Can Evolution Be Stopped?

Thats one long paragraph but to answer quickly. "Can evolution be stopped?"

No, evolution can comes from cosmic rays the can effect your chromosomes, some good, some bad, making minute differences causing change and in effect evolution.

p911

Iwill try to make this short .lol I know how good science is verified and my fudging comment is more related to the text and emails from scientist that are in ? In my mind if we only have decades of info depth wise even thought we have thousands of years related to dinosaurs and as such can we really come up with any concrete pre iceage or is it just theory based on a small patern and are we looking in the right place new discovery of new life forms in the ocean and lets say the discovery co22 like I said not enough info in not enough info out.I dont think its black and white seems to be more gray matter needed .sorry about puncuation always proud just being humble.

Sir,

Before I went to college I also had an abbreviated education, having dropped out of high school in the 11th grade. A few things that might help you are; 1. to read lots of books. Preferably books by authors who have some clue what they are talking about. If you like sci-fi for example, I might suggest the works of Robert A. Heinlein. These will give you excellent examples of good writing and help you learn to construct sentences and paragraphs. And 2, take advantage of the spell checkers that are attached to almost every writing program available, including this one. Also, such word processing programs as Word and Word Perfect have grammar sub-routines which will assist you in ordering your writing, and your thoughts.

Do not be in any wise ashamed of your lack of education, it is a thing that is easily remedied. But take the time to think carefully and logically, question all of your assumptions, and never accept anything from anyone without demanding proof. As I said before, do your homework, and you'll be fine.

"..thousands of years related to dinosaurs and as such " should read "..hundreds of millions of years .."

A quick google will turn up all sorts of info on how past CO2 levels are estimated, as well as info on the error in such estimates, how the errors can be reduced and how different estimates can be compared. Of course, there's a whole lot more in the technical literature available to anyone really interested.

Estimating past temperature or CO2 levels is a good example of the day to day operation of science. Messy, but gradually homing in on the truth.

Good answer.

I also like your use of spaces and paragraphs to make it easy to read. (hint, hint)

"The way I understand it is the Oceans and seas of the world release the most carbon in to the atmosphere"

I would be interested to know where you got that. Can you provide a reference?

I think it is exactly the opposite. The oceans remove carbon from the atmosphere. The best way to capture carbon is in photosynthesis. Plants pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, store the carbon, and release the oxygen. The oceans have more plant life that the lands combined, although most of it is microcopic.

Oil, is found mostly in old sea beds, because the carbon in oil is the carbon that sea life took out of the atmosphere or ocean, and coverted to biological form. The life forms die and collect on the sea bottom which traps the carbon there.

As the mean temperature of the oceans rise, they are releasing CO2 along with other dissolved gases. Since the other gases do not have a significant effect on warming (either way), the net effect is to reinforce global warming.

There is a concern that eventually the deep-ocean-floor methane will boil and reach the atmosphere. I hope we can deplete this resource safely before that becomes a factor...

You have communicated your thoughts very well and certainly have a very fertile mind. Do not be stonewalled by the lack of formal education and keep asking questions that require real thinking. You can get good answers or stupid answers but your questions will always be good. Read lots; newspapers, magazines, novels, manuals, textbooks. Knowledge is there for the taking.

The short answer to evolution is that it will always "evolve" or change with time and environment. Given enough time man will adapt to a new climate. If global warming creates a rapid change that man has to deal with then adaption could get a little messy for lots of people. Evolution could lag the environmental change.

The question and comments on global warming has many people questioning the science. However, science has lots of tools and can use things like different types or isotopes of carbon to try to tell what the air and life forms were like in ages past. Scientists called paleontologists can look at fossils records. Geologists will know something about past climates through rock formations and mineral types. Today climatologists can crunch data gathered by many scientists working in many fields. The problem does not come from the record of past climates but rather forecasting a near future climate over the next couple of centuries.

Man is certainly a factor of consideration in climate change and many scientist think we are the biggest factor. I tend to think we have not gotten all the ducks lined up in the argument and we may be missing some vital science. For example, we know that the oceans can take up more carbon than it releases (the opposite of what you commented), yet the atmosphere continues to show an increase in CO2. Many climatologists will say it is the result of burning fossil fuels and carbon isotopes will confirm fossil fuels. There is however a form of carbon formed in deep oceans called methane and much of it gets trapped in hydrates or cages. These hydrates get buried in sediments and for the most part are stable. Some of these hydrates can be released during earthquakes or near shore earth movement called slumping. These hydrates of methane and the carbon they contain will have isotopes not unlike fossil fuel. It has only been in the past year carbon release from a large slump off the coast of Norway (Storrega slide) has been detected. It is possible that much of the greenhouse gas attributed to man can be mother natures burb.

Keep up the good work Johnny.

Thank you for your gracious comments, I was raised to be polite, so I am sorry for my communication skills when I type. But you and the poster below clearly get my drift and I appreciate your patience, very noble without harsh criticism Ty. I should have read better my own writing and I would have realized I wrote it backwards I do understand photosynthesis above and below water and yes in trying to make my point that the oceans have to play a larger role in this equation. I mean more then measuring the rise and fall. I believe what happens on 3/4 of the earths surface is a better place to look in depth no pun intended.Our replacements are still forming in those depps without regard to the current ppb of co2 reading in the ozone layer, so to claim the sky is falling before adequate info is in is a great in justice to science. Yes when I asked the ? Can evolution be stopped, I already new the answer kind of like infinity. On its face the global warming equation doesn't look right to even someone of my little Intel. So until the picture is Painted with a more comprehensive brush based on irrefutable info change will have a real problem being exacted. sincerely john breidigan i shall go back to more reading and put that gray matter back to work.

