Freedomain Radio

Looks like an interesting read. 

I wouldn't mind giving it a bash myself actually!

I have just finished the book.  I didn't expect much from it, but I must say that I am pleasantly surprised.

First I need to say that I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to genetics .  Which means that unless I do a ton of reading on the subject, I'm obligated to assume that what he talks about is true.  I would absolutely love to hear from someone with some sort of bio background.  However, I must say that his explanations are pretty simple for the average person and very well detailed.  He also supports many claims with documentation and/or books that I could read if I wished, but chose not to.

As for the content itself, well...  He spends the entire book debunking evolution.  He completely disregards creationism, which I found a little disappointing, though not many here would complain about :)

If anyone told me that evolution was a big load of propaganda bullshit before I read this book, I would simply have laughed it off and rolled my eyes.  After reading the book... not so much anymore.  In fact, I'm nearly convinced that the theory is wrong. Take it for whatever it's worth.  

Point being is that he makes an extremely compelling case against evolution theory. Worthy to note that he knows microevolution (evolution within a species) exists, but his point is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that macroevolution is true (trasformation from a species to another).  In fact, there is plenty of proof against it.

On the other hand, his case for intervention is not as strong.  It certainly got me interested, however.

I really enjoyed it.  It's far from a nutcase conspiracy theory book.  All in all, his case is extremely similar to the ostracisation of anarchists within the mainstream political/philosophical circles. Anybody coming up with alternate theories (which seem to be far more probable than the evolution theory) is immediately ostracised and ridiculed.

This thread rating (and lack of response) is the absolute proof of it; in a forum where tons of open minded people lurk about.

Does evolution explain human origins?  I am not convinced.  Quite the contrary.

kehmesis:

Worthy to note that he knows microevolution (evolution within a species) exists, but his point is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that macroevolution is true (trasformation from a species to another).  In fact, there is plenty of proof against it.

I didn't know it was disproven. Source?

kehmesis:

I have just finished the book.  I didn't expect much from it, but I must say that I am pleasantly surprised.

First I need to say that I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to genetics .  Which means that unless I do a ton of reading on the subject, I'm obligated to assume that what he talks about is true.  I would absolutely love to hear from someone with some sort of bio background.  However, I must say that his explanations are pretty simple for the average person and very well detailed.  He also supports many claims with documentation and/or books that I could read if I wished, but chose not to.

As for the content itself, well...  He spends the entire book debunking evolution.  He completely disregards creationism, which I found a little disappointing, though not many here would complain about :)

If anyone told me that evolution was a big load of propaganda bullshit before I read this book, I would simply have laughed it off and rolled my eyes.  After reading the book... not so much anymore.  In fact, I'm nearly convinced that the theory is wrong. Take it for whatever it's worth.  

Point being is that he makes an extremely compelling case against evolution theory. Worthy to note that he knows microevolution (evolution within a species) exists, but his point is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that macroevolution is true (trasformation from a species to another).  In fact, there is plenty of proof against it.

On the other hand, his case for intervention is not as strong.  It certainly got me interested, however.

I really enjoyed it.  It's far from a nutcase conspiracy theory book.  All in all, his case is extremely similar to the ostracisation of anarchists within the mainstream political/philosophical circles. Anybody coming up with alternate theories (which seem to be far more probable than the evolution theory) is immediately ostracised and ridiculed.

This thread rating (and lack of response) is the absolute proof of it; in a forum where tons of open minded people lurk about.

Does evolution explain human origins?  I am not convinced.  Quite the contrary.

Hey Kehmesis thanks for reading the book and reporting back on it! Did you actually buy it from his site?

And would you recommend we do same and compare thoughts?

kremlin:

kehmesis:

Worthy to note that he knows microevolution (evolution within a species) exists, but his point is that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that macroevolution is true (trasformation from a species to another).  In fact, there is plenty of proof against it.

I didn't know it was disproven. Source?

Well, the source is the book.  

I spoke in absolute (with the author's pov in mind), and it could be misleading.  The author shows that all the "proof" mainsteam science has for macroevolution is mostly propaganda and the result is the protection of the theory of evolution dogma by bending facts to fit into the mold.  (For instance, drawing a pre-human primate without hair when evidence suggests they should have full body hair). 

Now, let me rephrase myself because it was a poor choice of words: The author shows plenty of evidence against macroevolution.  I would love to go into details about it, but it gets really technical.  And this is where I hope someone with a biological background can shed some light on the authors claim.  They seem very convincing to me.

---

Yes I bought the ebook from his site for 10 bucks.  Whether it's worth it or not for others is hard to tell.  It certainly was for me.

The content has nothing to do with aliens, btw.  It's really all about the evolution theory.  Starting from billions years ago with the first unicell bacterias, to the terraforming of the earth, up until the appearances of the cromagnon.

