Another theory that must be rejected by conservatives

[palerider]

Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway.

And the crap just keeps on coming. Clearly, you jump on any bandwagon that is driven by a liberal and meets your political standards without regard to any facts. Did you actually do any research on this topic, or did you just link to the first google hit that supported your claims?

I said:

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.

In case you need assistance with the math, 1960 would be 50 years ago. So lets look at your "evidence" for the "fact" that extinctions today are the highest they have been for "millions of years".

Tasmanian Tiger – extinct in 1936 but its extinction started long before that. It was eliminated from the mainland 3,000 years ago.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/01/12/tasmanian-tiger-extinct.html

Southern Plains Zebra – Not extinct at all.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/41013/0
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/burchellszebra.htm
http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/zebra/zebra_plains.html

Passenger Pigeon - The last one died in 1914
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/exp...reasures/Passenger_Pigeons/pigeons.html?dinos

Golden Toad – Last seen in 1991; a victim of chytridiomycosis. . How about that, you got one but it has nothing to do with CO2. I suspect that as we go down the list, there won’t be a single extinction due to climate change.
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Bufo_periglenes.html

Caribbean Monk Seal – Last sighted in 1952 although descriptions by uneducated fishermen seem to suggest that it is not, in fact, extinct.
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/caribbeanmonkseal.htm

Pyrenean Ibex – The last one died in 2000 although the population was down to 100 by 1900. Hardly a surprise, but lets give you that one as well. 2
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/pyreneanibex.htm

Bubal Hartebeast – The last known specimen was killed in the 1920’s

Javan Tiger – May have become extinct in the 1980’s. 3
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/javantiger.htm

Tecopa Pupfish – 1978. It was driven into extinction by bath houses being built on the hot springs were it lives. Interesting to note that with one exception (not attributable to man) none of your species have gone extinct due to climate change which was your original premise.

Baiji River Dolphin – Not extinct.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070831123429.htm

Steller's Sea Cow – The last one was reportedly killed in 1768. Missed the mark there by almost two and a half centuries.
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/stellersseacow.htm

Caspian Tiger – Possibly not extinct (sightings in turkey) and DNA analysis suggests that the Caspian tiger is one in the same as the Siberian tiger.
http://www.petermaas.nl/extinct/speciesinfo/caspiantiger.htm
Clip: Recent genetic research even suggests that the Caspian Tiger never became extinct, but that they are one and the same as the surviving Siberian Tigers (Driscoll et al. 2009).

West African Black Rhino - Once again, hunted to extinction. You do realize don’t you that animals hunted to extinction in no way suggest any sort of mass extinction. Same for animals that are crowded out. Your claims of imminent mass extinction are falling flat. 4

Craugastor escoces - a toad in the forests of Costa Rica - Most likely went extinct due to a disease; chytridiomycosis.

Holdridge's Toad – Again, a victim of chytridiomycosis.

Spix's Macaw – Not extinct.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/142578/0

Black-faced Honeycreeper – Again, dead due to forest cutting and predation by cats. 5

Hawaiian Crow - extinct in the wild- Again, not extinct, and not extinct in the wild.
http://audubon2.org/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=98

Shall we mark this down as a fail? Most of your extinctions happened more than 50 years ago, none of them can be attributed to climate change, and some of them aren't even extinct. The claim of extinctions at a rate not seen in millions of years is just one more claim you can't support.

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:

Do you, or do you not have any rational explanation for how life might have risen from non living substances? Yes or no? We both know the answer is no because we both know that there is no rational explanation. The fact that life is made largely of non living substances is not an explanation for how life might have sprung from non living ingredients.

You have failed yet again. You have not yet successfully substantiated a single point in all these pages.

 

[palerider]

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?

Sorry guy, no evidence to support that claim. Not even a hint of observed evidence that one species has transitioned into another species.

 

[orogenicman]

Sorry guy, no evidence to support that claim. Not even a hint of observed evidence that one species has transitioned into another species.

So you are saying that there is no evidence that you are your parents' offspring? I hate that for you.


Over the years, I have come to the realization that it is actually quite astonishing that creationists ever manage to procreate, considering how little they understand about biology, and life in general.

 

[orogenicman]

"Not even a hint of observed evidence that one species has transitioned into another species."

New species of viruses occur all the time. Unless you believe that "God did" superbugs and the AIDs virus. You don't believe that, do you?

I've come to another realization as well. And that is that if you are a biochemist, then you are a poster child for everything that is wrong with the U.S. education system. Congratulations. If you smile really brightly, they might even give you a piece of candy.

 

[Gipper]

So you are saying that there is no evidence that you are your parents' offspring? I hate that for you.


Over the years, I have come to the realization that it is actually quite astonishing that creationists ever manage to procreate, considering how little they understand about biology, and life in general.

Hey Pale did you know that your Momma birthed a new species when she gave birth to you?

Damn there are lots of new species!!!

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale did you know that your Momma birthed a new species when she gave birth to you?

Had no idea. I am pretty sure my parent's were homo sapien sapien, and to the best of my knowlede I am too. He must be mistaken. Hey, that would be a surprise, wouldn't it?

 

[palerider]

I've come to another realization as well. And that is that if you are a biochemist, then you are a poster child for everything that is wrong with the U.S. education system. Congratulations. If you smile really brightly, they might even give you a piece of candy.

Typical liberal. Accuse your opponent of being everything that you are. I am able to support my positions while to date, no part of your own argument has been substantiated.

 

[palerider]

Transition fossils is a non-issue made up by creationists. All species are, by defintion, transitional. End of story.

Of course, since you can not produce a single one, you must make up some story to account for that fact.

 

[PLC1]

Of course, since you can not produce a single one, you must make up some story to account for that fact.

Since all organisms are, as orogenicman says, transitional, then it follows that all fossils are also transitional, as they are all the remains of organisms. Modern day organisms, including humans, are transitional as well. Evolution is still going on.

Maybe a rational creature will evolve from modern humans, or maybe intelligence will turn out to be an evolutionary dead end. Either way, irrational discussions will eventually come to an end.

 

[palerider]

Since all organisms are, as orogenicman says, transitional, then it follows that all fossils are also transitional, as they are all the remains of organisms. Modern day organisms, including humans, are transitional as well. Evolution is still going on.

Nice story. Kind of like renaming global warming to climate change to climate disruption. No matter what you call it, it is still a fraud.

Maybe a rational creature will evolve from modern humans,

Culture is not species.

 

[PLC1]

Nice story. Kind of like renaming global warming to climate change to climate disruption. No matter what you call it, it is still a fraud.

Can you name a creature that has is static?

Culture is not species.

Homo sapiens is.

 

[palerider]

I gave several examples, and even posted pictures, not that it matters.

I saw no pictures and no examples of transitory fossils. What I saw primarily was you assuming that I had used the word transitory wrong and attempting to correct me.

If you believe you know of some transitory form found in the fossil record, by all means post it and I will happily give you some credible material that shows that it isn't. There have been no transitory forms found in the fossil record.

 

[palerider]

"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.

You have posted an entirely inadequate response. You simply don't want to acknowledge that our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is tiny. Not nearly enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 manufacturing machinery. Instead you seem to want to believe that our CO2 is somehow different and contributes to the climate in some way natural CO2 doesn't.

 

[palerider]

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.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6574/...f=FORID:9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=global+cooling#1046

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/say-goodbye-to-sunspots.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article...arm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

http://wbztv.com/curious/solar.min.sunrise.2.979838.html

http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/20...daleo-we-are-headed-for-a-dalton-minimum.html

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/cw17434027026726/

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3515/...erature-drop--not-catastrophic-global-warming

There are plenty of warmings of cooling out there for anyone who is not under the influence of the koolaid.

 

[palerider]

Can you name a creature that has is static?

Can you name one species that evolved into another species? That is the issue, not microevolution. If the theory of evolution were true, ie macroevolution, considering the history of life on earth, whenever a fossil is found, the odds would be in favor of that fossil being a clearly transitory form. Clearly, that is not the case.