Hurricane Dorian Becomes the 5th Atlantic Category 5 in 4 Years

[The Barbarian]

You are incredible... you just keep on keeping on regardless of how much conjecture you must pass off as fact.

I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.

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.

Someone, possibly because they knew no more of science than you do, misled you about that. Gould specifically showed why Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster hypothesis was disproved by modern genetics. However...

Gould argued that the recent discovery of regulatory genes offered new evidence which supported some of Goldschmidt's postulates and that small changes in the embryological "contraint systems" can produce large morphological transformation in the adult, and possibly macro-evolutionary pathways.[13] Gould's re-definition of the hopeful monster is different to that of Goldschmidt and they should not be confused with each other.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster

Gould was pointing out that the science of evolutionary development showed how a change in homeobox genes could produce marked changes in the adult, even though the changes were small in embryos. Several of these mutations are noted in developmental genes

Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes
James M. McClintock, Robin Carlson, Devon M. Mann, Victoria E. Prince
Development 2001 128: 2471-2484;

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).

If you think so, you've never read much Gould. He mentions horses and forams (among others) as examples of slow and gradual change. Gould's beef with Marsh was that he objected to phylogeny as a ladder, going in one direction. He pointed out that even horse evolution was a bush, with many branches, not a ladder as earlier paleontologists suggested.

You use a lot of confirmation bias to dupe yourself into believing your lie.

I can see that this evidence disturbs you; many creationists, when they see things like this, are triggered, and simply shut down, accusing scientists of lying. It's very obvious, and it really does your argument great damage.

 

[Right Divider]

I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.

Your definition of "facts" is wrong.

Someone, possibly because they knew no more of science than you do, misled you about that. Gould specifically showed why Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster hypothesis was disproved by modern genetics. However...

Gould argued that the recent discovery of regulatory genes offered new evidence which supported some of Goldschmidt's postulates and that small changes in the embryological "contraint systems" can produce large morphological transformation in the adult, and possibly macro-evolutionary pathways.[13] Gould's re-definition of the hopeful monster is different to that of Goldschmidt and they should not be confused with each other.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hopeful_monster

Gould was pointing out that the science of evolutionary development showed how a change in homeobox genes could produce marked changes in the adult, even though the changes were small in embryos. Several of these mutations are noted in developmental genes

Consequences of Hox gene duplication in the vertebrates: an investigation of the zebrafish Hox paralogue group 1 genes
James M. McClintock, Robin Carlson, Devon M. Mann, Victoria E. Prince
Development 2001 128: 2471-2484;

If you think so, you've never read much Gould. He mentions horses and forams (among others) as examples of slow and gradual change. Gould's beef with Marsh was that he objected to phylogeny as a ladder, going in one direction. He pointed out that even horse evolution was a bush, with many branches, not a ladder as earlier paleontologists suggested.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/hopeful-monsters-of-evolution/
(Yes, I know that you hate AiG, I don't care)

Many of the arguments that Eldredge and Gould have used to refute the beliefs of classical Darwinists sound like they are actually trying to support special creation, but this is hardly their intent. For example, in his regular column in Natural History magazine (May 1977, pp. 12–16), Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links. He countered that even if we were to grant this “traditional escape,” it still would not answer the biggest question—the viability of the transitional forms themselves. Gould pointed out that it is difficult to even imagine how transitional animals passing through the intermediate stages of evolution would be benefited or even survive. He asked:
Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?

Still valid points today. Gradualist evolution of all features of all creatures is a silly fantasy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I showed you the facts. Ignoring them won't make them go away. I realize you ideological fixation won't let you accept them, but that's your problem.

Your definition of "facts" is wrong.

At this point, denial isn't going to help you. Let's see what other foolishness you've committed to:

(Yes, I know that you hate AiG, I don't care)

Just yesterday, I commended them for accepting common descent, even if just in a limited range. I have had some concerns about their ethics in the past, but clearly, they've made an important, if partial,accommodation to reality therein. So once again, the facts blindside you, because you type before you know what you're talking about.

AIG quote-mines Gould:

Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the “extreme imperfection” of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links.

