing listing all the fallacies in play with this preposterous pseudoscience. Moving goalpost, super-fallacy (super long-ago), appeal to authority (they always fall back, too, on, “the critics don’t properly understand what evolution is...," implying that critics are too stupid to understand), fallacy of asserting the consequences. (Because an effect occurred, a certain cause must have taken place, which ignores that one effect can have multiple causes.) Argument from ignorance, which is a form of begging the question (“We don’t know why, so our idea must be right.”)
They can’t even be trusted to be honest enough to retract Evolution, which is, at this point, simply fraud, and just a silly, silly conceit.
Can’t forget their old standby, doubling down and contradiction. If you say, “Evolution is fake because it’s not falsifiable,” some maggot will peep up, “That’s a filthy lie! The vast majority of scientists say Evolution is falsifiable!” (Contradiction, appeal to authority and appeal to majority fallacies.)
These dodges are routine, as we see in medical pseudoscience:
Note: frequently, when a faulty paradigm fails to explain the disease it claims to address, rather than admit the paradigm is flawed, its adherents will label each conflicting piece of evidence as a paradox and dig deeper and deeper until they can find something to continue propping up their ideology.
- The Forgotten Side of Medicine
Sneaky Science
To review, Evolution was supposed to be gradual changes in species over time. then in 1972, someone “introduced an idea” that, no, sometimes there are sudden changes! This was a fudge to gloss over the lack of a fossil record supporting Evolution, a requirement of the theory. Called Punctuated Equilibrium (PE), it’s important to note that its acceptance is an admission of the failure of Evolution. PE is equally a fraud, since there were no ideas introduced to explain why there would be sudden changes all of a sudden, except hand-waving about it occurring when geologic change was greater. Again, this is not a theory, but relies on pure speculation.
But it is an excellent example of a very routine and effective deception, the process of introducing so much nonsense that it saps your energy and patience to debate it.
It’s very important to note that PE is in the “ghosts” category of theory, in that it can mean anything you want it to and is not predictive of anything concrete, nor is it truly falsifiable.
But let’s ask A.I. for its wit and wisdom.
Yes, Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) is a falsifiable model, as it makes specific predictions about the fossil record that can be tested. It predicts long periods of evolutionary stasis interrupted by relatively rapid bursts of change, primarily associated with speciation events. Evidence that contradicts these predictions, such as a lack of stasis in species or finding entirely modern fossils in ancient geological periods, would challenge or falsify the model.
The A.I. tells us it is falsifiable, but now check out what they call “fossils” — how could these laughable fragments ever prove anything conclusively? (See Agent131711’s Substack for an excellent exposure of the dinosaur hoax.)
Falsifiable: A concept that actually means something, and not only does something have to be theoretically falsifiable, it has to be so in practice. That is, there has to be some real test, in the real world, that applies.
To summarize: A theory has to be falsifiable, that is be dependent upon certain evidence, which, if found, will discredit and invalidate the theory. Evolution proponents tout that it is falsifiable, if you can find something that is quite likely impossible to find. That’s not how this works. Such a criteria would make the theory unfalsifiable for all intents and purposes. There’s no dancing around that
Biologist J. B. S. Haldane replied “Precambrian rabbits” or “fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study. That is, a fossil rabbit would have to be found in strata dating to long before rabbits are normally found.
Given the sparsity of the fossil record, and the confusion in identifying anything even if you do find it, this means the theory is scarcely “falsifiable.”
Q: So why didn’t Haldane come up with a good test instead of grasping at straws with nonsensical rhetoric?
A.I.: You are correct that relying solely on the extreme unlikelihood of finding a Precambrian rabbit is not the ideal way to frame the falsifiability of evolution. The thought experiment, originally proposed by J.B.S. Haldane, is a rhetorical device used to demonstrate the principle of falsifiability in the clearest possible terms, not to define the only way to test the theory.
“Thought experiment” my fossilized azz! The bugger had no other, good, example, and now they try to dance around it.
Another aspect of Sneaky Science is the practice where they keep changing theory, modifying it to keep up with real discoveries made, claiming it proves the success of a theory!
Genetic Evidence?
Then we have:
Q: Now I’m confused. How can you get genetic evidence from fossilized remains?
A.I.: You bring up an excellent point, because it highlights a crucial distinction in the evidence for evolution: we don’t always use ancient DNA from fossils to verify the theory. When we do, however, it is a highly specialized process called paleogenetics, and it’s only successful under specific conditions.
Every time you press the issue, Evolution theory (at least as represented by the A.I. which is just pulling its information from the scientific papers on the subject) has to give up ground.
