Science simply needs good scientists - looking at particularl scenarios and problems from a variety of hypotheses, and with a variety of methods. Some repeatability of methods and studies by different groups, however, is desirable.

Science also involves good communication -
a. being able to articulate hypotheses and how they are derived, often based on past and recently acquired knowledge;
b. outlining methodology
c. discussing conclusions based on the new information and past information, and being able to outline limitations, and being able to outline new areas for research.

A key issue is negative information, and the ideal that that is put in "the literature" for others to use.

Communication also involves putting new studies "in context" in the public domain, and not overstating or understating.

The information about the hockey stick doesn't make climate change false, nor does the present scenario necessarily correlate to the medieval period. It is a question of degree and rate of change, and whether theya re variable, too.

Great Article ..

On confirmation bias, it is constantly chanted by believers that skeptics are funded by the fossil fuel industry .. why there's one regular poster on OLO who claims he can show any skeptic named can be proved to be in the pay of big oil .. right up until you challenge it.

"There is no great fossil-fuel slush fund for skeptics." and that's the big truth that the believers are in denial of, for them, skeptics have to be in the pay of someone, as all correct thinking people are part of the non challenging herd of believers.

Skeptics are the radical thinkers of the new age, they are going against the government and the general trend to the AGW believer state .. when reminded of this, most believers are amazed that they in fact are the "new establishment"

I read recently that global warming is confirmed!(BEST) Amazing! Skeptics wrong! Except that skeptics do believe the world is warming and that climate changes .. it's the cause and proposed "solutions" we question. The believer industry are the trickiest spin merchants in our time, but even with all the billions at their disposal, people are not convinced .. now that's amazing.

Me, climate change, bring it on, I welcome the world's many facets of change and will adapt.

What I find most frustrating is that claims made by alarmists and sceptics cannot be debated in a public forum. This article is a clear challenge to anyone who disagrees to put up or shut up. It would be great to have a forum where the reaction could be observed.

The conclusion that climate sceptics are vilified by alarmists is undeniable. As a sceptic (on many issues) I find the lack of balanced discussion on this topic incredibly annoying.

Socially engineered "mitigation" strategies based on fear driven by "models" that are (apparently) about as reliable as a tea leaf reading will ultimately have to be paid for by several generations of tax payers.

But maybe I'm just showing my own confirmation bias...

This article triggered a lot of confirmation for me.

Whilst I do think that that there is a good case that mankind's activities are and will impact on the climate I've been very bothered by the spin and tricks around this. The determination to tout any extreme weather event as confirmation of AGW (Brisbane floods earlier this year and other events) while ignoring earlier similar or worse events.

I've been bothered by the reports from various scientists and others who've found that refusing to toe the line on AGW has seen them shut out of their career's.

I've been very bothered by the efforts of politicians to use AGW to introduce taxes (or whatever name the spin merchants choose to use) to put more money under their control.

I've been bothered by political promoters of AGW who need to live in mansions and fly around the world in private/government jets to tell us how bad it all is.

I do think that there are a bunch of good reasons to move to more sustainable, fuel sources. Good reasons to find less energy efficient ways of living that maintain a good standard of living (and make that standard of living more achievable for those who don't have it).

I do think that there are some risks that we are not certain of which are worth attention and possibly action.

We do need to ensure that the response is not worse than the credible threat. We do need to ensure that the response has credible outcomes which will help the problem and not just satisfy peoples hunger to "do something" regardless of how pointless that something is.

R0bert

Well I sure hope Matt Ridley is correct.

Because this non-expert will risk one forecast.

We are NOT going to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way. So our children will be able to say whether the forecasts of climate catastrophe turn out ot be correct.

I won't bother to point out some of the inaccuracies in the piece - eg that it was warmer in the middle ages. (It wasn't so far as we know).

Phlogiston is not pseudoscience as the article maintains. It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time. Burned matter was observed to be lighter than unburned matter. Scientists on that basis hypothesised that matter loses substance through the combustion process and called that substance phlogiston. When oxygen was discovered, and it became known that the main combustion products of organic matter were carbon dioxide and water the phlogiston theory was discarded. Scientific theories that are discarded when new theories better describe a process are not pseudosience.

Newton's laws of motion were found inadequate to describe the motion of objects moving near the speed of light. However, Newton's laws of motion were a tremendous advance and did not become pseudoscience when relativistic motion was found to describe motion at all speeds.

If it is found that some entities move faster than the speed of light a new law of motion will supersede relativistic motion.

Pseudosciences like astrology simply have no scientific basis.

stevenlmeyer makes an excellent point in that there is no way we can curb CO2 emissions. But perhaps he does not realise, and few of our scientists do, that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (as opposed to the emissions - the stuff going into the atmsophere) are already far below the estimates made for their increase. Same for the other big one, methane. they simply will not make the levels set out in the 2007 Garnaut report business as usual projections for 2020, for example. Baring a massive change in present increases it just won't happen.

This is just one of many problems raised with the present orthodoxy which global warmers immediately scream and shout cannot be right, and accuse the person pointing it out by being in someone's pay.

You can accept a part of the global warming orthodoxy as Ridely has done but ther are just so many problems with the projections as they stand that they really have to be dumped, and done again - this time taking climate cycles into account, among many other things.

But then as Ridely also notes, any exercise in projecting future results of a chaotic system - particularly through computer models - are of very limited use.

Matt Ridley, like most climate "sceptics," mis-states the question:

The question is NOT:

>>Have scientists proved we are heading for climate catastrophe beyond all reasonable doubt?>>

The claims of some over-enthusiastic climate modellers notwithstanding, the answer is no. The only way of proving we're headed for climate catastrophe is to run the experiment – ie to continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – and see what happens.

The REAL question is this:

>>Is the available evidence strong enough to cause a prudent rational person to take action?>>

In real life we almost never have the luxury of 100% certainty on any important issue. If we demanded 100% certainty we'd never act. We almost always have to take important decisions based on our estimate of the probabilities.

In the case of climate the evidence, taken as a whole, without cherry picking, plus the basic physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases, points to a high likelihood, not a certainty but a high likelihood, of catastrophe if we continue pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

However since we're not going to curtail greenhouse gas emissions anyway this is a purely academic argument. Our children will just have to take their chances.

Curmudgeon

I did not say we cannot curb CO2 emissions.

I said we won't.

There is a difference.

pseudo science is smelt miles away by people who think rationally. When scientist tell the general public that their theories or fudges are to complex for the average Joe to understand, you can smell a rat. Usually honest scientist with no vested interest will then be silenced whent challenging the çonsensus'. We see it with the idiotic evolution fantasy as well as the money grabbing climate 'scientist'. Climategate revealled the lenghts that dishonest pollies and scienctist will go to in order impose their dogmas on people. Fraudsters like Al Gore and some prominent Australians have made large amounts of money from pseudo science.

Climate change is real and man made, look at the latest on cyclonic events and say there is nothing in it. Carbon + co2 = disaster. The way it is going it will end up a legal matter.

There needs to be a lot more of this sort of intelligent lay criticism of Science. It is not just the IPCC and its self-serving propaganda; in my view a good deal of science is corrupt or dysfunctional and frequently both, particularly in the environmental area. My own experience as a researcher in the Ocean Surface Wave field is a case in point (see http://www.scienceheresy.com/2011_04/index.html#1). The IPCC is just the most recent and most egregious example.

These guys have been getting away with it for decades mainly because they are not subject to external appraisal of the kind routinely applied to the work of medicos, lawyers and engineers. Once evidence and reason were abandoned, sycophancy and patronage came to hold sway. It’s almost mediaeval.

Runner. It might be intructional for you to read some real science from the Smithsonian Institute. Possibly the world's leading authority on the origins of man, including the bible.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution

You will notice that between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago, there were several hominids with similar characteristics to modern man (homo sapiens). For various reasons these others have died out, the most recent being homo neanderthalensis, whose fossil remains, dated about 28,000 years ago were found in a cave in Gibralter.

I would also urge you to look at

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Paleoanthropology.html#Family and

http://news.discovery.com/human/human-ancestor-australopithecus-sediba.html

I hope you find the above enlightening.

David

As far as climate change goes ...
1. Look at first principles -
a. Lots of fossil fuels have been brought out of the ground in the last 150 yrs(coal, oil, gas), processed, and combusted (burnt)
b. by-products include CO2 and other gases (including H20)
c. This equals a small % of total CO2 produced each yr
d. CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere & processed by vegetation
e. we have deforested a lot of the earth in the last 150 yrs.
f. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased steadily in the last 100 yrs or so, at a rate not previously seen without temp rises.
g. It is well modeled & projected that nett CO2 accumulation from fossil fuel burning would increase atmospheric CO2 levels
h. It is well documented and modeled that when atm. CO2 levels rise, temperature rises too.
i. We are continuing to produce and accumulate atm. CO2
j. Temps have risen.
k. .....

Most predict the human race and civilisation would survive climate change, but there is likely to be effects on some regions more than others, based as much on geo-politics or socio-economics as anything else (which is often the basic cause of famine crises, anyway)

That is likely to cause hardship, and conflict.

There are a few things we need to face up to - the first is that unlike people, not all opinions are created equal. I'm not a climate scientist.

Neither are most of you. So before any of us make any grand pronouncements, realize that there is no reason at all why anybody should listen to you on this particular topic.

That's why I'm not going to delve too far into the science.

