He’s working on a new book that attempts to disprove evolution or at least show cases to the contrary, advocating for a grand design as a primary mechanism instead. Curious to read it, I’m hopeful he will release it.
Your comment appears grey to me so I assume someone downvoted you? How strange.
At any rate, I do own his books on electronics as a kind of an amusing look into the history of how electronics were taught, but I do find it to be a positive thing in the world to have curious individuals like himself.
People from all walks of life believe all sorts of kooky shit. That’s the spice of it I suppose.
My biggest critiques are that it consistently fails its predictions. You’d see an endless stream of intermediate forms going in so many directions. Instead, we saw few if any, nature organized more hierarchically, and organisms just appear out of thin air after extinctions (eg Cambrian Explosion). Instead of falsification, scientists keep making excuses for it like it is a religion that can’t be wrong.
I’ll add that humans have observed creatures, in their areas and in captivity, for a long time. We haven’t seen the chickens start giving birth to different animals. I’m grateful the fire ants and poisonous spiders we’re dodging haven’t turned into something more effective. Dumb evolution would have a crazy number of adaptation streams happening, many attempts per species, to create all the life we see. Instead, we see exactly zero movement from one kind of animal to another with changes only happening within kinds.
Whereas, studies of creation itself have proven the opposite. Everything from our non-life experiments to evolutionary algorithms show a creator who fine tunes is necessary. The universe itself has many constants that never change, they work together in precise ways, all has perfect reliability, and life on Earth depends on most of them. Complexity of most of biology is such that we’re incapable of manufacturing it. (See a lung vs a respirator.) It only gets more and more impossible over time the more we learned.
On time scales (X is millions of years old), they seem to assume the Earth didn’t change much at all over a long period of time. A specific thing changes at rate X. They’ll roll the clock back that much until they hit a point in their theory. Both human literature (esp Genesis) and the fossil record show catastrophes with huge effects on the Earth. It probably went through many changes. So, all time estimates that make that assumption are faith-based, likely-incorrect beliefs no matter how many textbooks they end up in. There is a minority studying Catastrophism or something like that to understand their effect.
Finally, godless science that broke from Christian scientists, like Newton and Pascal, all backed David Hume saying only material, observable things exist. Nothing else is ever allowed in scientific theory. A faith-based, unproven belief. While still making godless and materialism axiomatic, the same scientists tell us of a world outside our universe, exceeding the laws of physics, and maybe even having effects on observed phenomenon. Instead of things with evidence (eg Bible), they’ve shifted to purely-imaginary constructs outside the universe to support their claims which themselves contradict the Hume foundation they demand of us. They do it while denying the logical implications of the complexity and fine-tuning we’ve observed.
Those are some examples of counters to mainstream creation, like evolution and long timescales, being a pile of faith-based dogma that continues to fail in scientific experiments, historical writings, complexity theory, and global observations by laypeople. Outside of minor adaptation, evolution theory is provably false which leaves God as the primary hypothesis. From there, we consider whichever God claim has the most evidence and impact. That’s Jesus Christ. :)
Rather than using old school 3" or 4" Petri dishes, most molecular biology is now done in miniature culture wll plates, with 96 little wells (each holding maybe 20 microliters of cells or reagents) in the form factor of about a 3x5 card. With 96 different tubes, you can run a whole experiment on a single plate, with controls and replicates. Lots of infrastructure for "reading" the plates (taking measurements of reaction, incubating at set temperture, etc.) But that raises the issue of keeping track of what went in which of the 96 wells...
The site creator might want to read this answer and try to put some of those words into the home page text. At present, it feels like the only key word of relevance on the home page is "platemap", which might be what this is, but if the person who needs it searches for any other relevant term it looks like this page would not appear in search.
Culture? Petri? Molecular Biology? I'm not in the space, so I don't know what the relevant keywords are, I just know they aren't on that page.
The buried lede is that adding specific flavor-odorants can boost the sweetness of foods via olfaction (which is why some heirloom tomatoes with complex flavor profiles taste far better than regular tomatoes, for example). So this may provide another route to lower sugar content without relying on non-caloric sweeteners (saccharin, aspartame that act on tongue taste receptors) but instead adding even smaller amounts of odor molecules.
