Happy Birthday Charles: A New Discovery Confirms Asteroid Theory For Dinosaur Extinction

170px-Charles_Darwin220px-Pasta-BrontosaurusToday is the birthday of Charles Darwin. Despite those intellectuals like Sarah Palin who believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old and deny evolution as a “theory,” Darwin continue to rack up proof of his work. With perfect timing for the great man’s 205th, American and European researchers have confirmed the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction during which roughly 75% of the planet’s species were killed, including almost every dinosaur, by an asteroid impact. The result was the evolution of species best suited to deal with the aftermath of the explosion 66 million years ago. Of course, for creationists, the dating of material from 66 million years ago may be rejected as simply biblically inaccurate (if not immoral), but for the rest of us it is an important new development. While Darwin did not know of the asteroid theory or the demise of the dinosaurs, he knew a lot about adaptation and survival of the fittest. Dinosaurs went from being the dominant creatures to the least competitive in the new environment.


The asteroid that hit Chicxulub, Mexico released 420 zettajoules of energy — 100 teratonnes of TNT. The resulting dust cloud blocked out the Sun and triggered the die out — further accelerated by massive global fires. The problem is that previous attempts to date material showed that the asteroid impact occurred up to 300,000 years before the extinction of the dinosaurs. However, scientists decided to return to the site and use more modern equipment. The difference was considerable. The modern equipment reduced the gap to a period of 11,000 years or between 66.03 and 66.04 million years ago. The would make it almost simultaneous with the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction.

Those that could adapt then survived. Those who could not died off. Then 205 years ago, a man named Charles Darwin came along and explained it to the rest of us.

Source: Extremetech

103 thoughts on “Happy Birthday Charles: A New Discovery Confirms Asteroid Theory For Dinosaur Extinction

  1. “Dinosaurs went from being the dominant creatures to the least competitive in the new environment…”

    The therapod dinosaurs did ok, judging from the robins in my front yard and the droppings on my windshield.

  2. rafflaw 1, February 12, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    OMG. The bible thumpers will be gnashing their teeth on this latest scientific discovery.
    =============================================
    True dat, but it was quite a scientific peer-reviewed paper thumping episode as well:

    A day or so ago a distinguished group of scientists determined that the theory which says a piece of an asteroid became a meteorite which caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was more likely to be reality than the competing theory.

    The competing theory had been that volcanism, in the form of hyperactive eruptions in India, caused the dinosaur extinction.

    What do State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD) have to do with a chunk of asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs?

    The answer is: a brave individual.

    The brave individual, about 50 years ago, noticed that the scientific community was kowtowed, afraid, and timid about even seriously considering the theory that a chunk of asteroid caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

    Simply put, he noticed that there was tyranny of dogma within the scientific world, and that such tyranny would lead us to a bad place.

    Therefore, “de Grazia dedicated the whole September 1963 issue of American Behavioral Scientist to the issue” concerning the part that catastrophes, like the chunk of asteroid (meteorite) strike, have played in the evolution on this planet.

    (State Crimes Against Democracy). After de Grazia did that the scientists began to back off, but it took them 50 years even to consider the issue.

    Then a distinguished panel of scientists concluded that the asteroid impact theory met the data better than the established volcano theories did.

    There is a lot of “Darwin is infallible” dogma out there still.

  3. rafflaw – They won’t be gnashing teeth, they’ll be going into contortions of denial. Every time an indermediate fossil is found, the idiots claim “There are more gaps and no intermediate fossils!” They’ll do the same thing with this one.

  4. The search for perfection takes some strange detours.

    Whether the search be in legal circles “the king can do no wrong”, religious circles “the Pope is infallible”, or in Darwinism “Darwin is infallible”.

    This even though Darwin himself was intellectually honest enough to mention scientific realities that could damage all or part of his hypothesis:

    The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the 1840s, and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.

    (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion – 14). As it turns out the problem not only has not been solved, it has become more damaging because Darwin was not aware of several related challenging scientific realities:

    There is evidence that oxygen levels also rose 1.3 billion years ago and again before the Cambrian Explosion, a rapid proliferation of animal life that began 540 million years ago. Some researchers believe increasing levels of atmospheric oxygen helped trigger the Cambrian Explosion.

    Catling says the reason for those rises in atmospheric oxygen “is even more of a mystery than the first one.”

    “There were huge ice ages just before the Cambrian Explosion, but also associated with the Great Oxidation Event,” Holland says. “It is important to have a much better understanding of those events and the history of life.”

    Kasting, Catling, Des Marais, Hoehler and Holland are members of the NASA Astrobiology Institute so those issues have special relevance for them.

    (ibid). There is a new hypothesis that has been floating around since 2005 which is called “The Viruses First” hypothesis.

    The current theory that predominates in establishment science circles is that cells developed before viruses evolved.

    The virus first hypothesis says that there was a primordial gene pool within which viruses traveled to and fro freely doing Impressionist Art types of things.

    That is, they did not mix genetic material, mainly RNA, in a structured format, rather, they were free wheeling and thereby made a really broad based pool of genetic material throughout a hypothesized primordial gene pool.

    This is the way these evolutionary biologists are preparing to extrapolate from that pool into a broader dynamic explaining how so many utterly different species “very quickly” appeared in what is called “the Cambrian Explosion.”

    One problem they have, but have not yet raised in any of the many papers I have read, is that the “primordial soup” entity constantly talked about by evolutionists for years, has now been dissed by the bigger than them brothers of evolution:

    For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a ‘primordial soup’ of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the ‘soup’ theory has been over turned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth’s chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.

    “Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won’t work at all,” said team leader Dr Nick lane from University College London.

    (Soupy Sales & Evolutionary Tales). Thus, I have to say that I sense a food for thought fight coming.

  5. Gene H.
    1, February 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    There’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand natural selection out there still.

    ————————————————————–

    “In Science the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs.” (Sir Francis Darwin {son})

  6. Living organisms dont necessarily evolve based on environmental stress. Some are already adapted through genetic mutation which is why they survive.

    Cases in point are the people who survived the black plague and people who have cystic fibrosis. In the case of cystic fibrosis individuals who carried the gene for CF [of which there are many mutations] survived out-breaks of cholera and dysentery and so survived to pass on their genes and CF since it is an autosomal recessive disease.

    In my mind the only way to change a wolf-like creature into a whale is through manipulation of DNA which could be caused by environmental toxins. In fact oxygen can mimic certain parts of our DNA and cause mutations.

    Maybe an oxygen rich environment might have been the reason for the explosion of so many different forms of life at the beginning?

  7. Gene H. 1, February 12, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    There’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand natural selection out there still.
    ======================================
    No doubt.

    I think the tug and pull now is about whether or not Darwin understood it properly.

    He was aware enough of his version of natural selection to offer at least one paleontology-based evidence-issue that he considered to be a real problem that challenged his understanding of natural selection.

  8. Many readers don’t know the true story or entire life of Charles Darwin, especially his last days:

    http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolution/did-darwin-become-christian-his-deathbed

    Or is it when we are breating our last breaths that we finally come to know Christ? Here is a brief statement from the link (this story has been discussed and debated for decades):

    He (Charles Darwin) seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: “I was a young man with unformed ideas (speaking about his theory of evolution). I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People mad a religion of them.”

    Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on “the holiness of God” and the “grandeur of this book,” looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: “I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there,” pointing through the open window. “I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?”

    “What shall I speak about?” I asked.

    “Christ Jesus!” he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, “and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?” The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: “If you take the meeting at three o’clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing.”

  9. Bron 1, February 12, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    … Maybe an oxygen rich environment might have been the reason for the explosion of so many different forms of life at the beginning?
    ========================================
    What I get from the papers I have recently read is that there were GOE (great oxygen events) prior to both the Cambrian and the earlier quick-appearances of many species.

    Species that obviously did not descend from one single ancestor because there was not enough time.

    The oxygen hypothesis you mention fits the scenario depicted in the papers.

    The only propblem there is what released the oxygen and from what?

    That is, oxygen is produced in stars then released over spans of time, to make its way into interstellar dust that eventually makes planets.

    What released the oxygen from the stellar dust that became Earth?

    The current theory is that cyanobacteria did it … but they are photosynthesis capable prokaryotic one-celled microbes which are said to have evolved prior to viruses.

    So, there are a lot of details to properly synchronize if we are to prove that Darwin was infallible.

  10. Darwin understood natural selection just fine. That subsequent discoveries in genetics, paleontology, paleobotany and paleoclimatology confirmed the mechanism confirms that he understood it. Then again, he wasn’t interested in science fiction to justify or “sexy up” his grant applications.

  11. Gene H. 1, February 12, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Darwin understood natural selection just fine. That subsequent discoveries in genetics, paleontology, paleobotany and paleoclimatology confirmed the mechanism confirms that he understood it. Then again, he wasn’t interested in science fiction to justify or “sexy up” his grant applications.
    ========================================
    That is an argument advanced often to prove he is infallible in his understanding of natural selection.

    It just doesn’t explain the scientific data some of these uppity wannabe modern evolutionists are talking about (a problem to them, as Darwin said it was a problem to him too).

    Interesting assertion that real science is done without grant funding.