I will make one point that I'd like you all to consider though - it's pretty clear that all natural environments consist of a fairly delicate ecological balance. You pump too many chemical into a lake and eventually you reach a tipping point and life in that lake dies. If you wipe out one species, other species die out as well. When Mao Zedong initiated the four pests campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign) he asked Chinese people to wipe out sparrows, mosquitoes, rats and flies.

History tells us how that turned out.

So, whether you believe in man-made climate change or not, wouldn't it be prudent for us to avoid altering the balance of our global environment, given the stakes?

I can't help but feel that most people have just jumped on one side of the argument, instead of stopping to seriously consider this point.

I’m VERY glad to see this on OLO! And I’m much encouraged by the comments so far: I’d expected to encounter a barrage of apoplectic outrage. It’s heartening to see so many measured responses.

The whole project of dividing the world into ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’ is profoundly unscientific at its core. So also is the practice of bruiting about apocalyptic predictions without releasing the underlying data, methodology, and calculations used to produce them. So also is the publication of results without clear and verifiable evidence of statistical significance. So also is manipulation of peer review. So also is the careless way that bodies like the IPCC allow WWF speculation to masquerade as valid research when it suits their purpose. So also is the refusal of too many institutions and scientists to retract over-reaching predictions when presented with solid evidence that their claims cannot possibly be sustained by any scientific method. Worst of all is the dreadfully ignorant assertion that ANY corner of science is EVER settled.

Ridley’s six lessons form a splendid platform from which to develop a POSITIVE critique climate science. There’s no conceivable scientific objection to any of them. Lots of good work has been done, but it’s useless in practical terms because the overarching warmist premise is pseudoscience: ‘A theory so flexible it can' [and too often does] 'rationalize any outcome.’

Thanks to Matt for the speech, and to OLO for spreading the word. Maybe we should all forward a copy to Julia Gillard. In fact, I think I’ll do just that.

donkeygod wrote:

>>There’s no conceivable scientific objection to any of them>>

You mean like the thoroughly debunked fairy tale that:

>>It was warmer in the Middle ages...>>

Is that what in your view there is "no conceivable scientific objection to any of them"

Turn right turn left, the moment anyone starts rabbiting on about the delicate balance of ecology I know I'm listening to someone easily conned.

Nature is most definitely not delicate. In fact it is ruthlessly ravenous, & will obliterate anything you or anyone else does, in a very short time.

What returns may be a little different to what was there before any disturbance, but who are you or I to say that is wrong, or bad.

I would love to take some of these ecological fools to just areas that were settled before WW11, & challenge them to find any residue of that settlement.

Then I'd take them to areas of the Solomon Islands, where the yanks fought just as viscous a war on the jungle, as they did against the Japs. It doesn't take long to see the jungle won.

The only place that man beats nature is where nature has given up, like the Egyptian desert. We are only now starting to find evidence of a civilisation about equal to the Egyptians in middle America, where nature was still interested.

The conquistadors reported millions of people in the Amazon basin, before they introduced white man disease. Archaeologists are only now starting to believe this, as they find the evidence. Of course they have to be careful how they report these findings. Greenies, & thus Academia prefer to think of the Amazon as pristine. They hate the idea of a civilisation of millions there previously.

Stevenlmeyer
I am sure the author would agree that the question is not “Have scientists proved we are heading for climate catastrophe beyond all reasonable doubt?” This is not the question he asks, or the question he attempts to answer. Rather, he asks whether the case for global warming is propounded in a way that is consistent with scientific method, or whether it is pseudo-science. He concludes that much of it is the latter.

I agree with you that the balance of evidence suggests climate change action is prudent. But I also agree with R0bert and donkeygod. Though I am not a sceptic, I am concerned at the pseudo-scientific way in which Anthropogenic climate change is often propounded, and the highly unscientific way in which “deniers” are silenced or derided.

This does not make the AGW theory wrong – there is plenty of legitimate scientific evidence for it. But we are never going to get the theory or policies right if genuine, rigorous, sceptical science is displaced by pseudo science.

Thank you, Heretic Ridley.

Science, as you suggest, is not a democracy. Scientific knowledge does not advance by consensus (bandwagon fallacy), nor by appealing to the (pseudoscientific) Precautionary Principle in its many guises (bogus analogies, red herrings, risk, insurance, subjective "probabilities", etc).

It does not advance AT ALL if statements and hypotheses claimed to be scientific are, in a fundamental sense, unfalsifiable and untestable; where what are often merely descriptions of changing natural phenomena ("climate change") masquerade as causal explanations and are promoted ($$$) as such by too many who should know better; or where they involve predictions (aka "projections") so distant, vague, ambiguous or absurd they are meaningless.

A timely warning. Beware of tricks that deliberatly mingle scientific knowledge and speculation. Just as religion should not pass itself off as science, so too science should not start sounding religious (apocalyptic warnings, climate alarmism, tipping points, etc), especially when its arguments, hypotheses, "proofs" are muddled, confused, inadequate, "complex", ad hoc, etc.

Hasbeen, you state:

"Turn right turn left, the moment anyone starts rabbiting on about the delicate balance of ecology I know I'm listening to someone easily conned.
Nature is most definitely not delicate. In fact it is ruthlessly ravenous, & will obliterate anything you or anyone else does, in a very short time."

You haven't actually refuted any points I made, you just made do with insulting my intelligence. I don't appreciate the condescending tone, but I'll refrain from descending to that level, and I'll actually address your argument.

Sure, nature is vicious and brutal. I don't whitewash the violence and brutality that exists. That's the way it goes.

But to argue that it's not a complex, delicate system is way off base.

Did you pay any attention to the link I put forward earlier?

What would you say to the villagers who starved to death because Chairman Mao decided they should kill all the sparrows?

Would you just tell them that they're easily conned and that we don't actually need sparrows?

Sure, things improved again.

That was because they stopped killing all the damn sparrows - which proves my point.

TurnRightThenLeft

no, the real question is why should anyone listen to the scientists.. those who study forecasting systems point out that there is no evidence that expert opinion by itself matters a damn in making forecasts.. see
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/

what does matter is does the theory they are using have a successful track record? Evolution has a successful track record, so does Quantum mechanics and vaccination, and so on.. climate forecasting has no track record of any kind, except where they use climate cycles to forecast.

The computer models they are using to make forecasts are virtually assumed to be correct, with only back testing (matching the output to past results) as verification. but backtesting is also known to be useless as a check on models. They have to be able to forecast results unknown at the time of the forecast. In this the models have, to date, mostly failed.

I other words there is virtually nothing underpinning the theory but a co-incidence.. In this instance, a forecast made by a formidably qualified climate scientist is just as good as one you or I might make off the top of our heads.

VK3AUU

The links you provide are fine examples of fantasy dressed up as science (pseudo science). It is beyond belief that any non deluded scientist could believe in such nonsense.

oh dear fail again the author falls into his own trap. Now as everyone knows science is the attempt to understand the world in which we live. Now the main tool in the scientist kit bag.. hell the only tool kit it the scientific method. What's that you ask. well it boils down to this scientist gather fast, they then build a model that explains thaose facts and here the important part.. The model (theory) then needs to be able to predict future behaviour. If it cann't predict future states it's not science.

Now what is the author basically saying. well that science can not perdict future states. what evidence does he have that this is the case....none. Except a vague statment about futurist( who cares we are talking about science). How does he ingornse reality and all of science to do this, and keep a straght face, well who knowns.

Hello all, ah agw, what a concept, steal from 99% of the sheeple, give it to the 1% of the worlds filthy, stinking, super rich, so they can move on to the next "shell game" of gambling on carbon dioxide dereivatives with our money.

"moving forwards" the pollies who do this, the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance dare to suggest they are the "workers friend". what a joke & they even wonder why their polling figures are so low.

What happens when an investigative journalist looks at the hockey stick graph?

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert/ there never were 4,000 of these "scientists", heaps of their work was NOT peer reviewed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzNwjfbVt-U&feature=related Dawkins so favoured of the Atheists & skeptics denouncing academic fraud, loony left wing feMANazi politics & their deluded determination to question Logical thought processes, so they can be emotional instead.

What is a communazi to do when their favourite skeptical scientist is not on their side for once

I found this to be a very interesting and stimulating argument. Clearly there can be no fool proof way of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Matt Ridley offers several interesting examples; especially interesting in this regard is when a onetime heretical viewpoint becomes the orthodoxy of the next generation.

My approach is that one must consider the evidence and weigh the pros and cons, then exercise scientific judgment. Which theory fits in best with my previous scientific experience and training? So I come to a judgment which is not necessarily the same conclusions as that of other people. Not being a climate scientist I cannot think of experiment to decide between science of climate and the pseudoscience. But climate science is for the most part an observational and statistical discipline and presents little opportunity for direct controlled physical experiment.

The questions raised by some climate scientists are not themselves scientific; rather it is the interface between science and societal concerns. The adjective “dangerous”, or “lethal” to describe changes in global temperature, or by the same token radiation exposure are emotive not scientific terms. They determine a belief system. I cannot help but notice that the most prominent and vocal advocates of anthropogenic global warming are frequently of the political left. A further observation is that some climate scientists, who are committed to global warming theory, are not arguing the science, but have adopted the technics of political advocacy.

