What Evolutionary Biologists Do

| 16 Comments

This meme has been going around. Recently someone did What Scientists Do, so…it’s time for evolutionary biology. Obviously YMMV if you’re not an evohacker, but even you field biologists end up coming to us in the end anyway when you have to turn your pet hypothesis into a statistically testable model. (Insert maniacal laughter.)

HT: What I do generator

16 Comments

Love the “what creationists think we do” one!

Where’s expelling the bold new scientists of tomorrow manipulating anti-science hacks?

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmg[…]X_Zhn8#57cad said:

Where’s expelling the bold new scientists of tomorrow manipulating anti-science hacks?

Glen Davidson

That’s what the R code does, of course.

What evolution biologists do is try and provide an explanation for what the creation is and where it could go.

Umm… OK.

BTW, it’s “try to,” not “try and.”

BTW, it’s “try to,” not “try and.”

That’s a bit pedantic – what about “try and fail”?

Matt Young said:

BTW, it’s “try to,” not “try and.”

That’s a bit pedantic – what about “try and fail”?

REALLY way OT, but since you asked…

The “try and fail” example shows the ambiguity problem with “try and…”. It SHOULD logically mean “to try to succeed, but [still] fail nevertheless.” But because people frequently misuse “try and”, they COULD mean “try TO fail” (e.g. “Are you going to try and fail your eye test on purpose?”).

In Marilyn’s example, “try and provide”, she surely means “try TO provide” (they attempt to provide, perhaps not always successfully). If she really does mean “try AND provide”, then that’s redundant: they provide it–the “try” is unnecessary, since if they successfully provide, then they obviously tried.

/severe pedantry

“There is no try. There is do, or do not.” [- Yoda]

:D

This YEC creationist doesn’t think there is sinister conspiracy. Yet I do think evolutionary biologists are wrong if they think they are doing biology or rather biological research when gathering and thinking and concluding about evidence for evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biological research has not shown they do biological research using the scientific method for the historic and still main points of evidence. They shouldn,t get a pic frame for that! Unless of coarse they can show they do have methodology credibility.!! not saying they ain’t biologists but am saying they ain’t doing that in this evolutionary conclusions.

Evolutionary biologists, using labs, reporting fieldwork, with long records of professional publication of real data - they don’t do science. Robert Byers says so.

Creationists with no experience of actual biology, no fieldwork experience, no actual data and no publications - they are the ones doing science. Robert Byers says so.

Robert Byers writes sentences like:

not saying they ain’t biologists but am saying they ain’t doing that in this evolutionary conclusions.

Robert Byers is an incoherent, illiterate loon.

This YEC creationist thinks there is sinister conspiracy. Yet the YEC thinks evolutionary biologists are wrong if they think they are doing biology or rather biological research when gathering and thinking and concluding about evidence for evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biological research has shown they do biological research using the scientific method for the historic and still main points of evidence. They should get a pic frame for that! Since of coarse they can show they do have methodology credibility.!! not saying they ain’t biologists but am saying I don’t like that they are doing that in this evolutionary conclusions.

Anything Robert doesn’t like must certainly be wrong. It doesn’t matter what the experts do, he knows better. Bow down and worship the all knowing all powerful wizard of crap. Truly a legend in his own mind. Able to judge large scientists with a single leap of faith. Able to ignore any and all evidence. ANd yet still hasn’t discovered the beaning of “coarse” after being corrected fifty three times.

Just Bob said:

Matt Young said:

BTW, it’s “try to,” not “try and.”

That’s a bit pedantic – what about “try and fail”?

REALLY way OT, but since you asked…

The “try and fail” example shows the ambiguity problem with “try and…”. It SHOULD logically mean “to try to succeed, but [still] fail nevertheless.” But because people frequently misuse “try and”, they COULD mean “try TO fail” (e.g. “Are you going to try and fail your eye test on purpose?”).

In Marilyn’s example, “try and provide”, she surely means “try TO provide” (they attempt to provide, perhaps not always successfully). If she really does mean “try AND provide”, then that’s redundant: they provide it–the “try” is unnecessary, since if they successfully provide, then they obviously tried.

/severe pedantry

I perhaps should have put “to try and provide” but yes I see the grammar problem I perhaps should have used “to” and not “and” or even “endeavour to provide” then I would have put “to”, I seem to write similar as to how I talk, possibly it’s not quite right. But “try and provide” sounds more definite to me “try and at the same time provide”. But so, by finding out how evolution has progressed I think a lot has been learnt as to how hopefully it should progress for the better, with consideration as to medicine or food, how we should live.

Marilyn said:

I perhaps should have put “to try and provide” but yes I see the grammar problem I perhaps should have used “to” and not “and” or even “endeavour to provide” then I would have put “to”, I seem to write similar as to how I talk, possibly it’s not quite right. But “try and provide” sounds more definite to me “try and at the same time provide”. But so, by finding out how evolution has progressed I think a lot has been learnt as to how hopefully it should progress for the better, with consideration as to medicine or food, how we should live.

Sorry, wrong again. The study of what actually happened can tell us a lot about how it happened and it can tell us a lot about what could possibly happen in the future. However, what this shows us is that things do not always “progress for the better” and it definitely does not tell us “how we should live”.

We can learn the lessons of history. They reveal that sometimes species degenerate, sometimes they go extinct, sometimes even mass extinctions occur. There are no guarantees of getting better, or making progress, or even surviving.

As for how we should live, we control our own destiny. Our actions have consequences which we can predict. We can either take responsibility for our actions and their consequences, or we can ignore the lessons of history at or own risk.

And by the way, scientists do not try to provide an explanation for creation, they study nature, that is all.

The Discovery Institute has a try. C’mon guys, that meme is so three days ago. And they missed how the punchline should be ironic. They should look at gymnasts for example.

If only the DI would fall through the cracks that way! (Or even in some other way.)

Henry

Evolutionary biology is the science of speculation. Unlike all of the natural sciences, that rely on reproducible, observable and falsifiable experiments, evolutionary biology relies mainly on imagination and conjecture. Indeed, I have been accused by many evolutionists of not having enough “imagination” when it comes to proposing possible exaptations that cannot be verified. Tut tut..naughty atheistoclast!

I personally don’t think they are after global domination but are trying to bleed the NSF and other state-funded bodies into giving them lots of taxpayer dole to finance their fantasy projects. That has got to stop. It is time to withdraw their life support

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 4, 2012 3:53 PM.

Freaks of Nature: book review by Paul R. Gross was the previous entry in this blog.

Creationists covering tracks on Cornell meeting; and Fuller doesn’t get it is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter