Global Climate Change

@ Nihil: Science is on neither side in this, and few of my points have actually been refuted. What I refuse to believe is that we have the answers. And body odor is one field we understand very little about, there are about a hundred different reasons it could occur.

@ Dray: You can't just have life appear. Something that is inorganic cannot become organic, and radiation and heat are not a friend of life, they'll kill life, but they won't make it.

They change, and then change right back. I can get used to summer heat in about a week when I go out enough in it, but next summer I'll have to get used to it again. My body didn't evolve to deal with it better, it adapted for a short period of time, then went back to normal.

no one knows how life came to be PRECISELY, but evolution has a explanation for it. it started with photocollecting bacteriae, you can look that up. it ahs been long since i last thought about it, so i forget some parts...

radiation can be a starter for life.

heat is radiation, and without heat there can be no life, yet if u heat urself too much, you can die. example of how radiation is not anti life.

On the levels on solar winds it is anti-life. And if you can't prove where life came from, isn't the rest a moot point?

no, becuz you do not know where u came from, yet you know you exist right? so it is never a moot point. your problem is in seeing this as a truth. science does not acknowledge truths, only close to truth theories that are in constant improvement. evolution is th best one yet, you dont find a better one aard.

Yes it does. It's called Scientific law. And yes I know I exist, but if I don't know where I came from I can't bloody well tell you my home town.

and thru a series of processes and logics, evolution is estimating where u came from. and guess what? it has proven to be a successful method sometimes. there is no scientific law. maybe mathematiccal equations, in wich physics relies on, but mathematics=/=science. it is involved in a great deal of science, but it is not exact science. there are no laws per se, probably mathematical equations. those are the only absolute truths that mankind can reach. mathematical logics.

Nihil wrote:

Nihil wrote:
so here is almost all of the article for you to read and to find out that your argument is, therefore, invalid

no fail,

also please contribute to the conversation next time Drist if you are going to post.

K?

Oh I did. I judged your uber long post as failzor.

If it's been proven then why do I rarely see questions about it answered? Evolution has this air of "Don't question me I'm always right" about it, and every time I see a good question raised I see a half-assed answer, or no answer at all. That's not the way of science, if you don't know then say you don't know, there's no harm in being ignorant as long as you try to learn, there's every harm in assuming you're right when a good point is raised against you.

Although I am curious as to why you both skipped over this:
"Some arguments for evolution is that if you give it enough time anything could happen. But unbeknownst to most, evolution doesn't have enough time. Billions or trillions of years is not even close to how much time would be needed. Rick Ramashing and Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability for one cell to evolve by chance. The atheist/agnostic team found to their disbelief that it is 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000th power years just for one cell to evolve. Hoyle said, "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.' Does evolution have enough time? No. - Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer), 'Hoyle on the Evolution'. Nature, vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105."

i didnt, i posted a argument for it...didnt i? :S

No I read all the replies afterward. Of all the points I made in the long post you and Nihil chose only two to argue back on, out of seven.

to be honest, i didnt read much of urs or nihils post. i tried, i swear i did, but its too long lol. althou, i did see that one, and i was gonna say that this number is numerically quite impossible, since it is bigger then some astronomy calculations made with celestial bodies. plus, it explains quite little of what they applied their maths on, what variables they included, and what does this number actually mean.

what i mean is, cells dont evolve. a species does. that statement is already stupid by ssaying it. cells dont evolve, they mutate. when the cells of an organism mutate and change it, making all its predecessors carry a new trait, thats when sth evolves.

ok aard you haff done made me unleash MAH FURY UPON THEE!!

READ THIS ENTIRE THING FOR THE FULL, EPIC, DESTRUCTION OF AARD'S POINT.

@ Nihil: Science is on neither side in this, and few of my points have actually been refuted. What I refuse to believe is that we have the answers. And body odor is one field we understand very little about, there are about a hundred different reasons it could occur.

so what if we don't "understand" much about body odor, i can tell you this about it right now, pheromones, pheromones, pheromones, in a study, women with men's armpit sweat, yes disgusting, wiped under their nose were happier an hour later. Therefore, this is not adaptation, but evolution, scientists have found, to their shock, that humans are evolving faster today even though we are not nomadic, because smaller population= more changes within the genetic pool, simple logic there, if you don't get it, anyone, its just that changes are frequent, spreading them can be slow, thus in small communities it spreads faster.*BOOM*

On the levels on solar winds it is anti-life. And if you can't prove where life came from, isn't the rest a moot point?

I just proved already that there is an Rna predecessor that exists that has been found to be able to create life, i forget what its called, but it has that potential. *BOOM*

"in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term originally coined by him as a jocular, perhaps disparaging, name for the theory which was the main rival to his own. In addition to his work as an astronomer, Hoyle was a writer of science fiction, including a number of books co-written with his son Geoffrey Hoyle."

wrote Science Fiction... so did the founder of Scientology churches but, w/e

so i found this, this theory of his is known as Hoyle's Fallacy, for good reason too

this is epic repudiation, sit in your seats ladies and gentlemen...

1. Hoyle's fallacy is based on arguments most popular in the 1920s before the modern evolutionary synthesis, and is rejected by all evolutionary biologists.

1a. 1920's... LOL, like science doesn't IMPROVE over time, but gets WORSE, LOL

2. The fallacy occurs when the conclusion is drawn that the enormity of the search space implies that natural selection could not have located the solution.

3. He has basically committed these errors:
1b. They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2b. They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3b. They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4b. They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5b. They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

4. and so... finally, the mathematical errors: in this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

*BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM* *BOOM*

also...


PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ASTROLOGERS LIKE HOYLE WAS AND ARE TRAINED BIOLOGISTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AS THEY DON'T SEE IT AS RANDOM AND SPONTANEOUS, BUT IN STEPS, NOT THIS SINGLE CRAZY STEP.

Dray:
Cells mutate until they become complex enough to form a living being is a simple view of Evolution. What exactly are the odds of that happening? How much time would that take? How much time would it takes for form the Millions and Billions of plant, animal, and insect life? That's what the theory is about.

Nihil:
Adaptation. If you keep the same conditions the body will sustain the adaptation, take it away and the body will revert back. That is something anyone who has lived in different climates for a while can tell you.

Nihil wrote:I just proved already that there is an Rna predecessor that exists that has been found to be able to create life, i forget what its called, but it has that potential.

Rna, like Dna is organic. So fail.

And in that list of errors, they work towards proving it. Assuming there's a fixed number LIMITS the number of results, giving in to a non-fixed number makes it infinitely higher. And if Evolution resulted in the modern proteins then it's a very plausible assumption to base his questions off of. And the fact that you have to specify Evolutionary Biologists tells me not all agree he's wrong, and it would be obvious for Evolutionary biologists to agree about something that disagrees with Evolution just like a Creationism biologist would agree about something that disagrees with Creationism.

And one big problem I've had with Evolution. Evolution states survival of the fittest. It also states that creatures evolve to survive. So why would a species ever die out? Or better why would the species still exist if the conditions were present for an evolutionary change? Wouldn't they all either evolve or die out? And if the conditions are survivable for that species then why would the evolutionary even occur? Why not adapt since that biology is still fit? If you claim that natural selection is in it's own way intelligent enough to pick and choose instead of randomly picking up genes and hoping for the best. Then why would it be so stupid as to evolve into a whole new species when a simple change to the genes would do? So is it intelligent, or is it random? If it's intelligent then why evolve to a new species every time when our own environment shows it's survivable by a variety of animals? If it's random then wouldn't Mr. Hoyle's math be dead on? And if it's random then how do you explain something like fur color? Polar Bears have white fur to blend in with their environment, genes wouldn't know that particular color aided, there's no biological aid other then improved hunting, and how would genes know fur color is what made them better hunters, or in some animal's cases, better able to camouflage. Especially given that on the prey's side the only way to learn would be for the animal to die, and at that point it can't pass on it's genes.