Continuing, A.I. sez:
Good preservation conditions are key: The best aDNA is preserved in cold, stable environments, like permafrost. The extreme cold slows down the chemical degradation of DNA. Scientists have successfully recovered DNA from mammoth molars and horse bones found in the Siberian and Canadian permafrost, dating back over a million years.
But wait just a minute. That isn’t fossil evidence of dinosaurs (note that some fossils are petrifications). Interesting wordplay here: Apparently they call these frozen bodies “fossils” as well, whereas it seems like fossils are just mineralizations (like petrifications, for example, petrified wood). Only most fossils are mineralizations. There are other things, like decayed leaves leaving a carbon “footprint.” Okay.
Q: So there are no frozen dinosaurs ever found?
A.I.: No, no non-avian dinosaur has ever been found frozen. While frozen remains have been found, they belong to animals that lived much more recently than the dinosaurs. The reason comes down to the immense amount of time that has passed since the end of the Cretaceous period.
So the A.I. (again, to emphasize, the advanced search engine styled as “A.I.”) seems more useful if you hound it, which others have noted as well.
Where would the idea of dinosaurs come from in the first place (unless it were a fraud), because where would it be rational to speculate on such things, unless you’d already found mysterious preserved full remnants, of each species (triceratops, brontosaurus, T-Rex, pterodactyl, velociraptor)?
So some “scientist” one day just said, “Help me go find dinosaurs,” to some compliant “Igor”-type guy, who, instead of saying, “What the hell are you talking about?” and running away, comes eagerly trotting along, pickax and Dino Kit in hand? Not a search for unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, dragons or Martians, mind, just “dinosaurs.”
Not "Missing Fossils," No Fossils
Q: Have fossils for each and every dinosaur species been discovered, or only a few, and the rest speculation?
A.I.: It is a misconception that fossils for every dinosaur species have been discovered. The fossil record is extremely incomplete, and many dinosaur species are known from only a few fossils—sometimes a single bone. Most of what we know about dinosaurs comes from a fraction of the species that once existed, but this is a result of the rarity of fossilization, not speculation.
The rarity of fossilization
The idea that we have found every dinosaur fossil is unrealistic when you consider the difficult process of fossilization.
Specific conditions are required: To become a fossil, an organism’s remains must be buried quickly in sediment, like mud or ash, to prevent scavengers and decomposition from destroying the bones.
Bias toward certain environments: Fossilization is more likely to occur in environments with high rates of sediment deposition, such as riverbeds, floodplains, and some lake beds. This means that many dinosaurs that lived in upland or jungle habitats, where conditions favor decay, will likely never be found.
The immense timescale: Dinosaurs dominated the planet for over 150 million years. During that time, countless individuals lived and died. The number of fossils found today represents an incredibly small, random sample of all the species that ever existed.
What the fossil record reveals
Despite its limitations, the fossil record for dinosaurs is remarkably rich and provides reliable scientific evidence.
Over 700 species discovered: While this number is always changing as new fossils are found and existing ones are re-evaluated, paleontologists have named and described approximately 700 extinct, non-avian dinosaur species.
Often based on incomplete remains: It’s a fact of paleontology that many species are named based on only partial or fragmentary remains. However, paleontologists can still accurately classify a new species by comparing the unique features of a new bone to existing species. For example, the dinosaur Deinocheirus was famously known only from its massive arms until the rest of its skeleton was found decades later, revealing its true form.
Scientific, not speculative: Paleontological reconstructions are not baseless speculation. When a skeleton is incomplete, paleontologists use a process of scientific inference based on comparative anatomy with related, more complete species. For example, if a paleontologist finds the skull of a new large theropod, they can make a highly educated guess about its body based on the anatomy of other large theropods like Tyrannosaurus rex and Allosaurus.
How many more dinosaurs might be discovered?
Scientists believe we have only just scratched the surface of dinosaur diversity.
Thousands remain undiscovered: Estimates suggest that hundreds or even thousands more dinosaur species may remain undiscovered.
New discoveries happen often: New dinosaur species are described by scientists several times each year. Many more fossils await discovery in the ground, while others may be hiding in museum collections, awaiting re-examination with new technology.
The Fakes
AI Overview
Listing all admitted archaeological and paleontological fakes is impossible, as new frauds are uncovered and many smaller, less famous fakes are not publicly documented. However, well-known examples include the Piltdown Man, a human fossil made from a modern skull and an ape jaw, and the Cardiff Giant, a large stone figure that was a hoax for financial gain. Other hoaxes involved forged archaeological objects like Minoan “snake goddesses” and the “Archaeoraptor,” a supposed fossilized bird that was a composite of several genuine fossils.
Well-Known Hoaxes
Piltdown Man (Paleontological):
A 1912 discovery that was a combination of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw, intended to be the “missing link” in human evolution.