It is by no means clear to me that the prognostication of a catastrophic increase in global temperature is reasonable. Or that political intervention such a as a carbon tax will in some magical and miraculous manner avert an imaginary environmental disaster

The author only deals with the problems as a matter of the climate science. He doesn't even mention the fatal defects as a matter of ecological science nor social science, which are perhaps even greater.

What I find annoying about the discussion is that both sides are focussed on the positive question whether there is a sufficient warming trend.

But even if there were, the normative question is even more glaring... so what? That doesn't mean that government is presumptively capable of
a) knowledge of the upsides versus the downsides, as between present human values versus future human values and
b) even if they did which they don't, knowledge that a given policy action would produce net positive, as versus net negative consequences.
c) and that's only as to knowledge. But similar glaring defective abysses yawn also in front of the question of government's presumed selflessness, and capacity.

Thus quite apart from the issues of positive science, there is even more of a flagrant bankruptcy of reason and evidence in the warmist posture towards the social science.

Yes they are already killing people by the hundreds of thousands - after they were correctly warned this would be the result of their methods.

Runner,

"It is beyond belief that any non deluded scientist could believe in such nonsense."

What, in fossils? I assure you that fossils are real, runner. I've held them in my own two hands, which is more than you've done with your deity.

Runner probably still thinks that the heavenly bodies rotate around the earth.

David

The Acolyte Rizla,

Fossils are certainly real but they certainly make a mockery of the evolution tale.

Runner,

Ah yes, God planted all the fossils to test our faith when he created the world 6000 years ago.

runner,

"Fossils are certainly real but they certainly make a mockery of the evolution tale."

How so?

I'm glad this article is on OLO, I read it last week in the original, but was interested to see how it would take the usual OLO hysterics. would take it.

No surprises there, closed minds are closed minds, at least skeptics are open to read and listen to anything, not agree with it, but am happy to continue to learn.

There will be no debate in the AGW or not argument, the AGW scientists horde (most of them) who are well attached to grants and their positions have made it quite clear it is not worth the risk and they claim, the science is too complex to argue in a few hours.

Probably right, but my thought on why they don't want to debate is they really don't understand enough about climate to debate it, the science is too vast and is well beyond us at this stage of our development.

Maybe in another 100 years or so we'll have a better understanding, but we clearly don't now, why we don't even know how or why clouds form .. that's kind of basic to climate and weather is it not?

It's great to see more and more rational papers and articles as the fear of the establishment breaks down, and people feel up to challanging it.

If you go over to the ABC and to a degree here, you can see the government's useful idiots in action .. the benefits are clear to them, money in their pockets. The Gillard government is offering a cash incentive to support her Big New Tax .. why, you'll be better off and the believers line up to chant her glory.

It make same smile when the same people waiting for their ALPGreen cheques, claim, with no substance, that skeptics are in the pay of someone .. anyone.

Poor Runner,

Imposing restrictions of proof upon others but bases his own reality on something entirely based on myths and faith and for which no proof is possible.

How convenient.

Blaming something that's been researched for at least 50 years on Al Gore is like claiming that Sir Richard Attenborough actually discovered all those animals he presents on his documentaries

Excellent description of science vs pseudo-science. Science is indeed the art of the skeptical, evidence based mind. Of course like most successful movements there are hangers-on and those who are initially taken as cranks, yet eventually found to be "ahead of their time".
Physics, chemistry, biology are all based on repeatable experiments and hard maths. Climate science however cannot claim the same rigor...they are doing the best they can based on available evidence...and yes, computer models.
Keep in mind that these are essentially the same models that compute the weather forecasts that folks rely on. These are based on known physical laws (unlike economic or social models) and can be tested and refined *within the limits of a chaotic system*. The "butterfly effect" effectively makes precise "prediction" impossible. The probabilities are "dumbed down" for mass consumption, hence the 30% change of rain within a "pixel" of the model may or may not occur.
With Global Climate Models the entire Earth energy budget must be modeled. Digging up and burning several million years worth of carbon within a couple of hundred years certainly *should* have an impact...theory says so, and the data is increasingly heading that way.
I too am not a Climate Scientist...but I work with a bunch of them and whilst still not convinced there is not some "group think" going on, I can assure you they are not doing it for the money! (given salaries and working conditions this is laughable). I'm hoping the "global conspiracy of scientists" notion isn't taken too seriously either! That said, the data on sea surface temps, air temps, upper air temps and the understanding of water vapour, SO2, soot, etc is still pointing to "trouble ahead" and confirming the theory.
But...taking a longer view, the Earth suffers periodic episodes of vulcanism, asteroid/meteorite impacts, and mini-ice ages. Perhaps this slow motion disaster with added guilt (by some) will give us time to get out of our cradle and to focus on sustainable living, instead of just using technology to breed better and suck resources from nature at an accelerating rate.

There are no unqualified "scientific truths" and few that aren't eventually debunked.

More importantly, Ridley is himself a shameless and flagrant exponent of confirmation bias. He admits to this to a certain falsely modest extent, but that's just the tip of the ice-berg, he's oblivious of the bulk of it. Ridley's rational optimism is a monumental confirmation bias that ties him to neo-liberalism and market-based solutions to AGW, for instance, (though he's also an irrational denier whatever he says) when it is plain that the requisite and perpertual economic growth, in a closed system, is not only impossible, but is exponentially productive of the very carbon emissions this economic method purports to reduce--not to mention population growth, resource depletion, species extinction, biospheric degradation etc. All of this for Ridley is just so much negative thinking--he's just as much in denial as a fundamentalist Christian who denies the evidence of the fossil record--though at least Christians, however deluded, are meant to have ethics.
I assert that Matt Ridley is defending either an ingenuous or a disingenuous, but either way monumental, confirmation bias. I'll give him credit for being smart enough to be disingenuous--he figured out crop circles so he must fathom his own duplicity. His "optimism" about the future, despite the horrendous impacts the growing human presence is having locally and globally; his faux-scepticism about the dangerously accumulating effects of human activity on climate; and his willingness to relegate the vast majority of the scientific community to a collective confirmation bias (while ignoring his own), speaks volumes about his economic myopia and his spoiled, aristocratic perspective.
I wonder if Viscount Ridley and Lord Monckton have neighbouring castles and similar investments and vested interests? They seem to have identical confirmation bias!

Squeers,

Dr. Matt Ridley is NOT a viscount, nor indeed any other variety of peer, until such time as his old man buys the farm. And Lord Monckton is actually a viscount, not a lord. And both these facts are irrelevant, and by raising them you have committed an ad hominem fallacy: arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the titles of those advancing said arguments.

The Acolyte Rizla

This from Wikipedia:

"He is the son and heir of Viscount Ridley, whose family estate is Blagdon Hall, near Cramlington, Northumberland. Ridley is married to the neuroscientist Anya Hurlbert and lives in northern England; he has a son and a daughter.[2] He is a great grandson of Sir Edwin Lutyens".

I cannot help what Monkton calls himself, he is popularly known as "Lord Monkton", though I do believe there's been some delicious controversy over that.

But onto your charge:
"these facts are irrelevant, and by raising them you have committed an ad hominem fallacy: arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not the titles of those advancing said arguments".

These facts are not irrelevant, nor ad hominem falacy. In the context of my post they are vitally important. I was accusing Ridley of monumental confirmation bias, vested in the fact that his "optimism" and "scepticism" just happen to serve his considerable material interests in life.
Ridley happens also to be an economist, whom I accuse above of being a neoliberal; this from the wiki link:
"In every age and at every time there have been people who say we need more regulation, more government. Sometimes, they say we need it to protect exchange from corruption, to set the standards and police the rules, in which case they have a point, though often they exaggerate it...
... The dangerous idea we all need to learn is that the more we limit the growth of government, the better off we will all be."

He also presided over the failure of Northern Rock, wherein his confirmation bias kept him oblivious from that too. Read the whole exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley

Apart from being an aristocrat, Ridley, like his friend Dawkinns, is a neoliberal rationalist.

I would be delighted if you or anyone took issue with the substance of my post--or do you have a bias?

And yet, and yet...
The arctic sea ice is melting, the glaciers are shrinking, major weather events are more common and so on.
It may be a natural occurrence come back again, but then again it may not. The point that we will probably not reduce our reliance on carbon-based energy, and hence our descendants will be able to answer this question, is a good one.
It's also a scary one.
Sourcing this carbon is proving to be a dirty business, and it grows in dirtiness as the carbon gets harder to source. Do we really think that oil spills like the one in the Gulf of Mexico have no long term effects?
And this coal-seam gas extraction with its very real danger to our short and long term water supply? How short sighted is that?
There are too many of us on this one planet to turn off the lights.
Perhaps the best outcome from this climate debate is that we look carefully at how we source the power we all use, and that we all want, and need, to keep on using.

Squeers
Since you disclaim rationality as an intellectual method - it's just an ideological tool of those bourgeois running dogs - how could anyone prove or disprove your allegation of confirmation bias, or anything for that matter?

But thanks for so candidly exhibiting the method and standard of argumentation that underlies policy action on global warming.

If only government had control of everything, then what a paradise of environmental sustainability we would live in, eh?

Talking of confirmation bias....George Monbiot asserts that Ridley's book "The Rational Optimist" is telling the rich and powerful what they want to hear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jun/18/matt-ridley-rational-optimist-errors

Squeers,

"He is the son and heir of Viscount Ridley"

Exactly: he is not Viscount Ridley himself until the current Viscount Ridley (his father) shuffles off the mortal coil. This really isn't rocket science, although I can see why you'd struggle with it*.