In response to what u said, your argument involves a lot of talking about time. Do you know how fast a cell can mitose? how fast ur organic processes are? really, really, fucking fast. and its speed is what makes me think that number is full of bull.

the fur color...hmmm, how can i explain this. it has less to do with genetics, and more to do with primeval evolution theories, where genes had not been discovered yet. it is know that bears in northern territories, before the existence of the polar bear, ranged in a variety of colors(yes, not only brown, they went from dark to light). when they were faced with living in artic weather, the bear specimens with lighter fur had more success hunting seals, camouflaging and thus, thru natural selection, these bears prevailed over other colored bears. with the ongoing of generations, the dark bears decreased drastically due to their unsuccess next to lighter bears, and while doing so, the genetic pool was filled with what you would call 'albino' bears nowadays, and due to this, and OTHER features that also prevailed, polar bears came to exist nowadays.

Plausible. But why would they even have differing colors? Why would the genes choose to represent in that way?

cause nature was never about being specific. the argument behind evolution, is that the diversity you see is natural to life. In a really short explanation, Nature thru mutations, makes AAALL kinds of beings, and thru time, the ones most fit to their environments, most of times, prevail, and those who did not have the necessary traits, fail to carry their genetic material. Thus, as time goes, the genetic material that stays is narrowed down. But, mutations keep occurring, along time. Living beings who have become well adapted have stronger immune systems to fight off possible lethal mutations to them, wich were once, non lethal to their antecestors. That is why, it is said that in a term of global environment change, the most generalized animals, the ones who are more flexible, survive, while animals who have evolved to very specific situations, will die off easily. Coral reefs are veeery specific, while a pig isnt. in a global climatic change, the coral reef will go extinct more probably before the pig.

That goes contrary to an intelligent solution and falls into the realm of random. In which case it still leaves with the question of how you could fit so many billions of flora and fauna into such a shot time if it takes millenia for each to adapt.

mutations take a milisecond, plus add the short span of lifetime of many living beings, plus had the number of living beings, therfore, add the number of offspring they produce. it is curious, but we havent even found all species in the planet yet. right now, thousands of mutations are occurring in living beings, and a few of them will carry on, and some that already happened are alredy being carried on. Dont ask me to tell you the meaning of life Aard, its not an answer mankind can, or even should have.

But that's contradictory. You can't have thousands of mutations and not have them at the same time, and if it happened that fast we'd have seen far more evidence in current living creatures then we have.

MAKE A FUCKING EVOLUTION THREAD DAMNIT.

Eh no need. Kinda getting bored with it anyway. To put my final view simply takes something Dray said before. Evolution is the best answer SO FAR, as in a scientific means it answers questions in a more likely manner then those proposed by other origin theories. I still don't believe it's correct though. I believe it has some points just like elements of Creationism philosophy have some, but I don't believe either has the full answer so I choose to believe neither is the true answer.

Anywho back to topic. You say we can't know about insurance policies like fire and flood Nihil. That's true, but we know floods and fires do happen to houses. What we don't know is if Global Warming will destroy the planets ecosystem, or indeed if this warming cycle is anything more then one of many the planet has experienced during the years. But to sate your appetite. Say you move to an area no where near a fault line that has a history of very few earthquakes, but they've all been on the level of a tremor and nothing more, no real damage done during one. Then say some insurance agent came by your house, told you the area has a history of earthquakes and that if you really care about your family you'll buy his earthquake insurance to make sure you're always safe. You don't know what the area has actually had in way of earthquakes and you're worried because he makes it seem like it's a serious risk, so you buy the insurance. If you found out later what the real activity had been would you go: "Better to have it anyway right?" or more likely go: "I'm gonna kill that guy!" ? This is the same thing I have to say about what they make of Global Warming.

Aardvark wrote:
Nihil:
Adaptation. If you keep the same conditions the body will sustain the adaptation, take it away and the body will revert back. That is something anyone who has lived in different climates for a while can tell you.

get ur definitions right, adaptation has no genetic basis, it just happens, what i'm talking about is natural selection, and through some people in asia, this has caused the appearance of a new trait, *BOOM*

Nihil wrote:I just proved already that there is an Rna predecessor that exists that has been found to be able to create life, i forget what its called, but it has that potential.

Rna, like Dna is organic. So fail.