Hi,

A.:

Oceans may release a lot of carbon that is stored as methane-ice if water temperature deep down is rising so that the ice is no longer stable but decomposes into methane and water.

This may be a very large step towards warming.

B.:

Ice core data are not reliable but have to be corrected in an unknown manner as there is a minute amount of liquid water at the crystal boundaries. This liquid water will dissolve a bit of all the gases in the bubbles and yield results that have to be corrected. But nobody knows how to correct!

C.: Evolution is going on permanently - the more important question would be: will there be any favorable evolution?

Evolution is a joint effort of gene sequence changing (most not good at all) by radioactive or chemical influence. If these resulting new changed genes are favorable and if the natural selection prefers the bearers by more offspring then this will be evolution.

See Jared Diamond: The rise and the fall of the third chimpanzee,

this book magnificently outlines our ancient history - not everything seems to be correct but very well worth reading and learning how we humans lost some 10% of brain capacity within the last 100,000 years. This too is evolution: not needed capacities will be lost. So switch off your brains and only use your computers.

RHABE

"Can Evolution Be Stopped?"
You cannot stop something that never 'began.'
Perhaps you meant 'adaptation.'

You cannot stop adaptation of life to the environment surrounding it, as this is integral to the design of living organisms.

"Being all things are relative"

Not all things, philosophically, but at least 'most' things, physically.

"Earth is 3/4 water and about 93% of that is salt water...Oceans...release the most carbon in to the atmosphere..."

Please refer to and study any online description of the basic gas laws. All fluids in which gases are soluble will absorb AND RELEASE applicable gases based on the temperature and pressure at the surface boundary.

That is why periods over which the sun has warmed the mass of water in the oceans results in a release of dissolved gases, such as CO2. It is also why periods of lower temperatures are followed by lower concentrations of some atmospheric gases such as CO2. This has been noted in historical ice and other studies as a period of higher CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere following periods of global average warming due to solar activity. This is also independent of biological activity, wherein massive volumes of living organisms in the sea water absorb CO2 with the greater sunlight and produce various byproducts including oxygen and eventually, hydrocarbon deposits, which are no more than stored Hydrogen bound to Carbon, ready for our use.

Oil and natural gas: the original 'green' energy storage provided by natural processes.

"Being that as human beings we have been industrialized in a way that has significantly contributed to the ozone layer for about roughly 130 years."

No; although the region of our atmosphere where ozone safely is produced and remains naturally may be 'contributed to' by lighting, it is mostly created by UVC energy breaking apart stable Oxygen (O2) molecules, which recombine as Ozone and in turn then blocks or reflects other wavelengths of energy. This self-regulating system prevents much of the most damaging UVB energy from the sun from reaching the surface where it would break up the DNA of most organisms.

Anything man would do to 'contribute' ozone would be considered pollution, since at ground level it is disruptive as a strong oxidizer, among other problems.

This is also one of the many factors that you will reason out to imply that we are unlikely to find very many life forms on other planets, even within our solar system. There is no equivalent Ozone layer.

Only a few basic life-forms from Earth will have been splashed out across space to get trapped by the gravity of a passing body. Fewer of those will survive space and the sun's energy, and then multiply on a nearby planet within a life-supporting environment, however limited by size or time of day when temperatures and such are within range for growth.

Due to evidence of meteor hits and near misses streaking through the sky, many expect that we 'should' eventually find some Earth spores on Mars, the Moon, or another body in our solar system, but they'll be descendants of those same spores that escaped Earth's atmosphere somewhere in history, and will have had their DNA protected in some way from the sun.

"The fact that we have probably only been able to get real analizable data...for maybe 70 years and real workable info in the last 40 or 50 yrs..."

This period has also resulted in methods to estimate past atmospheric conditions, although there is no standard or basis against which to truly verify the accuracy of either the dates, nor historic accuracy, of such trapped bubbles of air, since many of the gases being tested for are also known to seep through and it is difficult at best to 'drill' for such pockets in a way that is truly 'clean.' but they try.

"Am I to believe that the scientific community that seems to agree on this data"

They don't.

"about as much as we can get our polititions to agree"

You have some good insight here, the issue is political. Climate Change and Carbon-taxation scams are about increasing the government scope of control over the population and industrial activity, not to mention influence and petty fiefdoms within the so-called 'scientific' community.

If private companies can find a way to profit from this political movement, they will follow the natural urge to do so. Some may be legitimate, including those which actually research and produce energy-saving technology. Others are frauds from the word "Go" like Al Gore and his friends and supporters, such as Indian magnate Pachauri, and have their own phony 'carbon credit' investments and holding companies that stand to make hundreds of millions off of their various 'anti-Carbon' schemes. They will act in their own interest to ensure the political situation continues to demand a 'response' to this made up 'crisis.' Nothing could be more profitable than to make up an entire world-wide market selling and buying nothing but an idea 'out of thin air' and then getting world governments to mandate trading within that market to curry favors toward their favorite supporters.

"Am I to believe that the scientific community that seems to agree on this data"

They don't.

That is misleading. Scientists disagree with each other just on general principle. This discourse tests the methodology of theory and data collection to assure that conclusions reached are reasonable and sound. The vast majority of the scientific community that I work in does agree that climate change is happening and that green house gasses in our atmosphere have been increasing during our time of industrialization. There are some who believe that these two trends are not coupled, or that we are not the major contributor to atmospheric green house gasses. There is also a group that thinks the speed of these changes is not that great. But none of these groups combined make a large following. I believe that many members of these groups are just playing "devil's advocate" as good science requires somebody to do.