And no, you cannot help what Viscount Monckton calls himself. But you can help what you call Viscount Monckton, can't you?

But their peerages can only be considered relevant, and your comments non-fallacious, if one can demonstrate a logical connection betwixt their peerages and their ability to formulate sound scientific arguments; i.e. if your argument was of this form:

(1) Hereditary peers are incapable of formulating sound scientific arguments.
(2) Dr. Matt Ridley is a hereditary peer.

Therefore: Dr. Matt Ridley is incapable of formulating sound scientific arguments.

Which is a rubbish argument: both the premises are false. Being granted a peerage does not somehow render folk incapable of formulating sound scientific arguments, or poor old William Thompson would have had a very rough time of it when he was made Lord Kelvin. And as I've pointed out, Dr. Ridley doesn't get even get the title until his old man is finished with it.

*Because you're not very bright.

Strictly speaking, if he hasn't inherited, he's not an heir, he's an heir apparent.

A very important point in the global warming argument apparently.

Thanks, Poirot. Just had a look at the Monbiot link. It's great! When I teach essay writing to my students, I'll use it. What a treasure trove of rhetorical devices! Ad hominen, ad odium, ad metum, ad consequentiam, ad nauseam ... a veritable salad of didactic invective, well dressed with hyperbole and sarcasm ... I LOVE Monbiot's major premise: if you tell nasty people what they want to hear, you must be wrong, while if you tell nice people what THEY want to hear, you're probably right. Now THAT's a novel way to address climate science and its critics! I'm impressed. When someone goes to such extreme length to make sure I DON'T read a book, I'm almost certain to enjoy it. And I did, in fact. Don't agree with everything Ridley says, of course, but he asks some very, very good questions, and his arguments can require a good deal of mental effort to counter. Which is why I like his speech: those who feel obliged to dismiss or denounce his criticisms because it's too hard to refute them ... there's your definition of a 'believer'. Personally, I'd like to hold climate scientists to the highest possible standards, precisely because there IS so much at stake. If that makes me and Ridley 'deniers', so be it.

TAR,

Ridley's "sound arguments", as Squeers asserts, are coloured by his neoliberal leanings.

In "The Rational Optimist" Ridley lambastes government regulation and interference in free (and reckless) marketeering. This after a parliamentary Treasury select committee accused Ridley, as chairman of Northern Rock, of "high-risk, reckless business strategy".

That the media, according to Monbiot, "simply look the other way....{and act as] a massive right-wing echo chamber" is hard to deny.

That m'dear is confirmation bias - something which Ridley and his ilk rely upon for their credibility.

Peter Hume,
I don't and have never discounted "rationality as an intellectual method", I have been justly sceptical about it--and this is after all Ridley's own position here, he just (perhaps) doesn't realise he's caught in its coils himself. As usual, you have nothing to offer but the spittle from the chops of your malice.

Poirot, thanks for the corroborative article.

The Acolyte Rizla,

Well this is disappointing, I had thought that perhaps you were capable of interrogating your confirmation bias (as a matter of fact all but a couple of the posts above are instances of confirmation bias, with no critical examination given to the article at all, just eager confirmation), but all you can do is try to salvage your position by splitting airs with me. The material fact is that Ridley comes from "precisely" the economic, intellectual and aristocratic spectrum I cite above and he has a vested and "logical" interest in protecting. Accordingly his publications do just that!
I accept your apology by default since I don't expect to receive one, as all you can do is cast aspersions and equivocate over trivia in response (the fact that he doesn't inherit the title and the estate till daddy dies. Well I stand corrected on that momentous point!)
It never ceases to amaze me how contradiction is so resented at OLO. That is the modus operandi of science btw; some brave soul proffers a hypothesis and his colleagues set about mercillously destroying it.
I welcome that kind of response. I am grateful to he or she who contradicts and vanquishes any position I take. What is the point in debating our opinions here if it isn't to improve on and transcend them. We are all fallible, and yet we cling to our biases in the teeth of argument, however compelling, as if we were infallible!
If Ridley is serious in his contentions above, then he should interrogate his position more closely. As it is, for me he is either a fool or a hypocrite in writing an article that is so easily turned on himself.

@ Poriot,

<< Talking of confirmation bias....George Monbiot asserts that Ridley's book "The Rational Optimist" is telling the rich and powerful what they want to hear.>>

Talking of confirmation bias... you couldn't find too many better examples than George Monbiot and The Guardian...except, perhaps, those who cite them as credible authorities.

SPQR,

The point I was making to was that Monbiot's article alluded to the very "confirmation bias" that Ridley was talking about. I don't deny that I gravitate to opinions that confirm my bias.
Monbiot was commenting on the (right-wing) media's confirmation bias in their failure to address Ridley's obvious self-interest as a neoliberal pundit and a spokesman for free and unregulated economic rationalism....even though his "rational optimist and neoliberal principled" chairmanship ran a bank into the ground and required a bailout from the very government that he wishes would leave the market to its own devices.

Confirmation bias...the Ridley's of this world are beholden to it and dependent on it - even as they warn against it

Poirot,

Ridley may well have a bias, but it doesn't necessarily follow that his arguments are unsound, and attempting to discredit arguments on the basis of the arguer’s bias is an example of the ad hominem fallacy. An argument's soundness or lack therof is contingent only upon its substance, and not on the arguer's character.

Squeers,

Is this really the best you can do? Continuing with your fallacious argument that Ridley's arguments are soundly rebutted on the grounds that he's a toff? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: the soundness or otherwise of Ridley's arguments are independent of his socio-economic status. There are an awful lot of variables which affect the climate, but I'm pretty damn sure that Dr. Ridley's bank balance isn't one of them.

Might I suggest that refuting the substance of Dr. Ridley's arguments, rather than merely dismissing them out-of-hand on the basis that he is an aristocratic neoliberal, may prove a more persuasive method of argument?

Squeers ignores the complete logical disproof of his argument, and just instantly returns to trying to cover for the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the global warming scam, by diverting the argument to ad hominem ad nauseam.

Squeers and Poirot's argument against Ridley is not logically about confirmation bias: it's logically that he's a class enemy.

Overall, an excellent article as was Matt's book The Rational Optimist. The point about confirmation bias is well made.

My one quibble is his throw away line regarding religion: Matt faults religion as a possible pseudo science because it "explicitly claims
that there are truths that can be found by other means than observation and experiment". Actually Christianity is quite happy to be judged on the evidence, in fact the New Testament and early church collected evidence and did all they could to publicise that evidence. Now we may not like that evidence because it doesn't fit with our naturalism (confirmation bias) but Christianity has never been shy about it's evidences. Christianity has always been about faith and reason, hand in hand, much like scientists (and atheists for that matter).

What 'evidence about Christianity/God are you talking about exactly, David Palmer?

The Bible was written by some mere mortals thousands of years ago.
Why do so many people believe what these men wrote?

No one has ever proven they have 'seen' or 'spoken to this mythical God.
Having 'faith in this mythical being is therefore a big stretch of the imagination.

That fact makes the core beliefs of Christianity a psuedoscience ......

Here's a three-part study of Ridley's contributions.
I'm sure you'll all deny your confirmation bias and give it some attention : )

http://skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle1.html

Hi Susanonline,

You are reflecting your own confirmation bias (as I do). Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago. We have abundant testamentary evidence from a vast array of sources stretching back to second century AD plus the history of the church bearing witness to the incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

All I'm saying, as a mild disagreement with Matt, is that Christians take that evidence extremely seriously for if there is no evidence for the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, then the cause is lost.

You are entitled to argue with the evidence (though I have doubts on the basis of your comment that you have tried to assess such evidence). What you are not entitled to reject is Christians' own declared understanding that Christianity is based on certain historical evidences - open to study/reason - concerning Jesus Christ.

I would have to say that Christianity is based more on faith than it is on reason. In fact, when it comes to the biblical accounts of creation, it would be correct to say that it has been scientifically proven to be absolutely erroneous. It doesn't even remotely fall into the classification of pseudo science. It is about the same standard as the aboriginal stories of the dreamtime.

David

David Palmer, Suseonline,

Other David is right. Christianity is neither science nor pseudoscience; it is religion - and folk who treat their Bibles as a scientific textbook come unstuck very quickly.

There are pseudoscientific beliefs which attach themselves to Christianity, such as young earth creationism. But most Christians accept that the Bible is not always meant to be taken literally, and that it need not always reflect reality to be considered a profoundly important work of literature.

Hi David,

Actually, I would say that the Biblical account of creation and the current scientific understanding of a Big Bang at the beginning of the Universe have a lot in common.

The Judeo Christian understanding is of God creating out of nothing, "in the beginning, God created". Until recent time following Aristotle it was held that there was no beginning, the Universe was eternal. However, today most physicists seem to be able to live with the view that origin of the universe, i.e. space-time is a singularity (as I would also argue is the case for Christ's incarnation and resurrection). I'm not calling on you to accept what I say but I am only continuing my argument contra Matt that Christianity is evidence based and furthermore, since you raise the matter, Genesis chapter 1 (the Bible) and modern scientific understanding of the origin of the Universe demonstrate an uncanny resemblance.

My apologies but I'm travelling the next couple of days but if you and Susan wish to continue the discussion I'm back mid week.

Cheers

David

Like The Acolyte Rizla I too am extremely doubtful about young earth creationism, though I also think evolution has well documented problems of its own. I like to think of myself as an undogmatic old earth creationist who sees value in evolution, at least at the micro level.

I say "undogmatic" because when it comes to religion and science far too many people are far too dogmatic about matters they barely understand.

Cheers

David

Thanks for the great article Poirot, which bears out everything I said and so saves me the bother of responding to the gaggle of obstinate geese here.

Great article. And he wasn't struck down by a bolt from the Earth for saying it.

Confirmation bias is a very good explanation of why people are so willing to believe such ideas as Global Warming.

Onya Matt Ridley.

" the current scientific understanding of a Big Bang "
Posted by David Palmer, Sunday, 6 Nov 7:44:33pm

There does not seem to be such a "current scientific understanding of the Big Bang". It is a hypothesis: a fledgling theory; a proposition.

There are a number of possibilities, including the ability for universes to come and go around a nett energy & mass state of near zero. Multiverses are another possibility.

David Palmer. I find it a bit strange that you are able to accept evolution only at the micro level. Surely there is a contradiction there which needs some explanation. I would refer you again to the primate family tree at http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics. This seems to have been substantially verified by the recorded fossil finds.

David

i allow my bias to support your bias
sorry..im all talked out re the debait

the conspiricy is too well supported
by those needing tax free govt grants

darn just as i was walking away..i read this challange

VK3AUU quote..""David Palmer.I find it a bit strange that you are able to accept evolution only at the micro level. Surely there is a contradiction there which needs some explanation.""

let me jump in here

at the micro level...[withing the genus mutation]
we get all dogs..evolving within the canus genus

same re catus genus
same re darwins finches
[in dry times the thick beaked surivive/breed better
in wety seasons the thin beaked thrive
they didnt evolve into another
they both float axccording to which are best 'designed'..for the relitive weather conditions

full stop

mate show me the first life..!
then name what it evolved into

was the first life a virus..
or a bacteria..or a worm or a mollasc?

""I would refer you..to the primate family tree at""

ok im there
lol...mate there is a great difference
between chimps..and bonobo-s..

then man

funny how they dont explain the missing link

anyhow ol mate get me the base of the tree
ie NAME THE FIRST LIFE

name what it ..'evolved'..into
give dna proof

""This seems to have been substantially verified
by the recorded fossil finds.""

lol

mate just think
if i collected all the rocks in the land
and sorted..them by shape/volour and hardness

i could make a graph..like your link
and say these small white rocks..evolved into them big black ones

but it would still be a lie..[or a 'theory]..lol

and evolution is a theory..!

even darwin wrote evolution of species
not evolution of genus

its genus evolving into new genus
that evolution HYPOTHESIS..[theorises about]

no science method can do..an evolution
[macro..ie evolve a new genus]

trillions of mutated fruiitflies
have mutated ONLY fruitflies

get it?

one under god,

"get it?"

No. I haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to argue. Might I suggest that you brush up on your literacy skills?

Poirot,

That article made me hungry.

OUG, how about you share with us your hypothesis and evidence for evolution/creation etc? Does this exist or do you just have faith? Remember, explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, thus not acceptable.

I thought about providing you with a whole bunch of scientific papers disproving your various theories (rants), but I think this pretty much sums up your argument.

http://www.myvidster.com/video/316851/Futurama_-_Evolution_Debate_

The polite Acolyte Rizla
i replied to micro evolution
the only evolution there is...[small mutations remember?]

thing is the difference between species..[as defined by genus evolution...;macro 'evolution]

your silpistic comprehention;..of evolution..requires macro evolution out of species..then a breeding mate to replicate the 'evolution'..into a new genus..

this has never been confirmed..not in science nor 'nature'
the fossil record is full of gaps...

most the 'proof'..is less than bone fragments
but mate google up the 'tree of life'..a project now abandoned..cause there was no proof of dna evolving into new genus

find the tre of life
look at the roots..of..the first life
there is no definitive 'first'..that all life could evolve from

but your clever enough to know this
or too ignorant..to try to explain it

either way

name names
or go away

all you can do is spell
so what..you dont got a logical thought in your post
so there clearly is a huge gap in your science..

al you got is faith
not science
not fact

if you got fact..present fact
if you got fact present it

stezza...we coverd these topic many times
from many aspects

athiest's
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4698&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4683&page=0

spitual athiesm
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12050&page=0

species
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4591&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4225&page=0
religeon/evolution

evolution
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11112&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4568&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4556&page=0
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4579&page=0

morality
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11163&page=0

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

so i started my own topic
asking evolutionists only please
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3124&page=0

which has many more links
it continued at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2411&page=0

but lets look at your proof

tezzra
name the first life
name what it evolved into

give me the proof
for even one evolution..*OUT of genus
into a new genus..name names or admit

you got faith in the THEORY
of evolution..not proof

ie you got not one proof..for your faith in science
thus have only exchanged one belief SYSTEM..with an other
or else you would present it..[name names mate..]

So climate science is about as well understood as evolutionary science?

Yep, I can live with that .. I think we assume in too many areas, that we know more than we do. Admitting we don't know as much though, is not a good look on grant applications, nor on scientific papers, the currency of promotions and glory in the scientific world.

I do wonder what climate scientists in 100 years will think of our current scientists and their political penchant.

The more I see and read on climate science, the more I realize it is in its infancy.

The way i see it is only time that will find the outcome for climate science. A very good interpretation of why cyclonic action is happening in other places, not usually targeted.[ Middle east on line.] Directly blames the pollution created by pakistan china and a few others in the region, for causing a pollution cloud, which curtailed the usual pattern of cyclone dampening to occur. The mid east has been usually spared cyclonic action, even though it is hot enough to occur.

OUG,

I'm not interested in supplying you with further evidence. We will never know everything, so there will always be gaps. As long as there are gaps you will point to them as your 'evidence'. I have refuted many of your arguments as well as clearly teaching you about the arbitrary classification system developed my man, including the term and meaning of 'genus'. Yet you seem incapable of learning. Did you watch the video I linked to? Yes the orangutan is you.

I didn't expect you to state your beliefs/theory, I don't believe you know what you are talking about, and are not even close to being capable of developing an alternative theory. That is the challenge, put up or shut up.

one under god,

Nope, that didn't clear things up at all. Try using sentences, and if you can manage it, paragraphs.

Evolutionary theory has got far more explaining power than climate science. Interestingly enough, neither Darwin nor Wallace were government funded. If they were, no doubt they would have come up with a theory that we're all going to die unless government gets a big new tax and powers to control everything.

OUG
"I haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to argue."

Me neither.

"Might I suggest that you brush up on your literacy skills?"

Me too.

The climate changes we are seeing now is the result of our actions 30 years ago. That is the timescale that change is taking. No matter what we do now, you will not see the results of that action till 2042. If we act now the severity will not be so severe as in waiting another 10 years. In ten years without action now, action then will be futile. So climate change is guaranteed for the next 30 years, and will become worse even as we decline fossil fuel burning and co2 release.

579 .. or you might be completely wrong

The climate changes, always has, always will (there's a prediction for you) and right now is getting warmer, as it has before and might again, it has been cooler as well ..

Try not to panic ..

I reckon we just adapt to whatever we get, as there is little chance of "controlling" or heaven forbid "reversing" climate change .. what a notion!

Spend the obscene amount of money being spent on this folly on solving real problems, like disease and hunger .. not filling politicians and climate scientists pockets with money

It's a tragedy that the climate science community has hijacked political attention to this and so distracts from things that need investment.

How many billions now have been spent trying to prove AGW and has still been unable to do so, in the face of this, the world's warming seems to be plateauing, and it may cool again soon, then warm again .. do you seriously think we can actually control the heating and cooling?

We don't even understand it and that's obvious, not one of the so called models predicted the plateauing ..

The climate scientists even told us snow would be a thing of the past, then when it started to really snow, told us they predicted that ..

579, something is not quite right, and to me, it has to be our lack of knowledge .. it is the only constant in all this.

Guessing is getting us as far as it does the climate scientists who appear to be guessing then backfilling.

Global warming has mostly been absorbed into sea water, releasing more stored co2. Which in turn is why there is climate exaggeration in places not before known. The denialist campaign is a non response to anything.
You say i may be wrong, well may is not a possative.

""The climate changes, always has, always will .. and right now is getting warmer, as it has before and might again, it has been cooler as well .."
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 7 Nov, 1:50:13pm

Previous warm periods have had close correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temp. What has happened in the last century is a relatively low rate of temperature rise considering the 'high *rate* of CO2 rise ... a higher *rate* of temp rise is predicted.

Besides, the fact the climate has changed in the past, and does change, is a separate issue to why it is changing now.

" the climate science community has hijacked political attention to this" = a misrepresentation. Climate change is a significant societal issue - from dinner party to international conference - political and scientific.

Warming increase the "water cycle" - causing more evaporation and more precipitation, but not uniformly.

