Turning Fiction Into Fact

Around the world there are "experts" and pseudo-experts all of whom try to prove how great and smart they are. In many cases, they need to manipulate data - and the people - to make their theories more plausible. In fact, they will take their pet theory, then keep trying to tell you it is a fact. They figure if they tell the lie often enough, you will believe it and it will become truth.

One of the most recent examples is Global Warming, but I have had my say on that, many times over the years (most of which seems to be getting borne out, insofar as Global Warming is not what the "experts" have been telling us).

But there are other areas, as well. One of the most flagrant examples of pushing fiction so hard that it becomes fact in the minds of the less educated masses is evolution.

In the 150 years since Darwin espoused his theory, no evidence of any kind has ever come to light to prove out the theory. None. That is rather astounding, considering all the fossils, all the reasearch and all the YEARS science has been working on proving it. Yet, in all that time, nothing. Not one, single, solitary piece of proof. In 150 years of putting modern science to the task, you would think they would have come up with something.

So, it remains only a theory, unproven by any evidence whatever.

But every time some scientist makes a discovery, like the 2 million year old skeleton just found, they, and writers around the globe tout it as "proof" of evolution, or even worse, write their fiction in ways that lead readers to believe evolution was proved long ago and is already indisputed fact. It is not.

Here is an egregious example of the disingenuous hype that science puts out there, aimed at making us believe a theory is really a fact when it is not. These excerpts come from a news article concerning the skeleton I mentioned previously.

"The missing link between humans and their ape-like predecessors could be filled in this week with the unveiling of a 2 million-year-old skeleton believed to be that of a new species of evolutionary primate"

The article starts out by assuming evolution to be true. And it makes the reader subconsciously believe it to be fact. The very next paragraph tries to instill the belief in evolution even more deeply:

" The almost-complete fossilized child's skeleton, discovered in a limestone cave in South Africa by Professor Lee Berger of the country's University of the Witwatersrand, is believed to provide new clues about the evolutionary gap "

What "evolutionary gap?" Would that not necessitate evolution to be a fact rather than a theory? The next paragraph is more blatant, and actually makes the untrue statement that apelike species DID evolve into humans - and again I point out, there is ZERO evidence of that:

"Scientists believe the new species is a hominid, a group of evolutionary primates including humans, that existed during the intermediary phase when apelike species evolved into humans."

Here, again, scientists seem to assume evolution to be fact rather than theory, since there is no evidence of any "transition":

"The fossil could provide new clues about the transition between the human species and its extinct, apelike ancestors. "

Now here is a scientist who, according to this news article, assumes evolution to be fact - to the point he considers himself an "expert in human evolution". Must be nice to be an expert in something that, to date, has no evidence it even exists:

"A find like this could really increase our understanding of our early ancestors at a time when they first started to become recognizable as human," Dr. Simon Underdown, an expert on human evolution at Oxford Brookes University, told the Telegraph."

In this one "news" article, acclaimed by "scientists", the assertion that evolution is a fact and that, like Global Warming, the "debate is over" is absurd. No true scientist worth the title would ever assume an unproved theory to be fact. But modern scientists seem to have no problem jumping to conclusions rather than basing their statements on facts. Scientists were once credible. No longer. I would sooner believe Gene Roddenbery (Star Trek creator).

I know many of you believe in evolution, but before you dismiss this altogether, just think about a couple of things:

1) In the laboratory we have observed over 500,000 generations of fruit flies. In all those generations, there has been no sign whatever of evolution. For perspective, 500,000 generations of humans would be 10,000,000 years. Bear in mind - that skeleton is only 2 million. Why would an ape transition into humans who can go to the moon in only 100,000 generations, but a fruit fly is still just a fruit fly after a whopping 500,000 generations?

2) While it is entirely possible - and likely - that species do evolve within their species (humans can evolve taller, for example, or end up with only 4 toes eventually), there is no probability - or possibility - that one species (such as an ape) can evolve into a different species (like human).

3) What we are is predetermined by our DNA. The DNA of almost every living thing on Earth has similarities, but there are no matches between species. To date, there is zero evidence that DNA can evolve into different DNA.

I suspect that someday science will discover that evolution between species is a fallacy. That will be the day when they discover that in the beginning there was only DNA, and it was variances in the DNA that made different species possible - with no chance whatever of evolving into a different species with different DNA.

/