  12. infallible /ɪnˈfalɪb(ə)l/, adj.,

    incapable of making mistakes or being wrong:

    correct/kəˈrɛkt/, adj.,

    free from error; in accordance with fact or truth:

    Darwin was as fallible as any mortal, but he was correct about natural selection.

  13. Gene H. 1, February 12, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    You saying “infallible” over and over again is cute. You got any other straw men?
    ========================================
    So he was fallible in his hypothesis of natural selection?

    Because his worry about the Cambrian Explosion panned out?

    Or the earlier pre-Campbrian explosion not know about in his day?

    Or the two GOE thingys?

    Those current evolutionists think Darwin’s hypothesis was wrong, whether he was or was not infallible.

    So, I guess the “Darwin is Infallible” phrase is a straw man to their work, but not to those who fervently believe “Darwin was Infallible” to be true.

    Which is not me and evidently not you either?

  14. RWL 1, February 12, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Many readers don’t know the true story or entire life of Charles Darwin, especially his last days:
    ============================
    And neither do you.

  15. If only Darwin had named his book “Adaptation of Species by Natural Selection” rather than “Origin of Species by Natural Selection”.

    Happy Birthday Charles.

  16. Origin and adaptation are so different.

    For example, I can take part in my own personal adaptation, however, I can have zero to do with my own origin.

    “Darwin was Infallible about Natural Selection”
    “Darwin was Infallible about Evolution”

    Are those statements functionally equivalent?

    His was a hieriarchial descendancy hypothesis, not a horizontal descendancy hypothesis (the one currently struggling to emerge and dominate).

  17. Dredd, speciation is evolution and adaptation. His masterwork is titled “On the Origin of Species,” meaning speaking about speciation via adaptation. No one that is scientifically literate thinks any science or scientist is “infallible.”

    RWL, he never said that. Its an old creationist tale.

    Bron is on the right path. DNA is proven to change by a myriad of methods. This includes things like lateral gene transfer(gene swapping between different types of organisms[eg e coli. taking on human genes]), fusion, mutation during replication, reproduction, natural selection stresses, and results from outside actors like environmental chemicals to name a few. We are still learning all the ways that genes and gene expression are altered.

  18. Will Broun decide that evolution is a good idea after all as he sits on the house science committee?

    “God’s word is true. I’ve come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” said Broun, who is an MD. “It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

    He continued:

    “You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html

  19. BF,

    Bingo. Natural selection has many inputs but it is the explanation for adaptive evolution.

    ********************

    No, Dredd. I’m saying you don’t understand natural selection, your “viruses as God” theory is ridiculous, and that your perpetual anti-Darwinism is rooted in both your lack of understanding of biology in general and your harebrained desire to find direction where there is none.

  20. There can be many things in a gene pool that one can call a god if they want. Not all things are capable of quantifying. Life has many abstracts that just aren’t rationally explained. If one has all of the answers, they aren’t necessarily correct. But it does not make them incorrect either. It is a truth that they live with.

    Darwin would be proud….. Some are capable of claiming correctness and they haven’t evolved….

  21. In addition to Darwin, today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln and it’s Fat Tuesday/Mardi Gras: Laissez les bons temps rouler/ Let the good times roll. Our host spent some time in Nawlins, LA, good times.

  22. I don’t know about you, Frank, but as a non-Catholic I’ve sworn to give up abstinence for Lent after Mardi Gras this year. ;)

  23. RWL.
    How convenient for that story to surface. I do not believe it for a second.
    ..Now on to snark.

    I believe your link left out the last line in this Darwin religious fairy tale
    As in all religious fairy tales …..

    “And Darwin died happily ever after” . :o)

  24. You are not going to find this in the Sears Roebuck version of the King James Bible, but here it goes: On The Eighth Day, God Created Dog.

    Ok, there I said it. Now, this does not reflect on just when Day One was. It could have been back in Dinosaur days. I know that I was reincarnated as a dog and that my last life was as one of you humans. If you are good in this life then you might get a chance as The Second Go-Round. If you do go up for that interview at the Pearly Gates and you are given a chance, go to the seminar which they give at that Ellis Island like place on Coming Back As A Dog. I took the seminar and I made the choice. It is a choice, not an echo. The Dogalogue Machine is acting up and the other dogs are not gonna get to chimne in here on this topic. We may be off page for a few days. The DolphineLogue Machine is broken as well. We think it is some computer virus caused by some fish and dog hater.
    Over and out.

  25. Then 205 years ago, a man named Charles Darwin came along and explained it to the rest of us.
    ~+~
    Good thing he explained it before the Vogons came along…

    “Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.”

  26. “…..“There were huge ice ages just before the Cambrian Explosion, but also associated with the Great Oxidation Event,” Holland says. “It is important to have a much better understanding of those events and the history of life.”

    Kasting, Catling, Des Marais, Hoehler and Holland are members of the NASA Astrobiology Institute so those issues have special relevance for them……”
    =====================

    Have no explanation of the Great Oxidation Event (blue algae=bacteria), but there are interesting processes which follow it. One would be the drop of dissolved iron in the oceans. What this means for Cambrian Explosion is not for me to say.
    But I speculate from using current studies of the Baltic Sea.
    Cod fish who lay there eggs there flee waters where the oxygen levels drop by as little as one percent. A case of eggs when laid there are starved for oxygen and rot in the sour blend. Proximate cause to oxygen fall: fertilizer run off, unprocessed sewage, and paper mills. Remote cause: you know who—-this effing system.

  27. “…..There is evidence that oxygen levels also rose 1.3 billion years ago and again before the Cambrian Explosion, a rapid proliferation of animal life that began 540 million years ago. Some researchers believe increasing levels of atmospheric oxygen helped trigger the Cambrian Explosion.”
    ==================

    Expansion of species is necessary to expansion of life’s need to use any unoccupied niche. And species expansion occurs, increasing at a greater pace the more species which provide the DNA to mutate. Not competent to say when the expansion of species and individuals can have passed a threshold or other barrier to becoming an Explosion.

  28. Creationists point at the pattern of the seeds in the middle of a sunflower and say God did this.

    The obvious answer is that it is part of nature, our universe as we can perceive from here.

    The expansion of tree growth by the Fibonacci series is not due to God, but to the connection to the ultimate form of nature, powers, etc. Strings aside!

    They wish, the ones who know, to retain power by people bowing at their altars, instead of letting us go to school which instead considers what we can “see” and then contemplate it

  29. Thus Constantine’s wife, a devout politician and incidentally an opportunist Christian like her husband, destroyed all secular study, ie the net of academies in the old Greek style. The monastery system succeeded, and we know how little it has produced (some exceptions) over the centuries

  30. “So, I guess the “Darwin is Infallible” phrase is a straw man to their work, but not to those who fervently believe “Darwin was Infallible” to be true.”
    ==============Dredd

    So I guess the bible is infallible to, or is it correct. Seers they may have been, but scientists never.

  31. “We are still learning all the ways that genes and gene expression are altered.”
    ========================Blind Faithiness

    No doubt true, but is it genes, a very late comer timewise in the expression of life, we should be staring at. Epigenetics, which unfortunately I am not following, seems to work in some non-genetic way. What came before the gene, a highly complex protein structure?

  32. HBD, Darwin, but maybe the Alvarezes, father and son, deserve mention for what is their asteroid impact theory of dinosaur extintion…

  33. One interesting aspect of the recent asteroid impact science, which JT focuses on in this post, is that Darwin was unaware of it.

    He did not know that most of life existing 65 million years ago did not become extinct by failing to adapt via natural selection.

    An abiotic cosmic catastrophe of non-biological proportions rendered those millions of species extinct, even though they were dominating and successful in their environment.

    Something just as interesting, with just as much surprise, is that Darwin was not aware of genes either.

    Yet genes became a central focus of evolutionary thought all done in the name of Darwin, and done for Darwinism itself evidently:

    What is at issue is not the fact of evolution, but its mechanisms. As Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb are at pains to remind us in this important book, Darwin himself, a naturalist and consummate observer of living organisms, was a pluralist about such mechanisms, even embracing a version of Lamarckism – the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Conventional historiography ascribes this to his being unaware of Mendel’s discoveries and so of genes. If he had known, he would have been as monolithic as have become his ultra-Darwinist followers. For them, evolution is about one thing only – genes, aka DNA.

    The tendency to such reductionism set in as far back as the 1930s, when evolution ceased to be defined in term of changes in organisms (phenotypes, such as the shape of the beaks amongst the Galapagos finches that Darwin studied) and instead was seen as “the rate of change of gene frequencies in a population”. Francis Crick formulated what he called “the central dogma” of molecular biology as the one-way flow of information from gene (DNA) to organism.

    But it was Richard Dawkins above all who captured the sense of ultra-Darwinism when he divided the living world between replicators – structures which can be accurately copied, like DNA molecules – and vehicles, the “lumbering robots” whose function is to enable that copying.

    Despite the attractions of its doctrinal simplicity, important strands of biological thinking have never accepted this genocentric view of the world, and many doubt that Darwin would have either. The late Stephen Jay Gould, for example, insisted that selection acted at multiple levels, not just on individual genes, but on populations of organisms and indeed on species and ecosystems as a whole. In this perspective, Dawkins’ lumbering robots become players in their own destiny.