I see that GW argument is more a matter of faith than understanding complexities!
For those who GAS...the Earth can "warm" for quite some time without surface temperatures rising alarmingly. The energy can go into melting ice, chemical changes such as acidity, and of course the deep ocean.
(All of which are happening according to very strong data). Because the heat circulation has lags, we are still seeing surface temperature effects world wide.
Increasing the "heat" may cause more snow if you are close enough to the poles due to increased water vapour and changes to the equatorial-pole circulation. The acidity changes are very alarming for ocean ecosystems due to the stress it places on organisms that make shells (if Krill start dying we are in *deep*).
BTW. The carbon tax is a bad idea, just another way for the finance industry to put another sucker into the real economy. Just take all fossil fuel subsidies and use it to fund current viable renewable tech and a certain amount of R&D. (private investors will contribute once the playing field is level). After all, name major infrastructure that wasn't subsidised by taxpayers initially. We should definitely stop funding highly profitable dead-end energy solutions!
As for the email "scandal": 6 independent inquiries, all found the scientists innocent of fraud or cherry picking. Terms like "trick" were deliberately made sinister and the implication of cheating was repeated loud and often. Most trades have "tricks", and it is not uncommon to use the term! The "confirmation bias" based on these non-proofs seem to be endlessly repeated, just like WMDs in Iraq, despite any proof to the contrary.

numbers not name said..""...Global warming has mostly been absorbed into sea water,""

no mate..your wrong
yes there is a massive sink of c02..but not heat

the c02 cycle of the deep seas currents..is a 120 year cycle
the spin is were going to get armogeddon..with all that industrial c02 returning soon

by the way...massive ammounts of c02
are absorbed by micro plancton...[and whale poop..is their source of much needed iron..cause with whalke poop..its suspended in fats..[able to be more easilly absorbed near the surface

noting the thinking is to spread iron oxide to capture c02
[i suggest they suspend it in some fattry bucky ball..to help that plan work[if there really is a real problem..which there isnt]

sea""releasing more stored co2.""
not that safely in the mud..on the sea floor
only that in the dep sea currents..[which is smaller than that which went in

""Which in turn is why there is climate exaggeration""

more like dont mention the war
cause we want a fact free zone to put up a new huge tax on breathing

""in places not before known""

""The denialist campaign is a non response to anything.""

WHAT WAS MY LAST POST RETARD?


ozandy..""I see that GW argument is more a matter of faith than understanding complexities!""

your right mate

but lets go to..""chemical changes such as acidity,""

yeah...lol..the moluscs...mate realise..
that the barrier reef is pure calcium
so too the chalky white cliffs of dover

if acid seas..then the limestone melts into the acid water
making it more alcaline...[thus no acidity]

its a self regulating god made mechanism
that invalidates the acidity debait

*post limits
bah

..""Terms like "trick" were deliberately made sinister""

mate if you trick up the data
OR HIDE THE FACTS..thats lying

""and the implication of cheating
was repeated loud and often.""

it wernt 'implicated' ol mate..it is fact
they said trick up the data

""Most trades have "tricks",""lol
""and it is not uncommon to use the term!"'

i never heard it before
thus it is a spin term

sounding better than change the data

""The "confirmation bias" based on these non-proofs seem to be endlessly repeated, just like WMDs in Iraq, despite any proof to the contrary.""

if there is a bias..for others
to take your money

they will invest in it
tiklkl your bled dry

LEST WE FORGET
c02 increased 5%..this year alone,,!

globally it will keep rising

no mater how much tax aussies end up paying
over 1 trillion 2020..not a bad govt bailout
for the carbon traders.[new age money changers]..

taxing breathing out c02

tax air?
huh..?

carbon isnt a polutant
trippling the cost of our energy..is insane
if you want to cut polution..stop putting methane into the air

[ie stop homecomposting and worm farming..
and growing meat in heated sheds..feeding them on grain..

give them grass...thats solid c02..suspended in water..H20]

I don't know what you are on about either Oneundergod, I'm sorry!

I don't believe any of us, religious or not, will ever truly know about the truth about the beginning of life.
It will always remain the great unknown question.

I do know that the comment from Oneundergod :
"WHAT WAS MY LAST POST RETARD?" is very rude and very unchristian..

OUG The missing link is right under your nose if you look at some of my references. It is called DNA.

David

darn it susie
thing is if people dont read my writing
they shouldnt also not complain whats wrote in it

mate its because people CHOSE to be ignorant
that imbisiles is applicable

imbisile is a legal term
meaning incompitant..to manage your own affairs
thus those elect a trustee to look after their intrests

that trust is govt..[govt is there to serve the imbisiles best intrests]...the living and their estates..!

now our leaders have MANDATED a huge new tax
a tax that will rise FOREVER..its now set at 23 dollars..but next year become AUTOMATICLY indexed to increase..EVERY YEAR

there is some spin re market rates
BUT LOOK at the market rate..
floating betwen 9 dollars..and 13 per ton

and our leaders..tax us at 23%..today
26% tomorrow
28%..the year after

then falls to the market rate..[13%]
[as those nice subsidies disappear]

what better than imbisile
to decribe the fools thinking they 'won'

loosers the lot of em
read what king george said about idiots and lunatics[and their estates]ie the 1%..who runs the world as a private fiefdom

we the peasents..[renting][working]
they the spoiled wealthy elite..[owning controling plotting]

by spin..and imbisiles posting encouragment
for them to steal more

recall ghandi
just one small tax..[on salt]
now look at our 200 plus taxes..!

try to think

refused to post earlier

continued

or what about usa
one tea tax..!

now we got science heritics
telling us the sky is falling

only imbisiles would believe that

they just learned how to sell is by spin
on a new tax

suzie...think ol mate
why is ours 23$..and the market rate up to 13%

mate how come c02 went up this year
by 5%..and the eu sceme only rakes in 1 billion
but ours will reap over 1 trillion by 2020

mate im not a xtain
jesus came to return us back to the one good living loving father

i learn from all the many messengers about the father

not creed

im not fooled by creed nor greed of men
so am not an xtian

so stop not reading what i say
thats so stale,...you quote me
yet dont read me

mate how ignorant can we get
imbisilic..to say you dont read
yet object and quote something you never read?

lol
how droll

fine you want manmade guilt
and the new tax

but why set it double the 'market rate mate'
cause your mind refuses to think

one under god,

The problem is not so much that people don't read your writing as it is that they CAN'T read your writing. Or to be more accurate, they can read it but they can't make any kind of sense of most of it, thanks to your appalling level of literacy. Remember what I said about sentences and paragraphs the other day?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12844#221733

Suseonline, hmmm? psuedoscience? try these,

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/the-delinquent-teenager-who-was-mistaken-for-the-worlds-top-climate-expert/ a book written by a woman no less, on "doctored" psuedo-science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzNwjfbVt-U&feature=related more psuedoscience, exposed by the atheists NEW god Dawkins?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-287163572862203022#docid=7924466177269730495 both Flannery & many feMANazis believe in this god?

Are we sure "environMENTALism" & loony left wing politics are not new religions?

They both have large numbers of "sheeple" blindly, dogmatically, following the gospels according to Marx, Lenin, Mao, Marcuse, Greer, Flannery, Brown, the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance, etc, etc, etc.

Formersnag,
you forgot to mention the sheep (like you) blindly led by your precious protestantism and its work ethic, by libertarianazism (if I may indulge your love of neologisms), consumerism, patriotism and all the other closed-minded claptrap the suckers suck up.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12844#222092

Squeers, i have commented far enough before, for you to know that i do NOT blindly follow anybodies clap trap. christian or political, left or right.

EG, i also am not too fond of either libertarianism or consumerism.

BIG business is just as evil as BIG government & unions.

international banksters are just as evil as their international socialist friends.

OUG. I have to concur with The Acolyte Rizla.
If you use some normal English sentence construction, your posts would be more easily understood. Some of us might even get to agree with you on some points, but your disjointed text is difficult to follow, even by those of us with a better than normal grasp of the language.

David

the pool has become too poluted..
by those blogging the same old thing's
govt adgendas..corperate spin..paid to blog

playing the man
not the words

they claim highers wisdoms..yet cant find
even one concept in my words to refute

thus clearly are more ignorant
than their own words..limited spell checked words reveal

to say your higher brain cant find one logic
in an insane rave..

well that explains
why you fell for scientific here/say

cause my science words cant be folowed
by fools ignorant of science terms/meanings

its easier to say im the problem
not nor self rightous ignorances

you only need to ignore me for a few more weeks
then you will be happy to know..im gone
no web server..no web acces

so be ignorant all you like
i will post as long as i can
you can complain long after im gone

believe
decieve
all you like

then...

till then i will rub your nose
in your own ignorances

and laugh at how ignorant your own words
reveal the pair of ya to be

ha ha

OUG That was better, at least now we understand where you are coming from. Enjoy your solitude, we might even miss you.

David

David,

"That was better"

Not really, it's still mostly Greek to me.

one under god,

"cause my science words cant be folowed"

What science words? An awful lot of the contents of your posts aren't even words, let alone 'science words'.

"by fools ignorant of science terms/meanings"

Again, this is NOT the problem. My background is in chemistry; I am familiar with many scientific terms and their meanings. I don't have trouble following your posts because of the technical terms you employ; I have trouble following them because of your consistent refusal to observe simple conventions of the English language. That doesn't make you special or clever or a visionary, and it doesn't make us ignorant or foolish - all it does is make you functionally illiterate, which has the knock-on effect of making you look like a halfwit. I mean really, how difficult is it to construct a sentence? Primary school kids can manage it. Are you stupider than a fifth-grader?

The Acolyte Rizla,

It's endlessly fascinating how people get their jollies from deriding the prowess of others. After all, if OUG's style bugs you so much, the obvious solution is to ignore his posts.

OUG has been around forever posting in this style. Who cares if he chooses a particular freestyle poetic form to express himself....he demonstrates more creativity in one post than most of OLO's participants could muster in a year's posting.

