Transitional Fossils

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, The mass of the atmosphere is about 5*10^18 kg. Now, by volume, CO2 is about .04%, and CO2 is about 1.5 times as massive per volume as air (44g/mole vs. 29 g/mole), so that makes it about .06% by mass.

In other words, the total mass of CO2 in our atmosphere is about 3*10^15 kg.

Each year, we put about 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, so about 4*10^13 kg.

If you divide those two numbers, you find that in 75 years, we put the equivalent of ALL the current CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, our production of CO2 is higher than it was 100 years ago, but clearly a century of our emissions has a significant effect on total CO2 levels.

Right because it's a cycle, plants absorb CO2 more quickly the more there is in the atmosphere, making the planet a slightly greener place, but the increased uptake slightly lags the increased production...

....the end result of which, is a little over 1 extra molecule CO2 in 10,000 of air... this simply cannot trap a significant amount of heat. And if you disagree you'd need to take it up with even most climastrologers. Any significant effect on climate, relies 100% on hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops, involving not CO2, but water vapor mostly, which is what actually drives Earth's GH effect.

The Ordovician ice age had 1000% of the CO2 levels than we have today

But nobody cares to even get that far into the science, this is a political movement. It's about the 'solutions', and the utterly vast transfer of wealth and power these entail
the 'problem' can be anything, and can and does change with the weather

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Neither can god. The empty cage still awaits.

Keep watching, maybe you'll see an accidental universe, spontaneously creating itself in there for no particular reason!

 

[DavidFirth]

Neither can god. The empty cage still awaits.

I am not amused, though I'm sure atheists are. This is quite stupid, methinks. I could do similar things to make fun of abiogenesis, but I'll pass.

 

[Polymath257]

But you can't create a living, breathing thing. That's my point.

And once again, it isn't because of a 'life force' or a 'breath of God'. It is because assembly isn't so easy.

 

[DavidFirth]

Come up with something you can prove, then come back and see me. I tire of this loathsome thread.

 

[Polymath257]

Come up with something you can prove, then come back and see me. I tire of this loathsome thread.

You first.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Just because they look somewhat similar in no way proves they are transitional fossils. Good try, though, you'll probably fool millions of people.

I'm late to replying because I've been busy. Anyway, what do you mean by "look somewhat similar." Similar to what?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Come up with something you can prove, then come back and see me. I tire of this loathsome thread.

Lololol

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Meanwhile, you believe life somehow randomly came from non-life, God only knows how.

You're conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Some of us think God did it, some think it was chance, I don't think either are 'stupid', because we all use reason to reach different conclusions. Animals don't is my point, they are not pondering these questions to begin with, they are enviable at times I'd agree!

i.e. It's not about being 'superior', rather being the intended beneficiaries of this creation. A book written in French, is probably intended for a Frenchman, even if it is inhabited by many more bacteria.

All I'd say about that is if mammals like dolphins and elephants were created by a deity wouldn't worship and acknowledgement of the deity be "natural" to them? They have large brains but appear to know nothing of your god. I think it is a little presumptuous of either of us to read the minds of other mammals. We have a terrible habit of projecting ourselves on to other animals, even on to inanimate objects for goodness sake. Lets call that one a draw shall we?

No, all my own work! I assume everyone here is capable of forming their own arguments, at the very least it makes for a more interesting discussion.

I appreciate that mate, I get incredibly bored with people pinging YouTube clips at me because they cannot form an argument of their own, or at least articulate it.

Peer pressure review gave us steady state, phrenology , Piltdown man, canals on Mars, global cooling, classical physics....

I'm less interested in what is labelled 'undeniable science' and more interested in what is actually true!

Sure, but what you missing is that science never claims anything as "undeniable", it is the essence of the scientific method. Evolution may be "proved" to be false with scientific evidence tomorrow, but if it is it is it will be with evidence, not assertion or reference to a holy book. I remember an old physics lecturer of mine say to me the theory of the atom may be ripped up in the near future (that was in the 1980s, doesn't look like he was on the ball on that point!). The point is science is about intellectual honesty, it goes where the evidence points. The more we learn, the more we might adjust our view/belief. Nothing wrong with that right?

He's not a career politician or scientist, so has a little more experience of how things actually work in the real world

Seriously Guy, I am tempted to make that my signature! I couldn't agree more!

 

[DavidFirth]

You're conflating abiogenesis and evolution.

