You know Who sees you!
Posted on 10/30/2003 5:04:39 PM PST by Dales
LIVERMORE, Calif. -- A trio of scientists including a researcher from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has found that humans may owe the relatively mild climate in which their ancestors evolved to tiny marine organisms with shells and skeletons made out of calcium carbonate.
In a paper titled "Carbonate Deposition, Climate Stability and Neoproterozoic Ice Ages" in the Oct. 31 edition of Science, UC Riverside researchers Andy Ridgwell and Martin Kennedy along with LLNL climate scientist Ken Caldeira, discovered that the increased stability in modern climate may be due in part to the evolution of marine plankton living in the open ocean with shells and skeletal material made out of calcium carbonate. They conclude that these marine organisms helped prevent the ice ages of the past few hundred thousand years from turning into a severe global deep freeze.
"The most recent ice ages were mild enough to allow and possibly even promote the evolution of modern humans," Caldeira said. "Without these tiny marine organisms, the ice sheets may have grown to cover the earth, like in the snowball glaciations of the ancient past, and our ancestors might not have survived."
The researchers used a computer model describing the ocean, atmosphere and land surface to look at how atmospheric carbon dioxide would change as a result of glacier growth. They found that, in the distant past, as glaciers started to grow, the oceans would suck the greenhouse gas -- carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere -- making the Earth colder, promoting an even deeper ice age. When marine plankton with carbonate shells and skeletons are added to the model, ocean chemistry is buffered and glacial growth does not cause the ocean to absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But in Precambrian times (which lasted up until 544 million years ago), marine organisms in the open ocean did not produce carbonate skeletons -- and ancient rocks from the end of the Precambrian geological age indicate that huge glaciers deposited layers of crushed rock debris thousands of meters thick near the equator. If the land was frozen near the equator, then most of the surface of the planet was likely covered in ice, making Earth look like a giant snowball, the researchers said.
Around 200 million years ago, calcium carbonate organisms became critical to helping prevent the earth from freezing over. When the organisms die, their carbonate shells and skeletons settle to the ocean floor, where some dissolve and some are buried in sediments. These deposits help regulate the chemistry of the ocean and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, in a related study published in Nature on Sept. 25, 2003, Caldeira and LLNL physicist Michael Wickett found that unrestrained release of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could threaten extinction for these climate-stabilizing marine organisms.
[Gore3000:] And evolution does not do any of that.
It does do enormous amounts of that, I've watched the field do that over many decades.
If you think it doesn't, then I submit that you've paid as little attention to what really goes on in evolutionary science as you do to the evidence and arguments and rebuttals presented to you on these threads.
Look at the present article - kids writing a video game is all that this is.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it looks like to you.
It is not digging facts and doing dirty work. Look at the works of Gould and Dawkins - neither of them a scientist, neither of them involved in experimentation, or research.
From this article about Gould's life:
"I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of Stephen Jay Gould," said Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers. "The Harvard community and the world of science have lost a brilliant scholar whose research helped redefine our notion of who we are and where we came from. He was also a gifted teacher who brought important scientific ideas vividly to life for his students and for the wider public. We will miss him greatly, and we will continue to learn from his work for generations to come."[...]Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor of Zoology and research professor of biology, was a friend and colleague of Gould’s for 25 years; they taught a course on evolution together. "Steve’s importance was twofold. He was very creative and original in his studies of evolution. He was an expert at taking new discoveries and applying them to an understanding of evolution. Steve had a good feeling for the complexity and variation involved in evolution. He never tried to simplify it to a cartoon," [*cough* - Ich.] said Lewontin.
[...]Gould's research focused on invertebrate paleontology, specifically the growth and form of land snails. His work brought him frequent honors, including the Schuchert Award for excellence in paleontological research for a paleontologist under age 40 in 1975.
I doubt that either even owned a microscope.
"In 1971, I spent an academic term as a visiting researcher at Oxford University. I received a cranny of office space on the upper floor of the University Museum. As I set up my book, fossil snails, and microscope, I noticed a metal plaque affixed to the wall, informing me that this reconfigured space of shelves and cubicles had been, originally, the site of the most famous public confrontation in the early history of Darwinism."Don't you ever get tired of being so easily proven wrong?-- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Lying Stones of Marrakech, pp. 251-252
Darwin did not either.
"My object in coming here was to see the great beds of shells, which stand some yards above the level of the sea, and are burnt for lime. The proofs of the elevation of this whole line of coast are unequivocal: at the height of a few hundred feet old-looking shells are numerous, and I found some at 1300 feet. These shells either lie loose on the surface, or are embedded in a reddish-black vegetable mould. I was much surprised to find under the microscope that this vegetable mould is really marine mud, full of minute particles of organic bodies."Care to try again?
-- Charles Darwin, "The Voyage of the Beagle", Chap. 12, entry for August 14th
These people are rhetoricians, not scientists.
You are, again, mistaken.
Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science.
