Can evolution outpace climate change?

Jun 08, 2011
The tide pool copepod Tigriopus californicus is found from Alaska to Baja California -- but in a unique lab study at UC Davis, the animals showed little ability to evolve heat tolerance over 10 generations. Credit: Morgan Kelly, UC Davis

(PhysOrg.com) -- Animals and plants may not be able to evolve their way out of the threat posed by climate change, according to a UC Davis study of a tiny seashore animal. The work was published today (June 8) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

The tide pool copepod Tigriopus californicus is found from to Baja California — but in a unique lab study, the animals showed little ability to evolve heat tolerance.

"This is a question a lot of scientists have been talking about," said study co-author Eric Sanford, an associate professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and a researcher at the university's Bodega Marine Laboratory. "Do organisms have the ability to adapt to on a timescale of decades?"

UC Davis graduate student Morgan Kelly, the first author of the paper, collected copepods from eight locations between Oregon and Baja California in Mexico. The tiny shrimplike animals, about a millimeter long, live in tide pools on rocky outcrops high in the splash zone.

Kelly grew the short-lived copepods in the lab for 10 generations, subjecting them to increased heat stress to select for more heat-tolerant animals.

The copepod Tigriopus californicus lives in pools like these at Punta Prieta in Baja California, Mexico, which are filled by wavesplash at high tide. Credit: Morgan Kelly, UC Davis

At the outset, copepods from different locations showed wide variability in heat tolerance. But within those populations, Kelly was able to coax only about a half-degree Celsius (about one degree Fahrenheit) of increased heat tolerance over 10 generations. And in most groups, the increase in had hit a plateau before that point.

In the wild, these copepods can withstand a temperature swing of 20 degrees Celsius a day, Kelly said. But they may be living at the edge of their tolerance, she said.

Although the copepods are widespread geographically, individual populations are very isolated, confined to a single rocky outcrop where wave splash can carry them between pools. That means there is very little flow of new genes across the population as a whole.

"It's been assumed that widespread species have a lot of genetic capacity to work with, but this study shows that may not be so," said co-author Rick Grosberg, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis. Many other species of animals, birds and plants face stress from climate change, and their habitats have also been fragmented by human activity -- perhaps more than we realize, he said.

"The critical point is that many organisms are already at their environmental limits, and natural selection won't necessarily rescue them," Grosberg said.

Explore further: Parks Service bans drones over Appalachian Trail

Provided by University of California - Davis

4 /5 (9 votes)

Related Stories

Cool species can take the heat

May 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two scientists from Simon Fraser University and one from Deakin University (DU) in Australia have made a discovery that is overturning conventional wisdom about how land and marine animals react to heat.

California's Ancient Kelp Forest

Nov 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The kelp forests off southern California are considered to be some of the most diverse and productive ecosystems on the planet, yet a new study indicates that today's kelp beds are less extensive and lush ...

Climate Change Alters Base of Tahoe Food Web

Sep 29, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- UC Davis researchers at Lake Tahoe this week published the first evidence that climate change alters the makeup of tiny plant communities called algae, which are the very foundation of the ...

New Keys to Keeping a Diverse Planet

Sep 25, 2007

Variation in plants and animals gives us a rich and robust assemblage of foods, medicines, industrial materials and recreation activities. But human activities are eliminating biological diversity at an unprecedented rate.

Recommended for you

Genetically tracking farmed fish escaping into the wild

Aug 20, 2014

European sea product consumption is on the rise. With overfishing being a threat to the natural balance of the ocean, the alternative is to turn to aquaculture, the industrial production of fish and seafood. ...

France fights back Asian hornet invader

Aug 20, 2014

They slipped into southwest France 10 years ago in a pottery shipment from China and have since invaded more than half the country, which is fighting back with drones, poisoned rods and even chickens.

Tide turns for shark fin in China

Aug 20, 2014

A sprawling market floor in Guangzhou was once a prime location for shark fin, one of China's most expensive delicacies. But now it lies deserted, thanks to a ban from official banquet tables and a celebrity-driven ...

Manatees could lose their endangered species status

Aug 19, 2014

About 2,500 manatees have perished in Florida over the last four years, heightening tension between conservationists and property owners as federal officials prepare to decide whether to down-list the creature to threatened ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

210
1 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2011
The higher and highest life forms on our planet live within a narrower temperature range than microbiologicals. Having the need for homeostasis facilitating the more complex structures of higher life, hmmmm, evolution has always been historically defined as needing vast time periods to bring about life/change. Climate change as defined to date, represents such a profound threat to all complex life. It is difficult to imagine anything BUT very simple life thriving in any scenario of runaway planetary heating-greenhouse gas effect. Crustaceans, reptilians may be less vulnerable but this is a good question and a troubling idea.
Just look at the creatures that exist next to underwater volcanic vents. They are quite simple and vastly specialized.
Considering all this article has stated, little means to adapt, terrible evolutionary prospects.
word-to-ya-muthas
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2011
10 generations is a pretty small number.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2011
10 generations is a pretty small number.

