Duke study finds natural variability impacts global warming

[cooltigger21 0]

I don't buy that any more than any of it . I know what the agenda is and the environment isn't it. This stuff has been refuted a thousand times over. Now a committed leftist like yourself and homer will always believe stuff like this and I'm not trying to convince you. I know we have some who are a bit naive or just know what is in the msm. I'm after them.

[Weegle777 78]

**Took the evolution discussion to the Darwin thread to keep from derailing this one.**

[AUDub 11,147]

My apologies! I don't come around here much anymore. I'll just crawl back into my hole.

Stick around! It was a Poe and I missed it. People are too serious around here lately, myself included.

[Mims44 1,867]

My apologies! I don't come around here much anymore. I'll just crawl back into my hole.

Stick around! It was a Poe and I missed it. People are too serious around here lately, myself included.

I've gotten much less serious to make up for it though.

PS: infinitesimal calculus is just something liberals made up to scare right minded people....

[homersapien 11,367]

And they say I can never be convinced. Ha!

Unlike y'all, we have evidence and reasonable conclusions. Shoot, I can't even get you to accept that evolution is a fact.

Everything adapts. Not new.

Is this that silly "micro isn't related to macro" evolution trope again?

I stopped mowing my yard, and now my dog has became bipedal to look over the tall grass.

LOL!! :laugh:

[alexava 6,973]

I think the science might be right on this climate change stuff. So i am a believer i guess. Actually though, i hope the deniers are right and the earth doesn't boil over.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

Are the concepts of evolution and extinction mutually exclusive?

Well either one precludes the other. But if YOU go extinct and I Evolve i guess that is a winning scenario for me.

Evolution is a natural process that takes place over time. If you believe it happens, then why cant we all admit that all or most species may evolve and AGW may prove to be possibly even beneficial?

[homersapien 11,367]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

DKW they operate on vastly different time scales.

AGW operates on a scale of hundreds of years and evolution operates on a scale of 100's of thousands to millions of years depending on the degree of change.

Some animals will do fine or even better than they are doing now (like cockroaches) while others won't have time to evolve. This of course doesn't apply directly humans cause we've got technology.

But there will be indirect impacts on humans including more frequent storms, resource wars and starvation.

[homersapien 11,367]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

We have proof of common ancestors.

[homersapien 11,367]

Wow! Everyone sure is uptight today. I was just trying to make the (obviously really lame ) point that it seems funny that we are supposed to believe that species can adapt to increase their chances of surviving change, but that the galaxy is not able to accommodate changes thought to be created by man. My post was not intended to be scientific.

I believe that evolution has occurred and I believe that man's pollution has affected our environment. However, as the terms are currently defined, I do not believe in "Evolution" or in AGW." These days there does not appear to be room for any gray area.

The original statement makes no sense. That's why you are getting varied reactions.

Scientifically speaking, there is no room to deny the validity of evolution in general. There is a little room to deny AGW, but not much.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

DKW they operate on vastly different time scales.

AGW operates on a scale of hundreds of years and evolution operates on a scale of 100's of thousands to millions of years depending on the degree of change.

Some animals will do fine or even better than they are doing now (like cockroaches) while others won't have time to evolve. This of course doesn't apply to directly humans who can apply technology on a personal level.

But there will be indirect impacts on humans including more frequent storms, resource wars and starvation.

Lighten up Francis... we are trying to do comedy here. ;-)

[homersapien 11,367]

I don't buy that any more than any of it . I know what the agenda is and the environment isn't it. This stuff has been refuted a thousand times over. Now a committed leftist like yourself and homer will always believe stuff like this and I'm not trying to convince you. I know we have some who are a bit naive or just know what is in the msm. I'm after them.

Holy cow man!

You are aware you can edit your posts after posting, right? Take pride in your work.

Or is it you got it right the first time?

[AUDub 11,147]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

We have proof of common ancestors.

Not by his standard, we don't.

Of course, his standard of proof is pretty much unobtainable.

[homersapien 11,367]

I still find it hilarious!

Evolution is great!...unless it involves AGW and then it is completely meaningless.

Gotcha!

DKW they operate on vastly different time scales.

AGW operates on a scale of hundreds of years and evolution operates on a scale of 100's of thousands to millions of years depending on the degree of change.

Some animals will do fine or even better than they are doing now (like cockroaches) while others won't have time to evolve. This of course doesn't apply to directly humans who can apply technology on a personal level.

But there will be indirect impacts on humans including more frequent storms, resource wars and starvation.

Lighten up Francis... we are trying to do comedy here. ;-)

I am truly sorry if I have been presumptuous and missed your satire, but frankly, it's hard to tell the sincere questions or statements from the satirical if you aren't really sure about the poster's understanding.

[Weegle777 78]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

We have proof of common ancestors.

[AUDub 11,147]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

We have proof of common ancestors.

For you, Weegs.

[homersapien 11,367]

The reason I ask Bens, is because if that one thing was provable without a shadow of a doubt, you have to admit that that would be nuclear explosive as far as creationism vs. evolution goes. Solid proof of a common ancestor would change how everyone on this entire planet views our origin. It would throw the Christian church on its ears. The fact that it is still debated is proof that unmistakable solid proof of a common ancestor hasn't been found. Agree?

We have proof of common ancestors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

see:

• 5 Genus Homo
  
  • 5.1 H. habilis and H. gautengensis
    
  • 5.2 H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
    
  • 5.3 H. ergaster and H. erectus
    
  • 5.4 H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
    
  • 5.5 H. heidelbergensis
    
  • 5.6 H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
    
  • 5.7 Neanderthal and Denisovan
    
  • 5.8 H. floresiensis
    
  • 5.9 H. sapiens
    

[Mims44 1,867]

OMG why homer and bigbens....

They want "proof" bigbens posts a video where a guy uses 5th grade level powerpoint slides.....

And homer...

damnit homer....

Why homer....

You quote wikipedia.

:homer: :homer: :homer:

[AUDub 11,147]

OMG why homer and bigbens....

They want "proof" bigbens posts a video where a guy uses 5th grade level powerpoint slides.....

And homer...

damnit homer....

Why homer....

You quote wikipedia.

:homer:/> :homer:/> :homer:/> :homer:/> :homer:/> :homer:/>

Hey! Ken Miller is awesome! He was the lead expert for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case. Also, he's Catholic, and can not stand the ID/Creationism movement.

If Wikipedia is off limits, how about RationalWiki?

The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:

Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.

DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.

Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.

Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation - no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited - either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.

[Mims44 1,867]

OMG why homer and bigbens....

They want "proof" bigbens posts a video where a guy uses 5th grade level powerpoint slides.....

And homer...

damnit homer....

Why homer....

You quote wikipedia.

:homer: :homer: :homer:

Hey! Ken Miller is awesome! He was the lead plaintiff for the Kitzmiller case. Also, he's Catholic, and can not stand the ID/Creationism movement.

If Wikipedia is off limits, how about RationalWiki?

The most powerful evidence for common descent includes:

Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.

DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.

Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.

Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.

Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.

Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.

Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.

Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation - no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited - either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.

You just wasted that on me bens....

1: I'm off tomorrow, and have been celebrating with drink for awhile.

2: since it's me copied and not others they won't pay attention.

3: though there's some there I haven't read about, I saw the first few and decided to stop reading and write this comment... again, yay rum.

PS: though I didn't know about Miller.... I need to pay attention to names more, what he said sounded familiar but his name didn't.

[aubfaninga 16]

I am just going to die a "dummy". I am fine with it but I still like hearing people and their faith and/or scientific understanding. These are not my questions but I still enjoy asking them as I never get the same answers. Well, that is not totally true. I do hear, "your just to dumb to understand". That is the consensus anyway.

#1 What is the best evidence that I can find for "the Big Bang"? Can I observe and test the evidence?

#2 What is the best evidence that matter came from nothing? OR ...matter has always existed?

Can either be observed and tested?

#3 What is the best evidence that chemicals have produced different chemicals (Chemical Evolution)? Can it be observed and tested?

#4 What is the best evidence that we have to show Stars (or planets) are "born" (or formed)? Can it be observed and tested?

#5 What is the best evidence that we have that non organic materials became living organisms? Can it be observed and tested?

Bonus question: We have Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

It's 2015 and any person in their right mind knows that "evolution" is without debate. Let's try and make this harder!!!

Starting with Species, How far up the chain can we observe, test, and prove "Universal Common Descent" of all life? Does "Intelligent Design" fail the same tests?

[homersapien 11,367]

This has nothing to do with being dumb. It's about ignorance.

The information is available in a form that is accessible by the layperson. All you have to do is seek it.

http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/9417.Best_Books_on_Evolution_

[AUDub 11,147]

#1 What is the best evidence that I can find for "the Big Bang"? Can I observe and test the evidence?

Two off hand.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, which is the residual thermal radiation from a time when things were extremely hot early on in the universe. It essentially means the universe is still "glowing" in the microwave band from the heat of the Big Bang. It can be observed. That's how it was discovered. Two fellows with a radio telescope noticed uniform noise with their antenna in every direction they pointed it. Before they knew what it was, they blamed it on pigeons nesting in the antenna. They won the Nobel for physics for the discovery once they figured out what it was. You can observe it too, if you want. If you have an old TV, tune it to dead air. About 1% of that white noise is from the CMB.

The metric expansion of space. It can be observed, too. Galaxies are moving away from each other as space itself expands between them. When we point our telescopes at these distant objects, the light from these objects is redshifted, which means we are moving away from each other.

#2 What is the best evidence that matter came from nothing? OR ...matter has always existed?

Can either be observed and tested?

I can't answer that. There are many hypotheses, but, for science, what came "before" the Big Bang is still up in the air.

#3 What is the best evidence that chemicals have produced different chemicals (Chemical Evolution)? Can it be observed and tested?

I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase it? It sounds like a basic explanation of chemistry would suffice.

Are you referring to how the vast majority of all elements besides hydrogen were produced in the core of stars? (Homer and I like this one. "We are made of star stuff.")

#4 What is the best evidence that we have to show Stars (or planets) are "born" (or formed)? Can it be observed and tested?

Star formation is easily explained by their composition and observational evidence. Below is a cloud of interstellar gas and dust with a fair number of "newborn" stars within it.

And another:

In the case of stars, a cloud of interstellar gas will coalesce through gravitation. As it gets denser, pressure in the potential star will cause the hydrogen in the center to begin to fuse into helium. Stars are essentialy large thermonuclear reactors contained by gravity.

Planets go through a similar process. Below is a protoplanetary disc. A cloud of dust and gas around a star in the process of coalescing into a planet(s). Earth formed the same way.

#5 What is the best evidence that we have that non organic materials became living organisms? Can it be observed and tested?

That's still up in the air, too. A field of study called abiogenesis. What we do know is that so-called "organic" molecules can be formed through natural processes. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

Bonus question: We have Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

It's 2015 and any person in their right mind knows that "evolution" is without debate. Let's try and make this harder!!!

Starting with Species, How far up the chain can we observe, test, and prove "Universal Common Descent" of all life? Does "Intelligent Design" fail the same tests?

It doesn't fail any tests. At worst, the answer is "incomplete" on a few questions, but were we to equate it to an exam, evolution still breezes by with an A+. ID gets an F, full stop.

We can follow the observational evidence all the way back to the first organisms. The evidence includes things like the fossil record. We can initiate and observe evolution in a lab setting. Look up the Lenski experiment.

There are few minor gaps, but there won't be any major paradigm shifts on the matter in the future. All that's left is to fill what few holes remain.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I have no doubt the universe is expanding. The question is what is it expanding into?

[AUDub 11,147]

I have no doubt the universe is expanding. The question is what is it expanding into?

That's a flawed question. It's like asking how much further north you can go once you hit the north pole.

Relativistically, it's not really possible to find a boundary. Because of the Lovecraftian curvature of space and time, if you were to point a spacecraft in any direction and gun it, thinking "no matter what, I'll eventually hit a boundary!" you never will.