The Evolutionists' Conspiracy. Column in ComputerreOnline #23
The scientific environment is very complex. There are many underestimated people, unrealized ambitions, fees, attention to status, and even plain greed. But this is a consequence of the fact that the scientific community is not a unified entity.
← Dmytro Shabanov →
Wandering Gaze Across the Entire Sky Conspiracy of Evolutionists Poverty of Solipsism
Column in "Computerra Online" No. 22 Column in "Computerra Online" No. 23 Column in "Computerra Online" No. 24
I was surprised by the reaction to my previous column (on the Computerra website). Well, I attacked a film that evoked a sincere rejection in me: I don't like playing games that lower the intellectual level of my fellow citizens. Of course, the comments to the column are not a representative picture of how readers perceive it, but it did highlight one key point. Even among CT readers, a significant portion believes that some kind of conspiracy or administrative pressure is possible in science, imposing a "single correct" point of view. Strange! How can I explain what is self-evident to me, simply through my life experience? Let's consider one example related to the repeated mention of a "scientific conspiracy." This story happened in the early nineties when I was studying the geographic diversity of green frogs. I was fortunate to interest the staff of Mykola Mykolaiovych Vorontsov's laboratory at the Institute of Developmental Biology in Moscow in this problem. In Soviet times, Mykola Mykolaiovych had a reputation as a dissident scientist, and he was unemployed for a long time. Many of his colleagues understood the level of this scientist and provided him with opportunities to work where possible. After the collapse of the USSR, Vorontsov returned to Moscow, headed the laboratory, and even became the chairman of the Duma Committee on Science. His group began to receive foreign grants to apply modern molecular biology methods to solve problems of systematics and evolution. Becoming a leader in science, Mykola Mykolaiovych strove to remain internally free as a scientist. People from all over the post-Soviet space were admitted to his laboratory if they provided interesting material for joint work. I, without ever meeting Mykola Mykolaiovych in person, had the good fortune to work in his laboratory. I lived in the basement belonging to the Institute of Developmental Biology, which housed a subsidiary laboratory and several sleeping places for visitors. The people there were interesting, I must say... This was the backstory, and here's the story. I attended a public lecture by a prominent cryptozoologist, a participant in Bigfoot searches. He spoke confidently about the systematics of Yetis (and there are already several "known" species), about the countless and excessive evidence of their existence, and, of course, about the conspiracy of official science to silence this irrefutable data. It turns out that many bones, skin fragments, hair, and even mummified bodies of Yetis have been found. The speaker himself has a sample of Yeti hair, which differs in structure from everything recognized by "official" science. After the lecture, I approached the speaker and told him about my work with Vorontsov's laboratory. They had a developed technology for determining the genetic distance between species based on hair proteins. Hair is hydrolyzed, proteins are separated by electrophoresis, and their spectra are compared in different samples. One strand of "Yeti" hair is sufficient for analysis. We take this hair, as well as hair samples from representatives of different human races (a trip to the student dormitory is enough for this). At the Moscow Zoo, we ask for hair samples from chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. We obtain estimates of the genetic distances between the hair donors. If the cryptozoologist's assumptions are correct, the specimen he provides will differ from our hair more than the hair of different human races differs, but less than the hair of "great apes." Without any information about where and how this hair was obtained, the result of such a comparison can be published (with the participation of the chairman of the Duma Science Committee!), and this publication will be the first scientific confirmation of the existence of the Yeti. The cryptozoologist said that although he did not believe that representatives of official science could go to such a radical step, he would still provide a sample of "relict hominid" hair. But he didn't have these samples (he said something else publicly), but his colleague in Donetsk did. He would ask for them and give them to me... How did it end? With nothing. I reminded him about the samples, and then stopped – it's disgusting to watch him squirm. Not long ago, my students attended another of his lectures. He was talking about how he tried to get attention from official science for the Yeti wool samples he had, but no one dared to break the ban on such research. Since that time, the technologies for studying biological samples have taken a big step forward. Their power is shown, for example, by the story of the Denisova Cave man. In the Altai Mountains, a part of a child's finger bone, which had been in the ground for tens of thousands of years, and a whole tooth are found. They are sent to Germany, to the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. There, DNA is extracted from the phalanx, analyzed, and it is determined that they are dealing with a previously unknown human species. It is possible to estimate the degree of relatedness of this species to ours and to Neanderthals, and to establish that some populations