    An even more fundamental attack has come from researchers interested in how organisms develop. To appreciate the importance of this, think about the fact that humans are just under 99% genetically identical to chimpanzees, yet no one would confuse the two. The origin of the differences between the two phenotypes lies in their development, which in turn depends on which genes are switched on or off at any time – a process regulated by the cellular environment in which the genes are embedded. Genes do not exist in isolation, but as part of a web of interactions extending in time as well as space.

    Indeed, as more and more is learned about the complexities of these processes, the concept of “the gene” as a reified DNA sequence tends to dissolve. What exists, as one molecular biologist put it, is not a set of discrete genes, but an entire genome. And what evolves is neither a set of genes nor a given static phenotype, but a developmental system, embedded as that system is in an even broader web of interactions with its fluctuating environment – the famous “tangled bank” of hedgerow species that Darwin invokes in the closing paragraph of The Origin. Jablonka and Lamb’s book makes the case for this much richer view of evolution by going both back to Darwin and forward to the latest findings of molecular and behavioural biology. What matters, they insist, is not genes per se but heritable variation – variations that are transmitted, by whatever means, from one generation to the next.

    There are, they suggest, four levels at which such variation can occur. The first is unexceptional: the shuffling of DNA in sexual reproduction, which mixes variants from both parents, coupled with mutations – random changes in the DNA sequence. A second major source is not genetic but epigenetic – it depends on changes that occur in the “meaning” of given strands of DNA. Molecular biologists are discovering an increasing number of esoteric ways that DNA, or the proteins that surround it and ensure its orderly translation, are chemically modified during development. Such modifications, which profoundly alter how an organism develops, can, just like copies of DNA, be transmitted during reproduction, and in due course can feed back to modify the sequence of DNA itself.

    A third dimension of evolution is one whose study Jablonka has made particularly her own – the inheritance of behavioural traditions. Rabbit mothers who feed on juniper berries transmit to their offspring a preference for such food, an inheritance stable across generations. In the days when milk was delivered in bottles to our doorsteps, blue tits learned to peck open the foil tops to drink the cream, a tradition acquired and passed on, by social learning, from generation to generation but now presumably lost because, in an environment of Tetra Paks, it is no longer an adaptive form of behaviour.

    The authors’ final dimension, a uniquely human one, is symbolic inheritance, the traditions we learn and pass on not by subtle odour-based cues in our mother’s milk or faeces, or by direct imitation of our elders or peers, but through our capacity for language, and culture, our representations of how to behave, communicated by speech and writing.

    The treatment of these higher levels is important, as the authors carefully distinguish their approach from the banalities of evolutionary psychology, of “memes”, and even from Chomskyian ideas of universal grammar.

    The slowest of all these forms of evolutionary change is that based on DNA, and there is a tendency to dismiss the others as all dependent “in the last analysis” on genes. Jablonka and Lamb vigorously rebut this. Rather, they insist, there are constant interactions between the levels – epigenetic, behavioural and even symbolic inheritance mechanisms also produce selection pressures on DNA-based inheritance and can, in some cases, even help direct DNA changes themselves – so “evolving evolution”.

    (What Darwin Really Thought, emphasis added). So Darwin did not consider cosmic impacts, genetics, nor epigenetic impacts in terms of fitness to survive or the lack of fitness to survive (how does a species become fit to survive cosmic catastrophe or Anthropogenic induced catastrophe?).

    These have now become major considerations of the current scientific world within current civilization, in terms of extinctions of species.

    There have been five mass extinctions, and we are well into the sixth mass extinction, the Anthropogenic Mass Extinction.

  34. “…intellectuals like Sarah Palin who believe that Earth is only a few thousand years old and deny evolution as a “theory,” Darwin continue to rack up proof of his work.”

    So let me understand, the intellectuals that think a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor THINK they are racking up evidence for evolution. You know, there are a lot of people that would like to see this elusive “mountain of evidence” that is racked up for evolution. Where is it? Heck, I’d like to see ONE solid piece of evidence for evolution. But we have all evidence for the contrary, such as mathematicians that say the human body, for example, is a “statistical monstrosity” for evolution to have occurred. Still others say there simply hasn’t been enough time – even the x-billion year number that’s always thrown about isn’t enough time. Never mind the explanation of where DNA came from. Did it “evolve” too? DNA is basically a program – or information. Last I checked, information and programs don’t just collect themselves into existence over x-billion years. We’ve never seen something like that happen, nor is there any evidence for such a thing happening.

    Bottom line – let’s see some of that “evidence” that is supposedly so abundant.

    “The result was the evolution of species best suited to deal with the aftermath of the explosion 66 million years ago. Of course, for creationists, the dating of material from 66 million years ago may be rejected as simply biblically [sic] inaccurate (if not immoral)”

    The rejection of the x-million or x-billion year ago number can be rejected purely on science. To date, even our most accurate dating methods are not reliable. Volcanic rocks formed only days ago date to be millions of years old. Living mollusk shells date to be thousands of years old. Scientists even had a lava flow dated to be anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years old to millions of years old in the Grand Canyon but there was an ancient Indian village found on the lava flow that reliably dated it to only a couple thousand years ago. The list goes on and on. So Sarah Palin is a convenient scapegoat, you can reject these ridiculously astronomical millions and millions and billions of years with science. Without even cracking open a Bible. That should satisfy all the idiot-head Bible haters but of course, it doesn’t. They’ll clink to Darwin’s rotting corpse forever. Poor old Darwin’s corpse is propped up with sticks and on life support, while the evolutionists are tirelessly TRYING to find SOMETHING to back up his stupid theory.

    Now there was a global event that did happen several thousand years ago. Instead of thinking it was some big asteroid, why don’t we look at the evidence. Everywhere we look, high, and low – literally, we find evidence of a global flood. Even other religions have flood legends. So something happened and it wasn’t a big rock hitting the earth – sorry to burst the evolutionists bubble. (Not really sorry)

    I challenge all the evolutionists that are so confident in their belief, to study all the flood legends. Look at all the evidence for a global flood. It can’t be ignored, unless you’re unwilling to look at it. Hmm, that sounds familiar – there are none so blind as those who will not see. 2Peter Chapter 3 talks about those that will choose to be “willfully ignorant” of Creation. Evidence of Creation is the elephant in the living room. It takes up a lot of space, knocks over furniture, eats tons of hay, but so many swear it isn’t there.

  35. Idealist “Creationists point at the pattern of the seeds in the middle of a sunflower and say God did this.

    The obvious answer is that it is part of nature, our universe as we can perceive from here.

    The expansion of tree growth by the Fibonacci series is not due to God, but to the connection to the ultimate form of nature, powers, etc. Strings aside!

    They wish, the ones who know, to retain power by people bowing at their altars, instead of letting us go to school which instead considers what we can “see” and then contemplate it”

    So what you’re doing is unwittingly exchanging God for “nature”, making nature God. Actually the patterns found in nature and even in the universe all point to a Designer. Deliberate patterns that do not happen randomly or over x-billion years. The divine proportion – golden rectangle ratio not only can be found right outside your doorstep, but even in the universe. The divine proportion ratios are recognized across several different religions. So there is obviously something to it, rather than just something that happens to show up in nature.

    Thanks for bringing up these wonderful mathematical patterns. That’s something that can’t be explained away by evolutionism, exploding asteroids, or anything Darwin said.

  36. “Heck, I’d like to see ONE solid piece of evidence for evolution.”

    Okay. Here are fifteen pieces: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

    Many, many more available.

    “The rejection of the x-million or x-billion year ago number can be rejected purely on science.”

    The rejection of radiometric dating can only be rejected by a distinct ignorance about science, particularly the nature of radioactive decay which is constant, predictable, and measurable by a wide variety of isotopes.

    “Now there was a global event that did happen several thousand years ago. Instead of thinking it was some big asteroid, why don’t we look at the evidence. Everywhere we look, high, and low – literally, we find evidence of a global flood.”

    Yes. Let’s look at the evidence. Like the huge crater off the coast of Chixalub, Mexico and the KT boundary which is evidence of a global “flood” of ash and debris depositing a large concentration of iridium. Iridium which happens to be fairly common in asteroids but rare on Earth.

    The rest of what you say is not science. Closer to gibberish or a fairy tale.

  37. rafflaw/dredd: “rafflaw 1, February 12, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    OMG. The bible thumpers will be gnashing their teeth on this latest scientific discovery.
    =============================================
    True dat, but it was quite a scientific peer-reviewed paper thumping episode as well: ”

    OMG nothing new under the sun. Still no evidence for evolutionism, while the evidence for a global flood is still screaming out, on some who have deaf ears.

    Every time I see someone bring up “scientific peer-reviewed paper” or journal etc… I chuckle. Peer reviewed – who are the peers? More evolutionists? So the likelihood of seeing something contrary to evolutionism or something challenging evolutionism, or the plethora of contradicting evidence for evolutionism seeing any airtime is as likely as Sarah Palin being welcomed with open arms at a Planned Parenthood pro-abortion rally. I put about as much stock in a “peer reviewed” journal, paper, or anything as I would a person that puts a thief in charge of the jewelry store. No credibility whatsoever. Evolutionism is a politically protected sacred cow and there isn’t anyone going to DARE have any evidence to the contrary see the light of day. Why, funding would be lost, and atheists would have to scramble to find another adult fairytale to try an animate.