Cardiff Giant (Archaeological):
An enormous stone figure of a petrified man, unearthed in 1869 but later admitted to be a hoax created for financial gain.
Archaeoraptor (Paleontological):
A fossil sold by a farmer and purchased by the National Geographic Society. It was a forgery, a composite of existing fossils from multiple animals.
Minoan “Snake Goddesses” (Archaeological):
While the originals are genuine, some later figures, such as an ivory figure with gold serpents, are considered fakes inspired by the originals and were produced for aesthetic purposes.
Methods for Detecting Fakes
Archaeologists and paleontologists use various techniques to identify fake finds:
Chemical Tests: To analyze the chemical composition of artifacts and fossils.
X-rays and CT-Scans: To examine internal structures and look for inconsistencies.
A Practiced Eye: Experienced experts can identify inconsistencies in style, material, or technique that suggest a forgery.
Why Fakes Are Created
Fakes are perpetrated for several reasons, including:
Financial Gain: To sell hoaxes to collectors or museums.
Aesthetic Purposes: To create beautiful or intriguing objects.
To Deceive or Mislead: As seen in the case of the Piltdown Man, fakes can be made to support a particular theory or idea.
This confirms we can’t rely on the fossil record, which makes Evolution moot, putting it in the category of the other fake or pseudoscience nonsense.
Just for giggles, there’s a better idea than Evolution: Suppose functions can go dormant or can be activated in living creatures, depending on their environment. That is to say, intergenerationally, life is more adaptive than we understand. Now, that is a much more fruitful line of study.
Abstraction vs. Reality
Something important to note is that it seems most of our scientists don’t understand random and infinite and diminishing returns and physical reality (there are no infinities in reality, only as a convenience in modeling). Mathematicians do understand randomness and infinities, but certainly not the eager evolutionist.
Recall in the previous article, we specified that it is essential to define our terms. In Evolution theory, they throw around a lot of terminology without much grounding, especially this notion of “randomness” and what it involves. Then they obfuscate with stuff about very long time periods, to make it seem like, in an arbitrarily long time, well, anything can happen!Infinities
We live in a finite universe, but we rarely study the relation of infinities to a finite universe.
For example, you wouldn’t discover a die that rolls 1-2-3-4-5-6, 1-2-3-4-5-6, 1-2...6, infinitely, or any similar sequence, 1-3-5-2-4-6, 1-3-5-2-4-6... though supposedly such sequences are theoretically inevitable. We don’t see that in a finite universe, where there are practical considerations for everything. In our real universe, we can only, at best, keep rolling until the die wears out, and even that’s scarcely possible, since who would take up the task to keep rolling until it wore out? Also, we have to make a consideration of what “random” really is (see below).
You can’t have infinite anything, or it would fill all the space.
There are unbounded sequences in math, like the set of all the positive integers, 1,2,3,4,5,6... But that’s not “infinite,” just an abstraction, so it makes more sense to call it “unbounded.”
We can work with such sequences. For example, there are a couple of unbounded sequences we can pull out of that sequence, all the positive even and all the positive odd integers. Both unbounded, but either one is only half the length of the sequence of all positive integers. In math, the set of rational numbers has been proven to be the same size as the set of integers (they’re both “countably infinite,” in mathematical terms), even though between any two rational numbers, like say, 2 and 3, there is an infinite number of other rational numbers! Now look at the set of real numbers: that set is “infinitely larger,” so to speak, than the set of integers!
Randoms
No infinities, and, similarly, there are no real “randoms.”
Recall that all dice tested show deviation from true “random” expectations. Ignoring that, we’re still not going to see certain combinations of throws of the dice. For example, we’re never going to see a die just keep rolling one number or sequence, time and again. But we should see it, there’s nothing precluding it. Is there? Well...
Even though the laws of probability say it is possible, indeed inevitable, like with the case of real numbers versus integers, there are countless more sequences, that are unstructured, than structured or repeating sequences, so we’ll never see such things in a finite universe.
Now, another nonsense we’ve had to tolerate: Unlimited monkeys in unlimited time on unlimited typewriters will eventually type the complete works of Shakespeare. That could never work, for one, because it’s no longer random when you have to set up typewriters, change the paper, feed the monkeys, etc. There are no infinities, and only limited time, monkeys and typewriters, so you could never even establish the setting and structure to try to carry out the operation. Now note that the “Infinite Monkey Theorem” is considered just a metaphor for some sort of device that just sits there producing endless random texts, but even that is subject to the fact that there is an uncountably large number of random texts, but only one string that is the works of Shakespeare. In a finite universe, it would never happen that it randomly spat out Shakespeare. And again, it’s hardly random when you have to set up a structured mechanism that isn’t restricted from producing that text.
