Real Science vs. Bill Nye the "Science" Guy?

I would respond that asking a question loaded as yours is, with an assumption of what constitutes real science and with the dismissive quotation marks around the reference to Bill Nye, suggests that you have already assumed a position.

Edit responding to comment: if that's the title of the article, then that says little for its author's objectivity.

Looking at the article, I have to say it's a typical creationist hatchet job. It cherry picks items to cast doubt on Nye's claims.

For example, the portion regarding the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees attempts to cast doubt by citing an article in the journal "Science", when the piece was an op/ed piece, not a scientific paper. The linked article by Casey Luskin at "evolutionnews" (actually a creationist website) suggests that the genetic similarity is 70%, while the Science article, states the genetic differences might be closer to 6% (ie 94% similarity). The article mentioned can be seen here : http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/bi... See for yourself if it matches what Mr. Luskin's article suggests.

Luskin also tries to use the 'common designer' dodge to explain the genetic similarity between humans and other apes, which suggests that "the designer" is either limited in power, or limited in imagination. He also does not mention that chimps are not only genetically similar, but the are genetically the most similar to humans than any other known species. While a "common designer" might have used the same parts, there is no logical reason why such a designer would make chimps more similar to humans on a genetic level. Common descent explains the findings much better, and does not resort to invoking a supernatural being for which there is no evidence.

Some other howlers in Luskin's writing are the statement that Tiktaalik the fossil intermediate between fish and amphibians went 'belly up' because of the finding of tracks of a "true tetrapod" from earlier strata, suggesting that Tikaalik was not a "true tetrapod". Of course, finding evidence of tetrapod tracks earlier than one intermediate form does not invalidate Tiktaalik as an intermediate fossil. In fact, it shows that like many groups of organisms, there may have been many different transitional forms between fish and amphibians.

Likewise,Luskin's dismissal of Sahelanthropus tchadensis as an "ape" having affinity with chimps and gorillas completely glosses over the fact that humans are also apes, and finding a fossil hominid with similarities with chimps and gorillas (especially one as near the human/chimp split such as S. tchadensis was) is exactly what one would expect from an intermediate between humans and other apes.

I could go on, like pointing out that Luskin's dismissal of Ambulocetus is also flawed, as the features he mentions as being not like a modern whale are exactly what one would expect to find on intermediate between whales and land animals. But I think the point has been made that Luskin's hatchet job on Nye is not trustworthy..

While Nye himself is an atheist, it's disingenuous for Luskin to try to cast the issue as one of atheists versus Christians, as many Christians also accept evolution, and many of them are scientists as well.

Bill Nye uses real science.

The domain evolutionnews.org is run by the Discovery Institute.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?...

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

"The rigor of a science is directly proportional to its' ability to predict" - John C Campbell

What confirmed predictions have the producers of that site made. Then, I can judge if it is real science or not.

Can they match the Tree of Life?

Let me recommend to you a previous question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

“Cirbryn” response is especially good.

I COPY/PASTED it for you:

Like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution must make predictions that are testable. Testing a prediction means that you predict what evidence you should find if the theory is correct, and then you look to see if you actually find that evidence. So what does the theory predict we should find, and do we actually find it?

First of all, the theory predicts we should see examples of populations of one species evolving into new species. Do we? Yes we do. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_specie...

Secondly, the theory predicts the existence of a Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is a family tree, of which every single living thing that has ever existed on the planet is a member. The existence of the Tree of Life (if true) would mean that the differences between living things would be organized into a nested hierarchy, such that two recently separated species would share numerous characteristics, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing a more distant common ancestor, of which a portion would also be shared by all species sharing an even more distant common ancestor; and so on. The Tree’s existence would also mean that two species branching from a common ancestor should be located in places that populations of the ancestor could have reached. It also means that the fossils we find should fit into the general pattern of hierarchical similarity, location, and timeframe established by the Tree. Finally, the hierarchical patterns of similarity established by present and past species on the Tree should be roughly the same regardless of whether we are comparing morphological characteristics, or genes, or non-coding DNA, or endogenous retroviruses, or proteins. We say “roughly the same” rather than “exactly the same” because various processes such as convergent evolution or fluctuating population sizes can somewhat throw off the hierarchical patterns established by the different traits being compared.

So what do we find? The Tree of Life is continually vindicated by study after study. Morphologically, humans are most similar to other apes, and some of those similarities are shared by monkeys, and some of those are shared by all primates, and some of those are shared by all mammals, and so on. We could as easily find the same treelike pattern starting from house finches, or from any other species. Comparisons of DNA sequences confirm and provide additional information regarding the treelike organization shown by morphological comparisons. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200... An important point to remember about DNA comparisons is that only about 2 percent of the genome codes for proteins, and another 2 percent regulates transcription, so that leaves about 96 percent of the genome essentially independent from morphological considerations. So we can't argue that DNA must be similar because morphologies are similar. They are independent tests. Independently derived models of the tree tend to converge and reinforce one another, including models based on many different DNA sequences http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h... , models based on endogenous retroviruses http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.h... , and models based on fossils http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.... . Essentially, wherever we look, however we look, the Tree is there.

If the Tree is real we would also expect to find at least some examples of fossil species that could have been common ancestors of major branches, and we’d expect to find them in specific geological strata. We do in fact find them, and they are where they ought to be. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14952-missin...

These are just a few basic predictions of the theory of evolution and some of the evidence supporting them. See here for some more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ . Then ask yourself, what testable predictions does creationism make, and what evidence (if any) supports those predictions.

While you’re at it, you might also want to ask yourself what mechanism creationism posits for how modern species came to be. The mechanism of evolution is well-tested and makes sense. The genes present in populations change over time because the individuals in those populations die and new individuals are born, and on average individuals with genes that are advantageous in the given environment will tend to produce more progeny than individuals with genes that are not. The mechanism of creationism is nonexistent. “Goddidit” is not a mechanism. - Cirbryn

EDIT:

Sometimes, you must go where the evidence leads.

You are on the jury for a murder trial. The evidence against the defendant is:

1. The murder happened outside a bar. A witness that knew the defendant saw the defendant sitting in his car with a gun.

2. A security camera at the bar shows the defendant’s car in the parking lot at the time of the murders.

3. Three witnesses heard the shots and ran to the sound.

4. All 3 witnesses saw the defendant standing over the bodies of the victims, with a smoking gun.

5. The defendant ran and was chased and caught by 2 of the witnesses. Those 2 witnesses held the defendant for the police.

6. The victims’ blood was on the shoes and pant legs of the defendant.

7. The defendant’s fingerprints are on the gun.

8. Bullets from the victims match the gun the defendant was holding.

9. Records show that the defendant purchased the murder weapon 3 days before the murder.

10. Tests of the defendant’s right hand shows that he recently fired a gun

11. The bartender at the bar saw the 2 victims, male and female, in the bar necking in one of the booths and saw them leave together minutes before the murders.

12. A search of the male victim’s pockets included a key to a near by motel.

13. The female victim was the defendant’s wife.

14. The murders took place outside the view of the security camera.

The Defense Attorney claimed that the Prosecution failed to prove the case against the defendant because no one actually saw the defendant shoot the victims and there are no photographs or videos of the murders.

Evolutionnews IS A CREATIONIST WEBSITE BACKED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN. IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

IT IS A LAUGHING STOCK AMONG SCIENTISTS, EDUCATED PEOPLE, AND MOST RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AS WELL. END OF DISCUSSION.

Typical lying creationist garbage.

al the best

That article is biased.