  38. “Scientist without proper fashion evolution says asteroid will miss us by about a cup of coffee on the fifteenth: -Dredd

    What a shame.

  39. RWL you don’t know the truth. Here is a link, from a Christian site: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
    “…they (recantations) were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on February 8, 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was “false and without any kind of foundation,” and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had “no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view.” Charles’s daughter (Henrietta Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, dated February 23, 1922,

    “I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier… The whole story has no foundation whatever.” [The Darwin Legend] ”

    Here’s another link:http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/did-darwin-have-a-deathbed-conversion/
    There are lots of them but am only allowed to post 2

  40. idealist707 1, February 13, 2013 at 5:26 am

    Dredd,

    What did the virus pool feed on? Modern ones like to take over cells and use the factory there. But if virus preceded cells, then tell me how they fed.
    ======================================
    The hypothesis has the notion of a primordial — not soup — but an ocean with less organic composition than the primordial soup hypothesis.

    It is a concept of a primordial source that eventually contained The Universal Genome and/or the material with which to construct it.

    Microbes, in the form of viroids, prions, phages, and viruses became active enough to spread genetic or pre-genetic material everywhere throughout the environment.

    Viruses are very active in that way in today’s world too, having engineered and/ or constructed and/or remodeled about 98% of the human genome.

    This hypothesis is a solution to the early mass appearance of multicellular organisms with substantial genetic diversity.

    It also explains the later mass appearance called the Cambrian Explosion.

    Like Darwin, these biologists who are advancing The Universal Genome hypothesis and/or The Viruses First hypothesis, point out problems with their work — as well as how those problems can be tested:

    The “Universal Genome” hypothesis does not contradict any well‐established data on the genetic evolution (e.g., gene duplications or accumulation of mutations, molecular clock, etc), but suggests that genetic evolution could shape and improve function of developmental programs. Furthermore, genetic evolution in combination with natural selection could define microevolution, however, within this model it is not responsible for the emergence of the major developmental programs.

    Before discussing ways to test the proposed model, let’s consider a fundamental problem that the model poses—if there is a Universal Genome, why many genes that are found in higher taxons are not
    found in lower taxons.

    This apparent problem could be explained not by a progressive evolution of more complex gene systems from primitive forms, but rather by the loss of certain unused elements of the Universal Genome in primitive forms during the last 530 million years. Loss of genetic information in evolution of complex taxons has been mentioned previously, i.e., much fewer genes in Drosophila compared to C. elegans.

    A beautiful illustration of such a loss is a recent analysis of Wnt gene family. In humans, there are nineteen Wnt genes belonging to twelve families. In Hydra, on the other hand, there are two Wnt genes that correspond to two families found in humans. Simple analysis of this finding within the framework of the classical model suggests that additional human genes have developed from ancestral Wnt genes found in Hydra.

    (Cell Cycle 6:15, 1873-1877, 1 August 2007). These evolutionists are not yet mainstream but they are gathering wind in their sales.

    Remember that establishment science has the money and they can control things through various forms of power, so scientists who bring up new ideas have to tread lightly.

    One of the major discoveries that we take for granted today (“The Germ Theory of Disease”) cost one scientist his career and his life:

    Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community.

    Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings.

    Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory.

    In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died of septicemia, at age 47.

    (What Is Pseudo Science?, emphasis in original). The orthodox scientific dogma at the time of Dr. Semmelweis was that “germs” appeared out of nowhere at will and there was nothing that could be done about it.

    I don’t expect these Virus First / Universal Genome theorists to be taken out by drones anytime soon, but they do have to proceed in a manner that may require them to duck every once in awhile.

  41. Hubert Cumberdale and RWL,

    There are Christians, as well as those of other religions, who consider evolution to not be of the devil:

    Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

    A theory of theistic evolution (TE) — also called evolutionary creation — proposes that God’s method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the “evolution” in “theistic evolution” means Total Evolution — astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,…) and geological evolution (to form the earth’s geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) — but it can refer only to biological evolution.

    Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation. Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict. Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists.

    (Wikipedia). Both religion and science are protected under our laws and I harbor no prejudice against either scientists or religionists.

    It is just that those of us who study both realms notice that some scientists and some religionists become overly evangelical or zealous at times and strike out at each other needlessly.

    I belong to the “let’s find out everything we can” crowd that sees good ideas and criticisms coming from both science and religion — as well as bad ideas from time to time.

    I don’t think that any of us are immune from having bad ideas from time to time.

    What we need to zealously avoid is the institutionalization of our bad ideas so that they may fade away and new good ideas may bloom in their place and stead.

  42. Dredd,

    I don’t mind playing launching pad or straight man for you. As in your latest comment.

    But want to say that I enjoyed this one:

    “Dredd1, February 13, 2013 at 9:24 am

    One interesting aspect of the recent asteroid impact science, which JT focuses on in this post, is that Darwin was unaware of it.”=====Dredd

    Not understanding “symbolic bla bla” as a message between generations, instead I will add the name of a Swedish geneticist, who now as professor emeritus and for years before that, fascinated all groups at all levels of knowledge.
    His name Gunnar Bjurwell. Google him for the swedish replay “som en dans”. Dig the charisma and the command of himself and the situation in the question period.
    Here he addresses an elite group and has an official opponent who heckles politely in the question period.
    He follows very closely what is happening in the mind research field worldwide. Google gave me nothing in terms of video in English.
    Learn Swedish, my suggestion. :-)

    He mentioned at one point that all babies are born with the innate ability to read, do arithmetic and learn a language. Self-evident many would say. But is it proven. He thinks that it is and gave studies and told about them.
    Much into fRMI etc which as yet can not follow a moving brain. :-)

  43. To theists I say, Are we part of God and is he united with the universe he created? Or does he stand outside exercising his alleged powers. ? If so, where or on what does he stand.

    Religions are ror those who solely desire to have power in the name of their God. BS is all it is. And evil BS besides.

  44. Blind Faithiness 1, February 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    Dredd, speciation is evolution and adaptation. His masterwork is titled “On the Origin of Species,” meaning speaking about speciation via adaptation. No one that is scientifically literate thinks any science or scientist is “infallible.”

    Bron is on the right path. DNA is proven to change by a myriad of methods.

    ==============================================
    Origin is not adaptation.

    You can’t have adaptation or anything else without first having an origin.

    If your hypothesis explains adaptation but does not explain origin it is not “on the origin”, it is “on the adaptation.”

    DNA is the slowest:

    The slowest of all these forms of evolutionary change is that based on DNA

    (My Comment Above). When Darwin mentioned the Cambrian Explosion as a challenge to his hypothesis, he did not even know that genes existed, or that asteroids could cause mass extinctions.

    His adaptation hypothesis was original –> descendants –> new species in a very very slow hierarchical structure and process.

    No competent evolutionist will say that this is the way millions of species appeared very quickly at the Cambrian … because it is not a valid hypothesis for that, as Darwin pointed out.

    Genetically it is far worse for Darwinian adaptation as the explanation of the sudden appearances of so many divergent life forms.

    Thus, the microbial hypotheses that attempt to show another mechanism for the two GOE and the Instant Life episodes that intellectually honest folk can’t ignore.

    I am not concerned with the intellectually dishonest folk who ignore these indisputable historical events.

  45. leejcaroll,

    There are several reasons as to why I came to the conclusion of Charles Darwin being a Christian.
    1. Most Christians believe that you cannot lose your salvation, once you profess it. See the following video (one of my favorite pastors):

    Using your link from christiananswers.net, ‘Charles Darwin was baptized an Anglican and stepped in his mother’s Unitarianism, and he prayed.” Darwin also spent “3 years in theological studies at Christ College, believed that the Bible was the so pure and provided a holy comfort.”

    2. Looking at the link that I provided earlier, Darwin’s family denied that a woman by the name Lady Hope ever existed or came to visit Darwin in 1881. In my link and your link, it shows that Darwin did know a Lady Hope, and that she visited him. Here is my question: if you are an evolutionist, then why would you allow Elizabeth Reid Cotton (Lady Hope), who engaged in tent evangelism, to come an meet with you in 1881 (Darwin died in 1882)?

    3. There is still no evidence, from Charles Darwin, that he didn’t know a woman named Lady Hope. There is no evidence, from Charles Darwin, that he didn’t meet with and had conversation with a person name Lady Hope. His family is the ones speaking for him (and these are the same family members who say that they never heard of a person named Lady Hope).

    As I stated earlier, this debate/discussion has been going on for decades. But if you believe in Christianity (as Darwin did), then you cannot lose your salvation. Therefore, I have concluded that Darwin did die as a Christian.

  46. On the rise of oxygen:

    If you look in a textbook, you’ll find a story that goes something like this: Four billion years ago the earth’s atmosphere was a deadly mixture of gases spewed forth by volcanoes: nitrogen and its oxides, carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.

    The oceans that formed from condensing water vapor (or incoming comets) were reservoirs of dissolved iron pumped through hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

    Then about 2.7 billion years ago, cyanobacteria, which have been called the most self-sufficient organisms on the planet because they can both photosynthesize and fix nitrogen, began bubbling oxygen into the atmosphere and shallow waters.

    At first oxygen built up gradually in the atmosphere, but about 2.5 billion years ago there was a sudden spike upward, traditionally called the Great Oxygenation Event.

    The oxygen killed off anaerobes that didn’t find refuge in sediments, the deep ocean and other airless environments and led to the evolution of aerobes that could use oxygen to spark their metabolism.

    At roughly the same time, iron began to precipitate out of the oceans, forming rocks peculiar to this period called banded iron formations that consist of alternating layers of gray and red rock.

    Banded iron formations were created episodically from about 3 billion years ago until 1.8 billion years ago and almost never again.

    The usual story is that iron was being swept from the oceans by increasing levels of dissolved oxygen.

    And then, another two billion years after the Great Oxygenation Event, multicellular lifeforms finally put in an appearance. The first metazoans, as they are called, were the bizarre Ediacaran fauna, sometimes unflatteringly compared to sacks of mud and quilted mattresses.

    The assumption was oxygen levels were now high enough to support something more than a single cell in lonely solitude.

    Of course, this story has holes you could drive a truck through.

    (Geologists revisit the Great Oxygenation Event). The infallibility of Darwin, no one admits but believes, is a mixture of want, hope, and fantasy.

    Leaving out the science of course.

  47. “No competent evolutionist will say that this is the way millions of species appeared very quickly at the Cambrian … because it is not a valid hypothesis for that, as Darwin pointed out.”

    Except that’s not what Darwin said nor is that the view of competent evolutionary biologists.

    On the matter of the Cambrian, Darwin said the rapid speciation was a criticism but not that the theory was invalid because of it primarily because there is a limited supply of evidence for any of the contending theories on causation. Possible causations for the Cambrian explosion include changes in environmental levels of both oxygen and calcium, the evolution of vision, a genetic bottleneck and a resulting robust population and repopulation of previously empty ecological niches and/or a concurrent evolutionary arms race between predator and prey species, a massive increase in the diversity of planktonic life, or simply reaching a complexity threshold. But all of this is based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks. A complexity threshold has strong mathematics in its favor. The only theory thoroughly discredited is a change in orbital dynamics.

    And none of that changes that natural selection is the model that best describes the mechanics of adaptive evolution. The precise causation of the Cambrian explosion is unknown due a lack of evidence for any one theory and most likely is a result of a combination of factors. Natural selection, however, is an observable demonstrable quantifiable and testable fact of nature.

  48. Gene H. 1, February 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    “No competent evolutionist will say that this is the way millions of species appeared very quickly at the Cambrian … because it is not a valid hypothesis for that, as Darwin pointed out.”

    Except that’s not what Darwin said nor is that the view of competent evolutionary biologists.

    On the matter of the Cambrian, Darwin said the rapid speciation was a criticism but not that the theory was invalid because of it primarily because there is a limited supply of evidence for any of the contending theories on causation. Possible causations for the Cambrian explosion include changes in environmental levels of both oxygen and calcium, the evolution of vision, a genetic bottleneck and a resulting robust population and repopulation of previously empty ecological niches and/or a concurrent evolutionary arms race between predator and prey species, a massive increase in the diversity of planktonic life, or simply reaching a complexity threshold. But all of this is based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks. A complexity threshold has strong mathematics in its favor. The only theory thoroughly discredited is a change in orbital dynamics.

    And none of that changes that natural selection is the model that best describes the mechanics of adaptive evolution. The precise causation of the Cambrian explosion is unknown due a lack of evidence for any one theory and most likely is a result of a combination of factors. Natural selection, however, is an observable demonstrable quantifiable and testable fact of nature.
    =========================================
    Yes of course there has been discussion of the Cambrian Explosion for decades, some honest, some not.

    And it is not yet solved, so neither the honest Darwin nor the honest scientists today would say it has been solved.

    In fact, some scientists at Washington University I quoted in a comment just before your comment here, says “Of course, this story has holes you could drive a truck through“, when quoting a typical textbook on the narrative we are discussing.

    That is why I say Darwinism is a religion to a lot of people, because like religionists, they force their faith on others, and get into full on bully mode when Darwin is doubted.

    “Natural selection” (an incredibly loosey goosey term) is not valid for origins once we get into the Wayback Machine and take a close look at the evidence we have.

    It is the search for a valid hypothesis for origins that The Virus First folks, and the Earthwide Genetic Soup (my words, not theirs) folks are after.

    They are not attacking Darwin, nor are they saying his ideas about adaptation are invalid to explain what has happened, they are simple saying it is not adequate to explain origins.

    And the same goes for the Big Bang theory which begins with an already existing energy source that “exploded.”

    The sequence of events following that are not explanations of origins, they are explanations of what happens in a good explosion so long as things coagulate and get together properly.

    Darwin had the same idea, that is, he took an already existing realm then explained how it changes over time.

  49. Microbes have been found under about a half mile thick sheet of ice in Antarctica:

    Having just completed the tortuous 48-hour journey from the South Pole to the US west coast, John Priscu is suffering from more than his fair share of jet lag. But his tiredness can’t mask the excitement in his voice. After weeks of intense field work in Antarctica, he and his team have become the first to find life in a lake trapped under the frozen continent’s ice sheet.

    “Lake Whillans definitely harbours life,” he says. “It appears that there lies a large wetland ecosystem under Antarctica’s ice sheet, with an active microbiology.”

    The lake in question is a 60-square-kilometre body of water that sits on the edge of the Ross Ice shelf in West Antarctica. To reach it, Priscu, a glaciologist at Montana State University in Bozeman, and his team had to drill down 800 metres of ice

    (Life Under the Lake Ice).

  50. “That is why I say Darwinism is a religion to a lot of people” thus proving you don’t truly understand natural selection. It’s not a religion and by your own admission (“They are not attacking Darwin, nor are they saying his ideas about adaptation are invalid to explain what has happened, they are simple saying it is not adequate to explain origins.”) natural selection is a fact. If you doubt a fact? You’re a fool. Darwin’s work isn’t on the origin of life and it never was. It’s about the mechanics of speciation that drive adaptive evolution. It is an observable demonstrable quantifiable and testable fact of nature.A fact, especially one that withstands the scientific method’s interrogation, is a fact, not a belief.

    religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/, n.,

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

    Facts are not beliefs as they are provable by evidence produced by experimentation and observable, ergo they are rooted in the material world, requiring no divine or supernatural agency to explain them thus they are not a religion or a proper foundation for a religion. They can be, however, misunderstood.

    As for “It is the search for a valid hypothesis for origins that The Virus First folks, and the Earthwide Genetic Soup (my words, not theirs) folks are after.”? The only correct answer is “Earthwide Genetic Soup”. You can’t make viruses without a minimum of RNA. And where did that RNA come from? The “Earthwide Genetic Soup”. That’s how the timeline works. No RNA (or DNA), no viruses. And how did RNA come about? A complexity threshold was reached (unless you by into the wild and unprovable idea of directed panspermia). Cause always precedes effect unless entropy breaks down and the arrow of time reverses itself.

    “And the same goes for the Big Bang theory which begins with an already existing energy source that “exploded.” – Argument by non-sequitur. Also, singularities are by definition incomprehensible because the laws of physics as we know them in this particular universe don’t apply in/at a singularity.

  51. The Theory of Evolution explains speciation very well. The Theory can be used successfully to predict outcomes. That is, Evolution can be witnessed, and verified. The “Theory” part of the Theory of Evolution means that it’s a scientific body of work, which constantly changes with new evidence.
    Not every detail of the distant past can be known, so those details are subject to informed speculation.

    As has been pointed out in this thread, “Evolution” has nothing to do with the origin of life. It’s the theory of how life became diverse after its unknown origin. Talking about how life developed from inanimate matter, or talking about the origin of the universe, has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory. Religion, or the existence/non-existence of a deity, also has nothing to do with Darwin’s theory.

    As for viruses. Viruses have no metabolism, do not eat, do not divide, and cannot reproduce without existing cellular machinery. That means that living cells had to exist before viruses, so that viruses could commandeer cellular machinery to make more viruses.

  52. The depth of religious stupidity is a bottomless pit (e.g. RightWingLoon). Morons continue making claims that no one believes – not even those who share the claimant’s ignorance and stupidity. I easily found 15-20 sites run by creationist morons (those below, and others) who refute the Lady Whore story.

    http://creation.com/did-charles-darwin-recant

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend

    As others have stated, Charles Darwin’s daughter Henrietta Darwin was at his bedside and wrote an account refuting the lies of religious idiots (p. 12, _the christian_, February 23, 1922). How stupid does someone have to be to something instead of checking whether it’s true? Or how dishonest is that person to repeat what is known to be a lie? More often than not, religious morons “think” they are exempt from the “ninth commandment” when promoting their cultism.

    This is yet another example of why the religious cannot grasp rational argument, why they cannot grasp how science works, and that it does work.

  53. Bands of iron?

    Vertical cores showing bands, and what explains that except replenishment ar intervals by volcanic action, which is subsequently eaten and processed producing a non-soluble iron compound.. If memory serves me.

    Or are the bands horizontal bands created when the mid-ocean subsurface mount lets new magma emerged and be drawn apart under different magnetic pole positions, and thus showing that the ocean floor is moving.

    I will park my truck. Don’t have the energy just now.

  54. Bob Kauten 1, February 13, 2013 at 11:31 pm

    The Theory of Evolution …
    ===============================================
    The law, the truth, the theory … all illusion.

    There is not singular theory for any of that.

    A CNN anchor asked Bill Nye The Science Guy if global warming is causing tomorrow’s near miss of the Earth by an asteroid.

    The lack of understanding of a lot of science may be because the attitude of a lot of pop scientists and real scientists are strange.

    Perhaps ID707 is correct and all scientific papers should be written in the language of the Swedes.

  55. Gene H. 1, February 13, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    “That is why I say Darwinism is a religion to a lot of people” thus proving you don’t truly understand natural selection. It’s not a religion and by your own admission (“They are not attacking Darwin, nor are they saying his ideas about adaptation are invalid to explain what has happened, they are simple saying it is not adequate to explain origins.”) natural selection is a fact. If you doubt a fact? You’re a fool. Darwin’s work isn’t on the origin of life and it never was. It’s about the mechanics of speciation that drive adaptive evolution. It is an observable demonstrable quantifiable and testable fact of nature.A fact, especially one that withstands the scientific method’s interrogation, is a fact, not a belief.
    ======================================
    The elastic “natural selection” is a be all catch all phrase that stretches and stretches and stretches as the years go by.

    When Darwin used “natural selection” he did not know of how much catastrophe, such as asteroid impacts, play in life on Earth.

    And just as importantly he did not know about genes.

    Yet the mouthiness of religiously fanatical nerds like Dawkins (who feathures prominently in the books concerning On the Origin of A**holes) act as if those two issues (and many more that Darwin was unaware of) is exactly what Darwin was talking about.

    Darwin was so infallible that “natural selection” in the late 1800’s meant everything and anything any pop or real evolutionist since then has said it means.

    That is the essence of religion … making things up as you go.

  56. Dredd,
    “The law, the truth, the theory … all illusion.
    There is not singular theory for any of that.
    A CNN anchor asked Bill Nye The Science Guy if global warming is causing tomorrow’s near miss of the Earth by an asteroid.
    The lack of understanding of a lot of science may be because the attitude of a lot of pop scientists and real scientists are strange.”

    Wrong. The Theory of Evolution is quite succinct. Because it is based on scientific observation and experiment, the small details change constantly. That’s why it isn’t a religion. The impact of an asteroid is a small detail, compared to the entire process of Evolution on earth.
    The lack of understanding of a lot of science exists because people are too lazy to read and think about it.
    Any misuse of the term “natural selection” does not redefine it. The phrase means the same thing as when Darwin wrote of it.
    Your misuse of the term “Evolution” likewise does not redefine the Theory of Evolution.

  57. The latest scientific ruminations about hemorrhoids being the cause for the extinction of dinosaurs proves nothing, and certainly doesn’t validate any of Darwin’s theories. If the fittest are the survivors, then how would Darwin explain that the population of cretinoids today now exceeds the population of rational, intelligent people by better than a margin of 372 million to 1? This dinosaur “example” is simply a tautological exercise in circuitous “reasoning.” For a clear illustration of the failures of the Darwinian theory, see this game between Dawrin and Huxley, in which, incidentally, Huxley won:

  58. 9 members of COngress supported and sponsored or co-sponsored a resolution in honor of the greaet Charles Darwin. ON the other hand, members of Congress trip over themselves affirming how much they want a god in the Pledge of Allegiance or tellign their fellow Americans they should pray.

  59. “That is the essence of religion … making things up as you go.”

    You mean making things up like believing viruses are directing evolution, Dredd?

    Yeah. That would be a religion.

    And what Bob K. said (both times).

  60. “Bob Kauten1, February 14, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Silly Ralph.
    Of primary importance is the question of why hemorrhoids are not instead called “asteroids.”

    Thank God the filter here is not intelligent. But just remember, the programs the gov has available and scanning you now ARE “intelligent”. Just so you know. :-)

    Thanks for the laugh. The thanks are directed to Bob, not Ralph. Not that Ralph is not a laugh in himself. Snark???

  61. Bob Kauten, you say: “Of primary importance is the question of why hemorrhoids are not instead called “asteroids.””

    The answer to your question is that they are called asteroids when they are outside the hemisphere, but they are called hemorrhoids when they are inside your hemispheres.

  62. Asteroid = relatively small rocky, metallic, and/or sometimes icy bodies left in the solar system after the formation of the planets, means “starlike” from the Greek asteroeidēs.
    Meteoroid = Any asteroid under ~30m that would turn into a meteor upon striking the atmosphere.
    Hemorrhoid = A generic pain in the ass not to be confused with . . .
    Constipated = Ralph (Not from New Orleans) Adamo

  63. Yo Ralph: Yo’ mama is so stupid, she raised you and you’re pretty much an irrational partisan theocratic zealot hack who’s understanding of science seems to be pieced together by reading men’s room graffiti while smacking yourself in the head with a hammer.

    Doh! My bad. I was supposed to make a joke, not an observation. Coincidentally, they can be one and the same. So . . . nevermind.

  64. Gene, you might be interested to know that the makers of Preparation H had an earlier formula named in your honor called Preparation G, but the company’s scientists found that wherever there were large hemorrhoids like you that were obstinate, resistent, and unresponsive, they decided to change their strategy. As a consequence, they went for the broader market that would address more normal hemorrhoids, and developed the formula that ultimately came to be called Preparation H. And, as radio legend Paul Harvey would have put it, “Now you know the rest of the story.”

  65. Ooo. And my experiment repeats. Science. I’d say you gotta love it, but you don’t even understand it. Would you care to keep proving my hypothesis?

  66. Back to Darwin.

    Just for the hell of it, I will start with an unformed idea and get snarled up.
    No, I don’t. I usually start with a clear idea, and snarl IT up.

    Lets us a assume abiogenetics had two routes to follow (and maybe more which we leave undiscussed).

    Now modern viruses don’t have an energy nor replication system.
    Assume that was true of the proto-virus.
    Assume that the proto-cell was, as characterized by some, grew through absorption of small cells and perhaps even gorged on other stuff.

    Now getting the virus to find this a congenial environment and it did even at that stage effect the proto-cell. Ie the primitive cell. So why did it leave. And why does it kill its host. These are modern characteristics. Necessarily ancient one?

    I leave the tattered entangled remains for Dredd et al to solve.

    Gotta ean breakfast, which is as good an excuse as a dinner date New Mexico style (although it wasn’t) or “wetback special” although I’m sure that term was never uttered.

    PS I ordered some spices and chiles last night. No good reason. I just could. And that is enough reason for many deeds. Much oxytocin dopamine, etc. No cortisol.

  67. More based ond Dredd’s blog, not substantive matter, but misuse or unuse of proper terms. Specifically, I object to the term “unltra-Darwinism” (-ian, etc)

    Since as Dredd maintains, Darwin was a pluralist in re causes of species variation, and kept his survival theme intact, it is incorrect to saddle him with “ultras” who only support gene modification as a cause.

    We do Darwin a disservice, he did not know of genes. And we use his name but not his thought to define a group (and lend them credence in the course of discussions).

    Shall we call them ultra’s Gene-ists.? Pun intended. And hope that GeneH is laughing. And Dredd too.

  68. Idealist707,

    Sir Keith Richards of The Rolling Stone Institute, a modern reductionist, summed natural selection up as “shit happens.”

    The criticism of reductionism is broad and wide, because like Sir Keith, it ignores an honest appraisal of “who, what, where, why and how” to make scientific issues into a magic aura that insulates a hypothesis from intense scientific scrutiny.

    Religion.

    Here is an example of the critisism reductionist bring:

    Here are three questions of the kind evolutionary theorists love. First, why do most mammals walk on four legs? Second, how come some single-celled protists have genomes much larger than humans? Third, why have camera eyes evolved independently in vertebrates and octopuses?

    They’re important questions as they challenge certain versions of Darwinism that are dominant today in popular discourse.

    (Ultra-Darwinists and the pious gene). These pius ultra-Darwinists religiously pump out the mantra “shit happens” so who cares about detail.

    Perhaps asteroids travel in groups. One hit Russia ahead of the larger one to miss us today:

  69. idealist707 1, February 15, 2013 at 4:02 am

    … I object to the term “unltra-Darwinism” (-ian, etc)
    ========================================
    It is in common use:

    They’re important questions as they challenge certain versions of Darwinism that are dominant today in popular discourse. They are posed, alongside many others, in a rich mix of high theory and low knockabout in a new book by Conor Cunningham, Darwin’s pious idea: How the ultra-Darwinists and creationists both get it wrong.

    Ultra-Darwinism is the kind associated with the new atheism … if it’s hard to say whether features of organisms are adaptations or not, that causes all sorts of problems for the universal acid of ultra-Darwinism.

    Strongly adaptationist explanations are common in ultra-Darwinism and the work of the acid … It’s at such moments that Cunningham concludes that the ultra-Darwinists are rather like the creationists they so loathe: both smuggle “supernatural” elements, like immortality, into their accounts of the natural world.

    (link is in my comment above). Perhaps your objection is reductionist based on the notion that all scientific papers should be written in Swedish.

    Be careful, that is what religionists did once upon a time, “do it in Latin.”

    Then they put words in people’s mouths that those people, like Darwin, did not say.

    Darwin never conceived of abiotic plays (asteroid impact @ “unfitness to survive”) nor genetics, yet the ultra-Darwinists often use his term “natural selection” as if abiotic evolution and genes is all he talked about.

    He did not talk about a magic natural selection the reductionists have spread about, beginning with the synthesis in the 1930’s.

    Einstein, who was not a scientist who focused on the biotic world, but rather on the abiotic world, is purported to have indicated:

    “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”

    The gist of it is that reductionism is ok so long as it stays within the boundaries of science and does not skip over the traces into magical thinking through ultra-reductionist blather.

  70. Even in mathematics, which some believe is a pure segment of science, ultra-reductionism has not panned out:

    In mathematics, reductionism can be interpreted as the philosophy that all mathematics can (or ought to) be built on a common foundation, which is usually axiomatic set theory. Ernst Zermelo was one of the major advocates of such a view; he also developed much of axiomatic set theory. It has been argued that the generally accepted method of justifying mathematical axioms by their usefulness in common practice can potentially undermine Zermelo’s reductionist program.

    As an alternative to set theory, Jouko Väänänen has argued for second-order logic as a foundation for mathematics instead of set theory, whereas others have argued for category theory as a foundation for certain aspects of mathematics.

    The incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel, published in 1931, raised doubts about the attainability of an axiomatic foundation for all of mathematics. Any such foundation would have to include axioms powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (a subset of all mathematics). Yet Gödel proved that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers, there are true propositions about the natural numbers that cannot be proved from the axioms. (Such propositions are known as formally undecidable propositions.)

    (Wikipedia, Reductionism, emphasis added). Turing and Penrose took that further, into the computing world and software constructs, causing somewhat of a furor as to the limits of artificial intelligence.

    It then turns back on the evolutionary stream of thought, in that, how are you going to build an artificial version of intelligence when we don’t know what intelligence is?

    It boils down to poke and hope — poke on the keyboard and hope some artificial intelligence comes out.

    It gets better, Penrose went on to say that he thinks human intelligence in the sense of consciousness is somewhere down there with the Higgins Boson, yet:

    Quantum mechanics is an incredible theory that explains all sorts of things that couldn’t be explained before, starting with the stability of atoms. But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it [quantum mechanics] doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right.

    (The Memes of Penrose). In the video below, Penrose argues abiotic functionality as the source of consciousness, not biotic functionality.

    Darwin never considered that either in his concept of natural selection.

    If the ultimate biological realm, human consciousness, is abiotic then natural selection is not all biotic.

    Thus reductionism which argues otherwise is not correct, it is just more of the gospel of ultra-Darwinism.

  71. Two cartoons:

    One shows a conference of dinosaurs. The bronto at the podium addresses the 100 attendees. He says: “Gentlemen, the news is grim. The climate is changing, the mammals are taking over, and we all have brains the size of walnuts.”

    The other shows an old style personal computer with the boxy screen at a podium addressing 100 more like it in the audience. It says: “Gentlemen the news is grim. Systems are speeding up, laptops are taking over, and we all have memories the size of a floppy.”

    My kid got this in 1992 and he said, “MY MOM!”

  72. Funny Malisha, kids are miraculous at times.

    I was looking at some date sequences, when some of them jumped out at me.

    It seems that when Darwin wrote his On The Origin of Species, he was a scientist in the shadows of some of the most (to us today) ignorant scientific beliefs imaginable.

    They believed that disease was caused by magic, that they just appeared from “nowhere”.

    Up-thread I mentioned that Semmelweis, a physician, had tried to convince them otherwise.

    Semmelweis had reduced death by disease in his clinic to near zero, while women in clinics of the doctors who had him committed died in shocking numbers because they spread disease by not washing their hands.

    Anyway, Darwin published his book during this time:

    Sammelweis – 1818-1865
    Darwin – 1808-1882 (published Origin in 1859)
    Pasteur – 1822-1895

    Pasteur did not prove the germ theory of disease until late 1862, some three years after Darwin published his hypothesis.

    Therefore it is questionable whether or not Darwin was intimidated by the bullying of Semmelweis.

    Perhaps if he knew of germs, Darwin kept his knowledge of germs hidden in secret rebellion, or did the believe Semmelweis was a heretic?

    Did Darwin think, like his peers, that germs appeared from nowhere at will?

    Anyone know?

  73. Dredd,

    I object! Dammit!

    I díd NOT say that all should speak Swedish. Are you mad? I said that if you could speak Swedish***then you would have the pleasure of enjoying a good presentation by Gunnar Bjursell, retired professor, on the net.

    Stop repeating that skit please. . That is the third (or fourth) time you have said it.

    Don’t lecture me on Darwin, reductionism, my objection (trivial) to ultra-Darwinist (the term as such), Don’t use me.

    If you want to use somebody, use GeneH. Are you a crypto-bully or a proto one?

    I objected to ultra-Darwinism because it groups him with the ultra-Darwinists.

    All religions are dangerous. Particularly in science. Semmelweiss was not the first. Who was? Socrates? There are, as long as religion is used to get power over others, lots of religionists in science.

    UltraDarwinists should create a name for their own skit, but now it is established, so too late now.

    When I defer to you for an opinion, why do you kick back?

    Second time you have done this. Months since last. What is my/your problem?

    Don’t let your rants get a hold of you. No snark, just direct advice.

  74. idealist707 1, February 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Dredd,

    I object! Dammit!

    I díd NOT say that all should speak Swedish. Are you mad?

    I said that if you could speak Swedish***then you would have the pleasure of enjoying a good presentation by Gunnar Bjursell, retired professor, on the net.

    Stop repeating that skit please. . That is the third (or fourth) time you have said it.
    ===================================
    No, just teasing you.

    I looked everywhere I could to find English pages for him but couldn’t at that time.

  75. idealist707 1, February 15, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Dredd,

    Don’t lecture me on Darwin, reductionism, my objection (trivial) to ultra-Darwinist (the term as such), Don’t use me.

    If you want to use somebody, use GeneH. Are you a crypto-bully or a proto one?

    I objected to ultra-Darwinism because it groups him with the ultra-Darwinists.

    All religions are dangerous. Particularly in science. Semmelweiss was not the first. Who was? Socrates? There are, as long as religion is used to get power over others, lots of religionists in science.

    UltraDarwinists should create a name for their own skit, but now it is established, so too late now.

    When I defer to you for an opinion, why do you kick back?

    Second time you have done this. Months since last. What is my/your problem?

    Don’t let your rants get a hold of you. No snark, just direct advice.
    ===============================================
    I had asked, above:

    Did Darwin think, like his peers, that germs appeared from nowhere at will?

    Anyone know?

    I found what is probably the answer or a clue in that direction:

    One would say that [man] is destined to exterminate himself after having rendered the globe uninhabitable.” – Lamarck (1817)

    [RE: Darwin] In his private correspondence, he wrote that “man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is,” and that natural selection, driven by the struggle for existence between races, would continue to play a major role in human evolution. Darwin interpreted the Crusades in these terms. As he commented to his correspondent in 1881:

    Lastly, I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.

    Darwin’s views were rooted in the erroneous concept of race of his time. Like the eugenicists who followed him early in the twentieth century, he failed to recognize the sizeable role of the environment, culture and education in establishing human characteristics.

    (The Evolution of Anthropogenic Extinction, quoting historian J. Sapp, emphasis added). Darwin would probably have been a climate change denier, while Lamarck would not have.

    He was a racist and probably more inspirational to Eugenics, one of the great scourges of the early 20th century, than I had previously contemplated.

    BTW, I am not lecturing you, I am quoting professors of the history of science who have been so for decades.

  76. “Scientist without proper fashion evolution says asteroid will miss us by about a cup of coffee on the fifteenth: -Dredd

    The asteroid missed, but…

    Meteor Streaks Across Russian Urals, Leaves Nearly 1000 Injured (VIDEO, LIVE UPDATES)

    By JIM HEINTZ and VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV 02/15/13 02:30 PM ET EST AP

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/meteorite-streaks-across-russian-urals_n_2691904.html

    Excerpts:

    MOSCOW — A meteor streaked across the sky and exploded over Russia’s Ural Mountains with the power of an atomic bomb Friday, its sonic blasts shattering countless windows and injuring about 1,100 people.

    The spectacle deeply frightened many Russians, with some elderly women declaring that the world was coming to an end. Many of the injured were cut by flying glass as they flocked to windows, curious about what had produced such a blinding flash of light.