Depends on how long it takes a generation to reach maturity and reproduce.

Bacteria will certainly keep pace, most plants and animals, not so much.

Life will certainly survive all but the most catastrophic circumstance on the planet, however, the more aburpt a change in environment, the fewer organisms survive on the whole. With the destruction of higher orders, lower orders will need to fill niches. And so is the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium.
kevinrtrs
1.5 / 5 (25) Jun 09, 2011
Time is not a force that can somehow overcome the in-built limitations of the creature's DNA system. That system was created with the ability to adapt to certain environmental stresses but there's a limit to that ability to adapt. Given that each creature has a fixed identity, exceeding the bounds of those in-built DNA adaptability would require a new identity. So far, it's quite clear from all of history that anything stressed to the point where it needs a new identity to survive, DIES.
This is of course totally the opposite of what evolutionists would like to believe - that from one organism one can get all the different living identities that we have at present. That kind of evolutionary thinking goes against what is actually observed in real life. Hence one cannot observe or find any recorded observation of anything changing from a shrimp into a reptile, for instance. Just doesn't exist.
I purposely used the word "identity" so that one can expose evolutionary thought.
Peteri
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2011
Once again Kevin you display your ignorance. Go away and read some basic text books on evolution and genetics, because you obviously do not understand either subject at a fundamental level. When you have learnt the basics, then perhaps you can come back here and present some cogent arguments.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2011
Hence one cannot observe or find any recorded observation of anything changing from a shrimp into a reptile, for instance.
And no one expects to see that since life didn't evolve that way. Only a Creationist would even pretend anyone ever expected it.

However we DO have flying squirrels, bats that came from something that was rodent like and bats that came from primates. So there is the transition you claim cannot happen.

Now since I have pointed that out MANY times to you it is time for you can the no transition crap as it is complete rubbish.

We deal with your questions, true were hoping there wouldn't be answers, time for you to answer ours.

When was the Great Flood? Nearest century will do nicely. Copping out by lying that it can't be determined will not do since the Bible is quite clear on how long many people lived and when they were born.

Ethelred
antialias
not rated yet Jun 09, 2011
10 generations is a pretty small number.

If, as the article states, the ability to adapt has already plateaud before that then going to 100 generations will probably not make much difference. The plateau is a result of simple mutations.

Of course there's always the possibility of combined mutations which usher in a paradigm (and possibly species) shift in the organism (e.g. by replacing one protein by an entirely different one and not merely by one that is slightly altered). That type of mutation is extremely rare and would be hard to quantify in a limited laboratory environment. Certainly basing any predictions on the survivability of a species on such rare events becomes iffy.
barakn
3 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
One important factor not addressed in the article is how big the experimental population was. Was it as big as the entire population of copepods living in the tide pools on a rock outcrop? I suspect it was smaller.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
Given that each creature has a fixed identity, exceeding the bounds of those in-built DNA adaptability would require a new identity. So far, it's quite clear from all of history that anything stressed to the point where it needs a new identity to survive, DIES.
This is of course totally the opposite of what evolutionists would like to believe
No, that's actually a strong description of an organism being unfit for its environment. We call it natural selection, and it i s aprimary driver of evolution. Thanks again for that excellent depiction of losing when faced with natural selection.
DontBeBlind
1.2 / 5 (19) Jun 09, 2011
I get a good laugh at you evo guys talking like your religion of evolution has any proof of ever happening. Adaptation yes.. Evo no.... With the hundreds of millions of years you all claim this has been going on. Then why not 1 fosile record of anything in between stages. Please remember your "theory" is still unproven. Sorry if this gets your panties in a bunch. But those are the facts. Have a nice day all my fellow Created people. :)
Ethelred
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2011
Then why not 1 fosile record of anything in between stages.
How about a living animal? Flying squirrels exactly fit what you claim doesn't exist.

Please remember your "theory" is still unproven.
Please remember that it IS proven within the actual concept of scientific theory. YOU are thinking of MATH. Evolution fits the evidence and that is as much proof as ANY theory can have. Exactly as much as Special Relativity. You do know that the Bomb does function? Special Relativity is just a theory by your standards. Which are completely non-scientific.

However we could use YOUR concept of proof or even the real scientific concept on your belief. Your belief is DISPROVED by evidence.

Sorry if this gets your panties in a bunch.
No. I wear pants in any case.

But those are the facts.
No. They are standard Creationist lies. Not even close to being facts of any kind.>>
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
Have a nice day all my fellow Created people. :)
Sorry but I evolved just as you did. Childish lies like that will not make you right.

Now since you failed so spectacularly its your turn to answer.

When was the Great Flood?

What were the last words of Jesus on the cross?

Why are animals created after Man in Genesis 1 and before Adam in Genesis 2?

Why did Jehovah's curse on Cain fail?

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
I get a good laugh at you evo guys talking like your religion of evolution has any proof of ever happening.
So all the men and women in your family look the exact same as their parents? Must be rather dissappointing to effectively sleep with your mother. Maybe that's why creationists are so down on sexual activity.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2011
"Animals and plants may not be able to evolve their way out of the threat posed by climate change,"
They obviously have in the past. Why would the future be any different?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2011
"Animals and plants may not be able to evolve their way out of the threat posed by climate change,"
They obviously have in the past. Why would the future be any different?
Are you really so unskilled with the language that you're unable to append the word "Current" onto the front of that statement? Really?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 09, 2011
"Animals and plants may not be able to evolve their way out of the threat posed by climate change,"
They obviously have in the past. Why would the future be any different?
Are you really so unskilled with the language that you're unable to append the word "Current" onto the front of that statement? Really?

What statement?
Science is supposed to be precise.
ILIAD
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 09, 2011
Since the earth was born evolution has changed with the times.
What a plainly stupid piece. Nature is simple, adapt or die. It was the same 650m years ago (95% extinction)... others and now. The socalistic ideals behind "climate change," wont work.
Skultch
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
Science is supposed to be precise.


Mongo,

You did not just read a scientific publication. You read a SUMMARY.

See, real science is written in a language intended for the audience of scientists. Summaries and abstracts, are written in a language for the audience of lay persons. Since they didn't write this SUMMARY for people that have unreasonable expectations of scientific work and language, of course you are confused.

Physorg is NOT for you, Mongo. It's written so that rational, smart, and educated people, can learn. You are not rational, not smart, not well educated, and you clearly have no interest in learning from this site. THIS is why you are ridiculed and why you are so often confused.

Stop expecting science to dumb itself down and clarify every possible misunderstanding. YOU need to learn the language of science, NOT the other way around.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2011
like your religion of evolution

Evolution is a study of reality... It's science. By definition, it's NOT a religion. Ideas are formed based on observations. More data is collected, theories are formed. More data is collected, theories are refined. There's no "faith", and there are no sacred cows. Anything is open for discussion, but you must bring a logical argument. Ideas based on physical observation, physical evidence, and logic can't be a religion.

evolution has any proof of ever happening


When you stand outside when it's raining, do you claim there's no proof that the rain fell from above? Seriously, you need to open a book or a web browser. Evidence of evolution is everywhere.

Adaptation yes.. Evo no.


Just curious, how do YOU define those two ideas? (so, I understand better, what point you're trying to make).

Then why not 1 fosile record of anything in between stages.


Seriously? Have you HEARD of google? use it.

(continued...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Jun 09, 2011
(continued...)
Please remember your "theory" is still unproven. Sorry if this gets your panties in a bunch.


here we go again with another newb! The only thing that bothers me is people that intentionally remain ignorant of the facts.

Answer this question: If the universe is only 6000 years old, why do we see objects more than 6000 light years away? Sorry if that question gets YOUR panties in a wad, but I *DO* expect an answer from you. That was NOT a rhetorical question.

Your arguments are very very noob-like. It's as if you weren't aware that we've tackled these ad-nauseum. Every few months, some newb comes online, thinking he's got all these wonderful arguments to use, only to find out they're less than newb-101. One dead give-away is the completely uneducated point of saying "it's just a theory, therefore, it's not proof". heh, yah, we've never heard THAT one before. Oh! You got us! Please read up on what "theyory" actually means!

Here's your sign.
KillerKopy
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
You guys act like its a crime to question macro-evolution or believe that a God may exist. We are all on the search for truth through science and philosophy. If you really believe you are right then why not give examples of why the other person is mislead instead of name calling and stating presuppositions. Everyone can stop acting like they have all the answers or that they could never be wrong. The more we learn about science and perceptions the more we realize their is in infinite amount of information we do not know and will never understand. So yes, everyone has faith in something even if its a spinning dot or God. So stop whining about about differing views. If you feel the need to constantly defend your view how strong is it really.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
You guys act like its a crime to question macro-evolution or believe that a God may exist.
Nonsense. There is no evidence against evolution. Macro vs Micro is crap from Creationists. If there is adaptation only magic can stop speciation. As for belief without evidence that is just fantasy. Not a crime just silly.