I don't think you have ANY fucking idea what being organic means, it simply means that, just as in ORganic Chemistry, that it deals with CARBON based substances, Carbon is an element. *BOOM*

And in that list of errors, they work towards proving it. Assuming there's a fixed number LIMITS the number of results, giving in to a non-fixed number makes it infinitely higher. And if Evolution resulted in the modern proteins then it's a very plausible assumption to base his questions off of. And the fact that you have to specify Evolutionary Biologists tells me not all agree he's wrong, and it would be obvious for Evolutionary biologists to agree about something that disagrees with Evolution just like a Creationism biologist would agree about something that disagrees with Creationism.

also since you apparently didn't read the mathematical errors i presented you with from the link, i'll just ferry them to you

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

*BOOM*

And one big problem I've had with Evolution. Evolution states survival of the fittest. It also states that creatures evolve to survive. So why would a species ever die out? Or better why would the species still exist if the conditions were present for an evolutionary change? Wouldn't they all either evolve or die out? And if the conditions are survivable for that species then why would the evolutionary even occur? Why not adapt since that biology is still fit? If you claim that natural selection is in it's own way intelligent enough to pick and choose instead of randomly picking up genes and hoping for the best. Then why would it be so stupid as to evolve into a whole new species when a simple change to the genes would do? So is it intelligent, or is it random? If it's intelligent then why evolve to a new species every time when our own environment shows it's survivable by a variety of animals?

This is a very good question, the reason that an animal would die out would be due to a large number of factors within each organisms own niche, assuming that one organism has only one predator, and that competitor has three rival species that compete with it, for different sources of food, wouldn't it make sense that if one animal evolves faster, by chance, or because it has a smaller population or more competitors than this one animal with three competitors, that this one organism with three competitors would either adapt or evolve to consume other animals since they were outbid for one source of food, the animal with only one predator?

the evolution of those species, the ones with three competitors, would be far more drastic than the creature with one predator, But, assuming that other animals turn to that creature, then the evolutionary process would be jump started, due to a small number of organisms within the genetic pool of the organisms niche, but, since other animals don't need to evolve to prey on this animal, the one with only one predator, before this, then it would be picked off completely.

These things, though, usually do not happen because of the truly miraculous balance of nature.

in a more practical sense, it could be demonstrated through hypothetical situations.

A robin and a sparrow both consume an environments grasshoppers, hypothetically, if the number of grasshoppers starts to get low, due to the preying of the two birds, then they will be forced to find new food. Suppose the Sparrow has one competitor to the food of worms, and that the robin has two competitors to its source of new food, lady bugs.

The Sparrow would have to evolve to meet the demands of the new food source, or compete in a different way. Here is where natural selection comes in, if the sparrow has one truly devout foe that consumes greatly the worms, then its species will dwindle, then either a beneficial trait appears, or it dies out. In the case of the Robin, let us assume that it is not able to win the fight. The Robin is then either forced to find another food source, thus changing its genetic makeup slightly again by natural selection, and hope to win, or die out.

if the sparrow and robin's main source of food before were grasshoppers, and we assume that their numbers don't climb up over the years, then the sparrow and robin will change drastically. Just look at Darwin's Finches for that example.

So basically, if a species is confronted on too many fronts for competition while having to evolve, they may die out.

*BOOM*

If it's random then wouldn't Mr. Hoyle's math be dead on? And if it's random then how do you explain something like fur color? Polar Bears have white fur to blend in with their environment, genes wouldn't know that particular color aided, there's no biological aid other then improved hunting, and how would genes know fur color is what made them better hunters, or in some animal's cases, better able to camouflage. Especially given that on the prey's side the only way to learn would be for the animal to die, and at that point it can't pass on it's genes.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers[b] is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

next, natural selection, not random in this complete sense, because it is dictated, for the most part of which trait will survive into the next generation, by its usefulness. So in general, it is random, because errors are random, which are made in transcription, but look below to find out why his math is off, or just follow that link i had given you before.

again his math is off due to his NOT BEING A BIOLOGIST, meaning, HE HAS NO ABILITY IN APPLYING THE FIELD, which is what the biologists who disproved him have done.

*BOOM*

also aard, neither you or I are experts in this area, this is why i trust the experts full heartedly, but, a healthy amount of skepticism is always in reserve. I believe that you are not trusting the people who are trained and, who, in a complete majority, agree that climate change is happening, and that humans are affecting it. But a healthy amount of skepticism, is, again, good to have for any approach to science because this is the way that we discover faults and improve scientific theories.

