Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

So it is not truth you seek but personal gain. How typically conservative of you.

OH...I know the TRUTH. You do not. You believe in hoaxes as long as the solution to the hoax is socialism. And many libs will give lots of money to people who promote socialist hoaxes. Why shouldn't I benefit by taking lib's money? Its only FAIR!!!

The cost of ignorance should be high. Plus why should Fat Albert take all your money?

Taking lib money and giving to good conservative causes has a nice sinister twist to it. I love it!!!
 
Werbung:
And you actually believe that a court case constitutes any sort of scientific proof? You really are out there aren't you. I suppose you believe that because the court said that unborn human beings are something other than human, that in fact, there is a stage in which the offspring of two human beings is something other than a human being. I suppose if a court said that rocks were grass, you would be out of a job wouldn't you?

Excuse me? You think ET (or God, or whatever) phoned home and all the diversity of life suddenly appeared, and yet call me "out there"? Most amusing.

Did you ever read the Dover case? Ever? Or even a summary? You do realize that it was decided by a Conservative Bu****e Judge, right? And that it has a huge legal bearing on all of ID's reigious claims? I say religious claims, because ID is a religious philosophy, not a scientific discipline. And that abortion has nothing to do with what we are talking about, right?
 
Pointing out that you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass isn't a personal attack. It is a quantifiable observation.

And yet you've done nothing, if not ignore/distort facts since this conversation began. When confronted with facts that I've brought to bare, instead of addressing them directly, you have often simply found it to be much easier to ignore them or attack the messenger. And that is a most rude and unprofessional tactic.
 
And still no evidence to support your claims. It is 5:41 in the morning and you are putting me to sleep here. I am going to be away for the weekend to see some offshore boat races, try and actually find some of your imagined evidence for next week.

Unbelievable. Do you meditate on this mantra every time someone points out a fact? My statement was that all organic life is composed of inorganic elements and compounds. How is this, in any way, unsupported? For instance, take a look at this diagram of the organic compound benzene:

benzene.gif


Is it not composed of the inorganic elements carbon and hydrogen? ANY biochemist would agree that it is.

How about the nucleobase adenine, which is a part of the DNA molecule?

adenine.JPG


Well gee, it too is composed of inorganic elements.

So what evidence do we have that you are a biochemist? I've yet to see any, as you apparently fail to understand even the most basic facts about the field.
 
I asked you to name off a few species that have gone extinct in the past 25 or 50 years. If the extinction rate is the higest it has been in many millions of years, you should be able to tick them off at a prodigious pace.

Name them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html

Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change.

The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone.

The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species "lifespan" from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years. There are about 5,000 known mammalian species alive at present. Given the average species lifespan for mammals, the background extinction rate for this group would be approximately one species lost every 200 years. Of course, this is an average rate -- the actual pattern of mammalian extinctions is likely to be somewhat uneven. Some centuries might see more than one mammalian extinction, and conversely, sometimes several centuries might pass without the loss of any mammal species. Yet the past 400 years have seen 89 mammalian extinctions, almost 45 times the predicted rate, and another 169 mammal species are listed as critically endangered.

Therein lies the concern biologists have for many of today's species. While the number of actual documented extinctions may not seem that high, they know that many more species are "living dead" -- populations so critically small that they have little hope of survival. Other species are among the living dead because of their interrelationships -- for example, the loss of a pollinator can doom the plant it pollinates, and a prey species can take its predator with it into extinction. By some estimates, as much as 30 percent of the world's animals and plants could be on a path to extinction within 100 years. These losses are likely to be unevenly distributed, as some geographic areas and some groups of organisms are more vulnerable to extinction than others. Tropical rainforest species are at especially high risk, as are top carnivores, species with small geographic ranges, and marine reef species.

Humanity's main impact on the extinction rate is landscape modification, an impact greatly increased by the burgeoning human population. Now standing at 5.7 billion and growing at a rate of 1.6 percent per year, the population of the world will double in 43 years if growth continues at this pace. By draining wetlands, plowing prairies, logging forests, paving, and building, we are altering the landscape on an unprecedented scale. Some organisms do well under the conditions we've created: They tend to cope well with change, tolerate a broad range of habitats, disperse widely, and reproduce rapidly, and they can quickly crowd out more specialized local species. City pigeons, zebra mussels, rats, and kudzu and tamarisk trees -- these are examples of what biologists call "weedy" species, both animals and plants. Many weedy species will probably survive, and even thrive, in the face of the current mass extinction. But thousands of others, many never known to science, are likely to perish.

And what is the fate of our own species likely to be, if we really are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction? One possibility is that as diversity and abundance wither, the species causing it all -- Homo sapiens, the most dominant species in history -- could also be on the road to oblivion. But another possibility is that Homo sapiens, which has proved to be a very effective weedy species itself, will persist. That's the view of paleobiologist David Jablonski, who sees us as one of the survivors, "sort of picking through the rubble" of a world that has lost much of its biodiversity -- and much of its comfort. For along with that species richness, the ecosystem is likely to loose much of its ability to provide many of the valuable services that we take for granted, from cleaning and recirculating air and water, to pollinating crops and providing a source for new pharmaceuticals. And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery will be unbearably slow in human terms -- 5 to 10 million years after the mass extinctions of the past. That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored.

