Kary Mullis: Celebrating the scientific experiment

I’ll just start talking
about the 17th century. I hope nobody finds that offensive. I — you know, when I —
after I had invented PCR, I kind of needed a change. And I moved down to La Jolla
and learned how to surf. And I started living down there
on the beach for a long time. And when surfers are out waiting for waves, you probably wonder, if you’ve never
been out there, what are they doing? You know, sometimes there’s a 10-,
15-minute break out there when you’re waiting for a wave to come in. They usually talk about the 17th century. You know, they get a real
bad rap in the world. People think they’re sort of lowbrows. One day, somebody suggested
I read this book. It was called — it was called “The Air Pump,” or something like “The
Leviathan and The Air Pump.” It was a real weird book
about the 17th century. And I realized, the roots of the way I sort of thought was just the only natural
way to think about things. That — you know, I was born
thinking about things that way, and I had always
been like a little scientist guy. And when I went to find out something, I used scientific methods.
I wasn’t real surprised, you know, when they first told me how — how you were supposed to do science, because I’d already been doing it
for fun and whatever. But it didn’t — it never occurred to me that it had to be invented and that it had been invented only 350 years ago. You know, it was — like it happened in England,
and Germany, and Italy sort of all at the same time. And the story of that, I thought, was really fascinating. So I’m going to talk
a little bit about that, and what exactly is it
that scientists are supposed to do. And it’s, it’s a kind of — You know, Charles I got beheaded somewhere early in the 17th century. And the English set up Cromwell and a whole bunch
of Republicans or whatever, and not the kind of Republicans we had. They changed the government,
and it didn’t work. And Charles II, the son, was finally put back
on the throne of England. He was really nervous,
because his dad had been, you know, beheaded for being
the King of England And he was nervous about the fact that conversations that got going in, like, bars and stuff would turn to — this is kind of — it’s hard to believe, but people in the 17th century in England were starting to talk about, you know, philosophy and stuff in bars. They didn’t have TV screens, and they didn’t have
any football games to watch. And they would get really pissy, and all of a sudden people would spill
out into the street and fight about issues like whether or not it was okay if Robert Boyle made a device called the vacuum pump. Now, Boyle was a friend of Charles II. He was a Christian guy
during the weekends, but during the week he was a scientist. (Laughter) Which was — back then it was sort of, you know, well, you know — if you made this thing —
he made this little device, like kind of like a bicycle pump in reverse that could suck
all the air out of — you know what a bell jar is?
One of these things, you pick it up, put it
down, and it’s got a seal, and you can see inside of it, so you can see what’s going
on inside this thing. But what he was trying to do
was to pump all the air out of there, and see what would happen inside there. I mean, the first — I think
one of the first experiments he did was he put a bird in there. And people in the 17th century, they didn’t really understand
the same way we do about you know, this stuff is a bunch of different kinds of molecules, and we breathe it
in for a purpose and all that. I mean, fish don’t know much about water, and people didn’t know much about air. But both started exploring it. One thing, he put a bird in there,
and he pumped all the air out, and the bird died. So he said, hmm… He said — he called
what he’d done as making — they didn’t call it
a vacuum pump at the time. Now you call it a vacuum
pump; he called it a vacuum. Right? And immediately, he got into trouble with the local clergy who said, you can’t make a vacuum. Ah, uh — (Laughter) Aristotle said that nature abhors one. I think it was a poor
translation, probably, but people relied
on authorities like that. And you know, Boyle says, well, shit. I make them all the time. I mean, whatever
that is that kills the bird — and I’m calling it a vacuum. And the religious people said that if God wanted you to make — I mean, God is everywhere, that was one of their rules,
is God is everywhere. And a vacuum —
there’s nothing in a vacuum, so you’ve — God couldn’t be in there. So therefore the church said that you
can’t make a vacuum, you know. And Boyle said, bullshit. I mean, you want to call it Godless, you know, you call it Godless. But that’s not my job. I’m not into that. I do that on the weekend. And like — what I’m trying to do
is figure out what happens when you suck everything
out of a compartment. And he did all these
cute little experiments. Like he did one with —
he had a little wheel, like a fan, that was sort of loosely attached,
so it could spin by itself. He had another fan opposed to it that he had like a — I mean, the way I would have done
this would be, like, a rubber band, and, you know, around a tinker
toy kind of fan. I know exactly how he did
it; I’ve seen the drawings. It’s two fans, one which he could
turn from outside after he got the vacuum established, and he discovered that if he pulled
all the air out of it, the one fan would no longer
turn the other one, right? Something was missing, you know.
I mean, these are — it’s kind of weird to think that someone
had to do an experiment to show that, but that was what was going
on at the time. And like, there was big arguments about it in the — you know, the gin houses
and in the coffee shops and stuff. And Charles started not liking that. Charles II was kind of saying, you
know, you should keep that — let’s make a place where
you can do this stuff where people don’t get so — you know, we don’t want the — we don’t want to get
the people mad at me again. And so — because when they started
talking about religion and science and stuff like that, that’s when it had sort of gotten
his father in trouble. And so, Charles said, I’m going
to put up the money give you guys a building, come here and you can
meet in the building, but just don’t talk
about religion in there. And that was fine with Boyle. He said, OK, we’re going
to start having these meetings. And anybody who wants to do science is — this is about the time that Isaac
Newton was starting to whip out a lot of really interesting things. And there was all kind of people
that would come to the Royal Society, they called it. You had to be
dressed up pretty well. It wasn’t like a TED conference. That was the only criteria,
was that you be — you looked like a gentleman,
and they’d let anybody could come. You didn’t have to be a member then. And so, they would come
in and you would do — Anybody that was going
to show an experiment, which was kind of a new word at the time, demonstrate some principle, they had to do it on stage,
where everybody could see it. So they were — the really important part of this was, you were not supposed to talk about final causes, for instance. And God was out of the picture. The actual nature of reality
was not at issue. You’re not supposed to talk
about the absolute nature of anything. You were not supposed
to talk about anything that you couldn’t demonstrate. So if somebody could see it, you could
say, here’s how the machine works, here’s what we do, and then
here’s what happens. And seeing what happens, it was OK to generalize, and say, I’m sure that this
