Interesting question.
I'm not entirely convinced that anyone is "lying", per se. Clearly, one side must be wrong. Either it has or it has not been observed. Whichever side is wrong would only fall into the "lying" category if they knew that the information they claimed to be true was actually false. If they believed that the information were true when the statement was made, then they are simply wrong.
I am sorry, but I am asking you to be reasonable. We are talking about scientists. If a scientist makes a statement within realm of science it is his duty to be aware of what he is saying, to double check the information and to formulate so that there wouldn’t be any other meaning guessed by peers. If a scientist states that evolution is observed he submits ALL results and procedure of the observation, so that other scientists can observe it in the same way. It is science 101. It is a must. It is how science operates. If a scientist says that the conclusions of his research are based on aq+c-b=m*n^2 he makes a reference to a scientific article or law or formula. If then a peer opens the referred article and sees that it says aq+c-b=m-n the scientist looses his creditablity. A scientist may be misstating somewhere in details, that’s why before he is published he is reviewed by peer, and after he is published he is reviewed by peers. But if a scientist lists 20 articles and states that they all claim observations of speciation, while none of them does, that an intentional deception beyond any reasonable doubt, and he is no scientist anymore.
Here we have a bunch of publications stating the same thing – speciation has been observed - and referring to peer reviewed articles, - when none of the articles claims observation of speciation. It is not like one would be added by a mistake, - or 2 would be added by a mistake or misreading or 3 or 4, - none of hundreds makes a claim.
Why even evolutionists cannot make such a claim? Because of the peer reviewed process described above. Would it be possible for a fanatical evolutionist to publish such an article, theoretically yes, there are less than a few which call the observation evolution, while it is clear that there is no evolution, I found them in evolution only devoted publications. They are absolutely exclusion. In practice such a scheme does not fly with serious scientists. Especially when it comes to speciation, - other scientists would be all over such a publication. It would be a revolution, so nobody dares..
It is absolutely clear that evolutionists – and there is no such thing as a PhD in evolution – are either absolutely dumb and incapable of reading and/or understanding of article and reality, which I agree is possible, or they have very certain intention trying to represent evolution as observed in their books and writings.
The articles they list are the information they refer to. There is hardly a doubt that information in the article is false even if it can contain mistakes and misreading. These are articles in peer reviewed magazines, many are written by believers in evolution. None of the articles claims observation of speciation.
Thus evolutionists are either completely dumb or intentionally in the business of deception.
Allowing that they are not dumb, why it is so important for them to assure us that speciation is observed that they go to such extend?
Why this moment is so important to them? Because if scientists became aware that speciation has never been scientifically observed – directly or indirectly, and thus does not allow an experiment – there would be blood on the streets. Evolutionists would loose their only argument – ‘’we are scientists’’. As a philosophy making logical deduction from empirical evidence they wouldn’t withstand a child. They would find themselves in the same position as professors of the scientific communism in Russia. Whether they think about this directly or indirectly, - but they cannot be not feeling this by instincts.
I think this whole issue is often clouded by the way information is portrayed.
For example, it is a common statement by many to say that human DNA and Chimpanzee DNA are 96% alike. But when you break it down further, as far as genetic alignment goes, there is, at most, a 70% similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA:
Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So that makes me wonder, which one is right? Is our DNA 96% like a chimp's DNA or is it 70% like the chimps?
Is one lying and the other telling the truth?
DNA=96 or DNA =70
I am sorry but only one can be true.
Are they both telling the truth, but from different perspectives with different frames of reference?
Any time when a statement is made but the perspective and frame of reference are not formulated
Or is it accidental due to a subconscious desire to support a pre-existing belief?
Sure, USRAUK and many others do really believe on a subconscious and conscious level that speciation has been observed, that fossils exist, that DNA=96, and hell with it I will say 98 just to be more convincing, that evolution is science, that overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific consensus make sense, that a scientist would delegate his scientific opinion to a few elected officials who issue statements from Academy of Science, etc. This is what people hear in schools, universities, TV books media. Don’t you know that USRA studies biology and hears what professors tell him?
It takes a researcher, a real man who does not give about atheism and theism and the overwhelming majority to say:
When someone says that humans and chimps share 96% of their DNA I'm often tempted to say, "So? What does that mean? It's not like we're 96% similar to chimps phenotypically. Clearly a mechanism is in place causing greater variance than what that measure can see. I can accurately say that a Diamond shares 100% of the same basic building blocks as Graphite. It turns out the way those building blocks go together is as important as the building blocks themselves when it comes to the nature of the two. The truth is, that 96% is arranged very, very differently in the two species."
And to do what you did – check it and find out that it is 70.
That’s why science used to have and follow well formulated and defined rules – in order to sort beliefs of the overwhelming majority and the truth of one, justone or Tucker. Clearly, your consideration is calling to basic logic and common sense.
Just for you – as the matter of the fact we so far have mapped only 1% of human genome but when we map 100%, even with the full human sequence in hand we still won't know:
• Gene number, exact locations, and functions
• Gene regulation
• DNA sequence organization
• Chromosomal structure and organization
• Noncoding DNA types, amount, distribution, information content, and functions
• Coordination of gene expression, protein synthesis, and post-translational events
• Interaction of proteins in complex molecular machines
• Predicted vs experimentally determined gene function
• Protein conservation (structure and function)
• Proteomes (total protein content and function) in organisms
• Correlation of SNPs (single-base DNA variations among individuals) with health and disease
• Disease-susceptibility prediction based on gene sequence variation
• Genes involved in complex traits and multigene diseases
• Complex systems biology including microbial consortia useful for environmental restoration
• Developmental genetics, genomics
So I don't think anyone is actually lying, I just they are overzealous in their attempts to support a theory with the data without fully analyzing the data in it's own right.
Which is a proof that evolution is not science.
That’s why science used to be such an excited game when it followed rules which not allow zealously of personal beliefs to prevail over reason and facts. It is the matter of survival of human reason and morality – to hunt evolutionists wherever they are found, to petition to ban evolution in science classes, to return science its beauty and excitement. Whatever are the motivations of evolutionists they act as cancer on the beautiful body of science and all people should deal with them like with cancer. Because science is very important for all people, all they have around them – starting from a bicycle and finishing with a space craft wouldn’t be possible without science. It does not provide us with any truth or direction in life, but it certainly makes life very interesting.
