A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)


#41

Even qixlqatl asked you plainly about changes accruing, and you didn’t answer.

You’ve never addressed this to my knowledge.

Uh… you mean like we’ve observed happen to a lizard species in Australia? Transition from eggs to live births as its population moved further inland?

Again, thinking the explanation is incomplete, is =/ as these things not happening. Clearly, they do, whether we have a full explanation for how it happens or not.

Seems like they say it’s a positive feedback loop:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm


#42

Hey, now, you leave me outta this! I’m just a spectator…:sunglasses:


#43

Sure, lots of small changes can accrue to make a small change. That’s not the problem. The problem is the BIG changes that can’t come about by accrual. This was my answer:

Leave it to you to come up with interesting things. But you can’t trust a skink. Look what the article said about those skinks and similar animals further down:

Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development. …

The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.

That’s merely a change in timing. The article calls it an “adaption,” which is micro-evolution. The reproductive organs apparently didn’t change. The sex drive and behavior didn’t changes. There was still internal fertilization. There’s no umbilical cord. The shell still formed, but the birth was just delayed until it was consumed.

Why do you try to minimize the magnitude of the change from amphibian to reptile. Are you only trying to win a debate at the expense of the truth?


#44

Well it’s good that we all agree that CO2 forms a positive feedback loop. This alone says that it can’t be the driving force in global warming. If it was, the positive feedback would have driven the earth to either a Venus climate or a Mars climate long ago.

Something else must be the main driver and CO2 merely amplifies the change a tiny bit. I’m guessing the sun plays a role. We should pass a law to regulate the sun’s output.


#45

Again, you’re saying an explanation of a thing you don’t think has everything, is the same as a thing not happening.

But we know it does happen, for, among other things, a chicken having the DNA of the Deinonychus.

Given changing conditions, differing diet and climate, and the need to adapt, there’s no reason why the Deinonychus couldn’t become the Chicken.

We can, because it points to an intermediate step, as the article talks about. We know of others.

The placenta in mammals came about from the introduction of a virus; this we know, because the DNA traces of that virus are still in the placenta, and we can contrast it with isolated Mammal species, who didn’t evolve a placenta (they’re mostly in Australia too.)

Viruses are frequently catalysts of development, they can make traits jump between species, and if those traits don’t make the species worse off, or even make the organism better off, it survives.


#46

"We know." Do we? There are two models. You’re accepting the one and rejecting the other without even acknowledging that there was a choice. Your model is that huge, impossible-to-gradually-change design changes happened gradually.

The other model suggests each amphibian and each reptile were individually designed perfect. This model also allows that a chicken and a deinonychus could have each had the same DNA in their respective designs from the start.

Evolution says, we know evolution happened, therefore the impossible-to-gradually-change design changes must have happened gradually. Therefore there’s no reason to be concerned or to bother taking a closer look.

Sorry. That was actually intended to be funny. But in retrospect, you probably had to see that episode of StarTrek Enterprise to fully appreciate it.

My understanding is that some viruses can insert DNA into their hosts, but why would the whole placenta have to have come to be that way? Why couldn’t the placenta have been designed, and then the virus tampered with it?

Evolutionists start with the assumption that everything evolved. Complexity goes up. Designs improve naturally. Mutations and time make things better. But this is all backwards. The designs of life started out perfect. Mutations and viruses make things worse. Everything is decaying.


#47

Uh, Ken Jackson, MOST fertilization takes place INTERNALLY, whether the animals lay eggs or develop embryos within the mothers’ bodies. Some fish and amphibians lay eggs which are simultaneously fertilized at the instant they are extruded from the female’s body, it’s true, but no reptiles do this nor do any mammals and almost all insects fertilize internally.


#48

Nonsense. People share SOME DNA with earthworms. That doesn’t mean we’re related to them. That’s a specious answer and you know it.


#49

Why can’t it be? This statement makes the assumption that feedback loops accelerate and that nothing that happens as a result of that acceleration could slow the rate of feedback. Or that the sources of feedback are infinite.