will happen anytime we make one of these things. And so you can start making up some rules. You say, anytime you have a vacuum state, you will discover that one wheel
will not turn another one, if the only connection between them is whatever was there before the vacuum.
That kind of thing. Candles can’t burn in a vacuum, therefore, probably
sparklers wouldn’t either. It’s not clear; actually sparklers will, but they didn’t know that. They didn’t have sparklers. But, they — (Laughter) — you can make up rules,
but they have to relate only to the things
that you’ve been able to demonstrate. And most the demonstrations
had to do with visuals. Like if you do an experiment on stage, and nobody can see it, they can just hear it,
they would probably think you were freaky. I mean, reality is what you can see. That wasn’t an explicit
rule in the meeting, but I’m sure that was part of it,
you know. If people hear voices, and they can’t see and associate
it with somebody, that person’s probably not there. But the general idea
that you could only — you could only really talk
about things in that place that had some kind of experimental basis. It didn’t matter what Thomas Hobbes, who was a local philosopher, said about it, you know, because you weren’t going
to be talking final causes. What’s happening here, in the middle of the 17th century, was that what became my field — science, experimental science — was pulling itself away, and it was in a physical way, because we’re
going to do it in this room over here, but it was also what — it
was an amazing thing that happened. Science had been all interlocked with theology, and philosophy, and — and — and mathematics, which is really not science. But experimental science had
been tied up with all those things. And the mathematics part and the experimental science part was pulling away from philosophy. And — things — we never looked back. It’s been so cool since then. I mean, it just — it just — untangled
a thing that was really impeding technology from being developed. And, I mean, everybody in this room — now, this is 350 short years ago. Remember, that’s a short time. It was 300,000, probably, years ago that most of us, the ancestors
of most of us in this room came up out of Africa
and turned to the left. You know, the ones that turned
to the right, there are some of those in the Japanese translation. But that happened very — a long time ago compared to 350 short years ago. But in that 350 years, the place has just undergone
a lot of changes. In fact, everybody in this room probably, especially if you picked up your bag — some of you, I know, didn’t
pick up your bags — but if you picked up your bag,
everybody in this room has got in their pocket,
or back in their room, something that 350 years ago, kings would have gone to war to have. I mean, if you can think how important — If you have a GPS system
and there are no satellites, it’s not going to be much use.
But, like — but, you know, if somebody
had a GPS system in the 17th century some king would have
gotten together an army and gone to get it, you know.
If that person — Audience: For the teddy bear?
The teddy bear? Kary Mullis: They might have done
it for the teddy bear, yeah. But — all of us own stuff. I mean, individuals own things that kings would have
definitely gone to war to get. And this is just 350 years. Not a whole lot of people
doing this stuff. You know, the important people — you can almost read about their lives, about all the really important
people that made advances, you know. And, I mean — this kind of stuff, you
know, all this stuff came from that separation of this little sort of thing that we do — now I, when I was a boy was born sort of with this idea that if you want to know something — you know, maybe it’s because my old
man was gone a lot, and my mother didn’t
really know much science, but I thought if you want
to know something about stuff, you do it — you make
an experiment, you know. You get — you get, like — I just had a natural feeling for science and setting up experiments. I thought
that was the way everybody had always thought. I thought that anybody
with any brains will do it that way. It isn’t true. I mean,
there’s a lot of people — You know, I was one of those
scientists that was — got into trouble the other night at dinner because of the post-modernism thing. And I didn’t mean, you know
— where is that lady? Audience: Here. (Laughter) KM: I mean, I didn’t really
think of that as an argument so much as just a lively discussion. I didn’t take it personally, but — I just — I had — I naively had thought, until this surfing experience
started me into the 17th century, I’d thought that’s just
the way people thought, and everybody did,
and they recognized reality by what they could see
or touch or feel or hear. At any rate, when I was a boy, I, like, for instance, I had this — I got this little book
from Fort Sill, Oklahoma — This is about the time
that George Dyson’s dad was starting to blow nuclear — thinking about blowing
up nuclear rockets and stuff. I was thinking about making
my own little rockets. And I knew that frogs — little frogs — had aspirations of space travel, just like people. And I — (Laughter) I was looking for a — a propulsion system that would like, make a rocket, like, maybe about four feet high
go up a couple of miles. And, I mean, that was my sort of goal. I wanted it to go out of sight and then
I wanted this little parachute to come back with the frog in it. And — I — I — I got this book from Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where there’s a missile base. They send it out for amateur rocketeers, and it said in there do not ever heat a mixture
of potassium perchlorate and sugar. (Laughter) You know, that’s what you call a lead. (Laughter) You sort of — now you say,
well, let’s see if I can get hold of some potassium chlorate
and sugar, perchlorate and sugar, and heat it; it would be interesting to see
what it is they don’t want me to do, and what it is going to —
and how is it going to work. And we didn’t have — like, my mother presided over the back yard from an upstairs window, where she would be ironing
or something like that. And she was usually just
sort of keeping an eye on, and if there was any puffs
of smoke out there, she’d lean out and admonish us all not to blow our eyes out. That was her — You know, that was kind of the worst
thing that could happen to us. That’s why I thought, as long
as I don’t blow my eyes out… I may not care about the fact that it’s prohibited
from heating this solution. I’m going to do it
carefully, but I’ll do it. It’s like anything else that’s prohibited: you do it behind the garage. (Laughter) So, I went to the drug store and I tried to buy
some potassium perchlorate and it wasn’t unreasonable then for a kid to walk into a drug store
and buy chemicals. Nowadays, it’s no ma’am, check your shoes. And like — (Laughter) But then it wasn’t — they didn’t
have any, but the guy had — I said, what kind of salts
of potassium do you have? You know. And he had potassium nitrate. And I said, that might do
the same thing, whatever it is. I’m sure it’s got to do with rockets
or it wouldn’t be in that manual. And so I — I did some experiments. You know, I started
off with little tiny amounts of potassium nitrate and sugar, which was readily available, and I mixed it in different proportions, and I tried to light it on fire. Just to see what would happen,
if you mixed it together. And it — they burned. It burned kind of slow,
but it made a nice smell, compared to other rocket