It appears that you feel the need to preen your ego, brush its little tail, etc. by belittling OUG...big of you (not)

TAR .. it's admirable you had a go, good for you ..

Ever read "Feersum Endjinn"? Same thing, probably a good book, I lasted about 1.5 chapters and left it on a table in a cafe. (I love books and hated that one, I don't bother with libraries, because they want their books back)

My loss I guess, or is it?

Poirot,

"It's endlessly fascinating how people get their jollies from deriding the prowess of others."

Incorrect. I take absolutely no joy from pointing out one under god's illiteracy - it deeply saddens me to think that anybody in this country could have undergone at least 11 years of schooling and learnt so little.

"After all, if OUG's style bugs you so much, the obvious solution is to ignore his posts."

Of course it is. Responding to ignorance with further ignorance is what has made Western society so great. After all, who needs education when ignorance is just as valid as knowledge and illiteracy is just as valid as literacy?

Poirot, I hope to all the Gods I don't believe in that you are not employed anywhere within the field of education.

"Who cares if he chooses a particular freestyle poetic form to express himself"

ROFLMAO. I am on good terms with more than one freestyle poet - and they're all highly literate. One under god's posts are definitely NOT freestyle poetry - they are semi-literate rants at best.

"he demonstrates more creativity in one post than most of OLO's participants could muster in a year's posting."

Granted... but only if we take 'creativity' as a euphemism for 'insensibility'.

dont feed the troll
thats all that comes to mind

anyhow no science in that last lot
so i shall go

the athiest acolyte...lol
the science illiterate

i should ask her to list the chemicals of life
but know it would only come from a link
via a quick google search

so its not worth bothering any reply
so set her to ignore

you could try naming them
they still wont make any 'life'
[chemicals as you should know..dont evolve]

OUG "chemicals as you should know..don't evolve"

Strictly speaking, not true. Radioactive elements decay (evolve) into different elements.

DNA has also evolved over the millenia.

David

"...I am on good terms with more than one freestyle poet - and they're all highly literate."

How absolutely spiffing for you!

As I said, it's endlessly fascinating, etc....

Poirot,

"it's endlessly fascinating, etc...."

Ahh, repetition - the last refuge of the idiot.

vucu..has this endless facination of dna
""OUG The missing link is right under your nose
if you look at some of my references...It is called DNA.

dear
David
you mix your metahores
dna is not any missing link

but heck lets ask the occultlite..
to explain the chemical base pairing..chemicly
but i know even as i say this..no reply to that will be forthcumming

just like her last reply ignored everything
except her attack mode on pure o

but heck mr voc u...lets hear about the dna..
lol being the missing link...[the missing link from what to what]

which dna..[specificly]
or maybe the why of the dna filling in that missing
but heck i know your [and the occo-lite's words are just psssing in the wind]

im not even going to try to think
how dna relates to global warming

The Acolyte Rizla,

"...the last refuge of the idiot."

hmmm....if that's an example of your best wit, I suppose I should congratulate you (although there's room for improvement IMO)

We have a few posters on OLO who regularly resort to insults and name-calling as a demonstration of their superior "quality". However, most of us manage to get by without recourse to such rhetoric - you should challenge yourself and try it sometime. :)

one under god,

I am lorem ligula in statu MORBOSUS base in vobis. Insolitae mihi, nobilis. Respondeo l 'Tantum modo secundum operationem in tantum brabbeltaal, elephante. In virga tua et ex pulls pipio.

Poirot,

If you undertake a more thorough examination of my posts, you'll note that I do no resort to insults and name-calling as a matter of course - it only ever occurs as a result of provocation. What better description than 'idiot' (or a synonym of idiot) is there for somebody who advances a weak argument, has it soundly rebutted, and then repeats it word for word as though it had never been rebutted? Or for somebody who persistently posts in gibberish, even after people have politely pointed out a number of times that nobody save the poster can understand it? If the shoe fits...

Furthermore, it's impossible to have a proper argument with people who indulge in that sort of behaviour. And unfortunately, 'Argument Clinics' only exist in Monty Python sketches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&noredirect=1

So I have to make do with debating clubs and websites like this and such like. It's immensely frustrating when you're trying to have a good argument (a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition) and your opponent(s) consistently refuse to argue their case properly.

If other folk around here aren't interested in the services of room 12 (argument), I'm happy to direct them to room 12A (abuse). But if they don't want to be insulted, there's a simple and obvious remedy: don't do anything to warrant an insult.

Garbled Latin with a bit of swedish thrown in. Yes.

The Acolyte Rizla

OUG is something of an institution here at OLO. I've admonished him myself on occasion, but there is a certain poetic originality to his posts that is sometimes engaging, and even penetrating. One has to be in the mood for it though and I often don't read him carefully. He is worth the effort, but he is also rather inflexible in his biases. like most of us.
Sorry to talk past you OUG.

For what it's worth, I enjoy your exacting style, The Acolyte Rizla, we need more quality posters at OLO, and we all lapse occasionally.
I look forward to besting you again in the future : )

Well, there you go, Squeers.

Acolyte's "exacting style" accommodates recourse to abuse in the event he doesn't approve of a response.

Not the sort of "style" I hold in high regard.

it isnt latin..[nor spanish nor italian]
so i gave up guessing

http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|I%20am%20lorem%20ligula%20in%20statu%20MORBOSUS%20base%20in%20vobis.%20Insolitae%20mihi%2C%20nobilis.%20Respondeo%20l%20'Tantum%20modo%20secundum%20operationem%20in%20tantum%20brabbeltaal%2C%20elephante.%20In%20virga%20tua%20et%20ex%20pulls%20pipio.

it may mean

""MORBID the transition
in the state of the base..1 am in you.""

this clearly reflects
infantile penus envey?


""Unusual to me, a noble.
I reply that l 'Only way""

that might be weigh

""to such an extent
according to the working brabbeltaal, the elephant.""

it may also be meaning resemble

""the elephant
In the young,"'

might infure tongue

""and with thy rod pipe.""

no thanks

but then
im sure ritzy rita alco-lite..dont know neither

i gues we can take hints..from her own words
in what clearly isnt her mothers tongue..[young]..
a yungian accolite

she say..

""I have to make do
with debating clubs..and websites like this..and such like.

It's immensely frustrating
when you're trying to have a good argument
(a connected series of statements..*intended to establish a proposition)..and your opponent(s.. consistently refuse to argue their case properly."'

you present no case to topic

""If other folk around here
aren't interested in the services of room 12..(argument),""

the phyc ward

""I'm happy to direct them to room 12A..(abuse).""

frontal electro stymulation
the voice of experience?

""But if they don't want to be insulted,
there's a simple and obvious remedy:

don't do anything..to warrant an insult.""

from the alcohol-lite
dont think..drink
or

implicite threat?
beyond caring

VIVAMUS, MEA LESBIA, ATQUE AMEMUS!
RUMORESQUE SENUM SEVERIORUM
OMNES UNIUS AESTIMEMUS ASSIS.
SOLES OCCIDERE ET REDIRE POSSUNT:
NOBIS, CUM SEMEL OCCIDIT BREVIS LUX,
NOX EST PERPETUA UNA DORMIENDA.
DA MI BASIA MILLE, DEINDE CENTUM.
DEIN MILLE ALTERA, DEIN SECUNDA CENTUM.
DEINDE USQUE ALTERA MILLE, DEINDE CENTUM
DEIN, CUM MILIA MULTA FECERIMUS,
CONTURBABIMUS ILLA, NE SCIAMUS,
AUT NEQUIS MALUS INVIDERE POSSIT,
CUM TANTUM SCIAT ESSE BASIORUM

Writing style and abuse aside,

"OUG, how about you share with us your hypothesis and evidence for evolution/creation etc? Does this exist or do you just have faith? Remember, explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, thus not acceptable."

OUG simply fails to rise to the challenge of putting forward his own theory/arguments.
It is easy to state that you don't believe that others are correct, but then you must state a superior theory. If not then you lose any credibility that you have left.

Stezza. The problem seems to be that there are those people who for what ever reason can't accept real science. It is like trying to argue religion, just a futile exercise. Once you try to argue against faith it is like trying to make a building out of jelly. Even when concrete evidence is staring them in the face, there seems to be this impenetrable wall of disbelief. They can't explain the basis for their irrational beliefs because their ideas are just based on faith.

David

Real science is based on concrete evidence, not faith, but if you don't accept the evidence then you have no basis for any argument.

David

Poirot,

"Not the sort of "style" I hold in high regard."

It's endlessly fascinating how one under god has, over the course of his last few posts, accused me of being an insane, scientifically illiterate, alcoholic* - and you have said nothing. At least my attacks on one under god's literacy skills had some basis in reality.

I'd love to know how you justify this double standard. Or do you just not bother? Is abuse in response to comments one doesn't approve of acceptable when one doesn't put it in proper sentences?

"For what it's worth, I enjoy your exacting style, The Acolyte Rizla, we need more quality posters at OLO, and we all lapse occasionally.
I look forward to besting you again in the future : )"

And the small lapses I generally forgive, if indeed I notice them in the first place. It is only the glaring and persistent lapses in the face of polite correction that really irritate me.

I look forward to being bested by you again in future. You generally argue well, even if you are arguing in favour of ridiculous pinko crap :-P.

