Creighton identified the point of rupture between the public and scientists - the fear and mistrust - and knew how to make good use of it.
I used to like dinosaurs. By the third grade I had already read every source of information on the giant lizards I could find, and could recite the most complicated names by heart: Brontosaurus, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Pteranodon and Pterodactyl, and the Spiny Tailed Stegosaurus. The years passed, and the reptile dolls continued to accumulate on the shelves in my room. Then I read 'Jurassic Park', and I stopped liking dinosaurs.
In the book 'Jurassic Park' by Michael Creighton, humans bring the dinosaurs back to life through genetic engineering and DNA extracted from the stomachs of mosquitoes preserved in amber. But a terrible thing happens: instead of the gentle creatures living in coexistence with humans and giving guest appearances in theme parks, they rebel against humans. The last part of the book is full of descriptions of blood, slime, guts - and huge lizards that enjoy wallowing in all of the above. This was the point where the dinosaurs stopped being role models for me and became a real animal that existed millions of years ago and used to prey on small, hairy mammals. Michael Creighton made imagination a reality.
Creighton, for those who haven't heard, passed away yesterday (Tuesday) after a battle with cancer. The full details of his death are unknown, and the family has asked that they not be released to the public. The only thing that is known for sure is that Creighton's death is a great loss to science.
In the last ten years, Creighton has gone against almost every major dogma that exists in science. He refused to support the global warming theory, and repeatedly claimed that there was not enough data to conclusively state that humans are responsible for the warming. In his book State of Fear, published in 2004, he comes out against 'environmentalists' and repeatedly presents them in a mocking light, with the addition of flashbacks and references to serious scientific articles. The book received rave reviews from the scientific community, side by side with the title of bestseller that is automatically attached to all of Creighton's books.
Four years before State of Fear, Creighton published Prey - 'Prey' - in which a band of nanotechnological creatures is described that takes on a life and intelligence of its own. And like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park, the band also decides to go against the humans. reliable? not especially. Scary? very Two years ago, his latest book Next was published - 'Next' - describing the universal consequences of genetic engineering on our lives. One of the most fascinating discoveries in the book is that of the matriculation kindergarten, which cures one of the protagonists of his drug addiction. The news about the miracle drug spreads everywhere, but in the end it turns out that the gene causes rapid aging, and the hero dies of old age in a short time.
Michael Creighton identified the point of rupture between the public and scientists - the fear and mistrust - and knew how to make good use of it. His scripts are in many cases blown out of proportion and describe cases and scenarios that are far from reasonable. This is why many in the scientific community disliked his books and saw him as nothing more than a cheap provocateur. But the sad truth is that Crichton was trying to restore humility to science and scientists.
Contrary to popular belief outside the scientific community, science is not an unequivocal consensus. It consists of hundreds of theories that overlap each other at various points, and millions of scientists who argue among themselves about their correctness. It is this incessant bickering between scientists that yields new theories and allows old theories that are inaccurate to collapse. The debates and discussions continue almost non-stop, and are decided only by empirical experiments. Only thanks to the debates and experiments was science able to abolish Newton's theory of gravity, for example, and replace it with Einstein's theory of relativity. Without this incessant debate, science would become fixed in its place and sink into the dogmatic quagmire of absolute truth.
Michael Creighton knew all this, and he saw that in certain places in science the debate almost does not exist anymore. The enthusiasm for the field of nanotechnology sweeps many scientists off their feet, and they refuse to think about the consequences of some of the experiments they conduct. Genetically modified plant varieties are already starting to flood the world nowadays, even though we do not know for sure their full properties. We assume they haven't acquired new properties of toxicity - and that's enough for us for now. Even global warming has become a common example in the mouths of 'environmentalists', and it is difficult to find a respectable scientist willing to risk a boycott by the scientific community and fully oppose this theory.
In the end Creighton served a vital function like no other. He returned the debate to science, the fear of the consequences of technology and mentioned the punishment that falls on those who sin the sin of pride and arrogance. It is true that his books are based on shaky, flawed and inaccurate science, but they have one effect that cannot be argued with. When you finish a Creighton book, you stop for a moment and think about it all over again. And without it, science could not exist.
Of blessed memory.
24 תגובות
It's okay, "biologist": continue to ignore reality and the evidence that was presented to you and wave your unfounded claims.
You don't impress anyone
For a marine biologist:
In front of me is a clock that I did not see the process of its creation.
Whether it was created by someone or created by itself, I cannot determine. And based on what will I determine?
Does this change the fact that a watch requires a watchmaker?" - this is true in your human-subjective reality. In practice, there is no justification for this. And of course, as I said - who created the watchmaker? You cannot claim that there is a creator without giving an explanation for the creation of the creator, because in that You don't solve anything." - What is there to solve? This is how I solve the origin of life. What's wrong?
"First, as far as I know, genes have no substrates, you probably mean the proteins that are created by transcription of those genes." - not the genes themselves but the proteins and enzymes they code for
Second, molecular biology has existed for a very short time, DNA was only discovered a little over 50 years ago. In that time frame do you expect to find evolutionary leaps? New enzymes?