The amount of energy it takes to accelerate a car rises exponentially, not linearly. Similarly, the forces that cause feedback effects have a rate of diminishing return. They aren’t linear. Eventually the sources of feedback slow.


#50

True, but evolutionists have faith that life evolved from simple to complex. The amphibian system of external fertilization is simpler than the reptile system of internal fertilization. Therefore at some point in our evolutionary past (in the minds of evolutionists) the simpler evolved and changed into the more complex.

And they believe this evolution took place gradually, one mutation at a time. And he organisms remained functional and viable at each tiny step. If the eggs developed shells first, that would prevent them from being fertilized. And if they have the shell at all, they need the amniotic membrane to protect the developing embryo from their own waste. I can’t even visualize all the changes that would have to happen, let alone imagine a sequence that could allow each generation to live. And it would all be undirected, that is, no designer would have guided it.


#51

Except the DNA wasn’t being used (until we turned it on), so this doesn’t make sense.

It’s redundant, unused code, a loose end. Something that has no business being there, unless it’s leftover from a prior state.

Because it’s recorded in the DNA for where Syncytin, the chemical that makes the placenta what it is, came from:

http://www.virology.ws/2017/12/14/a-retrovirus-gene-drove-emergence-of-the-placenta/

And it’s not the only thing viruses gave us; they’re built into about 8% of our DNA overall.

This is part to how development occurs; something shocks our genes with the introduction of new material, biology finds something to do with that new material overtime.

I get to turn this question around; what stops unguided mechanical forces from doing this?

We know they arranged the planets, and gave us the geology of the Earth, so where is God’s direct involvement necessary?

It’s better to say God created the fundamental forces, and those forces served as the bootstrapper to create higher and higher systems of order at the fringes. It better fits the evidence.

There are branches of alt-humans that died out, because they couldn’t innovate on the spearhead over 30,000 years of their (pre)history.

The Denisovans, the Homo erectus, the Neanderthal, they’re all gone (yet buried in the ground), because they weren’t fit to compete with us.

And before them (and us), there were dozens of others – other dead-end branches.

Seems like a strange thing for God to do. No reason that he’d be running “experiments” like this. What need has he of trial & error?


#52

Ever notice how EVERY fossil primate bone is INSTANTLY assumed to be a HUMAN precursor? Why not a chimpanzee ancestor…or a gibbon? Why ALWAYS a human ancestor?

BTW, what has ANY of this stuff have to do with the Global Warming hoax?


#53

Nope, I meant what I said:

other dead-end branches.

Most of these are older cousins of ours, who broke off the main line, and died before we arrived. Smart enough to harness fire, make spear-points, and bury their dead, yet still, not smart enough to survive.

Whatever was making us, made first a wide range of failed prototypes.


#54

And how did a virus come up with a useful protein for this purpose? I’ll look into that further.

Unguided mechanical forces depend on random chance filtered by natural selection. The natural selection part is good, but the random chance part has way too many choices. We’re not talking about the 6 sides of a die here, but the essentially infinite combinations of amino acids per protein involved. Essentially infinite (indistinguishable from infinite in practical application). A trillion trillion years isn’t enough.

There are lots and lots and lots of extinct species of all body forms, including monkeys. All the designs were completed perfect and released at once. Many, if not most, have died off. That matches the true direction of the universe – decay. Metals corrode. Dropped pebbles scatter. Species go extinct.

What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, ‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’ Does the pot exclaim, ‘How clumsy can you be?’ (Isaiah 45:9 NLT)

Sorry. That’s my fault. I brought it up to make a point about GW, but it’s such truly fascinating stuff that it’s hard to drop.


#55

Viruses are highly variable, and mutate all the time. There’s no better thing to ask in nature to make such a discovery.

Nope, most of the time it’s simply reactive. Through epigenetics, members of an entire species can start exhibiting virtually the same changes at once, if they’re going through the same changes in diet/environment.

