Scientists find evolution of life

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.

At one time I did not even allow this type of debate on FR because it's impossible to please all the players. If you guys can't solve the problem amongst yourselves, well, I guess we can always go back to that policy.

Unfortunately, it is my belief that the supporters of a certain website (which has threatened to sue FR) have made it their immediate goal to shut down the CREVO debate on FR. Every time you yank a thread, I have no doubt that it encourages more of the same behavior.

The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway.

Now, I would never advocate that creationists be silenced for their views, not anywhere in the conservative movement, and especially not here. But if the issue is not discussed, if creationism goes unchallenged, then it becomes the default position of the conservative movement. Consequently, anyone with the slightest inclination towards scientific truth is driven away from conservatism. I view that as one of the worst possible outcomes for the conservative movement, and at some level, it's happening already.

To the extent that we discuss science in general, and evolution specifically, on FR, we put the lurkers and potential political allies on notice that FR is NOT exclusively aligned with the fringe anti-science element within the conservative movement.

Actually, these threads have very little or even nothing to do with the purpose of FR.

Dear Jim,

I can only speak for myself, but a number of the people I pinged have expressed similar concerns.

1) There is a widespread perception, which the D*ms are more than eager to exploit, that the GOP, and conservatives in general, are anti-science. I personally know individuals who are sociallly and fiscally conservative, but honestly think the GOP is controlled by the "religious right". They're realistic enough not to be worried about some hypothetical theocracy, but they *do* see this as a threat to science education and research.

IMO, these threads help to dispel that notion by showing there is a full spectrum of opinion here, and also by showing that scientists and professors can be conservative.

2) Local and state textbook and curriculum decisions are political, at least as long as we have public schools. As such, I think FR threads on them are as legit as those on any other issue.

3) (pure wishful thinking) The D*ms claim to be totally in the evo camp, even though their record is one of debasing standards in all school subjects, including science. If only there were some way to get them to see the creationist/id-ers as a minority deserving of affirmative action! At least then there would be some debate on *their* side.

With respect and thanks,
Virginia-American

2) Local and state textbook and curriculum decisions are political, at least as long as we have public schools. As such, I think FR threads on them are as legit as those on any other issue.

I started out wishing these crevo threads would go away, as they messed with the perception that FR was a refuge of sanity in a world that had accepted Clinton. Since then there has appeared a concerted state-by-state campaign against science education in this country, an unwinnable war against the way the universe works. The attempt to hijack the conservative movement in this country to fight that war must be defeated within the conservative movement. Thinking conservatives everywhere should be telling the creation/ID crowd to put a sock in it.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true

Right. Darwin abandoned his belief in Christianity definitively in his middle age, as this passage from his autobiography attests. But of course you incorrectly identify this as a passage proving his atheism, which it obviously is not. Being a non-Christian is not the same as being an atheist.

Darwin was an agnostic. He could even be described as something of a "skeptic" or "free-thinker" (although he did not use these terms himself) but he was not an atheist. His own testimony (including in private writtings and letters) is unambiguous and consisent in distinguishing his agnosticism from atheism.

You are simply wrong about this, unless you don't recognize agnosticism as a valid category at all.

I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.

Again, more proof of what no (knowledgable) person disputes, that Darwin (later in life) was a non-Christian.

And, yes, Darwin did tend (though not always, depending on his correspondent) to keep his religious skepticism to himself. He realized his views were distressful to his wife, and generally considered "unseemly" in Victorian society. Part of it was that there was, in certain circles, something of a nexus at the time between religious and political radicalism. Darwin was pretty conservative (in a classically liberal, whiggish sort of way) and did not want to be incorrectly associated with the radicals.

The argument he makes in the passage you quote here is typical of the kind of thing he would often say when writing to those who were more radical than himself. Essentially he's saying, "don't be a bomb thrower, it's not in your interest; you can advance your views better by being decent, politic, and respectful of others." Good, solid advice (which, in a general sense, you might profit from, btw).

Here's an excerpt from a biography of Darwin that I posted some time back, and which gives the flavor of Darwin's interactions with and reactions to the (ir)religious and political radicals:

The "gentle squire of Down" (Charles Darwin) & the day the Pinko Atheists came to lunch ^
			Posted by Stultis On 06/28/2001 8:46 PM CDT with 68 comments Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (biography) ^ \| 1991 \| Adrian Desmond & James Moore My (Stultis') comments are up here. Within the article my comments (mostly simple clarifications) are in brackets. This is, IMHO, the best biography of Darwin ever published and should be read by anyone interested in the man, his life, his work or his times. I am moved to extract this particular story by a current creation-evolution thread in which Darwin has been several times associated with communism or with Karl Marx. A number of antievolutionist freepers remark with great frequency and confidence about Darwin’s views, character, politics, etc, but clearly know virtually nothing of his life and work or his

Those quotes do show him as opposed to (some parts of) Christian doctrine, and saying Voltaire was doing good. Not the same as atheism, but certainly more to your point than the preceding quotes, which merely show skepticism of Genesis, 30+ years after the Flood was shown to be, at the very least, not worldwide.

I didn't think atheists were buried in Westminster Abbey and praised by bishops.

BTW, the 'deceitfulness' is by Mrs Darwin, I think. Trying to protect hubby's posthumous reputation.

Whatever his spiritual beliefs, he came up with theory that has stood up remarkably well, considering the paucity of fossils in 1859 and the ignorance of genetics. (I can't remember where I saw it, but Mendelianism can be construed as a consequence of darwinsism, IIRC.) Remember, he anticipated punk eek.

One final thought, I think it's fairer to say that his theory, coupled with the geology then current, plus some family tragedy, caused his spiritual doubts, rather than that his theory was an expression of pre-existing atheism

Jim, Physicist speaks for me as well. It's standard policy for the dems to call republicans idiots, dunces, rednecks, etc. The dems pose as intellectually superior. One of the great un-exploded myths of the 20th century is that the left is the natural home of intellectuals. The presence of the science threads on this website is very beneficial in breaking down this absurd stereotype.

My oft-stated purpose in these threads is to show the world (this is a very popular website) that no one narrow, anti-science group has a stranglehold on conservatism. It's something you may not have focused on, because it doesn't involve the nuts & bolts of politics, but it's a genuinely important issue.

The science-thread people don't go into the religion forum and cause disruptions. It wouldn't be tolerated; and we don't want to do that anyway. Unfortunately, it has so far been tolerated for people, allegedly in the cause of religion, to come into the science threads with the sole purpose of disrupting them and getting them pulled. I think that their success hurts our cause.

It's your judgment call, but I think these threads compliment the mission of your website. They are filled with scientists -- conservative scientists. Contrary to what you've recently been told, many of the science-thread regulars are religious. The science threads are definitely not a den of anti-Christian activity. It's only my opinion, but I think these threads should be encouraged to stay. Or at least allowed to stay. You don't know us, but we're your friends, and we share your goals.

One neat thing about having Jim as a boss, is that we don't have to agree on everything. It is his website, and when push comes to shove, if he says something goes it goes, but for the most part he lets things go.

I do think these threads have merit.

I think that the points you raise about the (for lack of a better word) snobbery amongst certain scientific circles against certain aspects of the conservative movement have merit. I am sure that there is some reticence from some of your scientific peers that they say is for that reason.

I also think that the religious people have a point, that some use science as just another tool to try to drive religion from the public realm.

Moreover, I think that the discussions between different mindsets within conservatism are important to be had, on this topic and other topics.

So personally, I would like to see these threads remain. I may get my way, or I may lose that battle.

But there is another aspect to all of this, which is the way that debates within the conservative circle are handled. Do we treat each other with respect, even if we totally disagree? Or not?

ovrtaxt is right. The crap does get overwhelming. It drives people away, and creates more work for the staff than they should have to deal with.

So the options are, do away with these discussions, or fix the problem.

On the 'do away with these discussions' side, we have Jim and several other members of the staff who think they are superfluous to what the site is about (and before someone jumps in and says that there is other non-critical stuff here- yes, there is, but it doesn't cause the animosity or the work that these threads do). And on the 'keep these discussions up' side, we have others, such as me, and such as both sides in these personality battles who claim that they want these discussions to stay up.

So we will make that effort.

So I have tried to help smooth things out. I posted articles, giving warning to not get into flame wars. I got told by gore3000 that he could tell I was biased by which articles I posted (even though they pretty much were chosen not by me, but by Google). When the complaints started again, I looked, saw what was going on, found some blame on both sides and popped in. One side took the advice in stride. One side didn't.

If your goal is to try to run the scientific conservatives out of Free Republic, you may as well hit 'log off' right now and go somewhere else and bitch about how things are here. Save us a step or two. And if your goal is to try to run off those who look at life more through faith, the same applies.

And if you honestly look back over these threads that I have posted over the last few days, and the way I have handled things on these threads and you find it to be unacceptable, you may as well leave now. Save yourself some heartache and don't drag things out.

You could easily replace the word CREATIONIST with the word CHRISTIAN and your statement would have been just as accurate.

It is my opinion the scientific community is a natural humanistic conclave that wishes to exclude any who disagree with their materialitic viewpoints. Dick Morris suggests, as you are, that CHRISTIANS be excluded from the Republican party. It is obvious that FR has chosen to follow Clinton's former right hand man's advise.

Jesus Christ is God, and He supported the STRAIGHTFORWARD reading of Genesis. Notice how He emphasizes the lack of reading comprehension of His attackers.
Matt 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

You folks have a problem with Jesus Christ, not Creationists. Something our Founding Fathers didn't have a problem with. Conservatives tend to want to conserve the Constitutional Republic, which clear as a bell supports CREATIONISM. From our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In the scientific circles in which I travel, the presence of creationists among the conservative movement is the single most effective intellectual bludgeon against conservatism.

Your statement rejects the self-evidence of our existance. This statement would FOUL the Founding Fathers. Maybe you should change your circle of friends. I personally hope that my relating these truths to you will help you reconsider your associations.

You may not think so, but it does. In the scientific circles in which I travel, the presence of creationists among the conservative movement is the single most effective intellectual bludgeon against conservatism. It's a license to scoff.

Now, I would never advocate that creationists be silenced for their views, not anywhere in the conservative movement, and especially not here. But if the issue is not discussed, if creationism goes unchallenged, then it becomes the default position of the conservative movement. Consequently, anyone with the slightest inclination towards scientific truth is driven away from conservatism. I view that as one of the worst possible outcomes for the conservative movement, and at some level, it's happening already.

There you go, the "green-headed step child"

JR I will echo what others have said, and say that it is a fact that many natural conservatives are deterred from voting Republican because of a perception of religious intolerance. I live in a liberal mecca... most of my friends are openly socialist, but of those who are not and value small government and true civil freedom (i.e., no affirmative action)--the number one reason they give for not joining the Republican party is because they think the party is all run by uneducated Fred Phelps clones.

JR, these people are conservative in virtually every aspect but have been brainwashed to believe that Republicans act like the stereotypical tyrannical government as protrayed in cyberpunk movies (Robocop, Akira, Running Man, et al) and would actually jail those who didn't believe in a literal Bible.

The crevo threads, and the presence of professional scientist conservatives, help to dispell that we're all Fred Phelps followers (or cyberpunk government agents).

I am not saying that the "creationist" side is bad--far from it. I am simply saying that allowing a diversity of opinions on this issue, as is done with the religion forum, will show that Republican party will welcome the evos and YECs alike.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true - Darwin-

Right. Darwin abandoned his belief in Christianity definitively in his middle age, as this passage from his autobiography attests.

An agnostic is someone who does not care either way about religion, the abobe quote -and especially the full version which I posted in #378:

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

... shows very well his hatred of Christianity. Spin all you like, write volumes of rhetoric if you wish, but the evidence is perfectly clear.

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.