We are all on the search for truth through science and philosophy.
No. Many are here to promote ignorance. Kevin does little else. Marjon is just a troll. He is so ludicrous there is no way to know whether he believes any of it or not.

. If you really believe you are right then why not give examples of why the other person is mislead i
I am doing that. If you are referring to Marjon we have done that many times. He mostly just lies in response so derision is all he should get.

stating presuppositions.
I don't act as if its a crime to disagree with me. Though I have had several persons want or at least threaten to attack or even execute me.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2011
Everyone can stop acting like they have all the answers or that they could never be wrong.
Again how about you do that instead cast vile calumnies.

The more we learn about science and perceptions the more we realize their is in infinite amount of information we do not know and will never understand.
No. There is a LOT that we DO understand. For instance the evidence that the world is billions of years old is quite overwhelming to all but the most tightly shuttered mind.

So yes, everyone has faith
Nonsense. That is a typical Creationist ploy to make it look like they have a leg to stand on. Science goes on EVIDENCE. There is an ASSUMPTION not faith that it is possible to learn a lot of how the Universe works, this assumption is in opposition to the alternative that we cannot learn anything. Assuming that we cannot learn is a sure way to not learn so it is a STUPID assumption especially since we HAVE learned a lot over the last few hundred years.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
So stop whining about about differing views.
Why are YOU whining so much in this post?

If you feel the need to constantly defend your view how strong is it really.
Why are you defending yours?

Don't bother pretending that wasn't an attempt to defend your beliefs. You are welcome to remain ignorant. But if you post ignorance here you have no right to expect the rest of us to not reply. In case you are not aware of it there are lots of people trying to force their religious beliefs on others. Numerous organisations have been formed to foist Creationism on the public school system in the US and they just plain lie that it is actual science.

When the constant effort by Creationists to make science go away stop then there will be no need to defend science from the attacks by the willfully ignorant. Reasonable people have had rather enough of repression from the religious fanatics.

If you want to have a rational discussion please feel free to do so.

Ethelred
CSharpner
5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
You guys act like its a crime to question macro-evolution

That's ridiculous. If an alternative theory is presented with reasonable evidence and logic, we'd be thrilled. We're always fascinated when something we though was true turns out to be NOT true. Here's an example: http://www.physor...ter.html

or believe that a God may exist.

Also false. I was raised in the same type of Christian environment the creationist posters here were, in the buckle of the Bible belt (been here my whole life). I don't disbelieve in God. I'm agnostic. I just don't know. I do know that life can be explained with physics alone. That doesn't mean I disbelieve in God.

If you really believe you are right

Obviously, we do.
then why not give examples of why the other person is mislead

Have read any of my posts on this thread? How many times do I have to mention the example of physical evidence of the (continued...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
(...continued)
then why not give examples of why the other person is mislead

Have you read any of my posts on this thread? How many times do I have to mention the example of physical evidence of the universe being older than 6000 years?

instead of name calling
I'm going to assume you're directing this comment to DontBeBlind, since he called those of us who are educated and have been in this forum for years "noobs". I virtually never name call (I actively refrain from it), but when someone like DontBeBlind posts ignorance and calls US "noobs", I will gladly throw it back in his face.

Everyone can stop acting like they have all the answers or that they could never be wrong.

Again, I'm going to assume that you're directing this to the creationist posters since those of us who understand science and evolution are constantly asking for explanations from the creationists, which they NEVER provide.
(continued...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
(...continued)
Apparently, you're not aware that those of us in the sciences KNOW that we don't know everything, that's WHY we're interested in science... because we have a thirst for knowledge. We don't know why gravity works, or how time works, or what "space" really is. We don't know how physical reality came to be. Those concepts fascinate us more than you can comprehend. We KNOW we don't know everything. That's what DRIVES us. That is ALSO what we've been trying to explain to the creationists who believe they DO know everything. Their M.O. is, "If I can't figure it out, I'll just give credit to a magical being. There, now it's explained! I must go on science forums and tell the curious to stop searching for answers because I just explained it with magic."

The more we learn about science and perceptions the more we realize their is in infinite amount of information we do not know and will never understand.