No, I'm not. Atheists have no choice but to believe some form of abiogenesis. I was replying to an atheist, not you.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I'm not. Atheists have no choice but to believe some form of abiogenesis. I was replying to an atheist, not you.

And it seems that you are limited to believing that life has always existed (in the form of your deity).

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All I'd say about that is if mammals like dolphins and elephants were created by a deity wouldn't worship and acknowledgement of the deity be "natural" to them? They have large brains but appear to know nothing of your god. I think it is a little presumptuous of either of us to read the minds of other mammals. We have a terrible habit of projecting ourselves on to other animals, even on to inanimate objects for goodness sake. Lets call that one a draw shall we?

I'd agree, dolphins and elephants don't seem to worship God, I don't think they are speculating on multiverses either- assuming that they are, would be projecting would it not?

I believe we are probably the primary intended beneficiaries of creation, it's for us to appreciate and to deduce reasons for our being, one way or another- though it could also be total fluke, it's not easy to figure out, hence the entertaining debates here!

I appreciate that mate, I get incredibly bored with people pinging YouTube clips at me because they cannot form an argument of their own, or at least articulate it.

likewise!

Sure, but what you missing is that science never claims anything as "undeniable",

Again I agree with you 100% that's how science should work
but unfortunately, not all scientists agree with us


“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

it is the essence of the scientific method. Evolution may be "proved" to be false with scientific evidence tomorrow, but if it is it is it will be with evidence, not assertion or reference to a holy book. I remember an old physics lecturer of mine say to me the theory of the atom may be ripped up in the near future (that was in the 1980s, doesn't look like he was on the ball on that point!). The point is science is about intellectual honesty, it goes where the evidence points. The more we learn, the more we might adjust our view/belief. Nothing wrong with that right?

I think we agree again, we need to find something to disagree on!

Maybe this; I submit to you that science already has disproved evolution, to the extent that something so inherently speculative can be disproved.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Again I agree with you 100% that's how science should work
but unfortunately, not all scientists agree with us


“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact....

Yeah, but what Dawkins was saying is that the weight of evidence in favour of evolution is such that it is would be a nonsense to deny it as a "fact", anymore than it would be to deny that the Earth is spherical. However, people seriously deny that "fact" and say we are mistaken with the way we measure, the way we perceive.
I certainly consider the Earth to be a sphere, I consider it to be a fact, just because of the weight of evidence. Can I be certain though? No, and if compelling evidence came to light, I might change my mind but not based on pseudo science or conspiracy theory. It would be evidence that can be tested, scrutinised, and perhaps more importantly used to form a model that would have useful predictive value about the shared reality we experience.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins would say the same about evolution, the forcefulness in his opinion is down to a bit of exasperation that certain theists persist in trying to discredit evolution without good evidence I suspect.

I think we agree again, we need to find something to disagree on!

Maybe this; I submit to you that science already has disproved evolution, to the extent that something so inherently speculative can be disproved.

I've used the "fact" before that Francis Collins ( a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project) has said that the genetic evidence alone demonstrates the truth of evolution, never mind the fossil records. I do find it a bit rich you call that evidence "speculative" when your alternative presumably is "God did it" (unless I'm very much mistaken about you)? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Isn't the real beef some theists have with evolution is that they feel it negates their religious beliefs? That is the motivation so they go looking for anything they think is an inconsistency, isn't there truth in that? Honest answer?

I'm not a biologist (nor are you I suspect), my degree was in Chemistry, but my education included enough Biology for me to be persuaded by the evidence for evolution from school age. It "scans" as far as I'm concerned, it is the best explanation for the development of life we have, for why things are the way they are. I am open to change my mind about that if someone comes up with an alternative theory, backed up by evidence, something that passes the peer review process. I bet Dawkins would say the same!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yeah, but what Dawkins was saying is that the weight of evidence in favour of evolution is such that it is would be a nonsense to deny it as a "fact", anymore than it would be to deny that the Earth is spherical. However, people seriously deny that "fact" and say we are mistaken with the way we measure, the way we perceive.
I certainly consider the Earth to be a sphere, I consider it to be a fact, just because of the weight of evidence. Can I be certain though? No, and if compelling evidence came to light, I might change my mind but not based on pseudo science or conspiracy theory. It would be evidence that can be tested, scrutinised, and perhaps more importantly used to form a model that would have useful predictive value about the shared reality we experience.
I'm pretty sure Dawkins would say the same about evolution, the forcefulness in his opinion is down to a bit of exasperation that certain theists persist in trying to discredit evolution without good evidence I suspect.