fuels I had tried, that all had sulfur in them. And, it smelt like burnt candy. And then I tried the melting
business, and I melted it. And then it melted into a little sort
of syrupy liquid, brown. And then it cooled
down to a brick-hard substance, that when you lit that, it went off like a bat. I mean, the little bowl of that stuff
that had cooled down — you’d light it, and it would just
start dancing around the yard. And I said, there is a way to get a frog
up to where he wants to go. (Laughter) So I started developing — you know, George’s dad had a lot of help.
I just had my brother. But I — it took me
about — it took me about, I’d say, six months to finally figure
out all the little things. There’s a lot of little things involved in making a rocket that it
will actually work, even after you have the fuel. But you do it, by — what I just– you know, you do experiments, and you write down things sometimes, you make observations, you know. And then you slowly build up a theory of how this stuff works. And it was —
I was following all the rules. I didn’t know what the rules were, I’m a natural born scientist, I guess, or some kind of a throwback
to the 17th century, whatever. But at any rate, we finally did have a device that would reproduceably put a frog out of sight and get him back alive. And we had not — I mean, we weren’t frightened by it. We should have been,
because it made a lot of smoke and it made a lot of noise, and it was powerful, you know. And once in a while, they would blow up. But I wasn’t worried, by the way, about, you know, the explosion causing
the destruction of the planet. I hadn’t heard about the 10 ways that we should be afraid of the — By the way, I could have thought, I’d better not do this because they say not to, you know. And I’d better get permission
from the government. If I’d have waited around for that, I would have never — the frog
would have died, you know. At any rate, I bring it
up because it’s a good story, and he said, tell personal things,
you know, and that’s a personal — I was going to tell you about the first
night that I met my wife, but that would be too
personal, wouldn’t it. So, so I’ve got something
else that’s not personal. But that… process
is what I think of as science, see, where you start with some idea, and then instead of, like, looking up, every authority that you’ve ever heard of I — sometimes you do that, if you’re going to write a paper later, you want to figure
out who else has worked on it. But in the actual process,
you get an idea — like, when I got the idea one night that I could amplify DNA
with two oligonucleotides, and I could make lots of copies
of some little piece of DNA, you know, the thinking for that was about 20 minutes
while I was driving my car, and then instead of going — I went
back and I did talk to people about it, but if I’d listened to what I heard
from all my friends who were molecular biologists — I would have abandoned it. You know, if I had gone back
looking for an authority figure who could tell me if it would work or not, he would have said, no, it probably won’t. Because the results of it
were so spectacular that if it worked it was going to change
everybody’s goddamn way of doing molecular biology. Nobody wants a chemist to come in and poke around in their stuff
like that and change things. But if you go to authority,
and you always don’t — you don’t always get
the right answer, see. But I knew, you’d go into the lab and you’d try to make it work yourself.
And then you’re the authority, and you can say, I know it works, because right there in that tube is where it happened, and here, on this gel,
there’s a little band there that I know that’s DNA,
and that’s the DNA I wanted to amplify, so there! So it does work. You know, that’s how you do science. And then you say, well,
what can make it work better? And then you figure out better
and better ways to do it. But you always work from, from like, facts that you have made available to you by doing experiments: things
that you could do on a stage. And no tricky shit behind the thing.
I mean, it’s all — you’ve got to be very honest with what you’re doing if it
really is going to work. I mean, you can’t make up results, and then do another experiment
based on that one. So you have to be honest. And I’m basically honest. I have a fairly bad memory, and dishonesty
would always get me in trouble, if I, like — so I’ve just
sort of been naturally honest and naturally inquisitive, and that sort of leads
to that kind of science. Now, let’s see… I’ve got another five minutes, right? OK. All scientists aren’t like that. You know — and there is a lot — (Laughter) There is a lot — a lot
has been going on since Isaac Newton and all that stuff happened. One of the things that happened
right around World War II in that same time period before, and as sure as hell afterwards, government got — realized
that scientists aren’t strange dudes that, you know, hide in ivory towers and do ridiculous things with test tube. Scientists, you know, made World War II as we know it quite possible. They made faster things. They made bigger guns
to shoot them down with. You know, they made drugs
to give the pilots if they were broken up in the process. They made all kinds of —
and then finally one giant bomb to end the whole thing, right? And everybody stepped back
a little and said, you know, we ought to invest in this shit, because whoever has got
the most of these people working in the places is going
to have a dominant position, at least in the military, and probably
in all kind of economic ways. And they got involved
in it, and the scientific and industrial establishment was born, and out of that came a lot of scientists who were in there for the money, you know, because it was suddenly available. And they weren’t the curious little boys that liked to put frogs up in the air. They were the same people that later
went in to medical school, you know, because there was money in it, you know. I mean,
later, then they all got into business — I mean, there are waves of —
going into your high school, person saying, you want to be rich, you know,
be a scientist. You know, not anymore. You want to be rich, you be a businessman. But a lot of people got in it for the money
and the power and the travel. That’s back when travel was easy. And those people don’t think — they don’t — they don’t always tell
you the truth, you know. There is nothing
in their contract, in fact, that makes it to their advantage always, to tell you the truth. And the people I’m talking
about are people that like — they say that they’re
a member of the committee called, say, the Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change. And they — and they have these big
meetings where they try to figure out how we’re going to — how we’re
going to continually prove that the planet is getting warmer, when that’s actually contrary
to most people’s sensations. I mean, if you actually measure the temperature over a period — I mean, the temperature
has been measured now pretty carefully for about 50, 60 years — longer than that it’s been measured, but in really nice, precise ways, and records have been kept
for 50 or 60 years, and in fact, the temperature
hadn’t really gone up. It’s like, the average temperature has gone up a tiny little bit, because the nighttime temperatures at the weather stations have
come up just a little bit. But there’s a good explanation for that. And it’s that the weather stations
are all built outside of town, where the airport was, and now the town’s moved out there,