Well, let's take a look at what he says about transitional forms...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists — whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen GouldHen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260.

You've been had, once again. When are you going to start checking this stuff before you parrot it?

He countered that even if we were to grant this “traditional escape,” it still would not answer the biggest question—the viability of the transitional forms themselves.

Well, let's take a look at that...

Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. (edit: structural analysis now shows that the winged upper limbs of running dinosaurs provided balance and control in running; the same motions that aid those funtions are still the motions of flying birds)
I regard preadaptation as important, even an indispensible concept.
Stephen Gould The Panda's Thumb

I put in red the part your guys deleted to make it appear that Gould believed things that he did not. Again, whenever someone tells you something you really, really want to be true, that's the time you need to check it very carefully. It would save you a lot of embarrassment here.

 

[Right Divider]

:mock: "preadaptation"

 

[The Barbarian]

I think you've hijacked this thread long enough. You should probably take it over to the "does anyone still believe in creationism anymore?" thread.

If you do, I'll finish up the evidence for the evolution of sex from metazoans on. But you've got enough data now, to understand the way sex began in living things. I'd be pleased to finish up if you'd like.

 

[Right Divider]

But you've got enough data now, to understand the way sex began in living things.

I already know were sex came from.

Gen 1:27 KJV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

Mat 19:4 KJV And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,​

 

[The Barbarian]

I already know were sex came from.

No, the stork doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Alate_One]

CO2 is plant food and plants like it along with warmer climates. So why all the fuss? You don't like plants?

Sorry, but I'm a botanist and you couldn't be more wrong.

Fertilizer is also "plant food" but do you know what happens when you add too much of it to a plant? (It's not pretty)

Secondly heat is not good after a certain point either. It increases the evaporation rate (drying plants out) and causing the photosynthetic rate to drop.

Additionally many plants cannot produce fruit or seeds when nighttime temperatures rise above a certain level. Like green beans? You're not likely to get very many in the future due to climate change. If night time temperatures rise over around 65 degrees F, the flowers don't produce beans. And climate change is especially increasing night time temperatures because greenhouse gases keep heat from escaping the earth at night.

The last two years in my area, I've hardly seen any green beans.


Scientists are working on dealing with the problem by . . . inducing mutations and selecting for superior crops.

 

[Right Divider]

The last two years in my area, I've hardly seen any green beans.

Well that's all the proof that I need. Let's put the government in charge of everything! Right away!!

 

[The Barbarian]

(Warming of Earth's climate means trouble for many crops)

Well that's all the proof that I need. Let's put the government in charge of everything! Right away!!

I could never figure out why people assume that for every problem, government is the answer. But I do notice that those who are least cognizant of the nature of the problem, are most likely to assume that government is the only alternative.

RD, I'm sure you're convinced that you're right, but as Alate_One says, there are technological fixes that might save the day. At least consider the possibility, um?

 

[JudgeRightly]

(Warming of Earth's climate means trouble for many crops)



I could never figure out why people assume that for every problem, government is the answer. But I do notice that those who are least cognizant of the nature of the problem, are most likely to assume that government is the only alternative.

RD, I'm sure you're convinced that you're right, but as Alate_One says, there are technological fixes that might save the day. At least consider the possibility, um?

You apparently didn't catch the sarcasm in RD's comment...

 

[The Barbarian]

You apparently didn't catch the sarcasm in RD's comment...

You ever heard of the "love and logic" approach?

If someone tries to derail a conversation with sarcasm, you simply treat it as if that person was making a statement in good faith. The result will, at worst, compel him to admit the attempted derailment, and might actually get him to take a constructive part in the discussion again.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You ever heard of the "love and logic" approach?

If someone tries to derail a conversation with sarcasm, you simply treat it as if that person was making a statement in good faith. The result will, at worst, compel him to admit the attempted derailment, and might actually get him to take a constructive part in the discussion again.

Or you just make yourself look like a fool for not understanding that what the other person said is on topic and just sarcasm....

:think:

 

[Right Divider]

Or you just make yourself look like a fool for not understanding that what the other person said is on topic and just sarcasm....

:think:

I guess that some people cannot see that a story about the bean crops for the last two year in one local area is completely meaningless to the topic.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You ever heard of the "love and logic" approach?

If someone tries to derail a conversation with sarcasm, you simply treat it as if that person was making a statement in good faith. The result will, at worst, compel him to admit the attempted derailment, and might actually get him to take a constructive part in the discussion again.

Or you just make yourself look like a fool for not understanding that what the other person said is on topic and just sarcasm....

I can only point out that it worked just fine, this time. Given the sarcastic derailment attempt in saying that the only way to handle climate change is to "put the government in charge of everything! Right away!!", the technique gently debunks it, and suggests that he consider more realistic possibilities.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Barbarian observes:
You ever heard of the "love and logic" approach?

If someone tries to derail a conversation with sarcasm, you simply treat it as if that person was making a statement in good faith. The result will, at worst, compel him to admit the attempted derailment, and might actually get him to take a constructive part in the discussion again.



I can only point out that it worked just fine, this time. Given the sarcastic derailment attempt in saying that the only way to handle climate change is to "put the government in charge of everything! Right away!!", the technique gently debunks it, and suggests that he consider more realistic possibilities.

Except that RD was being sarcastic about doing such a thing, because he was mocking those who say the government is the answer to most problems. He doesn't actually support large government, and your failure to recognize such, even after it's been pointed out that he was being sarcastic, only makes you look like even more of an idiot.

When you're in a hole deeper than you can climb out of, STOP DIGGING.

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess that some people cannot see that a story about the bean crops for the last two year in one local area is completely meaningless to the topic.

I wish it was just beans. Tomatoes are now having trouble in my area; there's too much heat, which prevents pollen from working correctly. So flowers form on tomato plants, but don't produce fruit. And as you learned, the increase in carbon dioxide is directly and adversely affecting the nutritional value of crops.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Rise, Major Crops Are Losing Nutrients
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients

 

[The Barbarian]

Except that RD was being sarcastic about doing such a thing, because he was mocking those who say the government is the answer to most problems.

Yes. Since no one here said that, his attempted derailment was easily countered by reminding him that people here were suggesting technological fixes, not government intervention.

He doesn't actually support large government

Yes, and when I explained to him that government wasn't always the answer, pointing instead to technology as a likely fix, it easily countered his ploy.

and your failure to recognize such

J.R., everyone recognized what he was doing. It's just that by answering him as if he was sincere, one can easily counter the attempt to derail the discussion.

even after it's been pointed out that he was being sarcastic, only makes you look like even more of an idiot.

Well, you know how dumb barbarians are... :chuckle:

When you're in a hole deeper than you can climb out of, STOP DIGGING.

Funny how people in the hole, never realize it, huh?

And now, how about getting back to the issue without more nonsense?

A good start would be by engaging with some facts:

Fertilizer is also "plant food" but do you know what happens when you add too much of it to a plant? (It's not pretty)

Secondly heat is not good after a certain point either. It increases the evaporation rate (drying plants out) and causing the photosynthetic rate to drop.

Additionally many plants cannot produce fruit or seeds when nighttime temperatures rise above a certain level. Like green beans? You're not likely to get very many in the future due to climate change. If night time temperatures rise over around 65 degrees F, the flowers don't produce beans. And climate change is especially increasing night time temperatures because greenhouse gases keep heat from escaping the earth at night.

The last two years in my area, I've hardly seen any green beans.

Scientists are working on dealing with the problem by . . . inducing mutations and selecting for superior crops.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/new...e-proof-crops-with-help-of-nuclear-technology

 

[ok doser]

Aren't you banned again yet?

 

[Right Divider]

I wish it was just beans. Tomatoes are now having trouble in my area; there's too much heat, which prevents pollen from working correctly. So flowers form on tomato plants, but don't produce fruit. And as you learned, the increase in carbon dioxide is directly and adversely affecting the nutritional value of crops.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Rise, Major Crops Are Losing Nutrients
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...-levels-rise-major-crops-are-losing-nutrients

And you are certain that this warming is man-made and that you know how to control it? :jump: