With all the corruption and failures in climate science, sometimes it’s nice to read about how some areas of science are still working, and developing something that matters.
There are thousands of people working on a frontier of science that promises to revolutionize medicine. We are living in the last days of what we’ll come to know as the “old medicine” where surgeons do the unthinkable — cutting out healthy blood vessels to get spare parts for more important sites, or treating people with drugs that affect cells all over the body (with many unwanted side-effects) when what we need is a way to get the right molecules into a tiny percentage of cells. Then there is the devastating cost of using transplants from other people (deceased or not), and then having to use immune-suppressant drugs for life. Growing your own spare parts — customized and make to order — is the brilliant alternative.
Our lives would be so much better if the money used to install vast inefficient solar arrays, or bird-breaking windfarms was used instead on gene therapy. That doesn’t mean everything about this is unquestionably good, like any powerful tool, gene therapy can kill as well as save. That’s why we need to do the research, and the sooner the better.
Virtually all our cells contain all the genes that make us. So if we learn how to switch the right genes on and with the right timing, in theory, with the right scaffolding, we can build any body part. Growing a full liver is a long way off, but it’s coming. We are at the stage of building simple parts like bladders and blood vessels.
To give you some idea of how huge this field is, here are just a few stories released in the last week: Making new blood vessels from fat cells, turning skin cells into the neurons that are affected by Parkinsons, and figuring out which genes are involved in growing new teeth.
Adult stem cells from liposuction used to create blood vessels in the lab
…
NEW ORLEANS — Adult stem cells extracted during liposuction can be used to grow healthy new small-diameter blood vessels for use in heart bypass surgery and other procedures, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association’s Basic Cardiovascular Sciences 2012 Scientific Sessions.
Researchers Turn Skin Cells Into Brain Cells, A Promising Path To Better Parkinson’s Disease Treatment
Neuron. Image by Nicolas P. Rougier
Using adult stem cells, Johns Hopkins researchers and a consortium of colleagues nationwide say they have generated the type of human neuron specifically damaged by Parkinson’s disease (PD) and used various drugs to stop the damage.
Their experiments on cells in the laboratory, reported in the July 4 issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine, could speed the search for new drugs to treat the incurable neurodegenerative disease, but also, they say, may lead them back to better ways of using medications that previously failed in clinical trials.
“Our study suggests that some failed drugs should actually work if they were used earlier, and especially if we could diagnose PD before tremors and other symptoms first appear,” says one of the study’s leaders, Ted M. Dawson, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of neurology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Dawson and his colleagues, working as part of a National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke consortium, created three lines of induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells derived from the skin cells of adults with PD. Two of the cell lines had the mutated LRKK2 gene, a hallmark of the most common genetic cause of PD.
Induced pluripotent stem cells are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to their most primitive state. Under the right circumstances, they can develop into most or all of the 200 cell types in the human body.
In the laboratory, the consortium scientists used the iPS cells to create dopamine neurons, those that bear the brunt of PD. Around age 60, people who have the disorder typically begin to show symptoms, including shaking (tremors) and difficulty with walking, movement and coordination. In the United States, at least 500,000 people are believed to have PD, and an estimated 50,000 new cases are reported annually.
…
Note below, the talk about mitochondria — many things in aging come down to problems with these tiny parts of cells — the parts where energy is made to power everything else in the cell. These are the “batteries” inside cells where the heaviest chemical work goes on — the parts where sugars are burnt with oxygen to produce energy and CO2. By default, they also generate many free radicals and bear the cost of dealing with highly reactive molecules.
Dawson says the ability to experiment with a form of “Parkinson’s in a dish” should lead to further understanding of how the disease originates, develops and behaves in humans. Although scientists have been able to stop the disease in mice, the compounds used to do so have not worked in people, suggesting that human PD behaves differently than animal models of the disorder. Dawson, director of Johns Hopkins’ Institute for Cell Engineering, says the researchers began with the belief that PD is strongly linked to disruption of the dopamine neurons’ mitochondria, the energy-making power plants of the cells. Mitochondria undergo regular turnover in which they fuse together and then split apart. Normal neurons make new mitochondria and degrade older mitochondria in a balanced way to supply just the amount of energy needed.
PD, Dawson says, is believed to damage this system, leaving too few functional mitochondria and producing too many brain-damaging oxygen-free radicals.
Dawson and his colleagues looked for — and found — evidence of impaired mitochondria in the neurons they derived from PD patients. They also found that the neurons they generated from PD patients were more susceptible to stressors, such as the pesticide rotenone, placed on them in the lab. Those neurons were more likely to become damaged or to die than the neurons derived from the skin of healthy individuals.
Satisfied that their stem cell-generated neurons were behaving like dopamine brain cells, the scientists next set out to see if they could slow the damage occurring in the PD neurons by introducing various compounds to the cells. They tested Coenzyme Q10, rapamycin and the LRRK2 kinase inhibitor GW5074, all of which are known to reverse mitochondrial defects in animals. The cells responded favorably to all three treatments, preventing stressors from continuing to damage the mitochondria.
Dawson says more than 20 clinical trials have been conducted in people with PD using drugs designed to slow the disease’s progression. All of them have failed. Coenzyme Q10 worked in the iPS cells derived from PD patients. “This suggests the need to treat people before they actually manifest the disease,” he says. Dawson cautioned that the consortium’s work is at its earliest stages, and that application of the findings may be years away. Among other barriers, he says, is the lack of a way to diagnose PD before tremors and other symptoms appear. In addition, although several gene mutations have been linked to PD, there could be more, making a simple genetic test for the disease unlikely in the near term. Moreover, the majority of PD has no known specific genetic link.
————————————–
…
One day no one will get a crown from their dentist — they’ll just replace teeth with new ones — or possibly grow them right in your mouth. This is still a long way off — this study reports that they have found one key factor in the sequence that helps a mouse keep its front teeth growing continuously for life. We don’t know yet if this is the same sequence in human embryonic development.
One Step Closer to Growing a Tooth
In a three year old human (above) the adult teeth have already formed and are waiting to come down. In a mouse the front teeth grow continuously.
July 18th: Researchers in the group of Professor Irma Thesleff at the Institute of Biotechnology in Helsinki, Finland have now found a marker for dental stem cells. They showed that the transcription factor Sox2 is specifically expressed in stem cells of the mouse incisor (front tooth). The mouse incisor grows continuously throughout life and this growth is fueled by stem cells located at the base of the tooth. These cells offer an excellent model to study dental stem cells.
The researchers developed a method to record the division, movement, and specification of these cells. By tracing the descendants of genetically labeled cells, they also showed that Sox2 positive stem cells give rise to enamel-forming ameloblasts as well as other cell lineages of the tooth.
– Although human teeth don’t grow continuously, the mechanisms that control and regulate their growth are similar as in mouse teeth. Therefore, the discovery of Sox2 as a marker for dental stem cells is an important step toward developing a complete bioengineered tooth. In the future, it may be possible to grow new teeth from stem cells to replace lost ones, says researcher Emma Juuri, a co-author of the study.
read more about the work by the University of Helsinki
————————————–
This is a truly exciting area of science.
Contrasting its successes with “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” science is useful.
Both the human body where spare parts are needed and the worlds atmosphere/biosphere where we need resolution of the carbon Dioxide Pollution issue have great similarities.
They are both very complex systems.
The differences , however are even more important.
The control of Global Warming by CO2 is an impossible system to observe and extract conclusions from.
We know that periodic events with vastly different time frames from hourly to seasonal to 100,000 years are at work.
In the human body however, any new implanted item will reject in a time frame of days or hours and if it survives and “takes’ its usefulness
and “lifespan” can be observed and documented in the space of a few days or one or two decades. This is almost instant feed back compared
with the CO2 warming experiment.
KK
10
It is also a moral minefield.
Consider this: People are born, and each new generation is slightly better adjusted to the prevailing environment, than the one before. That is the basis of evolution.
But if, because of medical advances, people do not die, then the population either explodes to the point where the environment can no longer cope (and some will argue that we are already at that point), or people decide not to make more people, which halts the evolutionary development of the species (and others will argue that we are already at that point as well).
I think of death, as being a necessary requirement for nature to remove older evolutionary adaptions and in doing so make room for future generations to evolve.
On the bottom line, that is what life is about.
00
WOAH! Slow down mate, this is NOT an explanation or even example of evolutionary theory. If you presented this in a high school science paper as an example of evolution you’d be given a fail.
WTF? Just letting people die because they are sick has nothing to do with evolution!
What a completely sick proposition. It’s a short walk from statements like this to Nazism, which was based on the idea that some humans were racially superior to others.
Clearly you don’t have a clue about the scientific theory of evolution. You have some completely twisted impression of it that bares no relationship to the scientific concept.
00
Adam, you are getting to be predictable. So let’s explore which of your buttons we have pressed this time.
I presume you agree that people are born, and not found under gooseberry bushes?
And I presume that you accept that you can take an arbitrary period, that is roughly the equivalent of the average time taken for the average female in any culture to begin bearing children within her cultural and society norms? Let’s call that a generation, for want of a better word.
And lets assume that because her parents were more attuned to driving down to the local supermarket for food, instead of chasing and hunting for food across the savannah, the mother will not have developed the musculature required for a life on the savannah, and will be slightly less likely to carry the genes for such a life style, so will be unable to pass them on to her offspring. (The same argument also applies to the father. we assume). And yes, I know that the school curriculum says to teach children that genetic traits are random, but find me a geneticist who actually agrees with that. They call it natural selection.
Second point: I did not mention where people should be left to die just because they are sick. They are your words, not mine.
What I said was, “… if, because of medical advances, people do not die”, because that is one possible outcome of this research. If (and big if, I concede) medical science is developed to the point where every body part can be replaced as and when it wears out, then apart from accident or war, how will people die? Given a choice, people will choose to have another operation, and live for a further twenty years or so, until they need another operation …
Third point: I did not mention Nazism. Again, your words, not mine.
I have obviously been around longer than you, and so I have had the opportunity to have more experiences than you. And these experiences include a number of situations where I have expected to die violently. But, it is my good fortune, and perhaps your bad, that none of those situations were fulfilled. However, being close to death – feeling the breath of death – gives one a certain perspective. We are all going to die eventually, and although I would wish it to be on my terms, chances are that it will now probably be through illness. So when I said, “I think of death as being a necessary requirement for nature to remove older evolutionary adaptions … “, I was referring to myself.
Fourth point: You are correct that I am not a biologist nor a botanist, so like you, I only have a high school perception of the theory of evolution, but I do remember that it was all about the survival of the fittest, and how species adapted themselves over multiple generations to become better suited to their environment. But that was not the point of my statement. If you have not faced “the breath of death” then you don’t really understand what death is, and you can therefore have no real emotional conception of what life is actually about.
Bonus point: If you are curious about my answer to your third point, have a look at my gravitar, and see what you make of that. You still have a lot of growing up to do, “Doctor” Adam Smith. I sincerely hope you survive the process.
00
The button you pressed is that you pretended to know something about the theory of evolution but what you proposed bares absolutely no relation to the actual theory of evolution. What you proposed is a fiction entirely of your own making.
WTF??? There are no genes for a savannah life style. Turn on your TV and have a look at some of the athletes competing at the Olympics. It is obvious that if you train enough you can get your body into shape to live on the savannah if you want to. That has little to do with people having genes specifically for that task, so again this example has nothing to do with evolution. Just because humans now tend to drive around in cars doesn’t mean they have lost the genes for living on an African savannah! What an absurd proposition!
WHAT? Genetic traits of children are not “random”, they are inherited from parents.
Please show me the section of the school curriculum that says “genetic traits are random”. I think you just made that up!
Only people who don’t know anything about evolutionary theory say that genetic traits are random.
True, but that was the clear implication of what you wrote.
So what is wrong with that? If that is where medical science leads that would be great.
True, but that is what your comments sounded like.
Well this is a logical fallacy because age doesn’t necessarily relate to experience.
Well maybe so, but it is a misuse of the phrase “evolutionary adaptations”. But since you don’t know much about evolutionary theory it isn’t surprising you would make such a stupid mistake.
Well this is much better than your completely wrong explanation of genetic theory in your previous post. But you still seem to think evolution occurs at the species level when it actually occurs at the genetic level.
Well this is just a big load of nonsense because I am alive too which means I do know something about what life is like. And it isn’t exactly impossible to comprehend what death would be like because we experience something akin to it whenever we have dreamless sleep. Of course the only difference would be that we don’t get to wake up.
I don’t care what your gravatar is.
Clearly you have a lot of growing up to do including learning not to be condescending.
00
Evolution is a failed theory.
Creation is still more likely.
00
Adam, again you are WRONG when you say,
“WHAT? Genetic traits of children are not “random”, they are inherited from parents.”
That is like saying the toss of a coin is not random.
Except that in the genetics of a child there are many, many tosses of the coin.
Many parts from each parent..hopefully in pairs…….. AT RANDOM !!
00
“There are no genes for a savannah life style”
And again.. seems you actually know this as a fact? You have mapped the whole DNA structure and know what each part does ???
There are CERTAINLY genes that define certain body types and structures within the body, and if those gene combinations become recessive or not required in a certain community, they may very well disappear from that community.
00
.
You say:
You’re saying genetics don’t play a role in the ability of surviving the savannah life style!
Adam, you just turn on your TV and see how the athletes do it! Yeah Right!
You’re so smart Adam with your HIRE education – but that’s not related to genetics either as is obvious in your Nazism statement above!
00
Dave, you just have to look at the body structure of a Kenyan long distance runner, versus most other countries long distance runners.
The light boned, sinewy muscle characteristics are very well adapted to savannah life. Quick, nimble.. 5km-10km. Tell me its not genetic !! lol !
The more solid western body.. not so well, and has to work very hard to keep up, but has more power, but that’s not genetic either 😉
00
.
Andy,
Yup! Maybe Smith is right, genetics has no role in human body muscular charactistics, skeletal design etc etc! Maybe he should apply to take over as The Worlds Pre-eminent expert on genetics!
But just maybe he should get a genetic checkup first!
00
Adam,
“There are no genes for a savannah life style.”
And I did not say that there were. But as Andy points out genes are selective and recessive, so an urban dweller would be less likely to be adapted to life on the savannah.
“… show me the section of the school curriculum that says “genetic traits are random …” Again, Andy has explained it better than I. Random variation – the creation of random traits – is the only way in which selection for a changing environment can occur. Offspring are either better adapted to a new environment or they are not. You show me the school text book that says that selection is not based on random factors.
I said: [I did not mention where people should be left to die just because they are sick.]
You replied: “True, but that was the clear implication of what you wrote.”
So here you are arguing on the basis that what you implied I meant was wrong. In effect you are arguing that your implication was wrong.
That is weird.
I said: [“… if, because of medical advances, people do not die”]
You replied: “So what is wrong with that? If that is where medical science leads that would be great.”
Well, if nobody ever dies, and more people keep on being are born, we will quite quickly run out of room, food, water, etc. and most of us will die from one or more of those causes. Which sort of negates the whole point really. At least now we get a chance to take turns at dying.
“because age doesn’t necessarily relate to experience”. Yet again, you fail to read what I wrote, preferring to misrepresent my words in order to score a cheap point. What I said was, ” I have had the opportunity to have more experiences than you.”
“it is a misuse of the phrase “evolutionary adaptations”. Yet again, you misquote me out of context. What I said was, ““I think of death as being a necessary requirement for nature to remove older evolutionary adaptions … “. a) That is a statement of personal belief, it is my view, and you can neither confirm nor deny that it is my view. b) I have had my family, and passed on my genetic traits, to my offspring. My adaptions, such as they are, have therefore served their purpose in the process of evolution. In evolutionary terms, my job has been done.
“But you still seem to think evolution occurs at the species level when it actually occurs at the genetic level.” This is a rubbish statement. a) because it is a Straw Man that attempts to put words in my mouth, and b) because the genetic DNA defines the species. You cannot have one without the other. Species evolve, the mechanism for that is at the genetic level. How would you separate the two? A serious question, I would like to know your view.