    The meteor – estimated to be about 10 tons – entered the Earth’s atmosphere at a hypersonic speed of at least 54,000 kph (33,000 mph) and shattered into pieces about 30-50 kilometers (18-32 miles) above the ground, the Russian Academy of Sciences said in a statement.

    One of the most popular jokes was that the meteorite was supposed to fall on Dec. 21 last year – when many believed the Mayan calendar predicted the end of the world – but was delivered late by Russia’s notoriously inefficient postal service.

    The dramatic event prompted an array of reactions from prominent Russians.

    Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, speaking at an economic forum in the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, said the meteor could be a symbol for the forum, showing that “not only the economy is vulnerable, but the whole planet.”

    Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a nationalist leader noted for his vehement statements, blamed the Americans.

    “It’s not meteors falling. It’s the test of a new weapon by the Americans,” the RIA Novosti news agency quoted him as saying.

    Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said the incident showed the need for leading world powers to develop a system to intercept objects falling from space.

    “At the moment, neither we nor the Americans have such technologies” to shoot down meteors or asteroids, he said, according to the Interfax news agency.

    Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary science, called the back-to-back celestial events an amazing display.

    “This is indeed very rare and it is historic,” he said on NASA TV. “These fireballs happen about once a day or so, but we just don’t see them because many of them fall over the ocean or in remote areas. ”

    Asteroid vs meteor:

  77. OT OT OT OT OT

    LANGUAGES ARE DOORS TO NEW WORLDS
    =====================================

    Languages open new cultures. Europe, on the other hand, needed a lingua franca. It became English—-American English, which was chosen apparently.
    On the underground today, I watched a group conversing in English. I assumed he was Spanish and the three girls were Swedes.

    WRONG!!! The guy was Spanish who spoke fluent Swedish after 4 year here. The girls were from Germany, Tjeckoslavakia, And Rumania.
    English is their common language. Be glad that it isn’t Russian.

    I, belonging to their grandfather’s generation, did not enjoy that possibility when I came to Europe, Englsh was not common in most European countries in the 60’s. Not even in Sweden.

    So I opened my mind then by learning Italian, French and Spanish. Not well as I would have liked, but that depended on me. The three have opened these cultures to me.

    Traveling with English is convenient. More so today than ever.

    But to go to the Musée de Louvre, the Vatican tour, the Prado in Madrid or just ordinary tourist visits, without knowing the culture or my chance to deepen my knowledge of it, would seem terrible even today.

    Mother tongues are primary here in Europe. Then American English, fluently spoken.
    And most can at least another language, related or completely different.

    How many do the Americans know WELL? How many can speak Spanish, in spite of the incentives? Of course I mean in the non-hispanic groups there.

    I love America, but not people who think that they are the exception: politically, culturally, or scíentifically. Most “American” discoveries of the last 30 years are by teams led by ex-immigrants. And not just asian ones.

    When will you wake up? There is a world out here.
    How many can a word Arabic? Thai? Japanese? Chinese. Just a word only.
    And don’t say chow meng.

    And being culturally ignorant leads to conflicts. “otherness” and wars.
    But then maybe TPTD likes it like that. MIC etc.

    Skit happens, some say. I’m getting my bit, they say.
    Good luck with that. How long will Wall Street let you keep it.

    Nature and climate change does not care what language we speak. We know that in Europe. Do you?

    Skit samma. some would say. English just lessens the need for translators when we meet, buy gifts or point guns at them. Real or economic ones.
    American reigns. Except 50 percent are in the poverty class and the near-poverty one. Any here? Hold up your Medicaid card and show us that you are one, who is not middle class..

  78. Posted wrong thread.

    idealist7071, February 15, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    Dredd,

    Watch how you tease mad dogs! Or ex-pat Americans.

    I wrote myself that I had not found anything in English by or on Bjursell which would convey his talent as a lecturer.

    Fine. You did not find anything either. Google crapped out or whatever search engine you used.

    Proves that he should have lectured less and published more papers in English, and addressed american scientific conferences. Or whatever.

    He’s not perfect. Are you? If you can’t speak another language, don’t take it out on me. See language post above.

    Crypto-criticism etc makes me angry, and I will expose you for the proto-bully that you are.

    Now go back and challenge GeneH. He is more in your league. Denigrating the handicapped*** is BAD IMHO.

    I know a little about a lot, but not a lot about anything. And that I have said before.

    ***Sat briefly beside a mentally handicapped Chinese child on the underground today. I said Hello in Mandarin (universally spoken nowadays by educated Chinese as second language) and got no response in the eyes. The mom/minder lifted her up, a heavy child, after only one station.

    I don’t aspire to be an alpha dog, in any genre. I am content to express myself, and take the ridicule that I deserve. But yours stank of bullying.

    Dredd, you used me to laugh at to kick off your lecture. Abhorrent, IMHO. We know what you think. Your words show that.

    BTW, the video link led to “Removed by the poster” Hope AP has another.
    A coffee break from catastrophe is an everyday occurence but seldom shown in the heavens. Imagine all the ICBMs poised with computer fingers on the launch button

  79. OT OT OT OT

    SPACE ROCKS, BUT CAN WE ROLL FOR THE PUNCHES?

    Thanks for the Slate link.

    No speculation. The last video with the earth modelled and the asteroid not to scale to the earth size, gave a lot of insight.

    What is lacking are at least 5 factors:

    ——How big was the near miss asteroid compared to the one which extinguished dinosaurs, and gave space to mammals?

    —–The energy of our nuclear bombs as a defense is ridiculous. One, due to the energy differential. Two, splittering an approaching
    asteroid would only produce thousands of meteorites with in total essentially the same energy content as the asteroid. Any better? I doubt it.
    —–Does it matter if we destroy the earth (anthropogenic extinction) when asteroids might destroy all life through the usual effects of impacts as exemplified by the dinosaur extinction.

    —–Anybody done any Dr Strangelove underground sanctuaries lately? Obama? Putin?

    —–Is the universe telling us that it is time to shape up?

    The Earth has been teetering on the edge of habitability for a billion(?) years. Ice ages, near-total freeze-overs, and even periods helpful to life’s development. The long term trend, sun-wise, is that it is getting more effective, radiating more. And some say that Gaia is trying to keep life alive.

    Dreams of immigrating to another planet are just that…..and NASA budget propaganda. We are adapted to Earth, not space conditions, and our technology will not meet the challenge of planet takeover, even if we develop worm holes, etc.

    We won’t be able to select or populate a planet for the nest umpteen centuries. Space travel is one factor. Adapting to a new planet unless by miracle it is a dupe of Earth, with all the appropriate bacteria and other life forms makes it an impossibility. These challenges would place greater hinders than we master now or in the future. Darwin’s saying that adaptation is always needed confines us to where we stand, literally.. Surely, we can’t choose a sterile planet, or what would be the purpose in choosing it. Science fiction aside. We can’t even engineer this planet and no sight of a possibility. Climate change says that.

    What remains. Make the best of what we have.
    All become Jewis, at least in life aims. Stop the climate change, if we can. And stop the greed machinery. And hope for near misses the next 10,000 generations. Until we develop god-like powers.

    The Neanderthals were around, it is said, for about 400,000 years. We have had at best 200,000 years, as a good guess, as Homo sapiens.
    Neandertals played bone flutes. WTF are we doing that is so much better human-wise. Haven’t seen much of ethical value lately. They buried their dead too. No pyramids, but WTF are you asking for.

    The technological paradigm changes are going faster that we or our society can adjust to them. Our brains and society are geared after the agricultural life’s pace.

    Am I fighting progress? No, not at all. As Gandhi said when asked about English culture, he replied: “Is there any?” (Or some such)

    Haven’t seen any signs of progress. And no reason to go through the list of plagues and the history of the USA,. You know it all.

    Asteroids and meteorites. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
    So we would need a powerful deflector or a humongous force to steet one of these life lethal monsters away from impacting Earth..

    As for watching, we think that we have a count of the regular visitors. Optimistic. But given that, there remains the occasional stray from the Oort Cloud and beyond Space is full of rocks, at least near the Sun vicinity. Otherwise it is about 3 atoms per cubic meter.

  80. idealist707 1, February 15, 2013 at 4:02 am


    Shall we call them ultra’s Gene-ists.? Pun intended. And hope that GeneH is laughing. And Dredd too.
    =============================
    Yes, I am laughing with you, crying with you, b*tch*ng with you, and all the other things that go on trying to figure out what Lamarck would say:

    One would say that [man] is destined to exterminate himself after having rendered the globe uninhabitable.” – Lamarck (1817)

    and why Darwin would say:

    “… man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he now is … Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”

    (from my comment up-thread). Lamarck is called the first evolutionist by some, but people don’t climb up your olive tree if you criticize him.

    Pontification and Sainthood I suppose.

    Gotta get back to my ultra-Juice now …

  81. Darwin was a racist? As his words say. Or was he casting a bone to the religionists that existed in his time. Is the academic world better today.
    Not if you believe Chomsky, Smolin, and many others.

    Who has got sh*t lately.

    Like the in vitro conception doc in England.

    Like the Austrlian pair who revealed a primary cause for peptic ulcers.
    (But Dredd’s buddies have shown the important functions that helico bla bla has in the stomach, regulating acidity and appetite.)

Comments are closed.