That’s not a fact, its a blatant lie. Many beneficial mutations have been found, and many scientists are aware of them.
‘Fact 2’ is also a lie. In my experience, anyone claiming that “all scientists agree” about anything hasn’t talked to any scientists and is spouting complete nonsense. This is no exception.
If this level of dishonesty is typical of the book it isn’t worth reading and you should stop advertising it.
Guys, please keep the discussions civil about this one.
Please give the root sources of anything that you say so that it can be looked up and verified. We don’t want people commenting what they think anyone said.
For anybody thinking otherwise, I am not here promoting the book or anything, but it clearly looks like neither the people attacking the book nor defending it have any real idea of what the author wrote and the sources he quotes. All that I had posted was a summary of what the book says; which obviously does not include any of the sources of the author etc. I challenge anybody here to actually buy the book and then debate it from the evolutionist perspective with hard facts if they really can.
Nobody is lying. There is no evidence that anyone here is lying. Knowingly telling an untruth they know to be untrue as true. Knowingly saying a truth they know to be true is a lie. Nobody is engaged in deception, not even self-deception. Everyone here is engaged in believing first. Second and third. And 80% of believing at least is cognitively biased, in the wiring, in the neuron, and 100% psychological and social and cultural. Lying just doesn’t enter in to it. That’s for liars. And we’re all liars.
It seems that it is alright to accuse absent people of lying, as in the author, or to accuse certain groups or beliefs such as YECs as lying but it is not alright to accuse anyone in science as lying even if it is more a deception than a bare faced lie. In truth, all people are doing is asserting their view with whatever criteria they trust for back up and coroboration. To claim that science has an unimpingable source for its assertions ignores the “fact” that the data still has to be interpretted, and it is the interpretations that can be questioned, not the facts themselves, especially when certain facts are beyond the reach of either viewpoint.
You cannot just ban the word or the concept, but we can try and keep a perspective about why things are said and that there might be a possible alternative view to the one we hold.
If you are going to claim others of lying you cannot complain if the accusations are reversed, scientist, or not.
Richard
Aye, interpretation has to be scientific. Consilient, coherent, warranted, justified. True.
Are you familiar with the acronym “PRATT” - Point Refuted A Thousand Times? A quick glance at the contents tells of the same old tedious bunk by an author of no significance even among apologists. There is nothing new there, so just search the forum for discussions of topics if you want to read the debates.
Here’s thousands of articles on these purportedly non-existent beneficial mutations. I would be surprised if many (any?) of these articles state that they don’t exist.
There is no singular “Law of Probability”. Probability Theory contains a large number of laws – for example the Law of Large Numbers.
There are millions of articles on these mutations that Sands apparently believes are “impossible”.
If these claims are indeed made by this book, then the book is errant nonsense, and its author does not know the first thing about evolution, genetics, or biology.
And how many of them are beneficial?
How many are detremental?
How many are insignificant.
IOW it is all posturing and flannel.
In most arguments exceptions are noted but not counted. In science it seems that one example constitutes proof.
I wonder how many people look at the small print figures for adverts claiming a large percentage of support. The sample is usually between 75 and 150 people!. I am sure someone can tell me what percentage of the population that represents. From what I have seen here, scienctists use the same sort of tactic to “prove” their theories! (And mock me!)
Richard
It does not matter to this particular argument. The simple fact that they exist disproves the claim that “mutation is impossible”.
It is a way of thinking that justifies itself.
1 in 10 million? Billions, Milleniums? Eons?
Euclid! I’ve found it!
Richard
No Richard.
“It is a way of thinking” that addresses the argument at hand – in this case the claim that “mutation is impossible”.
It is a way of thinking that does not have hubris to claim to prove 160-odd years of scientific research into Evolutionary Biology in a single forum post.
Shouldn’t that be disprove?
Such notions of grandeur! I wish i had thought of that.
And there was i thinking this was the cutting edge of Scientific discussion, with the world’s finest scientific minds.
Richard
I’m not wasting money on it.
Are you the author?
Richard Gillett!
Kindly put down those goal posts, and stop trying to move them to the next country!
The only thing that we were claiming to be “disprov[ing” was the nonsensical claim that “mutation is impossible”.
A claim that I will note that you are gymnastically attempting to avoid.
Your whole line of ‘argument’ (if I can use that term very loosely) is nothing more than a run-on non sequitor.
Were you? I must admit I failed to notice all the Nobel Prize winners, etc, etc on this forum. How dreadfully unobservant of me.
As if I would!
Richard
…what to do when simple honesty isn’t politically correct and instead we are expected to wear a facade of lying. Difficult to do when you are tired of all the lies being told by so many.
Like with flat earth proponents the demonstration of human capacity for self-deception (i.e. delusion) is quite remarkable.
I cannot help feeling that engaging with this degree of delusion is like living/working in a mental hospital. I am sure it has rewards of some sort, but there are obviously good reasons why this is in a facility separated from healthy society where dealing with reality provides more than enough challenges already.
As for myself, even though I was raised by two psychology majors, dealing with psychological pathology was never a part of it and not something I have been terribly interested in.
I don’t think it’s alright to accuse people of lying.
Demonstrating that people are lying is not only acceptable, but is commendable. Lies and falsehoods should be exposed
Yet you are complaining anyway.
It’s funny the way you always claim it’s about me.
Richard
Edit
And who set you up as the God of truth?
They do not think they are lying. What right have you to claim that they are!
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.