Are Scientists Lying about Evolution?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

Oh yes, it's all a huge conspiracy to keep the dinosaur fossils segregated from the human ones. The Flintstones was actually a documentary.

 

[columbus]

What part of this scenario seems far fetched to you?

That scientists would draw unsupported conclusions about behavior from such evidence.
Tom

 

[Zosimus]

Yes I do. The circumstances that result in a fossil could happen to most any creatures.
Why do you think that unlikely?
Tom

Let's take a simple scenario for you. Let's assume that we have normal nomadic humans living in the past tending a flock of sheep. However, some 1,500 miles away a massive volcano erupts spewing ash into the atmosphere. This year, known in the tribe as "the year without a summer" the weather patterns are badly affected and the tribe leader decides to move the tribe south to greener pastures.

Unfortunately, Ug, along with his brother Chug, has a problem. His wife has just given birth and has fallen ill. He cannot move south with the rest of the tribe. The leader urges him to abandon his wife to her fate and to go with the tribe, but Ug refuses. His brother, Chug, stays with him. Since the grazing lands are cold, Ug and Chug take up residence in nearby caves. Since the food that Ug and Chug normally eat (sheep and tubers) are not available, they decide to start hunting mammoths, which have moved into the area for the winter. Ug's tribe uses mostly iron weapons, but Ug doesn't know how to make those. He makes crude flint spears for himself, Chug, and Chug's two sons. They hunt a smaller mammoth and have some success. Chug's wife makes the skin into crude furs to keep the family warm.

A week later, Ug is hungry and wants to go out hunting again, but Chug has contracted influenza. Ug decides that the food situation is desperate, so he takes Chug's sons with him, and they go out hunting again. This time Ug is trampled to death, and Chug's sons return empty handed. Chug's eldest son is furious with his father. He feels that his father should have abandoned Ug and gone with the rest of the tribe south. So he abandons the family and goes south after the tribe. Chug's younger son doesn't really want to go, but the elder son forces him to march south with him.

Now that Ug is dead, Chug is ill, and Chug's sons have left, the women do what they can to provide firewood and warmth for the family. Unfortunately, it is all in vain. The fire goes out, and without an ample source of carbohydrates, thermogenesis isn't enough. They all freeze to death and are preserved from microorganisms and worms by the extremely cold weather. They are partially fossilized and present-day scientists are studying the remains and bone fragments. The scientists draw the following conclusions:

1. The society was primarily matriarchal.
2. The society dwelt in caves.
3. The technological level was low (all tools and weapons were crude and primitive).
4. The primary source of food was the mammoth.
5. The society was pre-human (Homo Columbus) because of the pelvic structure of the daughters there. In reality, the whole family was suffering from rickets, a bone disease common among people who can't get sufficient vitamin D.

All of the above conclusions are well evidenced but completely false.

---------------------
Do you think this is far fetched? Because I don't.

 

[columbus]

All of the above conclusions are well evidenced but completely false.

---------------------
Do you think this is far fetched? Because I don't.

You are doing a good job of demonstrating how little you understand about how this works.

What a scientist would do is report the actual facts. Distinct from the facts would be provisional conclusions and possible explanation for the facts. That part of the discussion would be laced with terms like "XYZ indicates. .." or "XYZ supports the conclusion that...". But nobody who is good would assert "matriarchy" without more support than one find.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

Do you think this is far fetched? Because I don't.

You seem to be confusing anthropology with the sciences. Much of the work done in anthropology is speculative. In the sciences? Not so much (though there are elements of anthropology - particularly biological anthropology - that adhere more closely to scientific standards for things).

 

[columbus]

"Do you think this is far fetched? Because I don't."

Here is another aspect of the scientific method that you don't seem to grasp.
Publishing.
The reason scientists are so sticky about this is because that is a solid barrier to error. Scientists expect findings and conclusions put out there for criticism from everyone. One scientists opinion about conclusions might easily be swayed by personal bias and pet theories. By publishing, everyone can draw their own conclusions about the facts. That helps keep scientists honest.
It is a huge difference from religious people drawing conclusions without real evidence.
Tom

 

[Zosimus]

You are doing a good job of demonstrating how little you understand about how this works.

What a scientist would do is report the actual facts. Distinct from the facts would be provisional conclusions and possible explanation for the facts. That part of the discussion would be laced with terms like "XYZ indicates. .." or "XYZ supports the conclusion that...". But nobody who is good would assert "matriarchy" without more support than one find.
Tom

Two finds. Two separate caves with radiocarbon dating putting them within 500 years of each other.

And we all know that real scientific studies use weasel words, as you've said. Then these speculations are reported on fora such as this one as though God himself had delivered them as though they were mannah from heaven.

 

[Zosimus]

"Do you think this is far fetched? Because I don't."

Here is another aspect of the scientific method that you don't seem to grasp.
Publishing.
The reason scientists are so sticky about this is because that is a solid barrier to error. Scientists expect findings and conclusions put out there for criticism from everyone. One scientists opinion about conclusions might easily be swayed by personal bias and pet theories. By publishing, everyone can draw their own conclusions about the facts. That helps keep scientists honest.
It is a huge difference from religious people drawing conclusions without real evidence.
Tom

Oh, I understand publishing very, very well.

What is publication bias?

"Publication bias occurs when results of published studies are systematically different from results of unpublished studies.

"In general, studies with statistically significant or positive results are more likely to be published than those with nonsignificant or negative results.

"Convincing evidence from recent high-quality empirical studies has confirmed the existence of outcome-reporting bias. Outcome-reporting bias occurs when “positive” outcomes are more likely to be reported than “negative” outcomes in studies with multiple outcomes. Therefore, in contrast to publication bias due to the nonpublication of whole studies, outcome-reporting bias due to selective reporting of outcomes by authors in published studies has been referred to as “within-study publication bias.”15 Furthermore, negative results being misinterpreted and reported as positive results in published clinical trials is also prevalent.

"One study found that many researchers may have results from multiple studies that could be publishable, and they usually focused on 'wonderful results' and had no time for 'negative results.' We know that the preparation of manuscripts for journal publication is a time-consuming process. To a certain extent, experienced researchers may be able to predict what results are more likely to be accepted for publication in high-impact journals. Such results may typically be statistically significant, or considered important or positive."

---------------------------------------
Thus, we can easily conclude that should 5 groups look at the same data, and 4 groups come up with negative results whereas one group comes up with wonderful, positive, p-hacked results, the published study will be substantially different from the research into the matter.

Accordingly, publication, far from reducing the problem, is prone to exacerbate it.

 

[Shia Islam]

So as we see, scientists can be hostile to new ideas.
But they can be won over with evidence & cogent reasoning.

If it is only a matter of lack of evidence that causes the hostile reaction then it is indeed an ideal environment..

I had previously found a great article about this matter..
I will try to 'refind' it ..and post it here

PS

Check this:
Suppression of dissent in science

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What, do you suppose, is the likelihood that hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie about evolution without, however, even one of them ever breaking ranks to expose the conspiracy?

Just askin' 'cause someone told me the other day that scientists were lying about evolution, and I want to see if anyone else believes that.

Well, on the other hand, do thousands of preachers get up in the pulpit and lie about evolution? Sadly the answer is yes, and I believe it stems from willful ignorance. Unfortunately the book of Proverbs tell us that God hates six things and one of them is a liar.

 

[columbus]

Accordingly, publication, far from reducing the problem, is prone to exacerbate it.

I didn't say publishing solved all problems of bias. But some publishing is better than others.

Take the religious publishing industry. And I don't just mean the multiple versions of the bible.
From Genesis to Leviticus to the Gospels to Revelation to Quran, and that's just the Abrahamic "publishing".

Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

If it is only a matter of lack of evidence that causes the hostile reaction then it is indeed an ideal environment..

I had previously found a great article about this matter..
I will try to 'refind' it ..and post it here

PS

Check this:
Suppression of dissent in science

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html

That is one long dull read.
I skimmed a little, & if it's about how in science the old guard is resistant to change, then I've long agreed.
Science is practiced by humans (although that will changes soon enuf), so there will be drama queens,
fuddy duddies, charlatans, fanatics, incompetents, & (of course) honest competent researchers too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One thing a junk yard is missing is a self replication mechanism.

fossil deposits don't reproduce either, but..

Just like DNA, every design detail in the automobile you dig up, was stored in information that must comply with standards, tolerances, conventions, units, design languages and formats that inherently lend themselves to replication- this is a far greater argument for design than mere natural selection of superior designs- which again goes without saying for ID or chance design improvements does it not?

Okay sure, nature might be a little better at all this than Detroit.. but we are inferior designers to God, and he was not union controlled!

 

[metis]

Okay sure, nature might be a little better at all this than Detroit.. but we are inferior designers to God, and he was not union controlled!

So then God made us "inferior"?

 

[Zosimus]

I didn't say publishing solved all problems of bias. But some publishing is better than others.

So you agree that publishing exacerbates the problem or you think that publishing mitigates the problem?

Take the religious publishing industry. And I don't just mean the multiple versions of the bible.
From Genesis to Leviticus to the Gospels to Revelation to Quran, and that's just the Abrahamic "publishing".

Tom

Lacks relevance.

 

[viole]

Well, on the other hand, do thousands of preachers get up in the pulpit and lie about evolution? Sadly the answer is yes, and I believe it stems from willful ignorance. Unfortunately the book of Proverbs tell us that God hates six things and one of them is a liar.

So, do you accept the idea that we and carrots have a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Well, on the other hand, do thousands of preachers get up in the pulpit and lie about evolution? Sadly the answer is yes, and I believe it stems from willful ignorance.

You mean these thousands of preachers say to themselves, "Darn it, I'm going to make it a point to never learn anything about evolution. It's far better for all concerned that I remain ignorant." So if they're willfully ignorant about evolution exactly what is the lie they're spreading? Lying is to knowingly utter a falsehood, and if they don't know it's a falsehood how do they qualify as a liar?




.

 

[metis]

A former Baptist preacher that had his own radio and t.v. ministry claimed back in a book he wrote around 1980 (I think it was entitled "Revolt of the Faithful", or something like that) that a confidential survey of Baptist ministers found that most of them do agree there's been an evolutionary process but feel threatened to state as such to their congregations in fear of getting removed.

Interesting book, btw, and it was loaned to me by a Baptist deacon that I worked with.

 

[McBell]

You mean these thousands of preachers say to themselves, "Darn it, I'm going to make it a point to never learn anything about evolution. It's far better for all concerned that I remain ignorant." So if they're willfully ignorant about evolution exactly what is the lie they're spreading? Lying is to knowingly utter a falsehood, and if they don't know it's a falsehood how do they qualify as a liar?




.

A lie is an attempt to deceive.
Denying the truth is lying to yourself.
To preach said lie is still lying.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

fossil deposits don't reproduce either, but..

Just like DNA, every design detail in the automobile you dig up, was stored in information that must comply with standards, tolerances, conventions, units, design languages and formats that inherently lend themselves to replication- this is a far greater argument for design than mere natural selection of superior designs- which again goes without saying for ID or chance design improvements does it not?

Okay sure, nature might be a little better at all this than Detroit.. but we are inferior designers to God, and he was not union controlled!

No fossil deposits do not reproduce. I am not sure where you got that impression from.

But you will note that i said "self-replicating" not replicable.

And this is where the junk yard analogy fails.

It does not have a mechanism for self replication, and genetic mutation for selection pressures to act upon.