Read my above paragraph.
(continued...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
(...continued)
The more we learn about science and perceptions the more we realize their is in infinite amount of information we do not know and will never understand.

Read my above paragraph. I'm assuming you're directing this response to the creationists then.

So yes, everyone has faith in something even if its a spinning dot or God.

By definition, "Faith" is believing in something without evidence. A spinning dot? There's plenty of evidence for that. But evolution? It's not faith... not by any stretch of the definition. The evidence for evolution is completely overwhelming. It's everywhere. So no, /understanding/ evolution is the opposite of "faith". It makes logical sense and there's a plethora of physical evidence for it.

So stop whining about about differing views.

You're completely missing the point. No one's whining, not even the creationists.
(continued...)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
It's written so that rational, smart, and educated people, can learn.

No, it's written to promote politically correct agendas in science.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
(...continued)
This is a science forum. The creationists post things that are illogical, against known observations, and do it repeatedly. Those of us educated enough to see their mistakes have an ethical responsibility to respond and to correct it, hence my constant questioning of the creationists of if the universe is only 6000 years old, how is it that we see objects more than 6000 light years away. This is critically important to readers who may be sitting on the fence. Bad science needs to be stamped out as early as possible. Consider us "the peer review".

If you feel the need to constantly defend your view how strong is it really.

Seriously? So, if someone starts spreading lies about you, you should just sit back and do nothing because you have a strong view that they're wrong? The strength of "my view" is not defined by how much I "defend" it. If someone posts something that's illogical or just factually wrong, and I know it's illogical or factually wrong
(continued...)
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
(...continued)
I have a moral obligation to the readers that don't know enough about the subject to know it's wrong, to speak out and identify the mistakes.

Are you directing that question to the science nerds or to the creationists? It appears you're really directing it to the science nerds here, but I'd task you to direct it to the creationists who CONSTANTLY come on here "defending their view", unprovoked 99% of the time.

In short, when someone posts something illogical or factually wrong, we WILL respond. Period.
(done)
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2011
In short, when someone posts something illogical or factually wrong, we WILL respond. Period.

Who is 'we'?
You certainly respond but not with facts or logic.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
It's written so that rational, smart, and educated people, can learn.

No, it's written to promote politically correct agendas in science.

I'm as Conservative as they get and I recognize and can't stand political correctness. I can most definitely say that evolution is NOT based on political correctness. It's based SOLELY on physical evidence and logic.

What my creationist neighbors need to understand is that people in science don't hold your (our) religion on any special pedestal above any other religion. They don't think about religion on a daily basis. It's not part of their daily thought process. They're not out on a mission to crucify religion. They honestly don't give a rat's a$$ about it.

They've come from a scientific, objective position. Have seen the evidence, and have made logical conclusions.

It's got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with political correctness.

This, from your friendly, hard-core conservative.

Why do we see objects more than 6000 light yrs away?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
In short, when someone posts something illogical or factually wrong, we WILL respond. Period.

Who is 'we'?
You certainly respond but not with facts or logic.

BS and you know it. I can see objects more than 6000 light years away (fact). Therefore, I presume the event was more than 6000 years ago (logic).

No creationist has yet to respond to that and I've been asking it, repeatedly, for months.

I'm also a hard-core programmer... have been for 29 years now. Trust me when I tell you that I'm an expert on logic. Some of the SIMPLEST logic I work with on a day to day basis is far beyond the comprehension of most lay people. I'm not bragging. This is a reality and a requirement for all programmers. Anyone in a specialty is an expert in their field, as am I. Logic is the field of expertise for programmers. If you want to debate me on logic, you've got a tough hill to climb, just as I would have difficulty debating you on your field of expertise.
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
Cold fusion featured in the LA Times in '89 before it was debunked. Environmentalists were aghast at the possibility of cheap clean energy:
Its like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of SkepticalScience.com, author of "Climate Change Denial")

Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland. Paul Ciotti (LA Times)

It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy. Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)

Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that. Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)
CSharpner
not rated yet Jun 12, 2011
ME:
They're not out on a mission to crucify religion.

Let me clarify: MOST are not. There are definitely SOME that ARE. But, the field, as a whole, is NOT.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2011
CLIMATEGATE 101: "Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." - Phil Jones
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2011
In short, when someone posts something illogical or factually wrong, we WILL respond. Period.

Who is 'we'?
You certainly respond but not with facts or logic.

Yeah sure. Meanwhile our friend Cliff Claven, sorry, I mean ryggesogn2, will make sure to fact check us...