there’s concrete all around and they call it the skyline effect. And most responsible people that measure temperatures realize you have to shield
your measuring device from that. And even then, you know, because the buildings get
warm in the daytime, and they keep it a little warmer at night. So the temperature has
been, sort of, inching up. It should have been. But not a lot.
Not like, you know — the first guy — the first
guy that got the idea that we’re going to fry ourselves here, actually, he didn’t think of it that way. His name was Sven Arrhenius.
He was Swedish, and he said, if you double the CO2
level in the atmosphere, which he thought might
— this is in 1900 — the temperature ought to go
up about 5.5 degrees, he calculated. He was thinking of the earth
as, kind of like, you know, like a completely
insulated thing with no stuff in it, really, just energy coming down, energy leaving. And so he came up with this theory, and he said, this will be cool, because it’ll be a longer
growing season in Sweden, you know, and the surfers liked it, the surfers thought, that’s a cool idea, because it’s pretty cold
in the ocean sometimes, and — but a lot of other people later on started thinking it
would be bad, you know. But nobody actually
demonstrated it, right? I mean, the temperature as measured — and you can find this
on our wonderful Internet, you just go and look
for all NASAs records, and all the Weather Bureau’s records, and you’ll look at it yourself,
and you’ll see, the temperature has just — the nighttime temperature measured
on the surface of the planet has gone up a tiny little bit. So if you just average that and the daytime
temperature, it looks like it went up about .7 degrees in this century. But in fact, it was just coming up — it was the nighttime; the daytime
temperatures didn’t go up. So — and Arrhenius’ theory — and all the global warmers think — they would say, yeah, it should
go up in the daytime, too, if it’s the greenhouse effect. Now, people like things
that have, like, names like that, that they can envision it, right?
I mean — but people don’t like things
like this, so — most — I mean, you don’t get all excited about things like the actual evidence, you know, which would be evidence for strengthening of the tropical circulation in the 1990s. It’s a paper that came out in February, and most of you probably
hadn’t heard about it. “Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean
Radiative Energy Budget.” Excuse me. Those papers
were published by NASA, and some scientists
at Columbia, and Viliki and a whole bunch of people, Princeton. And those two papers came
out in Science Magazine, February the first, and these — the conclusion
in both of these papers, and in also the Science editor’s, like, descriptions of these
papers, for, you know, for the quickie, is that our theories about global warming are completely wrong. I mean, what these guys were doing, and this is what — the NASA people
have been saying this for a long time. They say, if you measure the temperature
of the atmosphere, it isn’t going up — it’s not going up at all. We’ve doing
it very carefully now for 20 years, from satellites, and it isn’t going up. And in this paper, they show
something much more striking, and that was that they did
what they call a radiation — and I’m not going to go into the details
of it, actually it’s quite complicated, but it isn’t as complicated
as they might make you think it is by the words they use in those papers.
If you really get down to it, they say, the sun puts out a certain
amount of energy — we know how much that is — it falls on the earth, the earth
gives back a certain amount. When it gets warm it generates — it makes redder energy —
I mean, like infra-red, like something that’s warm
gives off infra-red. The whole business
of the global warming — trash, really, is that — if the — if there’s too
much CO2 in the atmosphere, the heat that’s trying to escape won’t be able to get out. But
the heat coming from the sun, which is mostly down in the —
it’s like 350 nanometers, which is where it’s centered —
that goes right through CO2. So you still get heated,
but you don’t dissipate any. Well, these guys measured
all of those things. I mean, you can talk about that stuff, and you can write these large reports,
and you can get government money to do it, but these — they actually measured it, and it turns
out that in the last 10 years — that’s why they say “decadal” there — that the energy — that the level of what they call “imbalance” has been way the hell
over what was expected. Like, the amount of imbalance — meaning, heat’s coming
in and it’s not going out that you would get
from having double the CO2, which we’re not anywhere
near that, by the way. But if we did, in 2025 or something, have double the CO2 as we had in 1900, they say it would be
increase the energy budget by about — in other words, one watt per square centimeter more would be coming in than going out. So the planet should get warmer. Well, they found out in this
study — these two studies by two different teams — that five and a half watts per square meter had been coming in from 1998, 1999, and the place didn’t get warmer. So the theory’s kaput — it’s nothing. These papers should have been called, “The End to the Global
Warming Fiasco,” you know. They’re concerned, and you can tell they have very
guarded conclusions in these papers, because they’re talking
about big laboratories that are funded by lots of money and by scared people. You know, if they said, you know what? There isn’t a problem
with global warming any longer, so we can — you know, they’re funding. And if you start a grant request
with something like that, and say, global warming
obviously hadn’t happened… if they — if they — if they actually
— if they actually said that, I’m getting out. (Laughter) I’ll stand up too, and — (Laughter) (Applause) They have to say that. They had to be very cautious. But what I’m saying is,
you can be delighted, because the editor
of Science, who is no dummy, and both of these fairly professional — really professional teams, have
really come to the same conclusion and in the bottom lines in their papers they have to say, what this means
is, that what we’ve been thinking, was the global circulation
model that we predict that the earth is going to get overheated that it’s all wrong.
It’s wrong by a large factor. It’s not by a small one. They just — they just misinterpreted
the fact that the earth — there’s obviously some mechanisms going on that nobody knew about, because the heat’s coming
in and it isn’t getting warmer. So the planet is a pretty
amazing thing, you know, it’s big and horrible —
and big and wonderful, and it does all kinds of things
we don’t know anything about. So I mean, the reason I put
those things all together, OK, here’s the way you’re
supposed to do science — some science is done for other
reasons, and just curiosity. And there’s a lot of things
like global warming, and ozone hole and you know, a whole bunch of scientific public issues, that if you’re interested in them, then you have to get down the details,
and read the papers called, “Large Decadal Variability in the…” You have to figure
out what all those words mean. And if you just listen to the guys who are hyping those issues,
and making a lot of money out of it, you’ll be misinformed, and you’ll be
worrying about the wrong things. Remember the 10 things that are going
to get you. The — one of them — (Laughter) And the asteroids is the one I really
agree with there. I mean, you’ve got to watch out for asteroids.
OK, thank you for having me here. (Applause)