“… we experience something akin to it [death] whenever we have dreamless sleep”. Yeah, right. /sarc
00
Oh, and one final thing, Adam.
I know it is your usual modus operandi not to respond to arguments you have lost, so no need to reply in this case either – we understand.
00
Rereke, you say here:
You’ve actually provided an opening for him to win this argument where you say in your earlier Comment:
That should be a comma after the word father and not a full stop.
I think he’s got you mate, sorry. (nyuk nyuk nyuk)
Tony.
00
Damn, you are right Tony. How could I be so stupid?
00
Sorry mate, but your understanding of evolutionary theory is at best extremely tenuous and quite possibly non-existent.
It’s not my fault you posted about something you don’t know much about and I called you out on it.
00
Smith:
You still don’t understand: All theories are wrong.
So why worship them? There’s every reason to try to find out how they are wrong; a process some of us call “science”.
00
No doubt Mr Smith will be in here next week telling us we need to reduce the worlds population to save the Earth from global warming.
00
HA! So you’re unable to debate what I actually write so you are just presenting straw arguments because they are easier for you to handle!
00
And of course you would never do such a thing.
A secret: I think he was using irony. Or it might have been sarcasm. Or even perhaps, harsh or bitter derision.
On second thoughts, I was using sarcasm, so he was probably using irony.
00
Good point RW.
Must admit I rarely read the top bit before commenting so may have missed something important.
I was thinking mainly of the science and perhaps the relief of pain or inability to function within a normal lifespan.
Your comment triggers another aspect of reproductive activity that may or may not have some health perspective.
I was born to a mother who was 22 years old. I suspect that most of my peer group was the same.
Most of my friends were married at 22 or so and had children quickly.
Recent developments in child bearing suggest that many mothers are mid 30s before their first child.
Any ideas on what these offspring my experience in terms of benefits or otherwise of being in that situation.
KK
Winston may have some ideas on this?
00
Hi RW
Being an Australian my environment, from a taxation point of view, may differ from yours in that we here pay into a tax scheme where people
can opt out and have another lifestyle with others working “For” them.
You say :
“I think of death, as being a necessary requirement for nature to remove older evolutionary adaptions and in doing so make room for future generations to evolve”.
After several “generations” in Australia we now have social security excess as a major evolutionary factor.
Is the excess social security here a benefit that encourages growth and family development, or does it have unpleasant evolutionary undertones.
Noel Pearson is a spokesperson for one readily identifiable group but the situation is throughout the entire Australian genome.
We do need to consider evolutionary aspects of many parts of our communal decisions.
KK
00
Thanks for that KK – made me chuckle.
You are quite right, of course, There is more to evolution than genes. “Tell me how I am measured, and I will show you how I perform”.
I am reminded of Pamela Anderson (long-term wife of Billy Connoly) in a satirical sketch about credit cards. She said, “Ah, American Express, that will do nicely sir, and would you like to fondle my tits too?”
00
Pamela
AndersonStephenson(long-term wife of Billy Connoly)
Pamela Anderson is a whole other
breastbeast!!!00
Thank you Bob, You are quite right on both counts.
I see you had a similar miss-spent youth, but managed to retain your memory better than I. 🙂
00
“Ah, American Express, that will do nicely sir, and would you like to fondle my tits too?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ZF-U9nL9Ios
00
Another small point RW is that death is not the major factor as reproduction in humans usually precedes death by a long way.
Prolonging life through implants however could eventually lead to reproductive males and females having children in their sixties.
Think of all the adaptations that would be needed to make that happen.
00
Don’t buy Viagra futures.
The planet does not have enough floor space.
00
KK
“Prolonging life through implants however could eventually lead to reproductive males and females having children in their sixties”.
And working to we’re a hundred and ten or more, what fun.
00
That’s also what the movie Prometheus was about. Quite a spectacular movie on the big screen, although the dialogue in places moves the plot along by incredible jumps. It also leaves enough room for either a Prometheus 2 or an Aliens Zero.
Until I read your second comment I understood your first comment the same way Adam did and thought you were saying that death itself was what life was all about. Well it would be remarkably easy to achieve one’s purpose in life if dying was all there was to it! Damn easy.
In terms of what life seems invariably to do we can extract some quasi-objective functional definition. The function of life is to achieve greater levels of prosperity. Death is merely a necessary part of life at the very least because in a closed system your bodies’ atoms have to be… err.. reallocated to a new individual. Replacing earlier adaptations with new ones is not a perspective I’d consciously noticed before, but on reflection that is the entire point of it all, just as you seem to say.
There could be one generation that lived forever with no need to reproduce or die – and it would still meet my broad definition of life above as long as it found some way to continuously adapt and improve its body and behaviour. No known biological mechanism can do this, which is why the conventional definition of life is somewhat present-biased by insisting upon reproduction, and therefore also upon death. If Kurzweil’s Singularity ever appears then all bets are off. Ditto for the Cybermen and the Borg. Ditto for people endlessly growing new organs as upgrades, which is what you said. (hooray I’m on topic at last!)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It does rather put The Generation Gap into a new light though, doesn’t it?
When the oldies complain about kids not being able to do mental arithmetic, is this not just a new adaptation to a changed environment that now includes computers?
When the oldies complain about electronic music being weird and too loud, is that not just stemming from their inability to use the music for its purpose of frenetic dancing?
When the Greybeards complain of the youth of today not knowing the price of freedom, is this anything more than the youth having adapted to a post-atomic MAD era of world peace, globalised trade, and economic prosperity?
These are not rhetorical questions. I generalise these questions as follows:
Is there any complaint the old routinely have about the young that cannot be traced to the application of obsoleted adaptive standards to the present?
Knowing the demographic of this site I probably opened a can of worms there, but then I shall just have to learn to eat worms.
Sorry to KK if this comment qualifies as “junk”, but I want to know stuff.
00
Stop embarrassing yourself. There is no evidence that humans born now are genetically distinct from humans born ten thousand or twenty thousand years ago. We are the same species.
Rereke Whakaaro’s entire theories of human genetics and evolution are based on absolute nonsense.
00
.
Adam
You say:
Name the difference 90%, 95%, or maybe 99.99%? Which is is it Adam? I’ll give you a hint – Humans share 85 percent of the genes found in mice!
WOAH! Slow down Adam, this is NOT an explanation or even an example of an evolutionary theory. If you presented this in a high school science paper as an example of evolution you’d be given a fail. (N.B. spelling was corrected from original quote – but that’s just genetics)
00
Adam,
@ 1.1.5.1
Just who are you quoting? For that is nothing that I said. And your response doesn’t seem to fit the quote anyway.
00
Hi Andrew
Your question “Is there any complaint the old routinely have about the young that cannot be traced to the application of obsoleted adaptive standards to the present?’ is very soundly based.
I think anyone who criticised individual members of the younger generation for simply trying to blend into their own environment is not being realistic. We have all done it.
In general terms relating to where discussion id focused I would suggest that the thrust (if I can use that word so soon after comments
about Pamela Anderson former wife of ….) of discussion on this site is moving from “is Global Warming by CO2 Real” to “How Did They
Get Away With It for SO Long” and “How Much of our Tax Money Have They Stolen”.
We are now studying the problem of how the new enlightenment we have achieved via the internet has allowed us to disrobe politicians
(metaphorically) to expose their deceit and theft.
The problem for all of us is to work out what we can do to make Government more accountable for obvious criminal activity and lift the
feeling that we have been too trusting and gullible in our failure to manage our Parliaments.
KK
ps was speaking mostly about my own “junk’. I can be prolific in that area. See above 🙂
00
Ok folks evolution 101
Evolution is a theory that describes how the environment creates selection pressure and as a consequence the best adapted individuals (due to genetic or learnt traits) will consequently prosper and reproduced. Through the mixing of chromosome during breeding and genetic mutation (1/million base pairs/replication) you get a diverse population for those pressures to act upon. New species will start to evolve when ever a different environments is encountered.
Note:- A new generation is not better adapted than their parents in any genetic way, The point is that if your parents were successful you have a higher probability of receiving those beneficial genes, unless the environment changes and produces different selection pressures.
For instance African population have many genetic adaptions to that environment such as dark skin that protects their folate levels. When humans started colonising high latitude regions those with dark skin were at a disadvantage due to the pigment in their skin preventing them from from getting enough vitamin D.
As too populations getting too old or large that is also hogswash.
Human population was always going through boom bust cycles, the advent of modern industry and medicine was a form of evolution that enables us to harness a new ecological niche. Once we fill it up it will be back to the normal boom and bust cycle. It’s not a matter of if but when.
As to the meaning of life, well life wasn’t meant to be easy, but you cant have beauty without contrast!
00
Err what?
You seem to be completely under rating the ingenuity of scientists.
This basically sounds like an argument from personal incredulity. Because you think something is impossible you are therefore asserting that it is impossible, rather than simply reflecting your opinion.
00
Hi Adam
You comment – “You seem to be completely under rating the ingenuity of scientists” – but I
Cant Really Accept that Proposition.
KK (:
00
Oh OK, do you don’t have a clue about what you are typing.
Well that does explain the quality of your posts.
00
.
Adam, Adam, Adam!
DO YOU DON’T HAVE A …… at the start of a statement (or sentence or whatever you call that piece of typing) is simple madness!
You should get this trait looked at by a geneticist! It possible to rectify now! Read above post by Jo!
I could state that you lost the arguement – but we’re all here to help you ADAM!
00
.
Adam!
We’re here to help you!
CAGW – Catastrophic Anthropogenic Grubby Writing is treatable!
00
Sure, but as long as you keep giving the government money, the government will spend it on whatever stupid s*@!t they want, not what you want.
00
s@*t that is
01
Try refusing to give the Government the money they demand, and see what happens.
00
Just think of the massive funds diverted to the Climate Science Scam Industry instead of being used for Medical Research and legitimate Science Research. I wish these snake-oil salespersons could be held to account in the future.
00
What’s up with What’s up?
I make announcement timing about 6am Monday.
00
Graeme,
In New Zealand it will be 7.00 am. California is on Summer Time, Bro’
00
It would be most helpful if times given on international fora such as WUWT and joannenova and others gave the time of any event parenthetically in GMT along with their local time.
Anthony Watts gives the time of his ‘major announcement’ as noon PST on Sunday 29th, but Rereke in another comment says the time of the release will be midday PDT. So, is Anthony who lives in Chico, California, correct, or is Rereke, who I assume lives in Kiwiland got it right when he infers Pacific Daylight Time? Totally confusing.
Just give me the time in GMT (no UCT for me, thank you very much!) and I’ll work it out from there.
00
That is probably my fault.
Because we (my company) works across multiple time zones, we always account for daylight saving, and the political shifting of time zone lines (i.e Fiji being permanently out by a day to better align with other Pacific nations). 😉
Anthony Watt’s site does say PST, which would be 8.00am NZT. The question is, “Is that a typo?” I assumed that it was, because people just look at the clock. It is only people like me who are anal enough to worry.
By assuming that it should be PDT, I might be watching an hour early.
00
Vinaka, Rereke. Now, what day will it be for us here in NZ? 🙂
00
It will be Monday for us here in New Zealand, and coincidentally it will be the same time in Fiji 🙂
00
I wonder how many athletes have already had gene therapy? Hussain Bolt, I’m looking at you.
00
The 2012 Olympics opening ceremony already featured a mass release of Mary Poppins clones… THEY’RE HEEEERRRE! 😀
On a more serious note, the international equestrian competition federation (whatever they’re called) recently changed their opinion on clones and will permit cloned horses to compete from 2014 onwards. So clones of Ussain Bolt cannot be far away. Lightning never strikes twice? Don’t bet on it…
00
.
Gene Therapy isn’t the problem – it’s Green Therapy!
According to two UK green groups, the entire London Olympic Games’ carbon footprint could be wiped out if the steelmaker ArcelorMittal cancelled just 3% of its excess carbon emission permits.
Climate campaigning NGO Sandbag and Low Carbon Community Network have called on the steel giant, an official supporter of the event, to do just that and eliminate the necessary number of permits.
ArcelorMittal is the single most oversupplied company in the European Emissions Trading Scheme sitting on a stockpile of EUR 1.6 billion worth of credits, largely as a result of the recession reducing industrial, and so CO2, output.
Heavy industry was awarded credits for free when the scheme began with the idea being that those using more than their allowance would have to purchase extra allowances, incentivising companies to be efficient.
The firm’s Orbit structure at the Olympic Village has also caused controversy with some questions over the green credentials of a 2000 tonne steel structure.
Mr Elsworth policy officer at Sandbag said that “For ArcelorMittal, a carbon neutral London 2012 would be a far better Olympic legacy than the Orbit could ever be. What is more the steelmaker could achieve this effortlessly by canceling less than 3% of the spare carbon allowances that European governments awarded them for free. Such a gesture would also help reduce the supply of allowances in the EU emissions trading scheme at a time when it is struggling to remain relevant.”
The Games’ promise to be the greenest ever appears to have been fulfilled but ethical and environmental controversies surrounding corporate sponsors such as Dow Chemical have dogged the event regardless.
Source – http://www.rtcc.org
00
What????!!! Just listen to yourself for a minute!
You’re honestly suggesting that governments should be investing in real science with real positive impacts on mankind rather than investing in psuedoscience which can be used to implement a command economy and meet the rent seekers’ agenda?
Canberra would no longer exist – and nor would washington D.C? Where can all those bludgers find work again?
Governments would fall down if they didn’t have a fear campaign active to justify taking a wreaking ball to our economies.
00
This sounds like a criticism of the Coalition’s Direct Action climate change policy which proposes that businesses should be able to put as much carbon pollution in the atmosphere as they like while the government will use tax dollars to directly fund more and more abatement. It is achievable, but you’d need an enormous government department to cut carbon emissions using this approach.
This is a perfect example of a command economy solution because within just a few decades the government would probably be spending tens of billions of dollars a year on carbon abatement, and thus wouldn’t have money to fund things the government should spend money on like the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We should be proud of the fact that the CSIRO has received hundreds of millions of dollars in patent license over the last few years because it developed technologies that are used in the wifi specifications. Here’s a story about it:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/how-csiros-stars-won-the-wifi-battle/story-e6frgakx-1226316861762
00
The Addams Family:
And yet another deliberate Obfuscation from our representative of the merits of the North Korean Command economy.
Previously I would argue the point with the Addams Family, however I have concluded that the Addams Family have decided they know all they need to know on these topics, and must spread their ignorance as far and wide as possible. They’re in it for the opportunity to spread their ideology rather than to contribute and understand.
00
Well mate, take up your argument with Rereke Whakaaro. He is the one who thinks that children inherit genetic traits from their parents through a process of “natural selection”, rather than sexual reproduction! This is what he wrote:
So it seems you are actually agreeing with me. Children acquire their genes from their parents. Now I agree with you that which copy of each gene is determined randomly.
But surely you can agree with me that children DON’T inherit genes through a process of “natural selection”, which is what Rereke Whakaaro proposed, and which I took as further evidence that he doesn’t have the faintest idea how evolution works.
00
And parents don’t select each other through natural selection.?
I think you would realise that there IS a fair deal of natural selection in the pairing process.
Maybe its time for you to get out of the academic cocoon, look around, study reality.!
00
Well you pose this as a rhetorical question but the answer is actually NO.
If human relations were shaped by natural selection the way they are for other animals then there would be no reason for men to commit to women in monogamous relationships. It would be more advantageous for men to reproduce with as many women as possible during their lives because this would increase the chance of them carrying on their genetic material to future generations.
The reason men often commit to relationships is because this is considered the best way to ensure a stable upbringing for a child. But this actually goes against the idea of natural selection because it means a man commits a great deal of resources (time and money) to the woman the gave birth to his child.
Call this what you want, but it is not natural selection.
Well actually no. Now there are evolutionary reasons why most men IN GENERAL find women attractive and vice versa, but there aren’t actually good evolutionary reasons why a particular man finds a particular woman attractive, or vice versa.
So again all you have done here is demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theory.
Well maybe it is time for you to pick up a high school biology text book and read the chapter on evolution!
00
“Well maybe it is time for you to pick up a high school biology text book and read the chapter on evolution!’
That’s about as far as you obviously got.
And seems to be where you are stuck, high school level.
Poor boy/girl/whatever.
Start reading further afield. Do some further research.
Enlightenment awaits you in, say, 20 years !!!
00
ps.. I suggest you start at the very beginning of the theory.
A very interesting read, btw.
00
Thanks Andy,
And very nicely done.
00
I really don’t think he/she/it/they has/have much understanding of the topic at all, just the very basic first page stuff. 🙁
But I’m not here to teach.
I would have to get past all the trivialities first, then teach him/her/it/them to actually think.
Maybe there’s a government grant in it for me 😉
actually…… no thanks, I’ll pass on that pointless and unrewarding task.
00
Well there are no such genes. A fit person could live on the savannah given enough know-how. But of course know-how isn’t genetically determined.
None of this makes any sense.
00
.
You say:
Now we add know-how! Explain know-how – Cantonese for how are you!
Read what you said – you lost the arguement through your inability to comprehend the reply and the question? Thanks for acknowledging this!
You then say:
Short memory Mr. HIGHER education! But then again, nothing makes much sense in the CAGW world of alarmists!
00
You’re reply didn’t make any sense.
You seen to be as delusional as Rereke Whakaaro who believes that genetic traits humans acquired over thousands of years can vanish within a few generations just because we use cars!
If you think that makes sense then you know the same amount about evolution as him, i.e. nothing.
So again since you have run out of an argument you are reverting to personal attacks.
Well clearly you know how tenuous your ideas are. But that’s what happens when your biology teacher is Rereke Whakaaro
00
.
Adam!
Slow down mate – you’ve lost the plot!
Look at your opening two sentences!
Example 1 – You’re means you are OK?
So this means your sentence actully says YOU ARE REPLY DIDN’T…. WRONG.
Example 2 – You seen to be …. just bad english Adam! Refer to your earlier posts – they are getting worse sorry to say mate!
You’re a bit of a mess tonight Adam!
P.S. I didn’t do Biology!
00
Well that’s pretty obvious because you haven’t presented a single piece of information on this topic that is factual.
Whatever you do, don’t hire Rereke Whakaaro as your biology teacher because he is as clueless on the subject as yourself.
00
.
Well done Adam Smith,
You’re learning slowly – but keep it simple as you have done above!
Example:
You even got the use of HIRE correct – great stuff Adam!
Now get back to facts!
00
If we extend the replacement parts business to its logical conclusion, we end up with something like my car. Every part replaced (is it still a Ford?).
The problem I have with the whole business is that young women still die from ovarian and breast cancer, children still die from malnutrition, thirst, cancer, starvation etc.
I wish that the research would first focus on some basics for our young, rather than the more profitable geriatric business.
00
Excuse me? The human body wasn’t designed!
There was no DESIGNER of the human body. Your understanding of evolutionary theory seems to be on par with Rereke Whakaaro’s, i.e. you don’t understand it at all.
00
.
You say:
Didn’t say that – you did – so lost again Adam!
English greatly improving mate! Congratulations!
In your case not genetics, just education! Apologies for the earlier diagnosis!
00
Um, you wrote “skeletal design”!
There was no designer! You seem to think that evolution and intelligent design are the same!
00
.
Adam,
Once again your English is lacking!
Design used in context is THIS! Designer is very different from design! But you have a few genetic deficiencies in this area!
You say:
Your immature assumptions indicate your lack of understanding of the evolutionary discipline!
Again you have lost this agruement!
00
Sorry mate, but human bodies don’t have “skeletal design” because there was no designer. They have the form (phenotype) that they do because they evolved that way.
Whenever you mention design in reference to evolution you are WRONG! But of course you know bugger all about biology so it isn’t surprising you’d make this basic error.
00
.
Thanks Adam!
What! So human bodies don’t have skeletal design – only all other members of the animal kingdom – good grief even old Tyrannosaurids had skeletal design!
Your english comprehension is sadly lacking! Good Night Adam!
00
Adam: If you had any intellegence at all you would realise that in the case “design” means “structure” ie the way the human skeleton is put together and functions
I fact, I’m guessing that you KNOW that is what was meant, but chose to take the other definition because it gave you a reason to big-note yourself and display the tiny amount of knowledge you have.
But you come off looking like a total moron… yet again.
You are nothing but a slimey troll. and I hope the sun catches up with you soon.
00
Actually there are several genetic traits that influence mate choices, Symmetry suggest genetic health and hormonal attraction is based on two peoples MHC(immune system) genes being dissimilar (avoids inbreeding)
00
Question:If anthropogenic global warming is such a serious issue, why are we still carrying out huge events like the olympics and soccer world cup? Can you just imagine the amount of carbon dioxide being spewed out by humans and planes? Funnily enough, the current olympc opening ceremony celebrated the industrial revolution, complete with carbon-spewing chimneys. I would like to see London’s carbon offset plan audited once the olympics are done.
Stupid politicians. You tell the public one thing but you do the exact opposite. How do you expect people to believe you, or to take AGW seriously?
Example: Al Gore. You tell people that rising sea levels will wipe out coastal areas, but you then go and buy beachfront property. You demonize carbon dioxide yet deem it appropriate to keep your rented car engine running outside for over an hour, while lecturing students inside about global warming.
See what people do, not what they say.
00
Wish I could give this many thumbs up !! 😉
00
.
In the above comments there seems to be an awful lot of confusion on both sides between genetic development or adaptation, and collective cultural experience and learning. Let’s use an example from the cutting edge of modern-day warfare.
Consider a dogfight between an American pilot and a Chinese pilot in similarly matched fighter aircraft. The two men are of equal intelligence, reflexes, stamina and strength (genetic factors). They have been equally well trained (education factor).
Yet, chances are the American will win. Why?
The American pilot grew up in the back seat of his father’s Pontiac, with all it’s acceleration and handling. The father grew up in the back seat of his father’s flathead V8 Plymouth, with all its torque and grunt (for its time). His father probably grew up on the back of his father’s Harley or Indian motorbike.
That American pilot represents four generations of people coming to terms with traveling (and being in control) at speeds far greater than human beings are capable of generating themselves. Things are learned, generation to generation: judgement of speed, closing rates and distances, intuitive calculation of point of no return, and so on.
By comparison, the Chinese pilot’s father probably walked everywhere, or caught a bus or train (so wasn’t involved in the decision-making process). The young Chinese pilot of today lacks all the cumulative cultural learning experience of the American pilot. A similar comparison can be made as to the operation of weapons systems. The American pilot represents the third generation of computer gamers. The Chinese pilot is probably the first generation in his family’s history to even have electricity.
None of this represents genetic adaptation. It is all cultural. And it applies everywhere.
For instance the son of poor Irish immigrants who was born and raised in Mt Isa or Kalgoorlie will probably have a better chance of survival in the African savannah region than the third generation son of an African dictatorship who have had nothing other that air-conditioned luxury for three generations.
Genes count, but in the end it is societies that count the most; societies that develop as a result of cumulative and collective learning and experience.
00
It is simplistic nonsense to say that intelligence, stamina and strength are purely genetic factors. A child could have the smartest parents in the world but if they aren’t taught basic things like reading, writing and numeracy they will turn out to be pretty dumb.
And someone may be born with particular POTENTIALS for reflexes, stamina, and strength but these won’t be fully realised unless a person trains their body to achieve the maximum potential out of those capabilities.
So all of these things are a MIX of genetic and environmental factors, they aren’t just determined by genes.
00
.
Team Smith
Thank you for supporting my post.
Thank you for supporting my argument in favour of cultural factors.
Thank you once again for supporting my argument that cultural factors (training, educations etc) are far more important than genetic factors in the matters being discussed here.
00
HA!
Oh I get it, I was meant to read:
(My emphasis)
And just pretend it said:
You clearly implied that intelligence, reflexes, stamina and strength are purely “genetic factors”, but when I pointed out that this is simplistic nonsense you pretended you didn’t write it!
You’re hilarious!
Oh OK, so you just made absolutely no point because intelligence in particular is determined by a MIX of genetic and cultural factors!
In summary, you just wrote 9 paragraphs of NOTHING!
00
Did I say that? Sorry, but I can’t see where I said anything like that.
Team Smith straw-man perchance?
Surely you would not stoop so low.
I thought I made it pretty clear that for both pilots these were accepted as equal (it was a “thought” experiment, after all). But then I was aiming my comment at the average reader with average, or above average intelligence.
I made no allowance for “Team Smith” cretins.
Thank you once again for supporting the thrust of my post, even if you are too unintelligent to understand that you have.
00
Why yes you did, you wrote
My emphasis
I didn’t force you to shove that “(genetic factors)” at the end of that sentence. You did it yourself.
But now you are running away from that sentence because you I pointed out to you how idiotic a statement it actually is.
Well this is irrelevant, because the mistake I pointed out was your idiotic assertion that thy are “(genetic factors)” which is just not true.
Oh OK, so now I have pointed out how idiotic your statement was you have had to revert to personal abuse because you feel bad that you were caught out peddling nonsense.
No, actually I pointed out that your assertion that intelligence, reflexes, stamina and strength are (genetic factors) is, and I’ll quote myself, “simplistic nonsense”.
I’m sorry that you’re unable to see how stupid that statement was.
00
OUTSTANDING
Team Smith aka The Adams Family, has successfully spaced 4,389 words in the last 5 hours.
He/ she/ they/ them/ it, has managed to block out 72.7% of space on average for each viewing page.
Absolutely a great achievement.
KK 🙂
00
Mate, there’s only one of me. Whenever you accuse me of being multiple people you just sound like you only have a tenuous grip on reality.
00
Adams, sorry to hear you “have a tenuous grip on reality”.
Hope it all works out for you.
Update
Total words in 15 hours 4,987.
Average page spece blotted out 79.3%
Can we all celebrate Smiths getting to 5,000 words on this thread.
Outstanding
KK
ps. Adams.
We can help you.
All you have to do is take the first step and ask.
We understand.
00
Just don’t ask Smith for evidence. He’s gone from 300 words an hour to zero.
(Note to Smith: you don’t actually have to name evidence to keep posting — after all — no one else can name evidence for the catastrophic part of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming, but you do need to answer the question. If you don’t know, just say so. – Jo)
[It would be nice if he apologized for all the nasty things he said about the moderator] ED
00
Poor Adam.
You are not having much fun tonight, are you.
There is an old Irish saying, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig”
Now I don’t expect you to understand the relevance of that, because you are not very good at thinking laterally.
But the rest of us have had a lot of fun.
00
If this was a question it needs a question mark.
To answer your possible question, I AM having fun tonight thank you very much.
00
It wasn’t a question, it was an observation, hence the lack of a question mark.
But I would appreciate it if you could find the time amidst all of your fun, to respond to my responses to your previous responses to my criticism about what you wrote (or words to that effect).
00
Well that means the sentence was ungrammatical because the clause “are you” is itself a question.
OK, but after you explain how you feel about all of Lord Monckton’s mistakes as elucidated in the Monckton Bunkum series of YouTube videos, starting with this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
I asked you about these videos several threads ago but you promptly ignored that post. It was the post where you made the hilarious assertion that multiple sclerosis, Graves disease, malaria and HIV/AIDS and all similar diseases.
That was the first post you made where I realised you don’t know much about biology.
00
Are we have now descended to the depths of semantic nuance. It was a rhetorical question, which forming part of a statement, does not require a question mark. If I had included a question mark, that would have indicated that I expected an answer, and it would have ceased to be a rhetorical question. Happy? <– note the question mark. You are invited to answer this question.
The second sentence lacks a subject, so it makes no sense at all. Couple that with the confusion that you obviously have about a conversation that we have never had regarding that list of diseases and conditions, and I am totally at a loss to understand what relevance that may have to anything on this thread.
Are you sure you are having fun?
00
No, as anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary theory knows, living things were not designed and don’t have a designer.
All you are doing is demonstrating you have no idea about basic biology.
It has nothing to do with english comprehension. You simply don’t understand that the scientific meaning of words differs from regular meaning.
And now since you lost the debate you are running away because you have demonstrated how poor your understanding of basic science is.
00
As far as I’m concerned, Jo
couldshould snip all the posts to this thread and start over. Adumb Smith has ruined it with useless BS and everyone else has taken the bait.00
You’re just trying to censor views that are different to your own.
You can’t handle having your ideas challenged. You’re not a sceptic at all, you’re just closed minded.
[Most of the visitors to this site are very open minded, and discuss issues rationally. What they don’t do is try to take over or dominate a thread by sheer volume of posts. Rereke was obviously bored tonight and has admitted to being provocative. He is also on notice. You are welcome to stay, and express your opinions, but be polite and considerate – Fly]
00
NO Dumb AS, YOU are way off topic. There is no mention of evolution in the post Jo made. One of the rules of the blog: Boring or Mindless posts.
You more than qualify for both.
00
Team Smith
Actually, I’m tired of this game. You support the theory of CAGW, and most of the respondents here don’t. So let’s break it down and make it really simple and end this once and for all.
CAGW stands for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. To “prove” your case all you have to do is present us with evidence of the following:
1) – That the planet is actually currently warming.
2) – That said alleged warming is caused by human activity.
3) – That said alleged warming will have catastrophic consequences.
Off you go.
Remember, we are not interested in the results of “computer models”, nor what the “consensus” tells us we should believe in, nor endless links to articles and papers that say “should”, or “might”, or “could” or “perhaps” or any of the other english language qualifiers.
All we are interested in is observed, measured data that supports the claims of 1), 2), and 3) above(and you have to be able to confirm all three to stay in the game).
I’m going to bed now. I look forward to your enlightening post in the morning.
In closing, please keep this in mind, Team Smith. Since you never bother actually replying to posts, in future my only response to your posts will be to simply repost this simple request.
00
The crunch. You might have further qualified “observed” and “measured” with “unadjusted”, “uncorrected” and “unfiltered”.
00
Well said Memory Vault,
Adam?
Despite your accusations otherwise….NO ONE with any intelligence is claiming that the climate doesn’t change….of course it does, of course it has and of course it will.
Neither is anyone claiming that humans don’t have some type of impact on their immediate environment….like DUH!….of course they do! That is natural human behaviour and is a very important part of human history. Otherwise….we would still be running around in nomadic tribes.
What is being hotly argued however is whether this impact is a negative and potentially catastrophic impact, how statistically significant it is and whether there is a demonstrable need to enact policy to do SOMETHING about it.
So….along with others…..I have seen no evidence based on real time data that PROVES that human activity and particularly human C02 emissions are statistically significant amidst all the known and unknown variables in the highly uncooperative beast we call climate/weather (and sometimes natural environment).
When it’s modelled it is….but that’s because projective modelling is based on ‘what if’ scenarios that exclude other significant variables….or assume that all other variables remain basically unchanged.
However….statistical projective extrapolations (which ARE NOT science BTW)…are not being used correctly if they are not being updated with real time data that ALSO includes the ‘REAL TIME’ changes in the OTHER variables.
One of my huge objections to this work is that it has been hijacked and used inappropriately…and therefore for purposes it was not intended….and therefore, very sadly, a useful tool has been rendered virtually useless.
The argument over the negative/positive balance sheet has turned into an ideological battle and hence has no real place in either statistics or science.
It creates battles between such things as the concept of AGRICULTURE against the concept of ENVIRONMENT which in scientific or statistical terms is pure nonsense. It is based on political beliefs and political ideologies….not science and not even statistics….unless of course you want to do a statistical analysis of the % of voters who BELIEVE whichever ideologies you choose to isolate…..but then that would only be a political statistical exercise…..NOT….a scientific one.
And lastly…..if it is POSSIBLE to prove with real time data that humans are causing some type of imminent catastrophic change to the global climate …..what is the right ‘risk management’ strategy?
So Adam?
Here’s my question to you.
Even if CAGW is right…..how is SCIENCE and POLITICS going to save us from ourselves?
Do you honestly believe that there is a sensible risk management strategy in place?
(That is of course assuming that there is a satistically significant risk)
IMHO…..
So far….Jo seems to have a better answer than anything that you have said here.
Maybe we would do better to spend those $billions on projects and initiatives that can demonstrably improve the health, personal prosperity and peace of humankind and also improve or enhance the same in the immediate environment?
….but of course keep in mind that we should always be as ‘responsible’ as humanly possible.
00
Memoryvault, you can never “prove” a scientific theory, only disprove it.
CAGW is falsified by one set of observations, the water vapour concentration in the upper troposphere.
CO2 doubling causes a 3.7W/m2 forcing or about 1 Deg C warming
A 4degC rise in temp requires a 14W/m2 forcing
The extra energy comes almost exclusively from water vapour positive feedback, an increase in water vapour in the upper troposphere where the CO2 increase has its most potent effect (due to the low temps)
The Observation from both satellite and radiosondes show a decrease in water vapour in the region (explained by increased convection drying out the atmosphere)
The theory is therefore falsified conclusively!
This is the ONLY argument us sceptics need! Climate4you.com has all the graphs on their clouds page
00
I have taken my skepticism of climate change (which arose thanks to hours of independent research and observing the social, political, financial and ideological bvking for the theory) and extended that level of scrutiny onto other areas od scientific “consensus”.
Recently I have been thinking about evolution.
The idea is that human beings and all the myriad of animal and plant species evolved from basic elements of the universe which originally were devoid of any meaningful organization or complex structure.
The idea to me is utterly absurd! What’s more it breaks the second law of thermodynamics which stipulates that systems tend toward a state of disorder rather than order.
Evolution is another failed scientific theory (fails because it has not and cannot be observed on the macro level nor can it be repeatable!) which is only propped up for political, economic and social reasons.
People commonly cite evidence that because we share x% of DNA with y animal that it somehow proves that we all evolved. Bullshit! It just means we share the same building blocks and the same designer/s.
00
Hi Sonny
Sorry to hear that you are at a dead end in understanding “Darwinian Evolution”.
Just a thought, have you ever studied any geology?
This is where the big prompt came from originally to try to comprehend the meaning of fossils and put some chronological sense to them.
Then actual examples of differentiated development such as were noticed in the Galapagos?
Then to more exotic refinement in biology.
My unease with modern America, which has a lot to admire, is that so many people can become so belligerent over their sudden discovery of
“Creationism” (whatever that means).
Don’t know a lot about it but I think this arose from a religious perspective and it just shows the power of Religious Media outlets to show
people the real “truth” that they had been missing. And could they please send in a donation to help promote the “Scriptures”. Shades of Tammy Fae Baker.
I’m not aware of any science underpinning Creationism and all I remember is that it began in the US Bible Belt.
Thoughts.
KK 🙂
00
Hi KinkyKeith,
Skeptics of evolution (scientists included http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf) have been victim of the same authoritative grouthink, consensus, ridicule, censorship etc. as climate change skeptics.
Most people are taught evolution as fact – they never hear the other side of the story and the many evidentiary disconnects that fuel skepticism. Like all scientific ideas that have political, religious or secular implications – the science becomes corrupted for those ends. We have seen this with global warming and climate change. I assert that the same deception is at the heart of evolution. I am still in early phases of research into this. There is a wealth of material.
00
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Lists 700 scientists who question Darwinian Evolution.
Dissent exists. If a person is interested in establishing the truth for themselves they need to evaluate the evidence that calls into question the authoritative view on evolution.
By the way I am not a religious person – I have an interest in investigating scientific deception, corruption and fraud in areas outside of global warming and climate change.
Keep an open mind!
00
Hi Sonny
I don’t think there is any comparison between CAGW and Darwinian Evolution Theory in terms of scientific basis.
My suggestion to you is get a hammer and chisel and break open some shale and coal until you pick up some fossils. then hold it in your hand. It is real. Then ask yourself how it got there.
There are many scientists out there who have retrieved fossilised animal parts and a branch of Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, uses the fossilised craniums of humans and animals to provide real evidence of changes in adaptation.
Point I wanted to make is that reading stuff about Creation and why it must be true can make your head spin.
Words in your head about Creationism are just that, words.
Evidence for Darwinian Evolution is hands on stuff, yes complex, but it does make sense.
Creationism is basically a religious concept for philosophers.
Good luck with it.
KK
00
Hi KK
If you wish to believe that the millions of diverse plant and animal life came into existence from a cosmic disorder of atoms, go for it.
There are many scientists who don’t. (not just philosophers or religious adherents)
The scientific case for evolution is incredibly weak. Look it up.
00
Hi Sonny
Did you do any science past year 10 at high school?
I’m not telling you what to think.
In fact I did suggest that you go out and explore. You seem to understand my take on Creationism; it’s deeply philosophical.
KK
00
Masters of mechanical engineering. – evolution contradicts
The Second law of thermodynamics.
Dux of physics in my year at school.
Thankfully I didn’t choose science is an undergraduate degree.
Who knows how far the corrupt education system could have distorted my understanding of the world.
Universities teach CAGW and evolution as FACT.
00
Deities exist when the human mind cannot accept the unknown.
Science is just a more logical, measurement based, definition of what we think we know. (except so-called climate science)
As a result of accepting that we don’t know, you get silly statements like,
“Darwinian theory doesn’t appear to be fully correct, so it must be, CREATION” or
“there appears to be some warming in the land temps after we manipulate the data, therefore it must be, CO2.. see the 20 or so year correllation !”
Time to accept that there are complexities in many things that we really are nowhere near understanding. ALL SCIENCE IS SKEPTICAL !
If you think anything in science is really settled, you are bound to be proven wrong.
00
“As a result of NOT accepting that we don’t know”
00
Ok so you think that only “climate science” is subject to corruption? Really?
00
Of course not, but certainly seems to be in a league of its own in this respect.
00
Sorry, Sonny. Evolution does occur and in my line of work it’s seen every day.
Grow a pure culture of bacteria in a medium containing antibiotic it’s susceptible to, and within a few generations you’ll have a population that’s resistant to it. Both chemistry and genetics have changed – that’s mutation.
Can make life a bit difficult for us humans sometimes…
00
That is adaptation. It’s not macro evolution.
It doesn’t explain how the first living cell split, or why and how enzymes formed.
00
Sonny you are not being precise about the terms you are using.
There’s a reason Darwin’s seminal text on this topic was titled “The Origin of Species” and not “The Origin of Life“. Species convert into other species by gradual mutation and by survival pressures amplifying small differences. Darwin never claimed to know how life got started. Abiogenesis is completely outside of Evolution.
Evolution is a fact because it is clear from the fossil record that species have emerged and evolved over time. You may quibble about the driving force behind it being some intelligent hand versus random mutation. But you cannot quibble about whether evolution did or did not occur, because it did.
Since evolution by adapting to the environment occurs every day (and in the lab as noted above) this proves cellular level adaptations are one entirely natural mechanism for achieving the end result of evolution which is the proliferation of species. There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain speciation when you have a decent natural explanation.
The cell is mind-bogglingly complex, but there is no indication of physics operating differently during cellular division than it does anywhere else in the universe. Thus we can say for sure there is no God intervening in the everyday function of cells to keep them alive, it’s a totally natural process. The design and initial setup of this process is the last remaining area where religious or gullible people can impose their supernatural explanations with few constraints. Thus we move on to the idea you were really talking about…
As for abiogenesis… Most people cannot accept RNA arising by a chance chemical interaction, even when given trillions of separate reaction pools operating continuously for 2 billion years. To argue that rare events are impossible is to argue we live in an entirely predictable and boring universe, and I suggest you would find much evidence from your own life that the universe abounds with rare events. There is also the Weak Anthropic Principle that says that even if life is an incredibly rare chance event, our assessment of its likelihood is biased by the fact that we are only here to think about it because it actually happened here.