Also: http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/nathist/darwin/darwin7.html. Excerpts:
The barnacle turned out to be very odd indeed, and barnacles themselves had just been newly recognized as crustaceans, rather than mollusks. Darwin found himself deferring his grand theory on natural selection and embarking instead on an eight-year project to describe all species of the barnacle family, fossil and living. He became especially fascinated by what barnacles (cirripedia) suggested about the process of sexual differentiation in the tiny creatures. ... Together, the four volumes in which Darwin eventually published his barnacle research would remain standard scientific references for more than a century.The scope of your ignorance is truly vast.[...]The Royal Society, the premier scientific body in Britain, has two major annual awards for research, the Royal Medal and the Copley Medal. Darwin eventually won both, but this report of the President's speech in awarding him the Royal Medal makes clear the reputation he had built up as an original researcher in two distinct fields, geology and marine biology, before he took up the risky project of explaining natural selection to his scientific colleagues.
[...]Among the practical experiments that Darwin undertook in the 1850s for his work on species was a study of how pigeon-fanciers selected and exaggerated particularly-desired features for exhibition through successive pigeon generations, until quite distinct varieties of pigeon (pouter, carrier, and fantail) had been developed.
His followers do the same.
Your vacuous slander is duly noted.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, etc. etc.
All the evidence is that such transformations are impossible:
"All" the evidence, eh? Odd, there are several papers in each issue of the Journal of Molecular Evolution which contradict your claim, not to mention dozens of other scientific journals.
Are you sure you've been keeping up with the field?
1. genetics shows how utterly impossible it is for a new trait to spread.
You seem to have forgotten to explain how, or provide any support for your amazing claim.
2. DNA shows how utterly impossible it is for a new gene, a new functio, a new ability to arise.
You seem to have forgotten to explain how, or provide any support for your amazing claim.
3. the interconnectedness of life shows how impossible it is for anything new to become an integral part of the rest.
You seem to have forgotten to explain how, or provide any support for your amazing claim.
4. the regulation of functions shows that new abilities cannot arise gradually because unless regulated they will be not just harmful but deadly.
You seem to have forgotten to explain how, or provide any support for your amazing claim.
So your statement is completely false scientifically.
Don't make wild claims you can't support.
The amount of ignorance inherent in this statement is breathtaking.
Here are a few papers for you to chew on in order to begin to rectify your lack of knowledge concerning gene duplications:
Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.(Wait, didn't you just claim that the field of evolution does no research and has no evidence? Hmmm..)Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.
Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.
Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.
Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.
Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.
Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.
Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.
Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.
Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.
Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.
Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.
Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.
Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.
Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.
Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.
Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.
Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.
A drawing is proof of nothing.
It is when it's generated from analysis of megabytes of DNA data, like that one is. You know that "evidence" th ing you must have heard about.
Five year olds can draw.
Five year olds can stamp their feet and keep repeating, "that doesn't prove anything, I can't hear you, la la la la".
There is no tree of life.
Odd, then why does all the evidence indicate that there is?
In fact, science shows us it looks more like a bush with many origins.
You are, again, mistaken.
That is what the Cambrian shows us and you and evolutionists can draw all the pretty pictures you like and it will not be any evidence against that incontrovertible fact.
"Fact"? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It doesn't just mean "whatever Gore3000 believes and asserts as true without any support."
The real fact is that DNA analysis has repeatedly and consistently revealed the tree of life extending nearly 100 million years prior to the Cambrian, and connecting the phyla that you incorrectly describe as having "many origins".
BTW - continuing to throw irrelevancies in the hope that one of them will stick shows very well your utter desperation and inability to refute my statement made some 160 posts ago.
Wouldn't "lies, all lies" be easier to type?
Courthouse records reveal that most amoebae die intestate.
True.
God no more figures in the theory of evolution than he figures in the theory of relativity.
Totally false. When Darwin said that man was not created in the likeness of God but of an ape, it denied God as the creator. Its claim that new more complex species arise due to random forces rather than design is a direct claim that God is not the Creator of living things. So yes, evolution specifically denies that God is the Creator.
You can't create a state of mind? Does not the process of living create many states of mind?
But whatever; how can a being (man), created by (and in the image of) a perfect and good and all-powerful Creator have a "state of mind" which is clearly NOT a reflection of its Creator? Does free will mean that man MUST choose evil instead of good? How does that make sense? How can mankind choose what the Creator did not create and therefore did not intended as a choice? What power contaminated God's perfect creation? How could His creation be contaminated if it was a reflection of his perfect Being. How could a perfect Being create an imperfect world? If a world is perfect, there is no imperfection in it, there is no option to choose imperfection (evil).
1. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a Nazi?
2. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a socialist?
3. What have I, JennyP, ever said here that makes you think it's accurate to call me a liberal?
(I freely admit to being an atheist.)
Where was such a statement made about you - please quote and give post#?
Then you can relax, because it doesn't say that.