Selected well known species extinctions in the last 100 years:

Tasmanian Tiger
Southern Plains Zebra
Passenger Pigeon
Golden Toad
Caribbean Monk Seal
Pyrenean Ibex
Bubal Hartebeast
Javan Tiger
Tecopa Pupfish
Baiji River Dolphin
Steller's Sea Cow
Caspian Tiger
West African Black Rhino
Craugastor escoces - a toad in the forests of Costa Rica
Holdridge's Toad
Spix's Macaw
Black-faced Honeycreeper
Hawaiian Crow - extinct in the wild

Do you want me to go on?
 
Considering the nunber of basic principles you have gotten wrong, I highly doubt that; unless you are perhaps a printer.

Wow, another ad hominem. You're on a roll, son.

And which part of that do you believe constitutes an sort of proof?

Evolution is simply the fact that animals inherit traits over time, and that with enough time, added traits give rise to new species. Do you doubt, as a biochemist, that you yourself consists of genetic traits passed on to you by your mother and father? That you are an amalgam of traits from both parents?
 
OH...I know the TRUTH. You do not. You believe in hoaxes as long as the solution to the hoax is socialism. And many libs will give lots of money to people who promote socialist hoaxes. Why shouldn't I benefit by taking lib's money? Its only FAIR!!!

The cost of ignorance should be high. Plus why should Fat Albert take all your money?

Taking lib money and giving to good conservative causes has a nice sinister twist to it. I love it!!!

So stealing from people is "fair"? How Christ-like of you. I'm sure you wil go straight to heaven.
 
Yeah, thinking minds ARE pretty convenient
Then the answer is YES, you think you should get to decide what criticism of AGW is legitimate and what is not... Who is qualified to criticise AGW and who is not... Yet another example of your double standards.

Imagine all the things you could do with one.
You just pointed out that PLC stated personal attacks were not permitted, is this another of your double standards where you think you get to make the rules but don't have to follow them?

And again, you seem to be able to properly quote others without a problem but insist on not doing the same for me... Is that some kind of "rude and unprofessional tactic"?

When confronted with facts that I've brought to bare, instead of addressing them directly, you have often simply found it to be much easier to ignore them or attack the messenger.
pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp


you have yet to explain why the climate is changing, if not due to AGW
This may come as a shock but the climate has never been static...

What caused climatic shifts prior to industrialization?
Why are such causes no longer seen as legitimate drivers of climate change?

have yet to explain how a reactive gas can be released into the atmosphere at such high quantities every year, and not effect the atmosphere in any way.
You've repeatedly stated that man puts about 6 billion tons (if I recall correctly) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year...
What is the total amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere every year from all sources?

If you don't know the answer to that question, Pale does, I'm sure he'd be happy to help you learn something new. I've already met my quota by informing you that the climate has never been static. :)
 
"Then the answer is YES, you think you should get to decide what criticism of AGW is legitimate and what is not... Who is qualified to criticise AGW and who is not... Yet another example of your double standards."

No sir. I think that thinking minds are pretty convenient. Was that in any way unclear? Look, I think science matters shoud be left to the scientists to decide. They know a heck of a lot more about it than the layman on the street does. Now, they layman on the street is certainly within his rights to critisize if, even if he doesn't know what he is talking about. But lets be clear here. I'm talking about peer review, not idle gossip.
 
"This may come as a shock but the climate has never been static..."

No in the least.

"What caused climatic shifts prior to industrialization?"

A major contributor to climate shifts in the past have been the malenkovich cycles, particlarly as they pertain to cycles of ice ages and intrerglacials.

"Why are such causes no longer seen as legitimate drivers of climate change?"

Because, according to the latest cycle, we should be heading for a colder climate, not a warmer one. That is why a lot of scientists thought in the 1970s that we might be headed for another ice age.
 
"You've repeatedly stated that man puts about 6 billion tons (if I recall correctly) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year...
What is the total amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere every year from all sources?"

I've posted a response to that queston, already. Perhaps you missed it.
 
No. I meant transitory. You might add a dictionary to your arsenal. Or at least look up the word before you suggest that it is used incorrectly. You guys operate on assumption after assumption after assumption; never bothering to check to see if you are, in reality, right or wrong.

transitory (ˈtrænsɪtərɪ, -trɪ)

— adj
of short duration; transient or ephemeral

http://news.discovery.com/earth/punctuated-equilibrium-how-stuff-works.html

CLIO: "That would help explain the lack of transitory fossil samples."

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...I1r-E#v=onepage&q="transitory fossil"&f=false

CLIP:Moreover, there has not been discovered a single transitory fossil that is able to confirm an accurate or a proven transfer of a basic body structure by evolution from a lower species to a more advanced species

I gave several examples, and even posted pictures, not that it matters.
 
Werbung:
Transition fossils is a non-issue made up by creationists. All species are, by defintion, transitional. End of story.
 
Back
Top