About the author


  1. Nylonase, ring species etc. are evidence of evolution happening right now. The genetic code provides evidence as well. There are artifacts in the code of species for unexpressed characteristics of ancestrial organisms earlier in their developmental history, as well as ERV's. From your use of "micro" and "macro" evolution I can tell you get your info from the creationists, those terms don't mean what you think. Real science talks about point mutations and speciation. It's all just evolution

  2. Yes, science always checks it's assumptions. You are very welcome. It always has. That's why it's the most dependable branch of human knowledge. It works by using the "Best Available Information" always looking for more and checking it's assumptions as technology improves. That doesn't sound at all corrupt to me … Making up explainations without evidence to support them, simply because it is more to your personal liking or fits your prejudices seems a lot more like corruption to me.

  3. By that method someone could prove that the entire universe is made of materials that are green. Finding thousands of supporting pieces of evidence would be easy. Evidence does not prove anything. Jumping to conclusions. As I said, there are plenty of other possible explanations. (They didn't predict the order, they found it and matched it with what they found. Then they threw out "anomalies" that disagreed. Science my ass.)

    Occam's Razor is not proof. It's just an excuse for bias in this case.

  4. Millions of people from nearly every background disagree with evolution. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    The Bible doesn't even say seven days. It says seven periods of time. It could easily be interpreted as seven billion years or more. Plus, a large number of Christians take the creation story as an analogy. You've never heard of Theistic Evolutionists?

    Look up the intelligent design movement. I don't agree with them, but they have plenty of alternate explanations.

  5. Bzzz… I call Logical falacy.Shame on you! Those years of debate seem not to have taught you that formal fallacies are not convincing. And you're wrong about that bit at the end. To find the evolutionary link between primitive amphibians and reptiles? They went an area that plate tectonics predicted used to be in the area they were intrerested in and dug to the strata of the predicted time period. And found the fossil they needed. Too bad. You'r prejudice is just wrong.

  6. Micro and Macroevolution, like many English words, can mean multiple things. If you choose ignorance, so be it.

    So you're saying evolutionists do not recognize the difference? That explains their petty confusion. They keep saying, "Look! This dog looks different from it's mother! EVOLUTION!" It's a religious orgy.

    I can see how an inbreeding of ideas would make you think Evolution is the only explanation for things like Nylonase. I, however, am a true agnostic and look at multiple theories.

  7. Sure, millions of people disagree with evolution. Because they just don't care, never bothered to learn about it or to study the evidence. That's exactly why there are theisitic evolutionists, because they checked the evidence and it was convincing. I should know, I was raised Catholic, and that's what convinced the Pope. They learned their lesson with Copernicus. Sure, ID has plenty of alternate explanations. It's just that every single one that has been checked out has been proven wrong.

  8. Wait, so you're talking about a fairy tale version of science? Because you just described modern science. "Making up explainations without evidence to support them, simply because it is more to your personal liking or fits your prejudices"

    Ahh, so this whole time you were talking about a fantasy world. What book? That version of science sounds wonderful, without it simply taking over the place of religion and doing the same things with more pride.

  9. Sorry pal, another invalid debate tactic. I guess you were talking about your long experience with having arguements over beer, not debate. "I'm rubber and you're glue" didn't even work on grade school playgrounds. I can't believe an adult would think it would work. Probably something your preacher recomended.

    In debate you need evidence and reason. Not casting unsubstantiated aspersions and ridicule to try and feel good about yourself at the expense of your position.

    Poorly reasoned.

  10. Uhm… Where did you get the "missing" thing from? It was a link predicted by the theory, they looked for it, it was found. What's missing about that? You're not debating, just trying to be clever with semantics, and not succeeding very well. Sorry.