of modern humans carry traces of interspecies hybridization with the newly discovered "Denisovan." Don't rush to cite the doubtfulness of the technology! Its reliability is such that even legal sharks are forced to recognize it when resolving issues of guilt of potential criminals or establishing paternity. So what, have "countless finds" of Yeti fragments appeared under these conditions? No... Complete silence. Let's consider its possible reasons. Version #1 (main for "alternativists"): conspiracy of official science. You know, I am "embedded" in this science. I cooperate with reputable scientific centers, lead a scientific group, and am even a small "official of science" – I am the deputy dean for scientific work. I see the mechanism from the inside – and I understand that it is absolutely not set up to hide any data. As an official, I have to prepare reports and look for ways to obtain, preserve, and increase funding. Suppose I announce the discovery of the Yeti, the "refutation of evolution," or proof of the extraterrestrial origin of the genome. If I do it "out of the blue," they will certainly say to me: "Aren't you afraid of reputational losses for yourself and for the entire organization?" If I publish an article analyzing the facts and indicating that they lead to such conclusions (if they miraculously lead to them), they will only support me – in the hope of getting something useful for this. And the "scientific hierarchy" will not be scared by the unorthodoxy of my views. By the way, last year I finished work on a Russian-Ukrainian project with state funding. This project (even by its title) was dedicated to unorthodox mechanisms of evolution – in green frogs. Maybe I work in a not entirely typical place. I represent university, not academic or departmental science. I am paid primarily as a teacher, and I retain considerable scientific freedom. I can assume that things can be worse. Suppose somewhere, a person who presents a socially significant fact might lose something at work, if only out of dislike for upstarts. But still, their potential gain significantly exceeds such losses, and there is simply no rigid mechanism of coercion. If the Soviet KGB could not stop Vorontsov, then the current bureaucratic hierarchy of science will definitely not hide the truth. If there were facts – there would be publications... Version #2: conspiracy of "alternativists." Maybe there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the Yeti, but their owners simply don't want to share it with anyone? Again, a mismatch. "Alternativists" do not have a single and authoritative leadership that could control them. The one among them who went into cooperation with "official" science in a proper study of the available material would gain popularity and the opportunity to expand their work. But for some reason, this is not happening. Version #3. There are no facts, only fantasies and rumors. For now, I, though with regret, choose this version. Believe me, I would be very happy to have proof of the existence of another hominid species, but I see no reason for such joy... So, does idyll and freedom reign in science? No. The intra-scientific environment is very complex. There are many underestimated people, unrealized ambitions, pride, unjustified attention to status, and even simple greed. But this is a consequence of the fact that the scientific community is not a single entity and potentially centrally controlled by a conspiracy. For science to be subjugated by some Lysenko, extra-scientific support from some Stalin is needed. Another example from my life. I am involved in disputes about the epigenetic theory of evolution, developed by Mikhail Alexandrovich Shishkin, a famous Russian paleontologist, and his supporters. Yes, Shishkin's views seem heretical to many of his short-sighted critics, but their disagreement has not prevented Mikhail Alexandrovich from working. Yes, even the publication of one of the articles summarizing his ideas in the authoritative journal "Ontogenez" caused indignation among overly zealous orthodoxists. But the article was published, and those who are interested are debating the ideas contained in it. By the way, attention! This is not a debate about the fact of evolution, but about its mechanisms; "scientific creationists," you have nothing here! Some of my colleagues are outraged by my "unorthodoxy"; one of them complained on student social networks that I am "objectively against Darwin" and that it is harmful to familiarize oneself with Shishkin's views. I have encountered certain difficulties in publishing articles on this topic. But when the editor of the "Journal of General Biology" found my article insufficiently evidenced, I simply asked Alexander Markov to post it on his wonderful website evolbiol.ru. Conflicts are conflicts, but I will continue this work, whether someone likes it or not, and I will convey to everyone who wants to know what I come to... The conclusion from the stories presented is this. A certain inertia of the scientific community, a fashion for a habitual way of thinking, of course, exist. But they do not create an insurmountable wall. If a person is confident in their rightness and strives to prove it, they can do it. The lack of scientifically confirmed facts among "alternativists" is primarily a consequence of their ideas being pulled out of thin air. And what about the "conspiracy of evolutionists"? A product of a delusional picture of reality, nothing more...
← Dmytro Shabanov →
Wandering Gaze Across the Entire Sky Conspiracy of Evolutionists Poverty of Solipsism
Column in Computerra Online #22 Column in Computerra Online #23 Column in Computerra Online #24