LOL
KillerKopy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
Ok, it seems like you are proving my point when you keep quoting everyone without evidence of your point. All I was doing was making a point that all the blog is is people quoting other people. And by the way who said the universe is 6000 years old. not all creationist think that.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2011
I'm also a hard-core programmer... have been for 29 years now.

I am not surprised.
I have observed that those engaged in fields that allow one significant control of their environment tend to project onto complex systems that are poorly understood.

Many here claim to be scientific yet they support socialist policies that have been proven to fail. I can understand the appeal of socialism to some as they claim to be able plan for the betterment of all mankind. Such central planning always falls short because every individual has their own system of subjective values that cannot be addressed by central planning.
Rory Sutherland has an interesting POV on this.
http://www.zeitge...-science
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011
We deal with your questions, true were hoping there wouldn't be answers, time for you to answer ours.
Kevin likes to ask questions but he doesn't like to answer them. He learned this from his god. 'Where is your brother?' 'Whats with the fig leaves?' 'Does Job really love me?' 'Why have you forsaken me?'

God and Kevin are beyond answers because they really don't need them. They already KNOW what the answers are and they think we ought to also, if only we weren't so GODLESS.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2011
"Gambetta and Hertog write about a particular mind-set among engineers that disdains ambiguity and compromise. They might be more passionate about bringing order to their society and see the rigid, religious law {or the rigid bureaucracy of the Regulatory State} put forward in radical Islam {OR a socialist Regulatory State} as the best way of achieving those goals. "
http://www.slate....2240157/

Maybe this explains why the 'progressives' are so forgiving of Muslim terrorists. They are fellow travelers.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2011
Many here claim to be scientific yet they support socialist policies that have been proven to fail.


I have been waiting for your answer on another thread:
Correction:
World Bank data supports the theory that freedom increases prosperity and socialism makes people poorer.
http://www-wds.wo...5660.pdf


yeah right... without socialism people that got injured and can no longer do their jobs, because they cant find a job, dont have money for school etc. wouldnt even survive.

freedom my ass, how can you be free when you dont have money todo anything? socialism actually enhances peoples freedom. the idea is that everyone has the right to live and develop so they can have a role in society. how else are these people going to school or live when they get injured if it wasnt for government giving them money.

Hey you got your money what do you care?


PS. I am also a computer scientist and these systems are very well understood and simple. Maybe they seem complex to u.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2011
I'm also a hard-core programmer... have been for 29 years now.

I am not surprised.
I have observed that those engaged in fields that allow one significant control of their environment tend to project onto complex systems that are poorly understood.

Many here claim to be scientific yet they support socialist policies that have been proven to fail


LMAO! Dude, you're not making any sense... at all. You DO realize that I'm a hard core Conservative right? This won't make my fellow scientific nerd friends here who happen to lean left happy, but I was in DC on the capital lawn protesting Obamacare. I was at Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally on 8/28 in front of the Lincoln Memorial. I've been in multiple debates on this site arguing AGAINST socialism in FAVOR of personal liberty, even to your defense at times. Linking ME to Socialism and the desire to control others is like linking Obama to Glenn Beck. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Answer the 6000 Q.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2011
Now you know I'm a Conservative, and you know I favor personal liberty over gov controlling our lives, so I don't get your attempt at linking my logic and programming career to the need to control other people as I consistantly argue the opposite.

Now that that's out of the way and your attempt at diversion has now ended, let's get back on topic: you accused me of not using logic, which I believe has now been put to rest, and you accused me of not using facts, which is clearly not true (we DO see objects more than 6000 light years away (fact))... Now, let's see YOU use some facts and logic:

If we can see objects more than 6000 light years away, explain to us how that is if the universe is only 6000 years old.

Don't divert into politics (we mostly agree there). Don't divert by making accusations about me or others. Just answer the question. How do we see objects more than 6000 LY away if the universe is only 6000 years old.

This is YOUR chance to show YOU can use facts and logic.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2011
"Rory Sutherland has an interesting POV on this." - RyggTard

Good link. He really destroys the fundamental assumptions of fool Libertarian Economists like Von Mises and Hyaek.

Well done TardBoy.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2011
"Cold fusion featured in the LA Times in '89 before it was debunked. Environmentalists were aghast at the possibility of cheap clean energy:" - Nik

Three was no such reaction from the environmentalist movement.

In fact the reaction was one of quiet optimism.

Why do you feel a need to lie about such things? Does it strengthen your Tard world view?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2011


Good link. He really destroys the fundamental assumptions of fool Libertarian Economists like Von Mises and Hyaek.


