Monday, March 17, 2014

"Evolution is a crock of shit" --Mike Bara, tweeting today

        The full quote was "We do believe science is real. That's why we conclude evolution is a crock of shit."

        So this is Mike Bara, world-famous jetliner designer, citing SCIENCE to make one of the most profoundly anti-scientific statements I can imagine.

        I wonder how Mike explains the extremely well documented phenomenon of rapid evolution of resistance to antibiotics. Or even more rapid evolution of the Lambda virus, directly observed in the laboratory, mutation by mutation?

        How does he explain endogenous retroviral insertions? These are randomly-inserted DNA sequences that no longer have a function. Therefore, finding them in exactly the same place in many different animals strongly indicates common descent.

        How about cytochrome-C divergence?

        Perhaps it's expecting too much for a designer of jetliners to understand such things. Especially since there is such ample evidence that Mike Bara really hasn't grasped some fundamental scientific ideas, such as simple orbital mechanics. What he also hasn't grasped is his own ignorance. If he had, he'd abstain from tweeting rubbish.

12 comments:

astroguy said...

Wow. Just ... wow.

Trained Observer said...

Do any of these producers who put Bara in their programs do any research at all into the guy before doing so? Or is it just a big "don't care" for them? I think it really highlights the total lack of standards that the types of shows he appears on have.

expat said...

Here's what I think. I think they're somewhat mesmerized by that "NYT best-selling author" cachet, even though it's only approximately true (21st on a list of 20, for one week only).

Then they look at his previous performances and see that he's pretty good. He's engaging, concise, and controversial. I don't think they ever cross-check his facts or care that they are enabling nonsense to go on the public record.

jourget said...

I'd agree with the concise and controversial parts. He brings along Hoagland's eyebrow-raising theories and drops the tiresome long-windedness, which combined seem to make him more attractive than RCH nowadays. Also, while he's as egotistical as his former collaborator, it looks like he's still in the phase where he sees any exposure as good exposure. Hoagland's got the view that concessions have to be made to deserve an audience with a mind of his caliber. Unfortunately, not even George Noory seems to be calling anymore. Score another point for Mike.

As for engaging, maybe in small doses on ensemble shows. When I listened to a couple of hours of him on his and RCH's marathon 2007 Dark Mission presentation, I found him to resort to loads of "this is true because I said it is" arguments, get short-tempered with audience members, and stumble around in his speaking structure. Maybe he's improved in recent years, but I still can't imagine non-fans or people who know what they're talking about finding him engaging.

Dee said...

The problem with Bara's statement is not his disbelief in a theory without being able to provide a competing, credible one in any precise or scientific terms. The problem with him and many others I've encountered is that they do not completely understand what evolution theory is or what it is they're opposing. It's like shadow boxing!

Do they have a problem with Darwin's original idea of natural selection or is it the modern theory which looks quite different from Darwin's original "tree"?

Or do they have a problem with adaptation, genetic drift, gene flow, occurrence mutations or the very fact of speciation?

Or do they have a problem with all of it?

Sometimes the objecting seems just about abiogenesis which is not even part of the theory! But ultimately the complain is always about leaving out a favoured Force, Creator, Intelligence, Dimension or other Thing. But the reason for that is not denial of such external influence, it just reflects the inability to reason scientifically about those rather badly defined factors.

expat said...

Jourget: I was thinking more about the 'Ancient Aliens' appearances. They're always short enough for his charm to hold up. I agree about those Youtube marathons.

expat said...

For the second time in recent memory, Bara has posted some utter bollocks on the Farce-book. It goes roughly like this: Everyone has their own natural vibration frequency. If you spend time with people whose frequency is lower than yours, they'll drag you down. CUT THEM OFF!!!

So he thinks a theory which has strong observational support is "a crock of shit" yet he believes something that is demonstrably false. Yeah.

Chris Lopes said...

expat, that sounds a lot like Scientology. They call it a tonal scale, and it's the given reason that people in the church aren't supposed to deal with those who have left. Wouldn't surprise me to learn Bara is into that garbage.

Dee said...

Well Chris, lets start here then:

My Visit to the Church of Scientology .

Any more information out there on that "change" of Bara's perspective on Hubbard after talking to a representative in 2008?

Trekker said...

Another example of evolution in action - the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

Strahlungs Amt said...

Let me guess, when Scientology found out Mikey had no money, they gave up on him?

Strahlungs Amt said...

That picture of the re-formed (including one sex change) Village People on acid is priceless.