I wonder if he considers it a solid enough fact to be 'immutable' like classical physics once was? 'Pseudoscience' was exactly what Hoyle called the Big Bang for it's theistic implications

Nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact, as Sherlock homes said!

I've used the "fact" before that Francis Collins ( a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project) has said that the genetic evidence alone demonstrates the truth of evolution, never mind the fossil records. I do find it a bit rich you call that evidence "speculative" when your alternative presumably is "God did it" (unless I'm very much mistaken about you)? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Isn't the real beef some theists have with evolution is that they feel it negates their religious beliefs? That is the motivation so they go looking for anything they think is an inconsistency, isn't there truth in that? Honest answer?

I'm not a biologist (nor are you I suspect), my degree was in Chemistry, but my education included enough Biology for me to be persuaded by the evidence for evolution from school age. It "scans" as far as I'm concerned, it is the best explanation for the development of life we have, for why things are the way they are. I am open to change my mind about that if someone comes up with an alternative theory, backed up by evidence, something that passes the peer review process. I bet Dawkins would say the same!

I believe 'God did it' yes, but I don't claim it as fact, I acknowledge my belief, faith as such. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

But I was born and raised a staunch atheist, & studied computer science, have programmed many commercial applications, simulations etc... which doesn't make me Yoda by any means! But I come at this from the perspective of information systems, which biology, physics, in a way everything boils down to ultimately right? I became skeptical of evolution before atheism as a whole

As above, physics was once viewed as a handful of very simple 'immutable' laws, which given enough time and space to randomly bump around in, could, would produce all the wonders of physical reality eventually. At it's conception, Darwinian evolution was a perfectly logical extension of this Victorian view of reality, & is every bit as intuitive, elegant, comprehensive as classical physics was, and so I think shares the same fundamental flaws

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wonder if he considers it a solid enough fact to be 'immutable' like classical physics once was? 'Pseudoscience' was exactly what Hoyle called the Big Bang for it's theistic implications

Nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact, as Sherlock homes said!


I believe 'God did it' yes, but I don't claim it as fact, I acknowledge my belief, faith as such. Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself..

But I was born and raised a staunch atheist, & studied computer science, have programmed many commercial applications, simulations etc... which doesn't make me Yoda by any means! But I come at this from the perspective of information systems, which biology, physics, in a way everything boils down to ultimately right? I became skeptical of evolution before atheism as a whole

As above, physics was once viewed as a handful of very simple 'immutable' laws, which given enough time and space to randomly bump around in, could, would produce all the wonders of physical reality eventually. At it's conception, Darwinian evolution was a perfectly logical extension of this Victorian view of reality, & is every bit as intuitive, elegant, comprehensive as classical physics was, and so I think shares the same fundamental flaws

You need some new material. Good grief.

 

[sayak83]

You need some new material. Good grief.

It's the Threepwood infinitely repeated audio loop. It was droning on before the beginning of time and it will drone on till the universal heat death.

 

[Polymath257]

I wonder if he considers it a solid enough fact to be 'immutable' like classical physics once was? 'Pseudoscience' was exactly what Hoyle called the Big Bang for it's theistic implications

It is as immutable as the claim that the Earth orbits the Sun. it is quite possible the explanation and the mechanisms of evolution are wrong in detail (just like classical physics was wrong about the details of gravity). But the *fact* is that the Earth still orbits the Sun and that species do, in fact, change over geological time.

Any *new* theory concerning mechanisms will have to take into account that fact.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It is as immutable as the claim that the Earth orbits the Sun. it is quite possible the explanation and the mechanisms of evolution are wrong in detail (just like classical physics was wrong about the details of gravity). But the *fact* is that the Earth still orbits the Sun and that species do, in fact, change over geological time.

Any *new* theory concerning mechanisms will have to take into account that fact.

If we are defining evolution as merely a change in life on Earth over time, then we agree. So does Genesis

 

[Polymath257]

If we are defining evolution as merely a change in life on Earth over time, then we agree. So does Genesis

Well, that *is* how it is defined. We actually see major changes over geological time, from the evolution of mammals from reptiles, to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, to the evolution of humans from other great apes.