OK, sometimes the simplest answer can be true and still avoid the nuances available to a drawn out explanation.

One of the problems faced by any attempting to enter the field in the current climate (political and scientific, not Global) is the near blackout of the voices that would attempt public rebuttal to the claims of AGW extremists. The methodology is only now being developed, and the data itself has become suspect due to admitted tampering.

We do not need a vast majority to agree that the climate is changing, many simply call this weather (pause for chuckle) and the rest simply look to our own recorded history to see both warmer periods and much, much colder. From farming and plant remains below the ice and throughout Greenland to records of plants that will no longer grow in today's northern climates, to Ice-Age remnants of glacier-covered continents, the sun has always ruled the day.

Miniscule human contributions to greenhouse gases notwithstanding, none of the historical evidence of temperatures varying well outside our current cooling trend indicate any tracking with "industrialization." Also, we contribute nothing to water vapor, nor Oxygen, nor methane, and yet many use generic "Climate Change" to justify vast changes in the political landscape to centralize power over the most basic activities of life in order to address CO2. Silly, since this attempts to address a demonstrably inverted effect-cause relationship, using Carbon because it is convenient as a tool, not because it is relevant to the greenhouse effect in any major way.

"and the populations that are watching this are pretty well split."

Well, many support the feeling that 'we' must 'do something' because the mass media talking heads have fallen all all over themselves to be compliant with their owners, who rely on the political 'reality' of the moment for their own place at the table. Also, most in power with the news story sources generally agree with most of the collectivist agenda for the masses.

For the rest who are skeptical, it is because they are thinking, and getting their skepticism naturally by looking at the rest of the evidence and basic science combined with some uncommon sense.

"My self I dont believe we quiet have the ability to ascertain all the data required to make a true equation here."

True; and the equation of the moment changes based on what bias the current version of 'researchers' are attempting to force the computer models to show.

Mostly, it is to justify their latest grant proposal to get more money to pay more staff and buy better facilities from the same political entities profiting (in influence and power) from those pro-human-caused-climate-change results. Reading the proposals for multi-million dollar research grants, you would likely find these results are typically pre-determined even in the very abstracts used to get that funding, since they know any study to show a negative causation is not only trying to prove a negative, but will receive negative funding. And if the evidence shows no warming? or no effect by human activity? Alter the data! Just make sure you email your fellow-researchers so everyone's fraudulant analysis match up.

"If the infromation in is incorrect than the information out is not correct."

Naturally; Consider the problems with sources of a large portion of directly-measured temperature and other data provided by the NOAA to those computer-tweaking fraud-emailing researchers. Their locations have stayed close, for the most part, to original installations However, the heat-island and other effects have multiplied around most of them.

Examples include weather-reporting stations now surrounded by asphalt, located next to aircraft taxiways, or with new buildings with air-conditioners dumping heat next to them. Most of those sensor changes and trends, which would all bias temperature in an upward direction, violate the requirements for using the data, and yet it is included, pooled, and then "corrections" are applied to "account" for the unaccountable.

"I dont believe in Global warming"

Smart man. One exercise: look up the solar activity and the recent measurements of average temperatures from neighboring planets. If you subtract the average increase seen on other planets (without SUV's and incandescent light bulbs) from our own experience, even the gradual and slight increase we had during the last century disappears, and the current cooling trend is confirmed.

"in part because I dont believe we have the tools yet to get an answer"

True, but we have some good tools that indicated the evidence shows a natural system that is cyclical.

"I however believe that we should be good stewarts of the land we live on and we should recycle, not polute"

Awesome! That makes you a conservationist, which is kind of the good-twin of the environmentalist, which is typically the 'mental' evil-twin that takes things irrationally to nearly any extreme you can point to.

"and do everthing we can to lower our carbon foot print individually always work to do so."

Because it reduces our cost and raises our standard of living? Good. Saving energy is always a good thing, and the more efficient we make living, the better we all live and more money we save that can be invested in other pursuits.

"Do I believe the sky is falling no but I do beleve it is our individual duty to keep it propped up."

Reduce toxins, raise energy efficiency, great. Prop up the sky? Sorry, not much within an order-of-magnitude or two that mankind is even capable of to affect that much of the system.

In fact, even if disastrous carbon restrictions were legislated, it only effects a tiny fraction of the tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect caused by CO2, ignores water vapor and other gases responsible for most of it, and would impact the climate only in the local area at all, and only incidentally by moving industrial growth and activity to 3rd world areas of the planet.Oh, and the worst polluters are exempt. Here's one good read for you.

"I have to say That we may not beable to stop evolution but we play a part in molding itand, any thing we can do positve goes with out saying its a plus."

You are confusing evolution with adaptation again. Evolution would be that unproven theory of accidental new species - of both genders simultaneously by the way since otherwise the new species could not reproduce - through random mutations at a genetic level which accidentally survive better than their source-species with which they cannot breed.

The alternative is the intentional design of multiple species from the beginning of life, and the molding of the environment by those species as they find it. How we adapt to our environment, or adapt it to us, defines successful adaptation, not evolution. It is also one key characteristic of mankind indicating the presence of intelligence in the universe. I see myself, and seek a mate like my family appearance, and an ethnicity is developed. We move with others like us to where the food is and we feel comfortable, and a culture is formed. No 'evolution' is needed or evidenced, just adaptation and intentional selection.