It doesn't work that way. Evolution is a long process and, according to the theory, new genes are usually not created in a "jump", but in a gradual change., - so until then there is no evidence for evolution. And even if they find some - you will have to show that there was a reasonable chance for it.
Sickle cell anemia is a disease according to our society's subjective human classification.
In practice, it is a change in the DNA sequence that contributed to the population that carried it, just like a change that can cause other mutations that will contribute to the species and cause it to thrive. In this case, the same mutation promoted the population in one aspect, but eliminated it in another aspect." - The hemoglobin still binds oxygen. No A new active site has been created.
"Does that change the fact that a watch needs a watchmaker?" – This is true in your human-subjective reality. In practice, there is no justification for this. And of course, as I said - who created the watchmaker? You cannot claim that there is a creator without giving an explanation for the creation of the creator, because by doing so you solve nothing.
First, as far as I know, genes do not have substrates, you must mean the proteins that are created by transcription of those genes.
Second, molecular biology has existed for a very short time, DNA was only discovered a little over 50 years ago. In that time frame do you expect to find evolutionary leaps? New enzymes?
It doesn't work that way. Evolution is a long process and, according to the theory, new genes are usually not created in a "jump", but in a gradual change.
Sickle cell anemia is a disease according to our society's subjective human classification.
In practice, it is a change in the DNA sequence that contributed to the population that carried it, just like a change that can cause other mutations that will contribute to the species and cause it to thrive. In this case, the same mutation advanced the population in one aspect, but eliminated it in another aspect.
Finally, my argument is not anti-scientific.
The concept of proof in science is only heard from people who are not scientists like journalists for example.
The scientific method works in the following way - observation of some phenomenon.
Making a hypothesis about the explanation for the phenomenon, and confirming it and refuting it in experiments in the laboratory and in the field.
Protostome-
Marine biologist, you are putting yourself in a paradox. If every clock has a watchmaker, who is the watchmaker of the watchmaker?" - who really. Did it have a beginning? Does that change the fact that a watch needs a watchmaker?
"And besides, what is "new genes"?" - new genes with a new active site that is dressed on a new substrate. Do you know one?
A good example of this is sickle cell anemia, the cause of this anemia is a mutation of one amino acid in the hemoglobin protein." - This is a disease and not the creation of a new active site.
The formation of a "new gene" is a long process that combines several mutations over thousands of generations.
If you are looking for "evidence", science may not be for you" - an anti-scientific claim. Are you claiming that we don't need evidence?
Why did science need "John Creighton"?
Because he saved the world from aliens.
Marine "biologist":
Since I've been through the exhaustion series you're trying on me dozens of times, I won't pump into it this time.
Your words are incredibly stupid but you will never admit it.
To 16
Chain of beats of the clock of the universe that breathes to its rhythms - in the divisions of the poles according to the value of the north pole axis.
The watchmaker, the inventor, imitates and imitates cosmic nature. This is how we are built. To imitate nature itself.
Hugin, for specific reference only.
Marine "biologist", you are putting yourself in a paradox. If every watch has a watchmaker, who is the watchmaker's watchmaker?
And besides, what is "new genes"?
A mutation in a certain gene that changes its function gives birth to a new gene, since a gene is defined by its function and the sequence of nucleotides that make up its exons and introns.
A good example of this is sickle cell anemia, the cause of this anemia is a mutation of one amino acid in the hemoglobin protein. It has taken root in the population of Africa (contrary to what was expected, since those afflicted with this disease do not usually live long) because its patients gain resistance to malaria, a disease that has killed people for thousands of years.
The formation of a "new gene" is a long process that combines several mutations over thousands of generations.
If you are looking for "proof", science may not be for you.
to Michael-
If evolution predicts that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics," evolution does not predict anything. It does not lack predictions that have been disproved like Kimura's studies regarding molecular jumps. If you want, I will expand..
"These are confirmations of evolution and it doesn't matter how much you try to dwarf them with phrases like point mutations" - no. Evolution must be based on new genes. And these are not created from point mutations.
(Even if you don't know that every possible mutation can be reached through a series of point mutations and, in general, the strains of bacteria that have been created since the era of antibiotics already include a lot of point mutations). 'These are not new genes.
But, marine "biologist", let's get the awl out of the bag! Please tell me what the alternative theory you propose is (as if I don't know) and we'll see what evidence you have for it"-
In my opinion, intelligent design has more weight - because a watch requires a watchmaker and not the other way around. Until you prove that mutations have the power to create complex systems, intelligent design makes more sense. Answer only yes and not - in front of you is a watch that you did not see the process of its creation - was it created by someone or by himself?
Varied gray cell..
The one who does his job honestly and sincerely will not be deprived. The resources are in everything, and in everyone "who sees health and right".
I would love to meet you sometime for a restorative and productive meeting of friends (after dear Yehuda ..of course..and solving other valuable and necessary mysteries).