Totally false. This is the whole discussion in the schools - that atheists, evolutionists, materialists deny any role for God in the creation of life, the Universe or anything. They use science to get around the metaphysical problem of being unable to deny God's existence. So they misuse science by claiming that science must deny a priori any non-naturalistic explanations.
By saying both that science is true and that science must deny any non-materialistic causes or assumptions they are indeed restricting science and thus politicizing science and destroying any semblance of its having any claim to being true.
But nowhere does it claim that he didn't, contrary to your incorrect (and unsupported) assertion above.
Aaah please, stop playing little rhetorical games. It is totally supported by the tons of verbiage spewed out by evolutionists. It is totally supported by the fact that the most prominent evolutionist promoters - Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel, Dawkins, Eldredge and Gould have all been atheists. This is no coincidence. Atheism and evolution go together like a horse and carriage and neither you nor anyone can give an example of an evolutionist claiming that any particular thing was created by God, or that it was designed.
Time for you to stop the verbiage and start backing up your statements.
It claims that the creation of species was accomplished gradually by natural selection.-me-
...among other mechanisms...
False again. What other mechanism? Natural selection is always somewhere along the line in evolutionary theory. Again, indulging in silly rhetoric never posting any contrary evidence. That's because my statements are correct so all you have left is playing word games.
That the Cambrian creatures were created directly refutes evolution since the claim of evolution is universal. -me-
Please provide your evidence for this amazing claim.
Read the thread. Let's see you show us evidence that the Cambrian species descended gradually from each other. Time for you to back up your claims instead of indulging in rhetoric.
The Creator cannot be said to be a force that does not exist and could not have accomplished changes in His creation. So yes, evolution is both materialistic and atheistic.-me-
Your conclusion does not follow from your argument.
Of course it does, that is why all you can respond to my statements is bald denials which are totally meaningless. You are totally unable to back up any of your denials with any facts because my statements are absolutely correct.
Tell that to the writers at unScientific American who make the claim that the Earth was ice covered until the Cambrian explosion. Nice to see that you finally agree with me that that magazine has been totally turned into a joke by the editorship of a virulent evolutionist.
The amount of ignorance inherent in this statement is breathtaking.
No, the amount of dishonesty of evolutionists is what is breathtaking. We have gone over this before. Once Vade claimed there were some 3,000 papers proving gene duplication. I asked him to post ONE (1) verified observed example of such gene duplication from amongst those 3,000 papers. He was unable to give one single example. What that proves is that evolutionists constantly write absolute garbage, are not scientists, and try to pass off drivel and assumptions as facts.
So I therefore ask you to give us a properly linked article with quotations here showing that gene duplication has been OBSERVED. Time to put up or shut up.
The amount of ignorance inherent in this statement is breathtaking.
No, the amount of dishonesty of evolutionists is what is breathtaking. We have gone over this before. Once Vade claimed there were some 3,000 papers proving gene duplication. I asked him to post ONE (1) verified observed example of such gene duplication from amongst those 3,000 papers. He was unable to give one single example. What that proves is that evolutionists constantly write absolute garbage, are not scientists, and try to pass off drivel and assumptions as facts.
So I therefore ask you to give us a properly linked article with quotations here showing that gene duplication has been OBSERVED. Time to put up or shut up.
Let's see the paper. Enough of this 'unseen evidence'. Let's see the specifics of a species having been observed transforming itself into another species. Just one article, is that too much to ask? Just some real facts, scientifically verified, can't you do that after 150 years of evolutionist theory.
As to 29 evidences, post the strongest bit of evidence right here and I will show it is no evidence at all. This is a challenge to you to start using specifics instead of making vague claims. I know you will not be up to the task and just give us more rhetoric and more excuses.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it looks like to you.
There is no research at all in the article, just playing around with numbers, so yes, it is nonsense. It says it is a model. You cannot make models to prove what you do not know. A model to be worthwhile has to be based on reality and that requires that the variables be known. You cannot model the unknown. So yes, the article is garbage, it is not science, and it is not hard work, it is charlatanism. It is indeed a video game with no more claim to truth than any other video game.
For someone that posts as much on these threads as me, that is an amazing statement. However, if you want more info you can check my homepage here and the articles linked to.
From where, to where?
Regarding human evolution: have you not evolved in your own human experience? We all start as helpless babies and progress (evolve) into functioning adults. There is overwhelming physical evidence that human beings are in an environment which is evolving. (Evolution: 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 2. The process of developing.) I know this is somewhat different than the "theory of evolution" but we are obviously in a process of progress. The currently visable physical universe is expanding, growing, evolving. The most basic physical evidence shows a human evolution towards bigger and stronger. Athletic records are always being improved upon. The application of intelligence is evolving. We are doing things which would be far beyond the comprehension of human beings just a few hundred years ago. You must ignore basic observation and logic to believe that evolution is not a process which is constantly occurring. Every specific detail and every prehistoric stage of that process is obviously not known at this time, but the process is clearly in progress. Why and how that process is occurring can be attributed to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.