Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

stardesk wrote:And I, HF, am getting bored by your constant repetition of the same questions which you had answered many times by several of us. Try doing a little bit of research yourself, that way you'll learn about myths, evolution, mutations, etc etc. Don't be afraid, it wont do you any harm, you can still believe in your god, but it'll help you to understand the subjects.

Worship the sun and moon? Oh for pity's sake, take your head out of your glass. At least I don't worship a mythological being.

heavenly father wrote:

stardesk wrote:And I, HF, am getting bored by your constant repetition of the same questions which you had answered many times by several of us. Try doing a little bit of research yourself, that way you'll learn about myths, evolution, mutations, etc etc. Don't be afraid, it wont do you any harm, you can still believe in your god, but it'll help you to understand the subjects.

Worship the sun and moon? Oh for pity's sake, take your head out of your glass. At least I don't worship a mythological being.

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Star and others have been giving you answers for years you just choose not to listen because you fear it may cause you to question your beliefs   

Croissant wrote:"NASA measurements indicating increased sublimation of the south polar icecap leading to some popular press speculation that Mars was undergoing a parallel bout of global warming."


  


So, does that mean "global warming" on Mars is also due to Ford Explorers? Or is it just the evil rich white people on Mars?

heavenly father wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

so you have no answers as usual we hear the bull about mutations yet no one knows what mutations made any or all of the changes, I don;'t blame you as no one knows them because they don't exist..lol

so which do you worship, the sun, the moon the earth or all three even??

Star and others have been giving you answers for years you just choose not to listen because you fear it may cause you to question your beliefs   

lol I don't fear at all it makes no sense and never will, still waiting for these mutations that no one seems to have..  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.

Croissant wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.

Ah...so the scientists at NASA are practicing bullshit now.    

Croissant wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"Global warming on Mars" or any other planet has been measured very poorly, it's not like we have weather stations on other planets, they were done on fly-bys of the planets years apart, often catching a planet during winter the first pass and during summer like a decade later. The whole meme of global warming on other planets is bullshit.

Ah...so the scientists at NASA are practicing bullshit now.    

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, they make no claim of global warming on other planets -- it's the denialist movement that brings Mars into the issue.

Croissant wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

No, they make no claim of global warming on other planets -- it's the denialist movement that brings Mars into the issue.

The planets and moons that are claimed to be warming total roughly eight out of dozens of large bodies in the solar system. Some, like Uranus, may be cooling. All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846.

This is a round-up of the planets said by sceptics to be experiencing climate change:

Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all. More on Mars...
Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based on predictions, since no warming has actually been observed. Climate models predict temperature increases along the equator and cooling at the poles. It is believed these changes will be catalysed by storms that merge into one super-storm, inhibiting the planet’s ability to mix heat. Sceptical arguments have ignored the fact this is not a phenomenon we have observed, and that the modelled forcing is storm and dust movements, not changes in solar radiation.
Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface of both Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken to indicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.
Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002. That’s equivalent to observing the Earth’s weather for just three weeks out of the year. Various theories suggest its highly elliptical orbit may play a part, as could the large angle of its rotational axis. One recent paper suggests the length of Pluto’s orbit is a key factor, as with Neptune. Sunlight at Pluto is 900 times weaker than it is at the Earth.
Claims that solar system bodies are heating up due to increased solar activity are clearly wrong. The sun’s output has declined in recent decades. Only Pluto and Neptune are exhibiting increased brightness. Heating attributed to other solar bodies remains unproven.

Croissant wrote:Nice piece but I still doubt anything where mankind is concerned and climate change is one of them.  Human beings are corrupt - even the saintly ones, who are just better at it.

Guest wrote:
Nice piece but I still doubt anything where mankind is concerned and climate change is one of them. Human beings are corrupt - even the saintly ones, who are just better at it.

stardesk wrote:Once more into battle: HF, concerning positive mutations:

Evolution of New Metabolic Pathways

Graham Bell's book ("Selection - The Mechanism of Evolution" Alexander Bell, 1997) describes experiments that have demonstrated that organisms are capable of evolving whole new metabolic pathways, not just improving existing pathways. This is important to me because it shows that evolution is capable of producing something new, not just making minor improvements to existing pathways.
The most common experimental process that leads to evolution of a new pathway is this. An organism (usually bacteria) is put in a novel environment - an environment that contains some resource (chemical) that the organism has not been exposed to in the past. If that new chemical is the sole source of some chemical the organism requires for survival (e.g. carbon or nitrogen), most of the time, the organism will die. However, if any of the organisms' existing enzymes have the slightest ability to enhance reactions with the new resource, selection will strongly favor the duplication of the gene that produces that enzyme, and future mutations will improve the ability of the newly duplicated enzyme to process the new chemical resource. It's not very hard to see that the same factors that are manipulated in these experiments are going to occur in nature as well in the very long term. This duplication and divergence strategy of evolution appears to be capable of driving evolution from the first pre biotic self-replicators to the present incredibly complex and diverse life forms that occupy every imaginable niche of the planet earth.

stardesk wrote:Hi Lone Wolf. He should go and see his doctor as soon as possible. I suspect the poor man has the onset of compulsive repetition syndrome. He'll finish up sitting in a corner in a mental institution, rocking back and forth and repeating the same sentance over and over, 24/7
---------------------------------------------------------

Hi HF, I see Dibley has joined. This is going to be fun.

You keep asking about the colour of ancestral and animal eyes. The majority of eyes were and are brown. Fossil evidence doesn't exist due to the rotting of flesh. But, and as it's not in my field of studies, here's what I've found by researching:

The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years" in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
While investigating numerous genetic markers in archaeological and living individuals, Sandra Wilde of the Palaeogenetics Group at the JGU Institute of Anthropology noticed striking differences in genes associated with hair, skin, and eye pigmentation. "Prehistoric Europeans in the region we studied would have been consistently darker than their descendants today," says Wilde, first author of the PNAS article. "This is particularly interesting as the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented." However, things must have changed in the last 50,000 years as humans began to migrate to northern latitudes.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

And there will never be enough transitional fossils to demonstrate any kind of smooth linear narrative -- it's a very rare thing for an organism to be preserved as a fossil.

Thankfully, molecular study of genes is a far more reliable way to study evolution and tells us way more about it than an old rock ever could.

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:there are no where near enough transitional fossils to show change in evolution, that is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

And there will never be enough transitional fossils to demonstrate any kind of smooth linear narrative -- it's a very rare thing for an organism to be preserved as a fossil.

Thankfully, molecular study of genes is a far more reliable way to study evolution and tells us way more about it than an old rock ever could.

so transitional fossils failed and now another story takes up its position..  

and is this molecular study available to the average follower of the religion of evolution or is it something else you are relying on another man to tell you what to believe..  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

so transitional fossils failed and now another story takes up its position..  

and is this molecular study available to the average follower of the religion of evolution or is it something else you are relying on another man to tell you what to believe..  

No, they didn't fail, they just can't on their own paint a complete picture. Molecular biology has filled in the gaps. But there are plenty of suggestive transitional fossils -- did you check the link?