I thought it was cows that gave off methane...
:rotfl:
A liberal that doesn't like plants!
Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
I thought it was cows that gave off methane...
:rotfl:
A liberal that doesn't like plants!
Right Divider
Body part
I was thinking horse and buggy before the cars....
Exactly, more CO2... more trees to hug. :french:
Bob E always said that to get a liberal to care about something, frame it in such a way that it shows how negatively it will affect nature.
Right Divider
Body part
And by "nature", that means everything but humans.
Barbarian observes:
It verifies the prediction first made in the late 1800s, by Svante Arrhenius, that increases in carbon dioxide levels would increase global temperatures.
No. He merely predicted that major increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would warm it up. Turns out, he was right.
Probably, you should have read what Arrenius wrote about it, before your imagination ran on ahead of your knowledge.
Barbarian, regarding Hansen's accurate prediction 31 years in advance:
But now, we can predict such changes, because we know the most important factor in changing them.
What matters is that Hansen demonstrated the fact. Using only carbon dioxide levels, he correctly called the rate of warming, decades in advance.
You were misled about that. For example, Hanson's model assumed at least one major volcanic eruption (which would cool the atmosphere). And that happened. There were at least 3. But as you see, they had much less effect than rising carbon dioxide.
Likewise, a reduction in solar output would have an effect. We are going through a period of lower solar output now. The reason it's getting warmer, rather than cooler, is that the effect of carbon dioxide is much stronger than the historical variations in solar output.
That's another issue:
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Rise, Major Crops Are Losing Nutrients
Scientists have noticed that in many kinds of plants, higher CO2 produces bigger crops. That sounds like a good thing.
But there's a problem. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And while they're still testing what this means for coffee's quality, scientists have seen that other crops have lost some of their nutritional value under higher CO2 conditions.
One example is rice, a primary food source for more than 2 billion people.
Ziska recently teamed up with an international group of scientists to study whether high CO2 had an effect on the rice's nutrition. "Was it changing not just how the plant grew, but the quality of the plant?" he asked.
They tested how 18 different kinds of rice responded to CO2 levels that are projected by the end of the century, based on conservative estimates, Ziska says.
The technique they used, called free-air CO2 enrichment, allowed them to grow the rice and add CO2 to the air immediately surrounding the plants using a big hoop in the middle of a field, Ziska explains. They did this over multiple years in facilities in Japan and China.
And the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent.
...
Higher carbon dioxide is not just affecting rice. There's evidence that the scope of this is much bigger. Harvard's Sam Myers, who studies the impact of climate change on nutrition, has tested CO2's impact on the protein, iron and zinc of a number of staple crops using the same free-air CO2 enrichment technique.
"Most of the food crops that we consume showed these nutrient reductions," Myers says.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients
The majority of the world's human population depends on these crops to live. Particularly in poor nations, this is a major concern.
It helps if you know something about whatever it is you want to talk about.
It verifies the prediction first made in the late 1800s, by Svante Arrhenius, that increases in carbon dioxide levels would increase global temperatures.
No. He merely predicted that major increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would warm it up. Turns out, he was right.
Probably, you should have read what Arrenius wrote about it, before your imagination ran on ahead of your knowledge.
Barbarian, regarding Hansen's accurate prediction 31 years in advance:
But now, we can predict such changes, because we know the most important factor in changing them.
What matters is that Hansen demonstrated the fact. Using only carbon dioxide levels, he correctly called the rate of warming, decades in advance.
You were misled about that. For example, Hanson's model assumed at least one major volcanic eruption (which would cool the atmosphere). And that happened. There were at least 3. But as you see, they had much less effect than rising carbon dioxide.
Likewise, a reduction in solar output would have an effect. We are going through a period of lower solar output now. The reason it's getting warmer, rather than cooler, is that the effect of carbon dioxide is much stronger than the historical variations in solar output.
That's another issue:
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Rise, Major Crops Are Losing Nutrients
Scientists have noticed that in many kinds of plants, higher CO2 produces bigger crops. That sounds like a good thing.
But there's a problem. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. And while they're still testing what this means for coffee's quality, scientists have seen that other crops have lost some of their nutritional value under higher CO2 conditions.
One example is rice, a primary food source for more than 2 billion people.
Ziska recently teamed up with an international group of scientists to study whether high CO2 had an effect on the rice's nutrition. "Was it changing not just how the plant grew, but the quality of the plant?" he asked.
They tested how 18 different kinds of rice responded to CO2 levels that are projected by the end of the century, based on conservative estimates, Ziska says.
The technique they used, called free-air CO2 enrichment, allowed them to grow the rice and add CO2 to the air immediately surrounding the plants using a big hoop in the middle of a field, Ziska explains. They did this over multiple years in facilities in Japan and China.
And the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent.
...
Higher carbon dioxide is not just affecting rice. There's evidence that the scope of this is much bigger. Harvard's Sam Myers, who studies the impact of climate change on nutrition, has tested CO2's impact on the protein, iron and zinc of a number of staple crops using the same free-air CO2 enrichment technique.
"Most of the food crops that we consume showed these nutrient reductions," Myers says.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients
The majority of the world's human population depends on these crops to live. Particularly in poor nations, this is a major concern.
It helps if you know something about whatever it is you want to talk about.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
My imagination is nothing compared to a guy that thinks that mistakes are improvements. :kookoo:
Barbarian suggests:
Probably, you should have read what Arrenius wrote about it, before your imagination ran on ahead of your knowledge.
You supposed Arrenius was, in the early 19th century, worried about global warming. That's pretty weird.
Roy Plunkett, a chemist at DuPont, improperly stored a gas cylinder of tetrafluroethylene and was surprised to find that there was no pressure in the tank. Unscrewing the valve, he discovered an odd white powder; the gas had polymerized into a solid, polytetrafluroethylene.
We call it "teflon." His mistake proved to be very profitable for DuPont.
Some thousands of years ago in Asia, there was an odd mistake in DNA replication that changed the way hemoglobin took up oxygen. It allowed the people who inherited it from that person to live at high altitudes without greatly increasing the hemoglobin in their blood (which over time can be damaging). Now we know there were nine mutations that made it healthier for Tibetans to live at such high altitudes.
Mistakes? Yes. Improvements, definitely.
Probably, you should have read what Arrenius wrote about it, before your imagination ran on ahead of your knowledge.
You supposed Arrenius was, in the early 19th century, worried about global warming. That's pretty weird.
Roy Plunkett, a chemist at DuPont, improperly stored a gas cylinder of tetrafluroethylene and was surprised to find that there was no pressure in the tank. Unscrewing the valve, he discovered an odd white powder; the gas had polymerized into a solid, polytetrafluroethylene.
We call it "teflon." His mistake proved to be very profitable for DuPont.
Some thousands of years ago in Asia, there was an odd mistake in DNA replication that changed the way hemoglobin took up oxygen. It allowed the people who inherited it from that person to live at high altitudes without greatly increasing the hemoglobin in their blood (which over time can be damaging). Now we know there were nine mutations that made it healthier for Tibetans to live at such high altitudes.
Mistakes? Yes. Improvements, definitely.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
:kookoo:
Barbarian observes:
Some thousands of years ago in Asia, there was an odd mistake in DNA replication that changed the way hemoglobin took up oxygen. It allowed the people who inherited it from that person to live at high altitudes without greatly increasing the hemoglobin in their blood (which over time can be damaging). Now we know there were nine mutations that made it healthier for Tibetans to live at such high altitudes.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...how-tibetans-can-live-world-s-highest-plateau
Mistakes? Yes. Improvements, definitely.
If reality seems crazy to you, perhaps that's a revelation in itself.
Some thousands of years ago in Asia, there was an odd mistake in DNA replication that changed the way hemoglobin took up oxygen. It allowed the people who inherited it from that person to live at high altitudes without greatly increasing the hemoglobin in their blood (which over time can be damaging). Now we know there were nine mutations that made it healthier for Tibetans to live at such high altitudes.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...how-tibetans-can-live-world-s-highest-plateau
Mistakes? Yes. Improvements, definitely.
If reality seems crazy to you, perhaps that's a revelation in itself.
Right Divider
Body part
Please demonstrate how this sort of "improvement" can turn a simple single-celled animal into a man (and every other type of animal too). Thanks.
What step between those two do you think is impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection?
Eukaryotic cells are clearly the result of endosymiosis. We actually have a recently-observed example.
Multicellarity is a pretty easy change. We have evidence for it actually occurring.
Differentiation of cells in a multi-cellular organism is directly observed in some phyla, so that's clearly possible.
Formation of tissues is clearly possible, with transitional forms still living.
Evolution of nervous systems is clearly possible, with transitionals still living.
Bilaterial symmetry is certainly possible to evolve: https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3289
Duplication of HOX genes shows the evolution of chordates from simpler organisms.
The evolution of tetrapods is well-demonstrated in fossil record, embryology, and genetics.
The evolution of amniotes is due to the simple infolding of tissue to make an additional membrane; the amnion.
The evolution of mammals is documented by many, many fossil transitionals.
The evolution of primates is again, well-documented. Like the others, there's no barrier to evolution of eutherian mammals from reptiles.
And of course,we have lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates.
None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.
Good luck.
Right Divider
Body part
Truly hilarious..... you are ALL OVER THE MAP there.
You are a classic "true believer" in this myth of yours. You cannot extrapolate your "micro" evolutions into goo to you "evolution", no matter how loud you scream.
P.S. No, we don't have "lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates". You might be a monkey's relative, but I am not.
Right Divider
Body part
Also, perhaps you're the genius that can explain the origin of sexual reproduction based on your "micro evolution extrapolation".
Have fun!
Have fun!
(Barbarian lists key events in the evolution of life on Earth)
None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.
Good luck.
If you didn't want to see the evidence for common descent, you probably shouldn't have brought it up, huh?
No one else can find anything that makes common descent impossible, either. I don't blame you for dodging; it's brought down smarter guys than you.
Feel free to show how any of those changes are impossible. Not going to happen, is it?
You've got nothing whatever, and it's very obvious, no matter how loud you scream.
P.S. No, we don't have "lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates".[/quote]
That's a testable belief:
Too many to bother counting here, but these are most of the important ones..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
As you are beginning to realize, all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
None of these are impossible to happen by mutation and natural selection. If you doubt this, pick one, and you'll see.
Good luck.
If you didn't want to see the evidence for common descent, you probably shouldn't have brought it up, huh?
No one else can find anything that makes common descent impossible, either. I don't blame you for dodging; it's brought down smarter guys than you.
Feel free to show how any of those changes are impossible. Not going to happen, is it?
You've got nothing whatever, and it's very obvious, no matter how loud you scream.
P.S. No, we don't have "lots of transitional showing how humans evolved from other primates".[/quote]
That's a testable belief:
Too many to bother counting here, but these are most of the important ones..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
As you are beginning to realize, all life on Earth has a common ancestor.
Right Divider
Body part
Barbarian lists evolutionist propaganda and is so proud of himself.
That's a hugely funny way to put that.
Creationists believe in common decent, just not from a SINGLE assumed and unfalsifiable source. We believe God when He says that He created kinds of plants and animals.
:yawn:
Once again, you made the argument and therefore must PROVE IT.
I don't have to prove it impossible, you must not only prove it possible but also that it's true.
Nope.
"The rising CO2 levels have also had a negative impact on the nutritional value of certain crops such as rice, and the climate crisis has reduced crop yield." -- https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/us/climate-change-science-101-basics/index.html
And Right Divider drops any pretense at making an argument. Out of excuses, it seems.
There are many findings that would falsify common descent of all living things. Genetic data that didn't indicate descent, for example. And we know that works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
So do people who take Genesis as it is. The difference is, you don't approve of the way He did it.
(RD denies that evolution could produce humans)
Barbarian observes:
Once again, you made the argument and therefore must prove it.
As you have seen, there are no steps in the process that could not have occurred by mutation and natural selection.
I'll ask again: where in this process, was any step that could not have evolved? Show your evidence.
Right Divider
Body part
Barbarian cannot see his hand in front of his face.
The old bluff of genetic support for a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of all living things. Worn out and tired.
No, actually the problem for YOU is that I DO believe the way that He SAID that He did it.
Indeed I do, because God said that He created them male and female at the beginning of creation and not some extremely long time thereafter.
Once again TB show that he does not know how science works. Conjecture is not proof that it happened.
Please start the thread were you will demonstrate how sexual reproduction "evolved". I really want to know about that.
But evidence shows how it happened. And since you are unable to give any evidence at all for your conjecture that evolution could not produce humans... well, you know.
Sure. The earliest sexual species did not use sex for reproduction, but rather for moving genes around. In bacteria, it's called "conjugation", and occurs when two bacteria touch and connect via pilli, after which a plasmid (circular piece of bacterial DNA) from the donor is copied by the recipient bacterium. The plasmid often contains useful genes for the recipient. The nylonase gene is known to have been spread by this mechanism.
The process is not required for bacteria; it's an optional mechanism. And so that's the beginning, in prokaryotes.
So what about eukaryotes?
Turns out, diatoms (single celled algae)can reproduce asexually by dividing, or sexually:
It Turns Out That Single-Celled Organisms Are Having Sex Too
http://mentalfloss.com/article/502625/it-turns-out-single-celled-organisms-are-having-sex-too
Still optional, though. Might be, some diatoms don't have a sexual option. But it's useful for the same reason it's useful in animals; faster distribution of genes, some of which will be useful.
So on to multicellular...
Sponges are poised between single-celled organisms and metazoans. They lack tissues, which all other animals have.
Turns out, they also have the option of sexual or asexual reproduction. They can simply bud off a new sponge, or they can release sperm into the water, where it may be taken up by another sponge to fertilize an egg. The new sponge looks pretty much like a single celled protist called a choanoflagellate.
Or a collar cell of a sponge:
After a few days, it settles somewhere and divides to make more cells, forming a sponge.
Next up: Metazoa. next post
Right Divider
Body part
You are incredible... you just keep on keeping on regardless of how much conjecture you must pass off as fact.
The evidence for the gradual accumulation of lots of small mistakes has been rejected even by many high profile evolutionists. That is why Steven J. Gould resurrected the "hopeful monsters" theory. Unlike you, he was able to see that there is not a pretty chain of changes in the fossil record (and other places as well).
You use a lot of confirmation bias to dupe yourself into believing your lie.