"So believing...we have an answer is highly naieve...when the answer is not exactly in their favor a little fudging"

We don't even have a problem, let alone need an answer.

That is why the 'Global Warming' that followed the previous 'Man-caused Ice Age' crisis is a political issue about power and funding, not a scientific one. If it were, it would involve Engineers working out actual methods of raising the global temperature artificially so we can farm the Tundra and Greenland again, for instance. There is nothing we can do to turn up the sun - or turn it down, for that matter - though warmer would be certainly better for mankind. There is also nothing we can do to artificially control how much of the sun's energy gets trapped to warm up the oceans to release more CO2 from solution that would cause all the green plants to grow faster and greener and more lush and produce more food - though that would be a wonderful thing if possible.

GA Redfred.

I think this thread is trying to tackle two different topics and has evolved into something very confusing At least it seems to be sidetracked to one topic or the other and not in a true CR4 format. Sandman seems to have an agenda with evolution which I suspect is based in religion and not using the scientific method. It is suggested we post two different threads if we want a rational discussion of either subject. Global warming is certainly a worthwhile topic and deserves a better forum than this thread.

If Sandman wants to pose a question on evolution do so in another CR4 thread.

I will try to think of a provocative question on climate to begin a separate thread.

So Johnny you have started a good discussion(s) and there remains lots of debate.

On the contrary sir, these discussions are often wide-ranging, simply because so many different things enter in to almost every topic. Indeed in another topic on the subject of curbing the spread of pseudo-science, we progressed from over-population to feeding large populations to farming methods. I might add that I consider "over-population" to be pseudo-science at it's worst.

As for Sandman's agenda and the possibility that his views might be religiously based, what of it? Remember, this thread is titled "Can Evolution be Stopped?" This kind of implies that the main topic is evolution. Furthermore, your remark implies that for a person to have a religion is somehow a negative thing, which is hardly in keeping with this forum. I have a religion also, which I have expressed quite clearly here in CR4, and yet many here seem to think that I am a rational, clear and deep thinker.

Furthermore, evolution as a theory does not belong in the same category as General Relativity, and never can, since it cannot make testable predictions which can be disproven by experiment. Do I agree that evolutionary processes exist and are at work in the world? Absolutely! But, do I agree that evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of life in the universe? In no wise.

As for global warming, this is yet another wonderful example of pseudo-science at it's best. Or worst, I suppose. First of all, I'm old enough to remember that 25 years ago the hype and hysteria was about global cooling and the fear that another ice age might soon be upon us. And about a generation before that, it was global warming. And before that... Well, you get the idea. The simple truth is that we do not know anything like enough to make any valid predictions on the global climate except for this one. It will change, it is constantly changing, it will never stop changing. Hell, we can't even predict next week's weather with any real accuracy!

The Earth has a total land area of 148.68 billion square kilometers and 6.8 billion people. That works out to one human being per 21.9 square kilometers. The total surface area is 510 billion square kilometers, bringing our population density down to one human per 75 square kilometers. We humans are far less significant on a global scale than we'd like to imagine ourselves.

This is not to say that I do not believe in the concept of good stewardship. It's a good idea to try to keep our immediate environment clean just as it is a good idea to try to keep our own homes clean. Who wants to live in a garbage dump? Furthermore, clean air is a wonderful idea. Remember the Summer Olympics in Beijing a few years ago? A century ago you could hang a clean white shirt out to dry in a city like Pittsburgh and it would be gray when you brought it in. But this planet is a living thing, with tremendous capacity to heal itself. Were we humans to suddenly remove ourselves, within a few thousand years it would become difficult to tell that we'd ever been here.

I apologize for any slight I may have implied for religious bias to discussion. I was raised by dogmatic Christian views (mostly rejected) and know better than to try to shake ones faith through scientific argument. And you are correct that this thread should be about evolution and wander to other topics. I have been away from my computer for a while but was surprised by the current thread length and discussion. This thread is testament to your point.

However, it is difficult to argue past climate changes with someone who thinks that humans and dinosaurs lived together. Hmmm...Flintstones? Religion and believe in God is accepted without proof. I do have trouble with accepting science when I do not understand it. I guess God is a science I do not understand nor accept.

Climate changes have occurred and are occurring as it will always, agreed. Some of the historic changes have been fatal to life forms through mass extinction. It is suspected but disputed that the release of methane hydrates may have caused 75% of life forms to die ~420 million years ago, and these same hydrates created global warming some 55 million years ago. I do believe AGW is a fact but I don't consider man as the only cause and suspect methane hydrates formed by tectonic subduction is possibly a larger contributor to green house gas. We should be careful to not reject all climate science as junk. If the climatologists are correct we can be heading to serious future problems. I just don't believe all the climate science (that could apply to all science in general) is accounted yet.

With regard to global population and the sustainability of earth, it may be true that each person has 29 square kilometers. However the ecumene or habitable portion of the world is much less than your calculations. Peter Goodchild in "Peak Oil" has estimated that there are 470 people per square km based on arable land. He argues that if we run out of oil, deliver of foods can be problematic. Jarad Diamond in his book "Collapse" has argued that the genocide and collapse of Rowanda is direct result of a political bound people unable to sustain itself. So there can be political or regional issues of global populations.

"No theory is sacred. When a theory fails to meet the test of verified predictions, it is modified to include the larger field, or, very rarely, it may be abandoned completely." Hubble, Edwin

Perhaps Hubble has best stated the current affairs of the Climatologists.

I am a retired geographer with a diploma in water resource engineering technology.

Link to Peter Goodchild.

http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild290609.htm

Poor argument. The lack of an ability to produce vitamin C is not an "error." By the concept of survival of the fittest, which no one disputes, the inability to produce vitamin C could not have been an impediment when it occurred, which means there was plenty around for the creature to eat. The fact that eons later man had spread out to the point of living places where vitamin C was not commonly available hardly makes it an error when the inability to produce it first occurred. Unless of course it was an Intelligent Being who designed in the flaw and should have foreseen the consequences down the road...

emc_c

"...we only use 10% of our brain human error, human nature and all that good stuff."

Well, not really, that was an old illustration, though perhaps applicable to the concept that most do not wish to apply the hard work of thinking to their lives.

"If their right and earth without people is possible..."

It is possible, but unlikely, as anyone acting to destroy people intentionally or otherwise is self-interested in preserving their own survival and place in it. Well, except for the true enviro-wackos out there.

"...wouldnt it be a part of evolution or being every thing is relative to carbon arent we, in a position to evolve with it hmmmm."

No. We cannot intentionally change carbon-based life forms to another basis, and directed-evolution is called "genetic engineering" with limited purpose and scope, and could even be referred to as an example of Intelligent Design.

Attempting to guess the future genetic code required by a future human species to survive in a potential new environment inhospitable to carbon-based humans and then get it right, now, in this environment, would require such capability and insight, not to mention ability to artificially design that future environment, that one would have to be - well - like God, to make it happen.

"Sorry only have a tenth grade education but my imagination is strong it helps the analitical portion of my thinking process it hasnt been very nice to my spelling and gramar yet."

No apologies needed for what you have, only for what you fail to do with it. I suggest you may find it useful to type anything you wish to post for others first in a word-processor. Take advantage of the spelling and grammar checking tools available, or at least use the free minimal tools available online inside the text-entry box. This will also help you order your own thoughts into complete sentences, and prevent long run-on stream-of-consciousness paragraphs that are difficult to follow.

"Oh ya we now have confirmed that evolution has'nt slowed down the oceans from making new life forms in its depps You Know our future replacements lol."

Actually, all we know is that there are many life-forms about which we previously knew nothing, and which likely have been in those environments as long as any surface creatures. We are still discovering things about our planet, including life forms we did not previously suspect existed.

"If we can discard our gills and grow legs and lungs and learn not to walk on our nuckles nothing is impossable on ether side of the scale billions of combinations arent there."

Well, 'we' never had to do that, even if other creatures now extinct may have had bodies that could live in multiple environments. If they are extinct, it is likely that the environment they originally lived in is gone due to natural changes, or they were removed by other species. What we have no record of, and apparently never existed, were any 'transitional' species between all of the current ones. The evidence indicates that there is a common DNA root for common life forms, which all share the bulk of the DNA sequences that enable living bodies to exist, and the amazing varied species that exist came from this same design, with a surprisingly small tweaking needed for each. Almost as if the same successful plan were used and then modified to produce each species.

We also know that selective 'breeding' if you will, by natural, social, environmental, and other barriers cause the loss of some genetic data, but we do not find that data to have increased from the original design.

One interesting implication may be that the initial humans, and other species, may have had all of the possible genetic variations we see today available and present in each child, just waiting for the generations of family grouping through history and the spread over the known world to result in the fairly recognizable characteristics we think of as ethnicity. And yet, any human can still breed with any other human, no new species have ever evolved, and no branch of the human family is any less human, or less valuable, than any other, from the moment of conception of that person to the moment their body can no longer sustain that life.

Horses, lad, horses. The transitional fossils exist. There is clear evidence of evolution. Try to not form opinions based on humans - clearly the dead-end street of evolution.

When did the first sea creature look out upon the land and think:I think I can make a better living on land, so I am going to grow legs and start walking, and convert my gills into lungs so I can breathe air.?

If you marched every human being into the sea, how many would grow gills before they drowned? Why can't pedestrians run 50 mph and jump 10 feet high? Why do O'possums still play dead in front of cars?

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's discredited view of evolution still tempts people. Creatures do not decide to sprout legs so that they can walk on land. Evolution in nature is an uncontrolled random process. Most of the times a mutation is immediately fatal. Most survivable mutations go completely unnoticed and remain a small portion of a species population. Some of the survivable mutations, manifest as genetically linked diseases. These diseases were never chosen by any member of a species. A group of Jews did not conceive of Tay-Sachs disease. European nobility did not choose hemophilia. It's only when a mutation happens to grants some form of a survival advantage to the subset of a population, that that mutation becomes a larger portion of the population. If mutations could be crafted and chosen, sickle cell anemia would not have been a survival response to malaria.

Now this view of evolution I am in total agreement with. Slow, gradual change has been observed for centuries. However, it seems difficult to believe that this process could cause the sorts of changes that caused velociraptors to become modern turkeys.

If a wolf or dingo could evolve into a chihuahua or a great Dane (certainly these two canines are not the same species, for they cannot breed with each other) during our homo sapiens era so far of only 2,000 centuries, why can't one of the velociraptor species have for a descendant in 700,000 centuries a turkey.

Major error here. A chihuahua and a Great Dane most certainly can breed with each other - their DNA is entirely compatible. The fact that it is physically difficult for them to mate is an entirely separate issue. If you claim that the disparity in physical size makes them a different species, then you must agree that domesticated male turkeys are a different species than the wild kind, or even domesticated female turkeys, because the domesticated males have been bred over time to have such large chests that they cannot mate with the females, and the females are artificially fertilized.

It is also true that polar bears can interbreed with grizzlies, so that these are not truly separate species either.

It is one of the hallmarks of the evolutionists I have come to distrust that they blur the meaning of species in order to further their argument.

A species cannot interbreed with another species; that is the basic definition of the term.

An interesting grey area is horses and donkeys. While they can interbreed and the offspring is a mule, mules are generally unable to successfully reproduce. But every once in a while one will. In ancient Rome, when a mule foaled, it was taken as a portent, like a comet.

emc_c

Not going to get into the science, but it is clear that "your lack of education never hurt you none," to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel. Further, "you can read the handwriting on the wall." Same ditty.

It may well be that your ability to think derives from the same source as your lack of knowledge - a lack of what today passes for formal education.

Scientists and academics as a group are the most arrogant and conceited beings on the planet. That is a generalization; it cannot be applied a priori to any individual, without committing the sin of prejudice. You must judge each individual on his or her merits. But when you hear that global warming is established science, all that means is a bunch of people who think they are the smartest among us have forgotten what you clearly have not. The wisdom of Socrates, twenty-three centuries old: the wise man is he who knows how little he knows.

These scientists are not afraid to extrapolate from a single data point and claim definitively that their conclusions merit the entire restructuring of the global economy. Even if they are right, they are frauds, because the uncertainty surrounding their predictions exceeds by orders of magnitude the things they try to predict.

emc_c

Not aware of any extrapolations in my post. Not aware of any "proofs" offered for these various prognostications of doom that have become the near sole output of academic research within my lifetime.

If the academics want to argue amongst themselves as to who is the smartest person in the room, as they no doubt have since the beginning of academies, I have no problem with that. I need not even "cut them any slack," because they are eminently ignorable.

But when they prostitute their "science" in the service of political totalitarianism in order to score more research grant money, then no, I'm not cutting them any slack at all. Far from it, will point out their greed-begotten mischief and the harm it is causing every chance I get.

emc_c

Sir,

While I agree with you in the main regarding global warming and those who have been pushing it, I would point out to you, as my friend Fred has already tried, that we are not all like that. What you are proposing is a form of prejudice at least as extreme as the arrogance of which you accuse all scientists.

Now I agree with you that some academics can be arrogant. And I dare say that some of them are the fellows that have been touting global warming. But remember that not all scientists are academics, nor are all academics scientists. Many scientists work for a living. And most of the scientists I know are humble people, who know that they don't know. I've known Ph.D.s with 30 years experience in meteorological sciences who'll look you straight in the face as say "I dunno" when you ask about global warming.

I am myself a scientist, and an engineer, a philosopher, a theologian, and a professional military man. And the one thing I do know absolutely and for certain is that I know damned little. There are few things I am sure of, and most of those are not scientific. What I do know is that the only sure path to knowledge is through careful logic and mathematics, and the only sure path to wisdom lies through humility. Learn these things.

I am intrigued about being sure of a few things, mostly not scientific. I wonder what those things might be, and how one can be sure of them.

Per your post, I should have qualified:

"Scientists and academics as a group are the most arrogant and conceited beings on the planet."

By saying, "That is a generalization; it cannot be applied a priori to any individual, without committing the sin of prejudice. You must judge each individual on his or her merits."

Oh, wait - I already said that in the original post.

emc_c

Re this: "Let me ask this instead, you certainly are arrogant and conceited enough to fit your own definition. What is your scientific endeavor or field of academics?".

In turn:

(1) It should come as no surprise that I am neither a scientist, nor an academic. I am an engineer, self-employed.

(2) Not surprisingly, a supported critique of the arrogance of scientists and academics is "rebutted" by name calling. And not even very creative name-calling. Name-calling of the variety of "I'm rubber you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"

As professional adults, let's deal with the facts of the argument, as opposed to name-calling. When people of any stripe, not just scientists and academics, attempt to ram their belief system down the throats of those who do not wish to believe/go along, that is arrogance. Sometimes it's simply a matter of one theology over an other (which is bad enough, because lots of people get killed). But when a group tries to remake the world economy in their own Image (AGW folks) one must call them out. Evolution proponents (not all, but certainly the most vociferous ones, who use it as an attack on religion in general and Judaeo-Christianity in particular) who attempt to destroy the underpinnings of an entire civilization must also be called out.

To rebut that by name-calling is hardly convincing. Surely you can do better, if your belief system is more than just faith-based.

emc_c

I can't believe that otherwise intelligent folks are arguing about whether or not evolution occurs. Cripes, I'm an engineer. All I have to do is wander over to any decent natural science museum and ask them to show me the fossil record for horses. It's as clear as can be. If you want to substitute political or religious or tinfoil hat opinions for science, well, keep in mind I still believe the Dodgers will return to Brooklyn, so we all have our nutty beliefs, eh?

Fascinating. So the passage of time and changes in the fossil record imply evolution. No sir; no more so than does correlation imply causality. If an archaeologist from a far distant future were to sift through the layers of a buried auto salvage yard, would he decide that the Ford Explorer was an evolutionary descendant of the Model T? Would he correctly devine that the Edsel was an unsuccessful evolutionary dead end with no further offspring? Would he somehow see that Chevys and Fords must have had a common ancestor, but yet were different species? One can go on and on here, but you doubtless get the point.

emc_c

And, since the pot needs stirring....

If man was designed instead of evolved, what's up with the prostate anyway? How come that sucker wears out way ahead of most every thing else? Did the design team forget to run a MTBF analysis?

And then we can ask about the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes. There are way too many design flaws for "intelligent design" to be credible. As the joke goes for human anatomy, would even a decent civil engineer run a sewer right next to a major recreational area?

Why do only cows have seven stomachs that permit efficient digestion to break down the cellulose walls. A good engineer once he/she finds the most efficient method for a process would repeat it in all but only the cases that needed a change. Does anybody here know about the digestion process of rabbits. In rabbits they must be coprophagous to break down the cell walls. This happens because the bacteria that break down the cell wall mix with the food after the small intestines. What kind of an intelligence would design that?

Post #43 clearly offered in a jocular tone, and if it was only meant that way, the following is unnecessary, but if TVP45 was serious, the following is necessary rebuttal.

What people seem to forget these days is that regardless of Who or what process designed the human body, it was only designed to live around thirty to thirty-five years. By that time, offspring had been raised to the point of self-sufficiency. You look at the Stone Age, people were arthritic grandparents in their thirties. The fact that we last as long as we do is a tribute to the comforts of modern technology, and that thankfully we weren't designed to simply die when our useful function was up.

Had we been designed by Henry Ford, the prostrate and everything else would have given up the ghost at around age thirty-five, because we wouldn't have needed it any more. For those who may not know, Mr. Ford would inspect Fords which had been consigned to the junk yard to see what parts were still in good operational condition, and then design the quality out of them (design them cheaper) because it was clearly uneconomical to have some parts in a car outlive the overall auto's lifetime.

emc_c

Jocular? Moi?

I run on the simple assumption that the Big Guy knew what He was trying to accomplish.

As for evolution being a better explanation, well, let me just say that I find it difficult to imagine how such things can simply evolve, even over gazillions of years. Especially when 99% of mutations are fatal and the other 1% are useless or meaningless.

But, since we're on the subject of intelligent design, let us take a look at some very simple creatures, the flagellates. These single-celled creatures use a whip-like thing called a flagella to propel themselves. Simple, right? However, it has come to light that this flagella does not simply wave back and forth, but in fact rotates. The mechanism of this rotation is a brilliantly executed little nano-motor which utilizes 150-some-odd proteins, none of which can be dispensed with any more than a simple electric motor can dispense with it's bearings. So, please show me how this thing could have evolved, step-by-step. While you're at it, perhaps you could demonstrate for me where are all of the missing links that should be there to reconcile the Cambrian Explosion with an evolutionary point of view.

I have a habit of looking at biology as engineering. And from that point of view, the human body and all living things are really brilliant engineering. But, I get the distinct impression that biological machinery is just as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as man-made machinery. I've seen some pretty Rube Goldberg engineering coming from some otherwise intelligent engineers. Such criticisms as you've offered sound like hubris to me.

None-the-less, you are free to believe anything you like.

Big Guy?? Lad, I ain't standing next to you in a lightning storm. She'll get you, sure as shooting.

Ah yes the flagella argument. The poster creature of intelligent design (ID). These marvelous biological machines are stunning assemblies that permit bacteria and other creatures to propel themselves though a liquid media. The structure seems to be so complex that somebody or something had to craft them. If evolution created this intricate, advanced machine on such a primitive creature there has to be a successful creature more primitive than the flagellates that has a similar device that just made a small simple change to become a flagella.

Well here is one. The type III secretory system of many non-mobile bacteria looks like the complicated motor portion of a flagella. Some scientists believe that the flagella came first and not the secretory system, others that these two had a common extinct ancestor. Either way, the evolutionary re-purposing of a working sub-system does happen.

What has annoyed me over the ID vs. evolution argument is the conviction in the ID camp that "God is on their side." One thing that millennia of religious wars should have taught us, if God does exist, He's either on nobody's side or everybody's side. He doesn't choose one and then let them fight it out. Every religion firmly believes that God works in mysterious ways, and yet the faithful know without a doubt how He works. Why cannot the mechanism of evolution be the intelligent design itself. Looking at it in this perspective, the diversity of life is anticipated and assured but not specifically scripted.

I agree that we are free to believe anything that we like, but evolution being the design sounds like a brilliant design to me.

You did not explain it though, step by step. The problem I see is that in the one creature, that presumably came before, this mechanism was a secretory system, but that evolution adapted it to become the nano-motor that spins the flagella. Or perhaps vice-versa, who knows? But I'd still like to know how it was accomplished, step by step. As I've said, everything I know about genetic mutation suggests that 99% + of all mutations are fatal. Furthermore, what took over the secretory functions while this organelle was undergoing modifications?

In any event, you keep speaking as if evolution were a conformed fact. It is not. As I've said, it's really not even a proper theory, at least not in the sense that General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics are, in that it cannot make predictions which can be tested and disproved by experiment. It seems to me that the proponents of evolution, or rather Evolution, are at least as passionately devoted to it as the religious types are to ID.

Now as far as your argument regarding intelligently guided evolution, I've always considered that this might at the very least be a possibility.

As to religious wars, frankly the idea offends me. Not surprising I suppose from a professional military man. But as a theologian, I find it especially repugnant. My faith, which is based on the Judeo-Christian Bible, states that the Big Guy wants all of us to love Him. But, love that is coerced is not love at all, is it? Besides, if He wants someone destroyed, whatever would He need people to do the destroying for? HE is more than capable of handling that on his own.

I'm glad that we both agree, my friend, about the offensive absurdity of religious wars. We also agree on the reasons that make them offensive and absurd.

I think you may have an interesting, slight misinterpretation on my proposed intelligently designed evolution. I'm proposing that the universal mechanism of evolution and natural selection is intelligently designed. The genius of it is the constant minor random variations to living beings in the universe as a consequence, response and natural order to the hostile, random variations by the non-living components of the universe. This combined with the culling of natural selection assures that no matter what happens, life doesn't just goes on it improves. That combination of both living and non-living complimentary random factors combining to improve the quality of the living seems far more brilliant than any of the components created by this process. With this process engaged, no further planning need to be done to ensure that life will thrive. A scary but I believe accurate consequence of this is that humanity need not be a part of the continuing life. So we cannot take our survival for granted.

Now as far as evolution and natural selection being a fact; the fact is that it is a scientific theory, not a fact. Facts are data. I usually despise semantic arguments but this is an important difference. The quantum mechanic theory is a scientific theory that operates on very short periods of time and very large individual element quantities of material so it can be quickly verified by setting up a new occurrence to demonstrate how to use the theory. But quantum theory cannot be transformed into a piece of data. The theory on evolution and natural selection requires many, many generations of a species (some have suggested a thousand generations as a minimum) to ascertain that a change is not a short time fluke occurrence. Darwin proposed his theory only 150 years ago. To say that this must be dismissed as unproven because no forward looking experiment has demonstrated it is at least grossly unfair. To say that because a forward looking experiment cannot be performed, that people must accept it is also unfair. But we can look backwards in time and see if previous occurrences and their results fit this theory. All observed species changes in the past agree with the theory of evolution. Since Darwin proposed that genes mutated to make new attributes randomly, we've found the part of a species that contains these genes, DNA. And as one of my earlier posts pointed out a link was found in our DNA between us and a few other primates. This is more than enough information to convince the scientific community that evolution and natural selection is a scientific theory.

But I suspect that while this has been an enjoyable public discussion with you, my friend. Nothing I say here will persuade you to my beliefs. I only wish that you clearly understand what my beliefs are and how they agree with a large body of scientists.

We are all entitled to our own beliefs.

Yes Fred, I do agree with you in many particulars, and I do agree that whether we were evolved or designed, life is brilliant engineering.

I agree that semantic disagreements can be pretty ridiculous, and have on occasion been fuel for the religious wars we've already agreed are so offensive. And you are right about facts being data. Though I still insist that Evolution is not on the same scientific level as General Relativity.

Again, I do not accept evolution as a... or rather, Evolution, as a fact, though I have certainly seen enough evidence to support the concept of evolution. We could debate this matter to death, but I suggest that you and I simply agree to disagree.

One thing I have found very troublesome since I first came to faith has been the reception my faith has gotten me from time to time. Even here, within CR4, I have occasionally been excoriated for this faith, though this has been happening less and less as I seem to have earned some measure of respect within this community.

I thank you Sir, for your consideration and your respect. Though I won't promise not to continue trying to save your heathen soul.

I might also add that I do have a very good understanding of the concept of Evolution. There was a time when I did subscribe to the concept, and defended it quite passionately. Funny how things change, ain't it?

Here's a video I found showing how a flagellum could evolve:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

What do you think?

Nice video Mike. There's some additional logical fallacies that many creationists cling to that your video reminded me of.

The flagella bacteria we can study today have had billions of years to evolve into what they are today. To claim that this one complicated efficient combination implies a designed plan completely misunderstands the basics of probabilities and statistics.

Look at how much our civilization has grown from the time of Menes of ancient Egypt is accredited to 3100BC. In that time some of the wildest, improbable circumstances have happened. Most of them lost to antiquity. That's only 5000 years ago. Bacteria have been evolving for at least half a million times more years to refine any and all advantages. With that much time, any random process will certainly produce many seemingly incredible combinations. If that combination grants a significant species a better survival advantage, then regardless of the probabilities an occurrence will thrive.

But some people just don't want to hear anymore facts after they've made up their minds.

Maybe they're just imposing their will onto a stage where it doesn't matter .......

For those who may not already have done so, I recommend reading these books:

by Richard Dawkins:

The Blind Watchmaker

River out of Eden

Unweaving the Rainbow

The Ancestor's Tale

The Selfish Gene

Climbing Mount Improbable

by Sean Carroll:

The Making of the Fittest

By Jerry Coyne:

Why Evolution Is True

By Daniel Dennett

Darwin's Dangerous Idea

Breaking the Spell

By Michael Behe

Darwin's Black Box

By Judge John E. Jones

Decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover

By Edward Humes

Monkey Girl

I think that the anti-evolutionist sentiments expressed in this thread are scientifically incorrect. Not only that, I believe they are theologically unsound (and even insulting).

A very good collection, I will add the few ommisions to my reading list. I would also add by Kenneth R. Miller:

ONLY A THEORY Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

You may also wish to consider:

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

~ David Berlinski

And for Dawkins fans, particularly enjoyable:

The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens

~ Vox Day

Vox Day (Author) › Visit Amazon's Vox Day Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central

David Berlinski (Author) › Visit Amazon's David Berlinski Page Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author Are you an author? Learn about Author Central

Thanks for these references. On the religious apologetics side, I have on hand various books by C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Timothy Keller, Lee Strobel, John Lennox, and David Marshall; plus Augustine and Aquinas in the Great Books series. But not yet David Berlinski and Vox Day.

I may have had a few ancestors hang by their necks but surely did not have any hang by their tails.

On the basis of reviews, Vox Day looks like a dud, so I'll pass on that one. Berlinski sounds like a hoot, though, so I ordered it. If the thread is still active after I read it, I will do a follow-up.