    I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself though. Keep that up.

    If you're not a creationist, why is my supposition that you are an ad hominem falacy? And why would it affect the validity of your arguement? Wrong again.

  11. Again with the faulty reasoning. Why would you consider being called a creationist an attack? Is there something wrong with being a creationist? Or having a preacher? I personally don't think so.

    What I think is wrong is accepting arguements from such sources as vaild without learning the facts. That was my implication, and, I think, a valid one. Because I've run into these self-same inaccuracies and distortions from that type again and again. You can tell them by their familiar stench.

  12. Sorry again, You have to make the assumption that having a preacher or being religious is bad for that to be a valid point. Something I never stated.

    P.S. The reason your arguement was invalid is that they are bald assertions, unsuported by evidence, and not arguements. That is what a formal fallacy, is: an invalid form of question. Informal fallacies are invalid forms of reasoning applied to valid questions, such as ad hominem. Maybe you should reconsider that high school thing?

  13. From what I hear, College was supposed to be better. It was lame too, but I held out for two years and finished it.

    Again, you are the one who's taking preachers and religion negatively and that is why you project them onto people you don't like. For example, I don't like metal music. Thus I say "you problably listen to metal." It's the same thing – except I don't dislike people because I disagree with them.

    I asked you to give an example and you didn't. There's this thing called hypocrisy.

  14. Also, you should know an ad hominem fallacy is the attempt to invalidate the arguement by attacking the person behind it. It is not "calling names".

    eg. If I said Kent Hovind was wrong because he was a fraud and in jail for tax fraud related to his "Creation Science" ministry, rather than because New Earth Creationism was unsupported by any valid evidence; that would be an ad hominem arguement.

  15. Sorry again, I think you have a serious problem with making assumptions, unsupported by evidence and reading intent into my statements. The assertions I made is that these arguements against evolution (that I have encountered many times before), typically come from those sources. An arguement I maintain is valid. The negative interpretation of those sources comes from you. Why is that?

    Did I say something negative about them? Other than they are the source of these arguements? Think hard.

  16. Uhmm… You missed a post. Look down the page for the explaination of Formal Fallacy. That's the fallacy behind your assertion. If you had actually made an arguement instead of just calling science ena, the most recent informal fallacy would have been the fallacy of many questions, as your example was unrelated to the original question. eg. this made up arguement is wrong, therefore your unrelated arguement is wrong.

  17. You are quite wrong yet again. I simply didn't mention your false assertions about me having a preacher because it didn't bother me, I have nothing against them. You clearly think very negatively of them and kept pushing that identity on me in an attempt to validate your disagreement with me.

    I can't say it any clearer. If you still don't get it, it's not important, just forget about it.

  18. "I was simplifying it for you. Calling names is the common term for the form of ad homiem you were using."

    As I just pointed out, that would be wrong. I criticized your reasoning and pointed out the errors you were making. That your were arguing rather than debating, it was a procedural criticism, not an ad hominem attack. At worst, I repeated biographical facts you supplied yourself.

    You read an awful lot into things, why so insecure? Check your premisies.

  19. Your opinion that the two are unrelated is false, and I can not imagine what you mean by "ena"…

    You didn't give any evidence or citations for what you were saying, even when I asked. You did not ask me for citations, so I did not give any.

  20. I know exactly what you're thinking and why, that's why I'm so confident. I know you aren't getting what I'm saying and I won't be at a computer for a while, but you need to reread my posts, so you'll have time. Your English is also hard to understand. It must be your second language. "your were"

  21. So we are at an impass, you claim everyone in the entire world scientific community who accepts evolution, a theory supported by millions of man-hours of reseach in multiple feilds of study are wrong and deluded, because you, without producing a single jot of contradictory evidence, except to say: "Oh, they're just wrong, it must be something (unspecified) else." think they are. And that somehow makes them corrupt.

    Or am I missing some salient point in your arguement?

  22. I am in awe of your psychic powers! Obviously you have some revealed knowledge to base your rejection of evolution on as well; unobtainable by we mere mortals who must rely on the poor substitutes of logic, evidence and reason. Since you can type faster without errors than my arthritis allows you must be right! Uhmm.. you did understand that ad hominem thing, right?

  23. Go watch: Thunder00t, DonExodus2 or any of the dozen other excellent postings here on YouTube on evolution, ERV's, Ring species, taxonomy etc. if you need citations

    Yes Virgina that is evidence.

    But I feel I must point out, you have to provide contrary evidence for me to need to request citations. The only thing other than saying "Nope" you have done (back to that pesky formal fallacy thing) is make a single vague assertion that ID invalidates evolution. The Dover trial proved otherwise.

  24. I just tracked down the "ena" you mentioned . It was meant to read "corrupt". There's a problem with the insertion point cursor jumping around in the YouTube Post Comment box while I'm typing if my hand passes too close to the touchpad of my laptop. Sorry that it confused you, and for not proofreading before posting.

  25. My position that whale fossils are unrealted to things being green is true. They are demonstrably conclusions about different subjects.

    Your arguement is what we call a "straw man: creating an arguement other than the subject at question and unrelated that subject that can easily be discredited.

    On the other hand your unsupported assertion is that they are related (and I'm guessing here) by being specious chains of reasoning? Is refuted by peer review of the whale fossil research.

  26. FYI: When you reach the daily posting limit, if you go to the bottom of the page and type in the requested randomly generated series of characters; you won't need to maintain two accounts.

    Sorry, no preacher for moi. I'm agnostic about god in general and atheistic about all the ones I know about. They make amusing stories though. So do conspiracy theories, especially about "corrupt science". Do you worry about black helicopters, illuminatti and trilateralism, too? No? Good. Progress!