The reason people really really don’t like the Random Abiogenesis hypothesis is because it means there is no ultimate purpose to life because it was not intentionally designed by anything and thus no particular end result is expected from us by The Creator, even if that creator exists.
Some people can’t handle that, but I can. That’s why I’m 50% agnostic and 50% atheist depending on the topic and whether I have had a good night’s sleep or not. 🙂
I don’t approve of these “militant atheists” because ultimately we do not know that there is no god, we have merely failed to detect any physical evidence that could be interpreted as an unambiguous signature of a supernatural sentient creator. I think it is nonsensical to argue that life itself is the signature of the creator and yet this creator left absolutely no other sign of their handiwork. Perhaps the Moon being 400x smaller than the sun but also 400x closer to earth than the sun (thus forming perfect eclipses) is the non-living signature of the Creator. But if life was the Creator’s purpose, why is the Solar system (and our galaxy) an apparently dead place, life being the exception rather than the rule? Any attempt to discern a divine purpose to the universe will rely upon an arbitrary assumption of that purpose, and one can imagine any purpose to make it match the observable facts. That is logical abduction and is not valid. Compounding the problem is that every divine purpose that has been proposed leads to contradictions with the facts and enormous departures from the intent – which can only be resolved by modifying one’s definition of the Creator and their intent. It is just desperation to find a God by any means necessary.
Ultimately I choose to believe there is no creator because it is the simplest parsimonious explanation of the facts.
The majority of evidence points towards life being a cosmic chance event. Just because that is depressing does not make it untrue.
00
Cheers Andrew.
Very informative post!
00
Sonny at 12.15 “that’s adaptation”
No, Sonny. It’s not adaptation, it’s selection (the word is well chosen). You are semantically confused.
Darwinian evolution says nothing about the “origin” of life, and makes no such claims. Only of species. Darwin was a committed Christian.
00
Evolution states that species need to evolve to form other species.
(eg an ape into a human)
This has never been observed or repeated – two necessary conditions for a theory to be valid.
00
Sonny say “This has never been observed or repeated”
Sorry Sonny.
There is a progression of fossilized skulls of several ape like species and human like species that do tell a story.
Sure no one has ever captured a live “Neanderthal Man” but we know that he had a large nose and extraordinary brain cavity of over 1400 cc.
He did not survive his contact with CroMagnon man.
Likelihood was that his adaptation to the extreme cold of the last ice age was not suited to the recent warming period that stared about 20,000 years back.
If man was created by God, as you suggest, there is a bid question. Who created God?
Sonny , ask yourself. From what country and what source did creationism appear?
KK
00
Right So a progression of fossilized skulls may tell a story but I bet some of the 700 scientists listed above could interpret the evidence differently.
You have in effect admitted that evolution of man cannot be a scientific proof since we cannot observe or repeat the experiment. Therefore rather than take evolution as a fact it is worthwhile exploring why and on what scientific grounds many scientists dissent from the mainstream view.
Keep in mind that if you accepted the mainstream view of climate change you would have been the victim of a false theory.
00
The question of who created man? And who created the creator?
A great mystery !
00
fact and theory confused here. Evolution is the observation, natural selection is the theory to explain it.
00
Here we go.
IF stirs again.
“Keep in mind that IF you accepted the mainstream view of climate change you would have been the victim of a false theory”.
But I didn’t did I?
Can’t I reject two theories in a row?
Comments like “evolution contradicts The Second law of thermodynamics.” set alarm bells ringing.
It seems that this discussion of Creationism that has been going on worldwide now for sometime has a parallel in the search for a
deeper explanation of basic physics. We have had “scientists” saying now that Newton and Einstein were wrong but we all know that
for all practical purposes their work is core and essential to the understanding of modern life. Is there a distortion at work? I
think so.
The Creationists in the American Bible Belt forced their “beliefs” onto many local school boards which were forced to teach
Creationism, if not exclusively, then alongside Darwinian Evolution.
Some science trained staff resigned rather than teach it.
My understanding is that the Evolutionary” history of Creationism was from religious origins and certainly not from reputable
scientific sources.
The God particle’s presence is postulated and it is discussed as though we know it’s eye and hair colour.
Undoubtedly there is a need to explore that further, it seems to have a point.
I remain unconvinced that this search for the basis of “Creation” is anything real and tend to associate it’s propagation with the
powerfully influential middle American Bible preachers who teach that if it’s not in the Bible, then it’s not real.
ps I’m impressed by your qualifications but you didn’t mention what basic Degree you have?
KK
00
You have it all back to front. There is no need to evolve, there is a need to reproduce in a competitive environment.
Species are formed by different environments placing differing selective pressures on a population. Say as in two differing stable food sources.
This is known as divergent evolution.
On the other hand you can have convergent evolution where two different families such as fish (sharks) and mammals (dolphins) end up with a very similar shape.
Of course the concept of speciation (the ability to no longer interbreed) is a problematic concept especially when you consider that prokaryotic life reproduce by cloning, not breeding. Claiming that the theory is false because we haven’t observed speciation (due to the long time frame) is just stupid. Science is about falsifying theories, and no theory can ever be proven. Lack of observation does not disprove a theory. The new understanding of molecular genetics allows us to observe evolution on human time scales, such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria, and has superseded the requirement to observe new species being formed.
00
Nice comment Rob.
KK
00
It might be more appropriate to call this bio-engineering.
00
I have a pretty sound scientific theory here, brand spanking new and just thought up.
Our Creator – Jo Nova and all hail to her! – has been bored of late, so idly squilled this article just to be transiently amused by the mental absurdities of Her little mannikins.
I think we should all have a couple of Bex and a good lie down now. 🙂
00
I’ve said this before but a thread or explainer dealing with definitions and implications of evolution, adaptation, mutation, “random” (we got that wrong didn’t we?), fitness, assortment, recombination etc is sorely needed. Many of the regular and coherent contributors here are completely lost and can be seen claiming some bizarre things.
There are some like Sonny who does not fall into this category but explainers are for sceptics to learn from, not those who can never accept anything they already don’t agree with (a word beginning with “d”).
00
Sounds like you’d be the best one to set us all on the straight and narrow, Gee Aye.
I would appreciate your feedback on my rant above. I do try to be a genuine Skeptic, pointing out errors whomever utters them, though unfortunately changing one’s habits of thinking can be difficult even when all the facts are in front of you, and having pride can be a serious impediment to objectivity and learning.
The only strategy that works in making forward progress is to be proven wrong early and proven wrong often. 🙂
00
Not the time for me to reply in full and also am on the road for a few days so the moment might pass but let me make this observation. It seems to me that no matter how specialised (i.e. an area of complexity with a great amount of published work) the area, some people feel a need to comment. Maybe the best thing to do is to not comment if you actually don’t know that you know what you are talking about.
Much better to either say nothing (even if Adam Smith is your target) or ask a question and hope that someone takes the time to help you find an answer, than to just state an opinion that you think is right. Ignorance plus bluster will never win in the end. As annoying as some here find me I ask questions (often, unfortunately interpreted as trolling) and choose to learn rather than comment almost all of the time. OK… I sometimes drift into the merge
00
I think the spell checker did something with the “dee” on the last word
00
Oops! I mean “quill” (but let’s not quibble). Definitely time for that good lie down.
00
I could do with a lot of spare parts, but the only ones available are metric, and my body dates from the days of Imperial measure.
00
Lucky me. I was made to DIN, though quality control wasn’t what it should have been.
00
Ha ha aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
🙂
00
The thing that really struck me about these articles by real scientists is that they all readily admitted that their work was a long way from complete. Whatever you think of climate science, it is hard to argue that it is anything but in its infancy. I’m not going to have all my teeth pulled out and wait for some stem cell implant to replace them and we should probably not shut down civilization because some modeler says CO2 is going to kill us.
00