You did not listen very well.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Jun 12, 2011
"You did not listen very well." - RyggTard

Like every member of the traitorous Libertarian Faithful, you are incapable of hearing that which contradicts your sick, corrupt, world view.

Death will be your only release from a life of self imposed ignorance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 13, 2011
Rory stated quite clearly von Mises was his hero.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2011
Rory stated quite clearly von Mises was his hero.

And Ayn Rand has stated rather clearly that William Pickman is her hero, yet you still look up to her.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2011
Rory stated quite clearly von Mises was his hero.

And Ayn Rand has stated rather clearly that William Pickman is her hero, yet you still look up to her.

Rand is not my hero. Rand, like SH, was an atheist who likes govt.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2011
BTW, who is William Pickman?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011
It's written so that rational, smart, and educated people, can learn.

No, it's written to promote politically correct agendas in science.


Prove it. At least explain how it's most likely that the entire world of thousands of scientists actively, or even passively, conspires to push ONE overarching agenda. Explain how, just because they happen to agree on the main points of a world view, that this somehow equates to a "politically correct" agenda, whatever the heck that means.
Gabe
2 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2011
Right from the beginning evolution theory cannot actually work. It is time to put the the theory into trash as the evidence in genetics is clear that the shaping and functioning of life forms come from code. Bones from ancient life forms do not and cannot explain or support evolution. Whether these are dinosaurs or bacteria, it remains that amino acids cannot by themselves form into a logical system to construct the structures for cell formation, DNA or code creation reproduction, energy conversion, diversification that must exist right from the beginning of the existence of the first life form. Evolution is now a religion requiring a leap of faith beyond reason. It may have been a good scientific inquiry a century ago but with genetics it is now time to drop the whole thing. The continuing belief on the theory despite the work of geneticists and Craig Venter indicate to us that the theory is being sustained not by evidence but by faith.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 15, 2011
It's written so that rational, smart, and educated people, can learn.

No, it's written to promote politically correct agendas in science.


Prove it. At least explain how it's most likely that the entire world of thousands of scientists actively, or even passively, conspires to push ONE overarching agenda. Explain how, just because they happen to agree on the main points of a world view, that this somehow equates to a "politically correct" agenda, whatever the heck that means.


Prove all scientists are independent. That is the assertion of scientists and yours is it not?

From Max Planck: 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Planck observed scientists were quite dependent.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011
You made the assertion. You are having a discussion with me, not some straw man. Your MO is pathetically predictable.

Also, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

Do you comprehend my meaning?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011

Gabe,

You appear to not be aware of something. If you are a geneticist in the US (good sample size), you have, and I'm guessing, at the VERY least, a 95% chance of believing in evolution.

A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
- wikipedia http://
en.wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

amino acids cannot by themselves form into a logical system


Could you define logical system in this context? I don't understand what you mean here.

construct the structures for cell formation


Can you explain why that would be a necessity for self replicating organic molecules? Even if, couldn't other causes be possible? RNA trapped in bubbles, perhaps. Just brainstorming.

cont...
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2011
code creation reproduction


Why couldn't their be a gradual precursor to this?

energy conversion


Huh? Energy is converted all the time by inorganic material. Isn't this an obvious prerequisite for evolution and not a necessary change evolution 'waits' for?

diversification that must exist right from the beginning of the existence of the first life form.


Why? I think the theory, at present, doesn't rely on multiple "sparks," if you get my meaning.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2011
Right from the beginning evolution theory cannot actually work
False.

the evidence in genetics is clear that the shaping and functioning of life forms come from code
False on two counts. The shaping of the DNA is by the environment. There is no code just chemistry.

What we have here is another person that has accepted Dembski's bullshit without actually reading what he REALLY said.

Nowhere in Dembski's paper did he EVER, nor has he ever since, used his dubious math on actual genetics.

No one in Dembski's field agrees with his claim that specifications can be made after the fact. It has always been a sign of a really bad MISuse of statistics to do so.

Even if Dembski's claim wasn't unacceptable to working statistics experts AND he had actually run the numbers, which he hasn't got the guts to do, AND those numbers showed that there was some indication that DNA had been shaped by non random forces he still would not proved anything that science doesn't already know.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2011
The 'information' came from the environment. No god is needed for that to happen. Dembski is a bad mathematician and is clearly a member of Liars For JesusTM* or rather Jehovah.

*Liar For Jesus is a nonexistent yet nevertheless real organization which tells lies to support their beliefs. The Discovery Institute is a major contributor at this time.