  27. this guy is very interesting but i really dont think hes taking a good stance on global warming. Mass bodies of scientific evidence support it. economically its much better to pretend it doesnt exist… his arguements about scientists lieing to keep grants in outrageous, nearly the entire scientific community believes it is an immediate problem.

  28. he's right!
    global warming is a scam
    this lecture is from feb. 2002 and they are still lying.
    global warming is NOT science, it's Propaganda!

  29. you have to read his book "dancing naked in the mindfield" this guy is a human prototype, he's one of the most outstanding scientist of the century.

  30. Guys! What is up with you!!!

    around 12 thousand views yet only 200 rated!!!

    Please RATE so other youtube viewers know that there is something really interesting on youtube that deserves being watch.

    Click on the 5th STAR please.


  31. Wait, so he's a global warming denialist? That boggles my mind. Doesn't he know of all the data in support of global warming? (yeah, I know he said that there is not data, but he didn't provide verification of this assertion).
    Mullis is still one of my heroes and greatest idols. But, really, maybe he should stick to biology, the field in which his genius lies.

  32. Thanks, I appreciate the link. I read it but it's difficult to take it very seriously. I prefer to stick with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I don't believe they even cited any peer-reviewed data.
    But, again, i do appreciate the thoughtful comment.

  33. Oh, I know. I wasn't trying to claim that scientists are perfect. Sure they have biases. But we have to remember that peer-review does a remarkably good job of weeding out the rubbish. That is why it is so reliable. So even if a scientist is biased, they are forced to publish whatever the data leads to (and if they don't then they will most likely be caught by the peer-review process. If you'd like I can send you some links to nature and science articles in support of a global warming trend.

  34. I never said peer-review was perfect.. But it is most certainly the best process that we have. It has worked for a very long time and in a lot of different subjects. I don't get why people typically only try to call it into question when discussing either global warming, evolution, or the big bang.

    But, I'd be interested in reading the articles about the other planetary bodies heating up. It would be interesting to see that data.

  35. Since when is SCIENCE based on CONSENSUS you twit.

    Either he has valid points, or not. What does consensus have to do with ANYTHING?

    Before you criticize someone, you might wanna actually address their ARGUMENTS, not the fact that they deviate from "consensus."


  36. This is DISGUSTING how many of you people are badmouthing this man.

    He's not a global warming denialist. You all are global warming alarmists.

    He's not an HIV denialists anymore than you idiots are all HIV believers.

    Attack the claim, not the man. He makes very valid points about everything he's talking about. Stop assuming he's just a nutter, and address his points, you fools.

  37. @ccr5cxcr4 Of course he denies HIV as cause of AIDS. Go to his biography on Wikipedia! (and many other sites regarding his work) Besides retroviruses do not kill cells! That's why he doubts that a retrovirus is the cause of AIDS!

  38. @ccr5cxcr4 And what can u say about his famous speech at Toledo? Where he discredited the "official theory on HIV-AIDS) ?

  39. @ccr5cxcr4 How can I argue with someone who from the very start labels a different oppinion as "bullshit" Very scientific thought indeed!
    And how can u deny the overwhelming evidence of what Dr. Mullis state?
    What about the co-discoverer of HIV also claiming HIV is not the only cause of AIDS and that a healthy inmune system can get rid of it?
    And if there is not an "official theory on HIV-AIDS" why not going in a different direction after 30 yrs of failure to stop or control the infection?

  40. @mykoolaidtastesfunny U know the scariest thing about a guy like him is that he is not only defending his point of view, but I'm sure he wants to spread his word , so he and others like him can stay in business!

  41. Dr Mullis, I was raised in La Jolla , never learned to surf though, but certainly such a beautiful environment has helped u to increase ur wisdom and witt! Congratulations!

  42. @mykoolaidtastesfunny Well there are freaks everywhere, but good thing , thru their words they show what they really are.

  43. @ccr5cxcr4 That is so untrue! Rate of "infections" and deaths is the same, but international political and economic pressures on Southafrica were the cause why they went back to the use of Antirretrovirals!

  44. @transtlantic hahaha so being alive and well is anecdotic ?? ok good 4 u, keep on selling ur AZTs , and hurry cause ur time is nearly up!

  45. @transtlantic BEING ALIVE AND WELL and discovering the terrible side effects of the AZTs is an anecdotic claim? Well good 4 u then! Keep promoting ur theory, but hurry, ur time will soon be up!

  46. @transtlantic Why do u try to convince me out of ur theoretical scheme, when I have had personal – first hand experiences?? Isn't that selfish from ur part? To think u own the truth and never asking ? Besides explain to me why there is so much controversy on HIV-AIDS ? I don't find any controversy on Seasonal Flu, Smallpox, TB, Gastric Ulcer, or any other disease!

  47. @transtlantic
    "made up stuff for me is anedoctal. and ad populum is a very poor argument"
    thank you for pointing it out
    ccr5cxcr4 does that a lot, you should read his comments on a raw milk video
    unfortunatly like many amerikans he suffers from insecurity issues, thats why he cant stand that other countries might be better at things than his. you do know he was in the army right? his information is largely propaganda fed to him at a young age. last i heard "same quality standards" is true

  48. "is something of value"
    of course, but berating others over it & misleading people is not
    "I've seen nothing wrong"
    i could show you lots
    i can also show you plenty of places where hes misleading in order to generate arguments
    again i thank you for pointing out his bad information & attempt to misinform

  49. thats ok trans, you pointed at something that ccr5cxcr4 does a lot, even to you. i dont need to assume you mentioned anything else. that was fine. thank you very much

  50. "MAOi & tyramine rich diet"
    dont use terms you dont understand TROLL
    it will just show once again what a fake you are
    "come to Emory immediately"
    yes, just as i thought, you are at the teaching hospital
    i will inform the authorities that you have confirmed your location

  51. "I just don't like having US medical care denigrated, partially because I am a"
    loser TROLL with an inferiority complex. yes, that sound correct
    "What we found out, is that they have literally nothing else to do, and they can outpost two dozen people with lives, because they have none"
    but thats what a lot of people were complaining about you remember?
    you even justified it by claiming you were killing time at work remember?
    your hypocrisy is so easily exposed TROLL
    get help loser

  52. from the emory hospital website
    "The goal of the ED is to evaluate all patients in a prompt and timely manner. At times there are unavoidable delays or waits."
    see, even your hospital admits delays & waits

  53. "I am a man, a doctor, a good citizen" is a false statement
    "tyramine rich diet"
    lol, its all on ONE LINE in wikipedia
    its funny how you ask these 'test' questions when the answer is one google search away. im no medical doctor but..
    the 'ase' means its an enzyme, the 'monoamine' is what its oxydizin, the enzyme pulls off an amine
    mao INHIBITors block its action which dulls brain nerve impulses, but also unfortunately inhibits DIETARY amines from being properly dealt with causing toxic buildup

  54. Extra heat coming in and not being radiated out, yet no increase in global temperature? Conservation of energy says the energy has to go somewhere. The first thing I think of is the endothermic reaction energy of melting all the glaciers that have been disappearing. That can consume energy without affecting actual temperature. But once they're mostly melted we have a huge problem.
    The glaciers and the polar ice have been disappearing, no denying that.

  55. gatoradeee,

    I don't get how you could be against the pursuit of understanding by logic, unbiased research, and verifiable evidence; and I don't understand the benefit of disregarding logical argument on the basis of personal character.

  56. @mykoolaidtastesfunny

    Thanks. I somehow doubt that gatoradeee really cares. He appears to have a dislike for the man delivering the message and no interest in the message.

  57. Omg I can't believe these Rolex advertisements. Who the hell's paying for crap like this? I'm sure it's a competitor trying to tarnish its image…no way they'd made ads this crappy otherwise

  58. wow it's stupendous how he undermines his whole talk at the end. His main theme is "when you want to find something out, do the science" but then he waves his hands and claims global warming is "trash" because of measuring stations being in bad locations. But he never gave any evidence for that, he just assumed that's what was going on. And of course after the science was actually DONE, that idea was proven to be bunk. He was wrong. He should have listened to himself and done some science!

  59. No, he knows that it's not going to be something people at that conference wanted to hear, and it probably wouldn't be well accepted. But he speaks even though his voice trembles. That's how I saw it.

    He's correct about AIDS. He's correct about global warming and the ozone layer.

    And he's right on point about the history of science and what science has become today. Industry.

    He has no BS to choke on. You're wrong.

  60. Keep your condescending tone to yourself.
    You said absolutely nothing, as you just did in your reply to me.

  61. Saying someone is "uninformed" is not a counter-argument.
    Again, you've just said nothing.
    Are you going to keep this up? Is your life really that empty?

  62. Demanding better scientific experimentation is not out to lunch. For 20 years people said there is no way H. pylori caused ulcers and J. Robin Warren and Barry Marshal were considered crackpots, only to be proven right. Why were they considered "out to lunch", because people had a vested monetary interest in them being wrong. There are countless stories like this in science since where people make discoveries only to be called crazy because of the money invested in counter claims.

  63. I haven't watched this yet, but I bet the left wing, brainwashed propagandists at TED wouldn't allow Kary to talk about the fact that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, and that quantitative PCR is an oxymoron…

  64. An interesting talk, but too easily dismissed as a meandering rant over the second half. I've tried to review it at TEDsummaries dotcom.

  65. Wait what about measurements of ice caps diminishing? Is every stat about that hogswash or is there another explanation?

  66. Ice caps come and go, next ice age comes along they'll expand halfway down north america, between ice ages they may almost entirely disappear, we cannot assume that simply because in the short time we've been observing them that they've never disappeared means they MUST NEVER disappear.

  67. Kary Mullis definitely did something really cool with DNA. He also believes in astrology. Climate change is something we should believe in.

  68. Also note that this was in 2002, when this strange view was more widely accepted among good scientists. It no longer is.

  69. James Balog and his movie Chasing Ice is a very nice example of easy to understand visual evidence of global warming. Just search for 'Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss – James Balog' on YouTube.

  70. To bad this guy still falls for the laughable Atomic/Nuclear Bomb LIES.  The same type of Fire Storms were created in Dresden and Tokyo as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

  71. Most offended people in the comments got offended due to the last 10 minutes, when he criticizes climate science. everybody gets uptight. No more laughs from the crowd. That in itself is pretty telling.

  72. lolol. he always seems a bit figity in public interview view spaces, and seems to side step the close approach of his points but he's realistic and fun enough to over look it THE FACT HE'S PROBABLY DOSED TEN HITS OF LSD. (actually its painfully obvious his mind is throttled wide open from the lsd in his past. the water consumption and his legs though mske me think he's actively on amphetamine at the time this was recorded. AND, EVERY DAY he can. wouldn't you if you won a Nobel while on drugs?

  73. this was in 2009. Its 2018 now and the planet is cooling and actually the fear is if there will be a n ice age~~. I hope global warming comes back someday lol~because its COLDER THAN EVER RIGHT NOW

  74. In the 17th century, science advanced when protected from religious ideology. These days, science needs to be protected from political ideology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *