Global Warming: The New Religion

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Good post, one objection though. evolution is in stage 4, a theory, not a hypothesis. There is enough evidence to support it, though there's not a 100% coverage which prevents it from entering stage 5. For me personally it's even a proved fact. As you know I'm a molecular biologist and I see evolution working on a daily basis on a small scale.


Greenhouse effect (I mean the principle of it) is a proved fact (see the planet Venus), global warming (meaning the temperature is rising) itself as well. The hypothesis is if humans are the cause of it.

First Part: I failed to acknowledge the two types of evolution, which are macroevolution and microevolution. I do believe in microevolution, which has made it to step 4 or maybe 5, but not macroevolution, which is still stuck in step 2, where IMO it will always remain. Microevolution is where any given species has the ability within its genetic material to change over time, whether randomly, or by environmental pressure, or by external selection (i.e. humans breeding different types of dogs for a desired result). Thus you have the moths in England, which before the industrial revolution, were predominantly white or light gray in color, and they rested on the bark of oak trees all the time. A few of them were darker color, and the darker ones were easier for birds to spot, so they had trouble surviving. Then the industrial revolution came along, and the trees came to be covered with dark soot from the factories. All of a sudden, the dark colored moths were now naturally camouflaged, and the light ones were not, so the dark colored ones began to predominate. However, this was only a Microevolution change, because at the end of the day (1.) the moths were still the same species, and (2.) no new genetic information was introduced. Also, a Saint Bernard dog and a Chihuahua, though very different in appearance, are still part of the same species and (theoretically, if not practically) could mate and are still genetically compatible.
Macroevolution, as I define it is this: A species mutating outside its original genetic material to become a new species, and particularly in such a way that the new species, and all other forms in between are biologically viable in their contemporary environment to the end that the new species is a superior development of the old, and the new species is so separate from its ancestor that it could not biologically breed with its ancestor.
For instance, one big problem I have with the idea of macroevolution is the assertion that all life came from one original one-celled life form. Marcel, no doubt you know the intricacies of a one-celled life form. Tell me, my friend, just how did that first one come on the scene, living, reproducing with all its DNA intact? How could that possibly happen randomly?

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Greenhouse effect (I mean the principle of it) is a proved fact (see the planet Venus), global warming (meaning the temperature is rising) itself as well. The hypothesis is if humans are the cause of it.

OK. I give you that. The earth has been warming since the Ice Age. When I say GW is a hypothesis, I meant man-made GW. Good catch! Maybe we need a new abreviation: MMGW!

[renrich]

On the question of voting for a third(or fourth or fifth) party candidate, when one does that one is throwing away his vote and in the case of this election, if one is conservative for example on abortions, one's actions may just put Obama in office. We would not have had Bill Clinton if many conservatives had not voted for Perot.

[Njaco]

Marcel, found what I was looking for....

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline." (thought that section was interesting!)

"Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming."

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Oreo

First Part: I failed to acknowledge the two types of evolution, which are macroevolution and microevolution. I do believe in microevolution....

Yep that's a fact and it's my field of work. It's been proven over and over.

Originally Posted by Oreo

Macroevolution, as I define it is this: A species mutating outside its original genetic material to become a new species, and particularly in such a way that the new species, and all other forms in between are biologically viable in their contemporary environment to the end that the new species is a superior development of the old, and the new species is so separate from its ancestor that it could not biologically breed with its ancestor.

Ah, but this is also a proven fact. Apart from the "outside it's genetic material", which is a scentence I do not understand. IMO it's always within its genetic material. Making two individuals incompatible on a genetic level is relatively easy, by for instance changing the amount of chromosomes.
There are examples were we have seen it happen in a short period of time. It's been a long time since I was in university, so I wont quote by heart as I fear for my inaccurate memory. I'll look it up in my books when I get them out of the boxes again (they are in boxes as I'm currently working on my house)

Originally Posted by Oreo

For instance, one big problem I have with the idea of macroevolution is the assertion that all life came from one original one-celled life form. Marcel, no doubt you know the intricacies of a one-celled life form. Tell me, my friend, just how did that first one come on the scene, living, reproducing with all its DNA intact? How could that possibly happen randomly?

Here I agree with you. The creation of life is hypothetical and I agree it'll never be proven. Actually it's not really part of the evolution theory. It's a hypothesis which is drawn from the theory.

About your last question, I have no answer. I can only say if you have a chance of 1 in a million and you have 1 million years, then there are 365 days on which the event occurs. According to science, earth has been here for more than 4.5 billion years old that's an incomprehensible amount of time, just as incomprehensible as the random possiblity. Another answer would be a counter question: As the bible is inconclusive about it, have you ever thought about what method God used to create all this?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Marcel, found what I was looking for....

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline." (thought that section was interesting!)

"Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming."

I now I understand. It's not CO2 causing the dimming but the particles in the air. I already posted a graph with the temperature related to the amount of particles in the air. The correlation in the graph confirms this.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Aussie1001

and adler i was not responding to your post, i was responding to another one.
hope that clears things up.

Sorry whats that?

[JugBR]

Versão traduzida de http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/SaoPaulo/0,,MUL714299-5605,00-PROTOTIPO+DE+ONIBUS+MOVIDO+A+HIDROGENIO+SERA+TESTA DO+NAS+RUAS+DE+SP.html

[Old Wizard]

Did any of you guys watch the Nova episode on PBS last night about Global Dimming [GD] resulting from particles from the other emissions. The result is smaller than normal water droplets in clouds which make clouds more reflective than normal so that they reflect the suns heat back into space. If GW is a fact, then GD is slowing it down. Talk about a Catch 22!!

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Ah, but this is also a proven fact. Apart from the "outside it's genetic material", which is a scentence I do not understand. IMO it's always within its genetic material. Making two individuals incompatible on a genetic level is relatively easy, by for instance changing the amount of chromosomes.

What I mean here, is, in the genetic material of an amoeba, do you find the material you need to make a hippopotamus several million years down the road? Could the genetic material of the amoeba, through its reproduction, produce a hippopotamus or a reindeer or a falcon?

There are examples were we have seen it happen in a short period of time. It's been a long time since I was in university, so I wont quote by heart as I fear for my inaccurate memory. I'll look it up in my books when I get them out of the boxes again (they are in boxes as I'm currently working on my house)

I have read of some of these instances, for instance the fruit fly mutation experiments. At the end of the day, they were still fruit flies, not squirrels. Also, they were less adapted to their environment than the original fruit fly species. That is not progress, and that is not the type of evolution that "all" the scientists keep telling us happened steadily all over earth for millions of years.

Here I agree with you. The creation of life is hypothetical and I agree it'll never be proven. Actually it's not really part of the evolution theory. It's a hypothesis which is drawn from the theory.

I don't think you will ever find life being created from scratch, either by nature, or by mankind. I don't believe that is possible.

About your last question, I have no answer. I can only say if you have a chance of 1 in a million and you have 1 million years, then there are 365 days on which the event occurs. According to science, earth has been here for more than 4.5 billion years old that's an incomprehensible amount of time, just as incomprehensible as the random possiblity. Another answer would be a counter question: As the bible is inconclusive about it, have you ever thought about what method God used to create all this?

In that case, could we see it happening once a year somewhere on earth to this day?

Now two more big problems I have with evolution:

1. Supposedly life started as one-celled organisms reproducing asexually and progressed upward to multi-celled organisms reproducing sexually. How did that first little one-celled critter, swimming around with its millions of little partners, all of a sudden develop into a multi-celled creature? Please explain the jump for me, step by step. How many cells are there in the smallest multi-cell organism? Are there organisms with two cells in a natural state? Four? How do you become a multi-celled creature with sexual reproduction? Oh, maybe it takes several million years to develop a male, but there are no females, so the male is unable to reproduce, and so it dies without procreating. Maybe 100 years later in the same mud puddle, a female all of a sudden comes into being, but there are no males around, so the female cannot reproduce, and dies without passing on her genetic information. Now, was there only ONE time in prehistory where a male something and a female something all of a sudden came together, had exactly the right chemistry (the female did not eat the male, or anything) and BAM they had babies, or does this happen regularly that asexually reproducing organisms mutate into sexually reproducing ones? I have never yet seen anyone explain that one. I bet you'll give it a shot, though Marcel! I'm anxious to see what you have on it!

[Oreo]

And problem 2:
How about animals with different numbers of chromosomes? Not all animals have the same number. That is why horses and donkeys, for instance, are distinctively different species. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, and horses have 64. Horses and donkeys can breed, bringing forth a sterile hybrid known as a mule. It is the unevenly matched number of chromosomes that causes this scenario. I understand in some sets of animals, the chromosomes are so incompatible that conception is not even possible. Now, I don't have all the answers, but how do we deal with this? How many chromosomes did the "common ancestor of the entire Phylum Chordata" have? And why then, do different members of the Phylum Chordata have different numbers of chromosomes? How does a species that is mutating or evolving into another species suddenly sprout a new set of chromosomes? Even if one individual did, it could not successfully mate with another member of its species unless its mate also suddenly, magically sprouted a new set of chromosomes at conception (or afterward?). I suppose mainline scientists would suggest that some massive compelling force caused the animals to "decide" all of a sudden that they needed more DNA, and that multiple animals in the group would "evolve" all of a sudden. Well, where is this nexus in the brain or the DNA of any creature to be able to suddenly give its species a sudden change of form, in a way that they all modify the same way at the same time? Dogs turning into horses, for instance over some generations? What about the change in the number of chromosomes? How can that be healthy?

[pbfoot]

oreo I believe this will answer many of your questions
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Defining Science | PBS

[magnocain]

Maybe someone should start a separate evolution thread. This is a battle that can (and does) take up librarys.

One of those guys was from UC Berkeley.

I did note that page was decidedly one sided.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

oreo I believe this will answer many of your questions
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | Defining Science | PBS

Thanks, pb. So far I've listened to the first one "Only a theory" by Barbara Forrest. She made one good point I've made already-- if Creation Scientists don't believe evolution, then they ought not to call it a "theory". That is why I do not call it one, I call it a hypothesis. Speaking of Macroevolution, that is.

I now listened to the second one, Nick Matzke, "avoiding the supernatural". About that, I have to say that science does avoid the supernatural, by its very definition, and I never said otherwise. However, Science can not prove how the universe began, where matter came from, what energy really is, or how life began. I never said science could prove that God exists, or that He did any particular thing. Science can not prove origins, because we are not able to experiment with origins.

Now I listened to Ken Miller's first bit, Science and Religion. He had some good things to say and yes I agree with him that religion is outside of the scientific method (at least on the basic level), that you can not use science to investigate spirituality. However I do believe that scientific facts can help us better understand our religious beliefs, and that although there is no proof of many things in the Bible through science, there is much evidence to support it.

Now, on Miller's second bit, I disagreed with one thing particularly that he said-- namely that people who believe in Intelligent Design are not interested in finding scientific explanations for things, but simply say "that's how God designed it." I disagree-- I start with the premise, "I know God designed it" and then I work with the scientific method to see why God designed something a certain way. I don't think we ought to give up science because we believe in God. If anything, I believe true Creation Scientists have an excellent appreciation of nature because of their understanding that all things were designed by God to work together harmoniously.

Kevin Padian had nothing intelligent to add, just the same old dogma of the post-Darwinists-- even Darwin himself was not so emphatic or dogmatic.

Probably all you who believe we descended from apes react very negatively to organizations such as Answers in Genesis-- a group who believe the way I do, but are perhaps a little more aggressive in their approach than I am.

Anyway, in case you've never had the pleasure of visiting their website, here it is: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by magnocain

Maybe someone should start a separate evolution thread. This is a battle that can (and does) take up librarys.

OK I shall.