Bones from ancient life forms do not and cannot explain or support evolution
I sure never claimed they did so. Evolutionary theory is EXPLAINS the bones. Not the other way around. The bones are real and they do show evolution in action. The only real question is the cause. Which is mutation followed by selection whether natural selection combined with things like the Founder Affect.

it remains that amino acids cannot by themselves form into a logical system to construct the structures for cell formation
Nor is anyone claiming that happened. Indeed we are claiming that Evolution via mutation and selection is how it happened.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2011
You really need to learn from people that actually understand it instead of members of Liars For JesusTM.

diversification that must exist right from the beginning of the existence of the first life form.
Indeed there certainly was diversification from the start as the ability to mutate MUST be there for naturally selection to have an effect.

Evolution is now a religion requiring a leap of faith beyond reason.
Standard lie from religious YEC members of Liars For JesusTM. Expecting the Universe to be at least somewhat comprehensible is not faith just reason. And since that thinking has worked for hundreds of years faith really isn't an issue at all. Now faith in things that are clearly wrong IS always based on religion.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2011
It may have been a good scientific inquiry a century ago but with genetics
It now makes sense as without genetics the idea was that characteristics would blend and that had serious problems since it does not match the evidence. However evolution based on genetics does match the evidence.

You really should know that we have all since this crap you are pushing before. It is crap and almost all intentional lies even if you didn't know they were lies.

he continuing belief on the theory despite the work of geneticists and Craig Venter
Who is fully aware the genetics and his work fully supports evolutionary theory. Indeed it has expanded our knowledge of the details of evolution. That was a pretty stupid claim to make Gabe. You really are completely without a clue.

us that the theory is being sustained not by evidence but by faith.
Lie.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2011
Here have a Christian site covering this. I came up with Liars For Jesus before him. Don't know if he came up with it independently.

http://www.proof-...ion.com/]http://www.proof-...ion.com/[/url]

Home page
http://www.proof-...ion.com/]http://www.proof-...ion.com/[/url]

Other good sites to decrease your level of ignorance.

http://www.ucmp.b...life.php]http://www.ucmp.b...life.php[/url]

http://www.ucmp.b...life.php]http://www.ucmp.b...life.php[/url]

http://en.wikiped...periment

[url]http://pandasthumb.org/[/url]

[url]http://pandasthumb.org/[/url]

A page full of links to reduce ignorance

[url]http://pandasthumb.org/[/url]links.html

The classic source for these discussions
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Now that your claims have been dealt with how about you support your beliefs with evidence for the Great Flood and a date for it. The nearest century will do.>>
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Jun 16, 2011
Yes I know the Discovery Institute told all the ignorant Creationists to never deal with that question, that was long after I started asking it, and I know why they say that. Because if you look into it you will find that your religion is wrong, at least if your religion includes a belief in the Flood and ALL YECs, even Muslims, believe in the Flood as do many Old Earth Creationists. Wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Behe believed in it.

Ethelred
aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2011
Right from the beginning evolution theory cannot actually work. It is time to put the the theory into trash as the evidence in genetics is clear that the shaping and functioning of life forms come from code. Bones from ancient life forms do not and cannot explain or support evolution. Whether these are dinosaurs or bacteria, it remains that amino acids cannot by themselves form into a logical system to construct the structures for cell formation, DNA or code creation reproduction, energy conversion, diversification that must exist right from the beginning of the existence of the first life form. Evolution is now a religion requiring a leap of faith beyond reason. It may have been a good scientific inquiry a century ago but with genetics it is now time to drop the whole thing. The continuing belief on the theory despite the work of geneticists and Craig Venter indicate to us that the theory is being sustained not by evidence but by faith.


Troll.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jun 29, 2011
I wish to thank Gabe for his stunning rebuttal of my posts.

Unfortunately I can't actually thank him for that since all he has managed is a standard hit and run post saturated with lies and nonexistent logic and no facts. His unwillingness to reply is ample evidence that he was fully aware that his post was packed with nonsense.

So Gabe since you had to know you couldn't support yourself why did you bother posting the crap?

Ethelred
aroc91
1 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2011
I wish to thank Gabe for his stunning rebuttal of my posts.

Unfortunately I can't actually thank him for that since all he has managed is a standard hit and run post saturated with lies and nonexistent logic and no facts. His unwillingness to reply is ample evidence that he was fully aware that his post was packed with nonsense.

So Gabe since you had to know you couldn't support yourself why did you bother posting the crap?

Ethelred


Exactly. Their drive by/hit and run posting technique really is quite funny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jun 29, 2011
"Can evolution outpace climate change?"

"Evolution to the rescue: Researchers offer hope that species may adapt quickly to rapid environmental change"
http://www.physor...firstCmt