Reactive systems, are dealing with far better chances than just a search for “anything”. They’re sampling the problem, and adjusting to it.

Which is something we can see. We can see the epigenetic system, and watch it work. We know for a fact that the genome is embedded in it, and is meant to change when exposed to prolonged stress.

Nope, pre- and early humans were more primitive, and their brain space only grew larger, and became more complex overtime.

Overtime, we see animals grow new features, and become other animals.

And Ken? You can’t keep making bodies of practical science, just to protect your simplification here. Genetic testing, Geology, insect toxicology, the physics of radiation, etc.

These are are all things that work in our everyday lives, and work because Evolution, or the extreme age of the Earth is true. Yet you’re claiming they fail 100% of the time when they touch these topics?

It seems more likely, takes less assumption, for there simply to be things nature can do, that you weren’t aware of.

Epigenetics would seem to be chiefly among them. Horizontal gene transfer would appear to be another.

You’re not answering Ken;

When God knows everything, what need has he of Trial & Error or prototyping? That’s behavior more indicative of something that doesn’t quite know what it’s looking for.

Aliens would be a better answer, if not for the time scale involved.


#56

The process is not “instant”, at least among the people qualified to make that assessment. That’s just a unfounded assertion on your part.

And before you march out a mistake made in the past, remember, should you decide to, remember who made the correction.


#57

When have we “SEEN” any animal grow a “new feature” and become another animal? We share 90% of our DNA with frogs. So ancient frogs somehow became people??? That’s simply insane.


#58

The Leaky’s NEVER considered their found fossils to be anything other than human ancestors. That’s as close to “instantly” as makes no matter.


#59

That may be, but why do you think random mutations would end up with a shockingly rare, extremely valuable protein? Did it have any use to the virus? Natural selection requires an advantage, a benefit to select against. What advantage did Syncytin give the virus? More importantly, what advantage could it possibly have had along its path of mutations at each point?

You haven’t offered anything that in anyway suggests Syncytin could have evolved. You’re just blowing smoke to keep hope alive for evolution.

The so-called Neanderthals had a larger brain capacity than modern humans. But then Neanderthal DNA is found in many modern humans, which suggests they interbred and had fertile offspring. And some consider that to be the very definition of the same species.

The others were either humans or extinct monkeys.

That would require new proteins. How can new proteins evolve? They’re not all “close together” in similarity. You’re just not grasping the enormity of the possibility space.

(“Making bodies”?) I don’t require a young earth. There’s too much conflicting evidence to know the age of the earth for sure.

You seem to be referring to dating techniques. Carbon dating can be calibrated against the few objects that are of known age older than 2000 years, like objects from Egyptian tombs. But I don’t think there are much older objects to calibrate against. So carbon dating has some accuracy, even though the assumptions about it are probably wrong.

But other dating techniques have two problems. One, we can only guess what the starting conditions were. Yes, we can measure the ration of atoms to daughter atoms today, but we can’t know if there were initially any daughter atoms there or not. Two, we have nothing of known age to calibrate any of these techniques against.

It’s my understanding that if you want to have something dated, you have to supply the lab with an estimated age. Why would that be? Also, if the item is suspected to be beyond the range, they won’t test it. Why not confirm that dinosaurs and coal are well beyond the limits of carbon dating? But some have tried and been refused. And of course there’s the specter of soft tissue found in dinosaur bones.


#60

We’ve seen insect-eating lizards grow new organs to help it digest an all-plant diet.

We’ve seen other lizards present Asexuality. There’s clear indicators in their DNA that they had males once, but no more.

Here in America we have the Hawthorne fruit flies, who split off from another species that was particular to other apples coming from Europe.

There’s a fish species in Lake Apoyo, Nicaragua that split in two, with one specializing in bottom feeding and the other specializing in insects and other things floating on the surface.

There’s also grasshoppers in Hawaii who, contending with the new-found rat infestation, had a mutation show up (twice, on different islands) that made them silent, and undetectable.

Plenty of precedent Dave, and you might want to watch this.