He spends a lot of time on "prehuman" primates, demonstrating that they have not evolved into humans at all, and even still exist today.  Neantherdals still roam this earth, for instance, and have not gone instinct nor shared a common ancestor. A lot of this is not new for anyone who has looked at Bigfoot/yetis/abominal snowman litterature before. Personally, I had never been convinced of the existance of those before, however.  So that's worthy of noting.  He really is convincing.

To demonstrate this, there's a lot of talks about bones (obviously), mechanics of bipedal "apes" and a lot of genetic stuff that I had trouble understanding, but that was still incredibly interesting.

If that guys is full of crap, he really makes it seem like he knows his stuff because he gets into really technical details and seem to back up his claims (aside from the alien stuff as I mentionned before).

kehmesis:

I have just finished the book.  I didn't expect much from it, but I must say that I am pleasantly surprised.

First I need to say that I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to genetics .  Which means that unless I do a ton of reading on the subject, I'm obligated to assume that what he talks about is true.  I would absolutely love to hear from someone with some sort of bio background.  However, I must say that his explanations are pretty simple for the average person and very well detailed.  He also supports many claims with documentation and/or books that I could read if I wished, but chose not to.

 

The first pair of sentences really don't make any sense to me.  If you don't have a background in the subject matter of a book you're currently reading, and that book is making a rather extraordinary claim, how is it that you're obligated to assume he's telling the truth?

Isn't it much more accurate to say that while what he says seems intriguing to you, you really don't have any standards by which to measure the truth value of his claims?

I don't know if you're aware--and I'm really extending you the benefit of the doubt here--but do you realize that the last highlighted sentence makes you look really lazy?  You could go look up his references and see if they support his case, but nah, it's not that important.

I mean, you don't have the knowledge to judge this material, but you assume it's true.  He provides references but you don't bother verifying them.

Duuuuuude. Puff-puff-give.

Ya, well, I guess you're right on both accounts.

But the main problem in the first highlighted sentence is my lack of english vocabulary to truly express what I'm trying to express.  A communication barrier I guess.  Obligated was certainly the wrong word, here. I meant that while I was reading, I had to assume that was he said was true, otherwise I couldn't keep reading.  I was and am fully aware that it could be false.  I must say that I find it very unlikely that it was false, however, which explains why I did not look it up as soon as I read it.  For instance, he claims that humans have 23 pairs (46) chromosomes and apes have 48 (I hope I got the numbers right).  I did not take the time to verify this yet, and a lot of other such claims that I simply assumed were true.   I hope that clear this mess up.  I see no reason why he would make up such a number.  I just wanted to be clear that I did not verify all those claims, because, well, it would take me years I guess and most of them seemed obviously true.

I guess it's also the same thing with his references.  Either they did not interest me (I'm not going to read a whole book on yetis for instance), did not have access to the books (at the moment) or simply haven't gotten to them yet.  And I also am in fact lazy.

For the record, I have, since finishing the book, verified a lot of his numbers and they are so far all correct.  My main source was wikipedia cause it's quick and usually pretty accurate.

I think a really good question to ask ourselves is why we believe the theory of evolution is true.  The answer is usually similar to the answers to the question "why do you believe the earth is round?" a few hundred years ago.  It seems obvious and there are "proofs" such as "well, things fall down".  The proofs of evolution are basically microevolutions.  I am quite interested to find out proofs of macroevolution after reading the book above.  And I'm quite skeptical they actually exist.

JamesP:

 

Isn't it much more accurate to say that while what he says seems intriguing to you, you really don't have any standards by which to measure the truth value of his claims?

 

perhaps a quick solution to this dispute whole be for Mr. Kehmesis to email Mr. JamesP a copy of the ebook so that Mr. JamesP could review it and give us his informed opinion

This video has some nice points and had certainly made a good attempt at debunking evolution!

http://youtu.be/_ASzDDOaLyk

"obligated to" and "had to" mean the same thing in the context you're providing.  I still don't understand why you would have to assume that what he's saying was true in order to keep reading.

Here is a possible explanation of the chromosome issue that is consistent with evolutionary theory (admittedly on Yahoo Answers but the top answer provides a source).

That took me all of 30 seconds to look up, and while it's not so important that you accept that explanation either, what would be important is if the author of the book you're talking about addressed that explanation and talked about why it was incorrect.  If all he says that we have a different number of chromosomes and declares that evolution is impossible, then he's not done his homework.  Then, his goal is not to educate, but something else entirely.

Hey, he might still be right... and what you mentioned might not be the best evidence he has against evolutionary theory... but if he brought this point up and didn't address the explanations that have been advanced, it's not looking good for his theory as a whole.

I certainly am fascinated by evolution, but I am no expert.  That's part of why I'm not willing to debunk this book... the other part is that since I'm not getting much skepticism from you about it at the moment, I don't think it would be a good use of my time.

Not sure if it's against the COD and whatnot.  But feel free to e-mail me so we can "share" information, especially if you have an eReader ;)