Nihil wrote:get ur definitions right, adaptation has no genetic basis, it just happens, what i'm talking about is natural selection, and through some people in asia, this has caused the appearance of a new trait, *BOOM*

A biological process is required for any change in the human body. Therefore adaptation cannot just happen, there must be a series of biological changes that cause it to occur

Nihil wrote:I don't think you have ANY fucking idea what being organic means, it simply means that, just as in ORganic Chemistry, that it deals with CARBON based substances, Carbon is an element. *BOOM*

Carbon doesn't make a substance organic, most organic substances contain carbon, but the presence of carbon doesn't indicate life. Rna is a substance in our DNA that alters our body on an active basis therefore it is organic.

Nihil wrote:also since you apparently didn't read the mathematical errors i presented you with from the link, i'll just ferry them to you

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.

*BOOM*

Fail. Dray already covered this.

Nihil wrote:This is a very good question, the reason that an animal would die out would be due to a large number of factors within each organisms own niche, assuming that one organism has only one predator, and that competitor has three rival species that compete with it, for different sources of food, wouldn't it make sense that if one animal evolves faster, by chance, or because it has a smaller population or more competitors than this one animal with three competitors, that this one organism with three competitors would either adapt or evolve to consume other animals since they were outbid for one source of food, the animal with only one predator?

the evolution of those species, the ones with three competitors, would be far more drastic than the creature with one predator, But, assuming that other animals turn to that creature, then the evolutionary process would be jump started, due to a small number of organisms within the genetic pool of the organisms niche, but, since other animals don't need to evolve to prey on this animal, the one with only one predator, before this, then it would be picked off completely.

These things, though, usually do not happen because of the truly miraculous balance of nature.

in a more practical sense, it could be demonstrated through hypothetical situations.

A robin and a sparrow both consume an environments grasshoppers, hypothetically, if the number of grasshoppers starts to get low, due to the preying of the two birds, then they will be forced to find new food. Suppose the Sparrow has one competitor to the food of worms, and that the robin has two competitors to its source of new food, lady bugs.

The Sparrow would have to evolve to meet the demands of the new food source, or compete in a different way. Here is where natural selection comes in, if the sparrow has one truly devout foe that consumes greatly the worms, then its species will dwindle, then either a beneficial trait appears, or it dies out. In the case of the Robin, let us assume that it is not able to win the fight. The Robin is then either forced to find another food source, thus changing its genetic makeup slightly again by natural selection, and hope to win, or die out.

if the sparrow and robin's main source of food before were grasshoppers, and we assume that their numbers don't climb up over the years, then the sparrow and robin will change drastically. Just look at Darwin's Finches for that example.

So basically, if a species is confronted on too many fronts for competition while having to evolve, they may die out.

*BOOM*

You miss the point. If a species evolves then there shouldn't be anymore of that species because a better form is found.

Nihil wrote:Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers[b] is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

next, natural selection, not random in this complete sense, because it is dictated, for the most part of which trait will survive into the next generation, by its usefulness. So in general, it is random, because errors are random, which are made in transcription, but look below to find out why his math is off, or just follow that link i had given you before.

again his math is off due to his NOT BEING A BIOLOGIST, meaning, HE HAS NO ABILITY IN APPLYING THE FIELD, which is what the biologists who disproved him have done.

*BOOM*

Something can't both be random and selective. By definition these conflict.

Nihil wrote:also aard, neither you or I are experts in this area, this is why i trust the experts full heartedly, but, a healthy amount of skepticism is always in reserve. I believe that you are not trusting the people who are trained and, who, in a complete majority, agree that climate change is happening, and that humans are affecting it. But a healthy amount of skepticism, is, again, good to have for any approach to science because this is the way that we discover faults and improve scientific theories.

I know. As I stated I don't blame scientist that much they're just doing what they can to further a field. I have a problem with politicians and media getting in on it and acting as if they know the outcome when they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

And will you please knock off the BOOM thing? It's getting quite annoying and it doesn't help your points. In fact it makes them look quite childish.

The only media i use is the best one in the world. The Internet.