Order from Randomness
As we’ve mentioned before: The idea of randomness producing order, doesn’t appreciate order, which requires some kind of structure. Any random change would have to “fit in” to all the existing structures, to be compatible, which, like an endless ordered sequence in dice throwing, we aren’t going to see.
Order doesn’t arise out of randomness, so the task we have, is to find where the order is coming from, in any given ordered system. That’s strong enough that we can use it as another new principle.
Principles
So, we’ve developed some principles, or postulates, rules of thumb that are supported by reasoning, and considerable observation, that we can rely on:
There are no infinities in our physical universe.
All the possible “randoms” don’t show up in our physical universe.
Order doesn’t arise from randomness or chaos without (some ordered) external influence.
Due to restrictions imposed by a limited, physical universe, something with extremely large odds/probability against, like trillions to one against, doesn’t happen “rarely,” but effectively not at all. And if such a thing does happen, it’s an indication that our calculations were wrong, and the odds were not so stacked against it.
The postulate that order never arises spontaneously from chaos seems to be exactly what you’d expect, living in a structured, ordered realm. And isn’t that what the “scientists” are saying anyway, as they search for “theories of everything,” that we are governed by rules and formulae? (A formula is a rule.)
As to the origins of life, we need more study to find out what we’re missing in our analysis. What structure (order) is yet to be discovered? This is getting in the realm of metaphysics, since there’s no clear driver for it in this physical realm. In fact, what with entropy, it seems the opposite, a resistance to the process of life.
Evolution, Again
When All You’ve Got’s a Hammer...
We hear things like slogans, truisms and sayings, but is it we don’t believe them or don’t embrace or remember them? It’s certainly that way with the saying, “When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.” We don’t take truisms – truths, in the form of jokes or sayings – to heart, when we should.
Certain elements of the scientific community are so reliant on their hammers, they, and we, don’t stop to see they’re foam rubber clown mallets. All they do is constantly rely on their old fallacies, including the Long Ago Fallacy and the For a Million-Billion Years Fallacy. The Million-Billion Years Fallacy is just a form of Begging the Question, or Proof by Assertion. It says that something happened because there was a lot of time for it to happen.
And of course, the Long Ago Fallacy gets its strength from its reliance on obscurity. It’s another assertion that’s basically just a taunt, a claim of some absurdity happening, but in the long ago, so that makes it so. Something unverifiable.
The Fraud of “Random”
Then there is the fraud of “random,” another example of assertion without factual basis.
Any “theory” based on randomness is no theory at all. The premise of Evolution is that “things just happen randomly, leading to life and adaptations of that life, via random changes that promote survival.” Well, if things just happen randomly, there’s nothing new, scientific, logical, or coherent to discover, is there? There is no new knowledge to be milked from that plop, which negates the need for a theory in the first place. A theory is meant to be a tool that helps us reveal new knowledge about our environment.
From our principles, order never emerges from randomness in a finite, physical universe, which completely upends the whole premise for Evolution theory.
We explained this before. You can’t have theories about ghosts, or similar nonsense, because abstracts like “ghosts” can do anything, and so can “random mutations.” As well, Evolution gives no hint as to how any life formed in the first place, except more hand-waving about random pools of chemicals and random lightning strikes that made some amino acids. Again, we addressed this: No matter how much Bugger-talk you spew, randomness does not generate order.
Summary
So, we’ve discredited Evolution theory in a more rigorous way, meaning it needs to be retired. Those who continue to cling may have their livelihood dependent on the scam. For some, perhaps they’re embroiled somehow, in a cult of personality, or identifying with their tribe. Or, some religionists seem to depend on the scam to solidify this false dichotomy between religion and the pseudoscience called modern science, as discussed in Science Musings. Or, some are deep, deep in the cult of hero worship of the “smart” scientists who tell them what to think.
But regardless of its trusting supporters, there are no longer even the most tenuous grounds for Evolution theory.
The formal withdrawal should be accomplished by a public announcement. All the research papers may be archived for reference, of course, but there needs to be an official mechanism to do this. (And isn’t it odd that there isn’t, just for window-dressing at least? They retract research papers, but theories are only superseded or fall out of use.) And until there is a formal recognition that bum theories need to be publicly exposed and retired, there is no such thing as “Science”, not in the realm of official, authorized or mainstream science. There are legitimate investigators, but outside of mainstream, “official science.” Within that official science, there’s fraud science, farce science and manipulative, opportunistic pseudoscience, but until reforms are made, no legitimate science.
This example, using the heinous Evolution idea, is a good example of exposing a bad theory and listing the principles involved in doing so. There are plenty of other concepts and theories that need to be made light of, and pulled, especially the purely theoretical nonsense like “black holes” and the like. Anything with no practical application like that needs to be dealt with harshly.
Comments