Hugin: Not found in guesses/but in clear vision.
to Hugin, etc.,
At your request:
When Avrach visited from all of them - Akufah.
"Marine Biologist":
Do you really not know what science is?
Don't you know that in science there are only confirmations and refutations but no proof?
Why exactly are you asking for confirmation?
All the things I described are confirmations. do you not understand this?
If evolution predicts that a certain thing will happen and it does happen, this confirms evolution.
If evolution predicts that bacteria will develop resistance to antibiotics, that selection of cows according to milk yield will eventually create a breed of cows that produce more milk, which should be an animal that is on the way between land mammals and marine mammals and all these things are compatible - these are confirmations of evolution and it doesn't matter how much you try to dwarf them through phrases like point mutations (even if you don't know that every possible mutation can be reached through a series of point mutations and in general the strains of bacteria that have been created since the era of antibiotics already include a lot of point mutations).
The controlled experiments I described also confirm evolution.
That scientists look for anything does not disprove any claim about what they have found. Your words on this subject are just stupid bullshit.
But, marine "biologist", let's get the awl out of the bag! Please tell me what your alternative theory is (as if I don't know) and we'll see what evidence you have for it.
point:
Are you the same one who claimed I'm not into literature?
An excellent article that is enough, a great writer. Even if he was a bit controversial, his books led many to understand science in a good way and of course provoked public controversy. It's good to have someone who maintains the technology to some extent and in conclusion Creighton did an excellent job.
Personally, I really enjoyed almost all of his books that I read. How sad that there won't be more (I heard that the last book is almost finished, and will probably be published soon after all).
And to the "marine biologist" - take your nonsense to the sites of converts. There are people here who are intelligent enough to see through your lies. Even the Pope already admits his mistake and acknowledges evolution.
To Michael-"experiments that could disprove and were found to confirm evolution have actually been conducted a lot"-are you willing to expand? It is not possible to test a common origin in an experiment. Although I can propose such an experiment and I invite the scientists to test my proposal-take an existing gene that supposedly arose from an ancient gene. Check whether You can go through them with high probability.
In every example of lizards, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, nylon digestion, citric acid, etc. - all of them are point mutations or plasmid exchanges or anything that is not the creation of a new gene with a new active site and a new substrate.
"The fossil record also confirms the theory beyond any reasonable doubt" - fossils are not evidence of evolution. From the fossils we can only know that the creature died. Point. A phlygonic tree relies on a demon alone. For example, I can suggest that a bird evolved from a butterfly.
"Skeletons of extinct animals such as a "whale with legs" - an intermediate stage between land mammals and marine mammals - also constitute a very strong confirmation of the theory" - ditto. And what about the contradictory findings that have been found? Want a list? Have you heard of the trilobite and human footprints?
"All this, of course, even before we get into the most impressive evidence - that of the DNA" - do you mean that a common genetic code indicates a common creator? You surely know that scientists today are also looking for creatures without a different code. This fact refutes your proposal.
Who is Creighton?
Sketched Marine Biologist:
You are wrong and the explanation for the mistakes you make has been presented here so many times that I don't have the strength to repeat everything.
Experiments that could disprove and were found to confirm evolution were actually conducted in abundance.
It starts with the domestication of the animals, goes through the adaptation of the bacteria to the drugs, monitoring the development of lizards that have been moved from island to island and other controlled experiments, some of which you can read here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf
The fossil record also confirms the theory beyond any reasonable doubt. You must understand that there is not always a necessity for an experiment of the type performed in proving a physical law - for example. Findings such as the skull of a certain "missing vertebra" whose existence was predicted by evolution even before it was found or skeletons of extinct animals such as a "whale with legs" - an intermediate stage between land mammals and sea mammals - also constitute a very strong confirmation of the theory.
All this, of course, even before entering the most impressive testimony - that of the DNA
Therefore, "marine biologist", I think you should be redrawn, this time with a deeper understanding of the findings on which evolution is based.
To Roy
"Protectors of the environment".
From the word "condemnation" or from the word "defense"?
If from the word "defense", is it not appropriate to write
"Protectors of the environment"?
The phrase appears twice in the article.
Roy make me a boy
Reminds me of the debates about the theory of evolution. A theory that does not have enough evidence and yet it is given too much stage. In my opinion, both theories - creationism and evolution - are not scientific. This is because they do not offer a refuting test in a controlled experiment in the laboratory. It is impossible to disprove a common origin in the laboratory. Likewise Creationism. So why do they only teach evolution? Brainwashing....
Varied gray cell….
How about the gray ones, and without any flattery... they arouse in me a fertile/productive curiosity.
Can you tell me what you are all about..as a complete unity in a living and breathing person..mainly dealing with?
I even have a challenging riddle on the matter, in order to respect your privacy.
Hugin: Truly and honestly, an innocent scholar.
One of the best books he wrote and one of the scariest ones really
A beautiful and interesting review from which you can learn about the author.
Thanks to skepticism.
Breathe!