Sunday, 17 August 2014

Scientific world in shock! Evolution proved false.

The scientific world went into shock as tweets and YouTube videos once and for all disproved evolution. 


In a revelation that has the scientific world in shock, people on Twitter and YouTube have disproved evolution. It's news that will have repercussions for decades if not centuries. And not just for the scientific world, but for the larger population as well. 

You may be asking, and rightly so, how they have disproved evolution? Well in no uncertain terms, they've simply declared it to be false. 

A spokesperson for All Scientists, Professor Victoria Scott, said: "We are amazed. It's been 155 years since Charles Darwin published his ground breaking work 'On the Origin of Species' and we've been working in this field ever since. We've found millions of fossils and studied DNA, observed genetic changes, done countless hours of lab and field research and everything we've found points to evolution being true." 

Even the existence of monkeys? The professor laughs, "Yes, even the existence of monkeys." 

So given the mountains of evidence supporting evolution and the fact that no evidence points away from evolution one must ask, what happened? 

"Well, there were these tweets..." She stops here. A thoughtful and perhaps sad look on her face before continuing, "People were tweeting that evolution was, in fact, false. It was out of nowhere. Totally unexpected." I can imagine. I, like many of you reading this, was taught that evolution was true. 

Needing to know more, I asked Professor Scott what qualifications the authors of said tweets actually had.  

"None! None at all. This is what shocked us the most. Not only did these people have no relevant qualification, they actually knew very little about evolution at all. And what they did know, or thought they did, they misunderstood completely." 

I asked for some examples. "Well they think evolution means a monkey giving birth to a human, that individuals change species, such as a gorilla turning into a human in older age, and they expect to see a transitional fossil such as a crocoduck!"

Exactly how could tweets on their own could bring down over 150 years of scientific research? "Oh, it wasn't just tweets, it's YouTube videos as well. Many YouTube videos in fact." Like with the above mentioned tweets, Professor Scott pointed out that the qualifications and understanding held by the authors of the videos were non-existent. "As I said earlier, this is the most staggering part of this shocking revelation. These people are just not qualified! At all. But there it is, sometimes in tweets, sometimes in poorly put together 4 minute YouTube videos...evolution is simply false. Of course, I know you might be sceptical, and rightly so, but it's there for you to see just as well as I can."

Taking the professor up on this challenge I hit the internet and sure enough, she was right - a seemingly unending supply of tweets and videos declaring evolution to be false. It was right before my very own eyes. 

The must ask question at this moment - What happens now? "Well, there have been several meetings hurriedly convened, obviously. We're going to have to shut down biology courses at all the universities, research labs all over the world are going to have to be de-funded, just think about medicine" she says this apparently distracting herself. "We used to build influenza vaccines based on the idea that the virus evolves. Not any more. Back to square one on that one." She gives a chuckle at this though it seems more nervous than amused. 

Not wanting to get just one side of the story I went to some of the people declaring evolution to be false. The first thing I wanted to do was confirm that this amazing declaration was made without relevant qualification. Upon requesting the credentials of a number of these people I was told I was appealing to authority, that qualifications were just pieces of paper and that I was using an ad hominem attack. These people are rock solid. 

When asked for the reasoning behind the declaration that evolution is false I was told to look around me, that evolution is a mathematical impossibility and quizzed as to whether a rock could randomly turn into a person. I was in awe that while these people lacked any kind of expertise, they could know their subject so very well. I was getting out of my depth and knew that I would be able to find no chink in this armour. 

I asked Professor Scott how the scientific community could have missed this. "Well we don't deem to know everything, of course, we leave that to the faith community. We simply work on what we know, what we can demonstrate, and what we can verify. We have hypotheses that we test and get others to review our work. We operate within the realm of reality and stick to the scientific method. Simply declaring something false without reason is not really what we do so you'll have to forgive us for not ever thinking that might happen." It's a reasonable point. 

As we finished up our interview I asked Professor Scott if she was now worried about things like gravity and germ theory being declared false on the internet. "Yes, definitely. The internet is very powerful. There's no limit to what people will say on there. If a group of people suddenly declare gravity to be false...well we might all float off to space before we know what's happening!"  We share a laugh at her joke and I thank her for her time. As she leaves her phone rings, "I know!" she declared to the caller, "It's truly amazing."

I'm not sure what the final outcome of this ground breaking declaration will be but one thing we can all know for sure, the scientific world will never be the same again. 








17 comments:

  1. Another Oz Atheist17 August 2014 at 15:39

    Must say I'm in shock too. All that reading of "The Greatest Show on Earth" and now to hear that Prof Dawkins has been wrong all the time.

    This is a little bit off-topic, but I saw a good tweet the other day from @LogicalReterg Trent O'Leary:

    "Micro evolution" is real but "macro" is impossible?
    That's like saying 1+1=2, true.
    But 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10? Impossible.

    https://twitter.com/LogicalReterg/status/443992419290210304

    That is a damn good analogy. Ten out of ten from me, no pun intended. Certainly worth retweeting millions of times.

    Are there actually religious people who admit that viruses/bacteria adapting in observable time IS evolution? For them it must be almost blasphemous to acknowledge that word.

    FFS I'm just about giving up hope on these people actually trying to understand it without bringing their f-ing scriptures into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks mate. I just looked up the tweet to which you refer. It's spot on. I gave it a RT :)

      Delete
    2. Hey, thanks for the reference. And, thanks for the RT Mr Oz. It has now had many RT's :)

      Great blog post by the way. It was spot on too :P ha ha. Loved it

      Delete
    3. With all due respect, both of those tweets are off. To say anything is impossible puts someone on very shaky ground and I will leave it at that. However, the 1+1+1 etc. is way too simple. At least with micro-evolution, you can find observable examples. Not so much with macro. It is like saying since I can beat my next door neighbor in a footrace, that means I can also beat his horse in one. Two different concepts. Just trying to keep it honest!

      Delete
    4. You're a bit off there Jeff. Macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of changes that are observable under micro-evolution.

      If micro is possible but macro isn't - what's the mechanism that prevents it?

      Also, if micro happens, at what point do you declare a macro change? Think about a moused sized mammal (but pre today's mouse) imagine 24 million generations passing. 24 million generations later - you have an elephant. (http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/mouse-to-elephant-just-wait-24-million-generations)

      So what Trent's point is - you can add 1 to 1 and have 2. And you might say 2 is pretty similar to 1. Then you can add 1 to 2 and you have 3. Then add 1 to 3 and you have 4? How similar to original 1 are we now?

      You cannot find examples of what you call macro-evolution because species don't change in a single generation. What you find it paths of inherited traits being passed from generation to generation and eventual x can no longer breed with x+n and you have a new species.

      I can't make sense of your analogy in relation to evolution.

      Delete
    5. To me it is just a big leap to assume that just because a species of rabbit can evolve certain TRAITS emerging into another species of rabbit (let's say thicker fur, shorter ears, etc.). that given its head, it can evolve from something of a whole different kingdom or phylum. The argument is that "given enough time . . ." I understand. I am just saying it is a little more troublesome than some changes within a species. It isn't unreasonable to believe that there must be bigger leaps at certain points in the process than slight mutations. That is where the 1+1+1 etc. becomes too simple for me.

      I can't make sense of my analogy either. But at the time, it made perfect sense to me. :)

      Delete
    6. Why must there be bigger leaps Jeff? I see it as more reasonable to believe that they are all small steps. What you see as a big leap, would just be an accumulation of many more smaller steps.

      Delete
    7. For me it's a bigger leap to think a bronze -age middle-eastern god called Yahweh did it all in 6 days.

      Delete
    8. A.O.A says: "Micro evolution" is real but "macro" is impossible?
      That's like saying 1+1=2, true.
      But 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10? Impossible.

      The tweet was just trying to remind you that micro is well known in the world of science to be a fact, and is wholly provable - i.e. great dane and chihuahua, but macro, which is "supposedly" evolution of NEW species/kinds from other species/kinds, through mutations and natural selection, regardless of the gradual nature and time evos might suggest. Never has been shown to have taken place, yet evolution rages on as an industry that is too big to fail.
      .

      Delete
  2. The funny thing is that all those people who claim that evolution was false think that this statement proves the existence of god. Well, even IF evolution somehow (I can't imagine how) appeared to be false, it wouldn't prove god's existence or anything divine at all. It would only make reasonable people search for another scientific explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is just briliant. I cant help but hear sarcastic inflections while reading. Now you need a "god is real because twitter said so"

    ReplyDelete
  4. God is real. Twitter told me:-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wait a minute..... one, where are the links to this interview? Where can I find this Victoria Scott and ask what she was saying and why she held such notions of scientific advances? There is a whole lot of claim here with no reference marks, no web sites, no pages, no links and no anything. Where are all these supposed claims?

    Also, to answer what similarities question you are being honest about the math. Suggesting the question be how similar is 1 to 4 when adding 1+3 as its only mathematical option is dishonest. Consider 1+1+2=4 or 1+1+1+1=4, hell maybe even 1+1-2+3+1=4 these are multiple scenarios in which the resulting sum is (4) and to this sum there are a plethora of variations in math which might lead to this ending result.

    So what was far fetched about the mouse? I've seen no problem with the idea.

    Then there's this whole Twitter crap �� Twitter allows for only a certain number of characters when posting. It hardly seems a fit place to explain the complexity of science. Let alone the complexity of hashtags

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, *dishonest*

      Delete
    2. Regarding your first paragraph, this is a *satire* piece. :)

      Delete
  6. The so-called "evidence,", of evolution is way too complicated for me to understand, so god did it. Plus, the bible says that life on Earth was created from the dirt, air and water so...., check & mate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wait, there were tweets> OMG< thisi s unrefutable evidence! Tweets cannot be disputed!!!!1!

    ReplyDelete