* Oh, and a woman with penis envy. That I don't mind so much; if one under god thinks that calling somebody a woman constitutes an insult, it says more about his misogyny and lack of maturity than it does about me. And anybody who gives any sort of credence to Freud's crackpot theories is clearly a few quarks short of proton.

The Acolyte Rizla,

I take your point. You're right that OUG's denigration of you is not acceptable or in the spirit of debate. I take it he is reacting to your comments belittling his style and intelligence. Your habit of deriding a poster's level of education is extremely insulting and inflammatory and, therefore, likely to provoke such a response.

You're an intelligent and articulate guy and your posts are well written and illuminating, but your habit of calling people idiots isn't helpful.

stezza wrote/quote..""Writing style and abuse aside,

"OUG, how about you share with us your hypothesis and evidence for evolution/creation etc?""

i have done this often here
but if your interested..in getting near to the truth
you open the play..and name the first life...

then what it evolved into...[its no use my putting up my theory..if your not going to grasp what is being said]

""Does this exist
or do you just have faith?""

life egsists...the only thing NO ONE knows
is how it began..[science says by accident..then evolved by natural selection..[neither could be called science method;..thus evolution is a theory]

""Remember, explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, thus not acceptable.""

sure they too are theories
but we either got a factual basis..[we can explain and name..[and if sciebnce replicate..and name faulsifyables..;..that if refuted refute the theory]

we either have reason..and can name the process..and steps
or we have a belief system..[and kids are being taught theory as science fact]..

if you cant name names..its a belief you got..

""OUG simply fails to rise to the challenge of putting forward his own theory/arguments.""

i have done so many times over the years
you give fact..i give fact

""It is easy to state that you don't believe that others are correct, but then you must state a superior theory.""

yes i agree
NAME NAMES
first life?
first evolution..[what evolved into what]

*If not then you lose any credibility that you have left.*

stezzra to decry..others as ignorant...
one must display inteligence..or reveal their own theo-ry..rests on solid foundations..and the fact you have your faith..in a theory..speaks volumes

so your a BELIEVER..in the science
yet cant reveal it..[you got a faith dear]

you got a belief in a delusion...mainly because you claim belief..
yet cant actually talk inteligently..on the science you claim underpins..what you chose to believe...

thats like some bible basher..not knowing his bible
[and dear heart..there is nothing wrong with faith...be it blind faith in science..or blind faith in god

but there will come that time when your faith gets tested
when your asked to explain..[and sadly thats where the lie of evolution..gets taught..*to children..

who are told..its only cause their dumb..
that they dont get..how,*science done it..lol

when clearly science..didnt do anything
never evolved anything..!

never made life..and has declared..*no faulsifiables..
that if refuted..refute their theory!..that is so pssssweek

but its easy to say..im..with the clever/guys
in black suits and lab coats...and not*..with the guys in dresses

but in your ignorance you insult..who/what..really done it
or made it happen..

in short you chose..the ignorance
your silence displays..and blind faith
in huh?man omnipotance..put you in that hard-place..

what does believing god done it..hurt?

nuthin..if your wrong...[and when you die..you find that dead really means dead..even then you will never know..

yet if we are right..you got eternity..to kick yourself..that you didnt give BACK..that..OF GOD ALONE..back to god

you missed seeing gods-hand..in everything
cant you see how perfect..every living-thing fits in

how pretty they are..
how perfectly they fun-ction
i have learned of our father..by watching the simplest[natural things]

i watch mr robert rabbitbouragh...
with his evolution inspired rant..

and love
the god given beauty..he reveals..even in his ignorance

he will be great..even in the next life
but will allways hold the sadness,that when he taught us of the infinite magnificence..of flora/fauna..he neglected to reveal..the hand..*behind its creation

i feel so sorry..you lot blinded by ascience
miss seeing the for-rest..for the tree

so lets try to reason out...
how god done it?

OUG,

So you refuse to state your alternative theory? Or is this it:

"how god done it?"

First life: Most likely nucleic acid or similar chemical compound

Evolved into: You and I

"name the process..and steps": Already covered in great detail - called evolution

Now time to put up. I expect you will fail to do this so I won't hold my breath.

stezza replies..quote..""

her quoting me[i think]
"name the process..and steps"

her eventual reply
:""Already covered in great detail - called evolution""

yet you refuse my reply..""So you refuse to state your alternative theory?""

your reply continues..""Or is this it:""

and then you get confused
to quote your re-quote..of your good self?

"how god done it?"
is written in a book
look it up

but then follows your confusing..""First life: Most likely nucleic acid or similar chemical compound""

to which i would reply
SO you think nucleic acid..TO BE LIFE...?

or ""simular compound""..to be life?

MATE YOUR EXPLAINING NOTHING
which nucleic acid..[ie which rna sequence..

*noting that rna..comes from dna..
processing..WITH-IN A LIVING CELL membrain]

as i tried to explain..first you must know what them big worsds mean
what they imply...nucleic compounds..need first the replictor process
plud dna..into rns..THEN the factory that makes [builds]..the rna into a nucleic acid

AND basic life NEEDS over twenty
to sustyain life process..[pluss the process mexchanism's]

in short even the vague comprehention
of a THEORY..you dont got right

yet you go on in ignorance..
[not naming this first evolution from a named 'first life']

and i love you for that

nucleic acids..""Evolved into: You and I""

still love you

yet then..""Now time to put up.""

ok name the first critter on the evolution tree
and i will explain how god dun it

ditto..I expect you will fail to do this
so I won't hold my breath..well said i agree with your words

First I'll point out your ignorance of the subject:

1. "noting that rna..comes from dna..
processing..WITH-IN A LIVING CELL membrain]"

DNA can be produced from RNA and vice versa. In fact I have done this today, all without any cells being present. I repeat, RNA can self replicate independent of cell membranes.

2. "THEN the factory that makes [builds]..the rna into a nucleic acid"

RNA itself in nucleic acid, that is what the 'NA' part stands for. *forehead slap for extreme ignorance*

3. "SO you think nucleic acid..TO BE LIFE"
Yes I do, although there is no precise definition of what separates the living from the non-living. You probably have trouble with this, with your black and white understanding of the world. If you would like to define life, then I can explain this for you.

Second,

Your alternative explanation:
""how god done it?"
is written in a book
look it up"

So I take it you believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis? If this is the case then tell us. If not then explain what you believe. Come on, tell us. I answered your questions. Stop avoiding mine.

look at it this way stezza
the genesis story..was told simply..to those who could comprehend..the message

if the writers of the bible wrote
dna..or rna..or nucliec acid...
they would simply have been killed off or made to drink the cool aid..

thing is gensis..
preceeds GENE..[sis]
so some credit where credit is due

further the bible begat a beginning
a big bang before science could even concieve an expanding universe
that needs have origonated from a central point

as in god said..!

so yes im fine with in the beginning
god created the heavens and the earth

BECAUSE i know science in white lab coats..didnt
i know the THEORY of evolution didnt..

i know you dont name the first living thing
so lets presume you say the first life was ribolic acid

or whatever

so now

please tell me what it next evolved into

please reveal the slight change...it 'evolved into'

please name which specificly was first..rna...or dna
you sen to regard them as interchangable

so l;et hear your proof

rna joined to other rna..by what means?
that made dna...[please name this dna

in time this dna enterd a cell
where did this cell come from
what rna evolved into a cell

see ol love
its just a dead end

and science refuses to name
THE FIRST LIFE
what 'evolved'

and the 2de evolution by name
[ie one mutation different]

science dont know..!
science has never evolved any species into any other new genus

please correct the wiki

""DNA replication is a biological process""

bio-logical..!

""that occurs..*in all living organisms*

ie in all living things

""and [replication]..copies their DNA;

COPIES
not creates

dna..""is the basis for biological inheritance.""

ie as the bible says
like makes like

fish breed fish
bug breds bug

shep bred sheep
dogs bred dogs

""The process starts""

note..!
not the word began

proces/starts..""with one double-stranded DNA molecule""

so name this first dna..lol life

""and produces two identical copies of the molecule""

two the same[usually]...
this double stranding complicates,,micro evolution
as both often need to be expressed..for a resesive mutation to have expression

""Each strand of the original double-stranded DNA molecule serves as template for the production of the complementary strand, a process referred to as semiconservative replication.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryotic_DNA_replication
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryotic_DNA_replication

""Cellular proofreading and error toe-checking mechanisms ensure near perfect fidelity for DNA replication.""

""In a cell, DNA replication..DNA polymerase, the enzyme that synthesizes the new DNA by adding nucleotides matched to the template strand, a number of other proteins are associated with the fork and assist in the initiation and continuation of DNA synthesis.

DNA replication can also be performed in vitro (artificially, outside a cell). DNA polymerases, isolated from cells,

*and artificial DNA primers*""

name them

""are used to initiate DNA synthesis
at known sequences in a template molecule.

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a common laboratory technique, employs such artificial synthesis in a cyclic manner to amplify a specific target DNA fragment from a pool of DNA.""

read the chart at the bottom of the link
see just what is needed to occure..lol
by accident

your talking nonsense
but i still love you

its hard to find exoplanations
of just how complicted..the accident of life is

to quote..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22374/

just the sepperation of dna

""In the absence of bound ATP,..both domains are bound to DNA.

The binding of ATP..triggers conformational changes..in the P-loop and adjacent regions..that lead to the closure of the cleft between these two domains.

To achieve this movement,..domain A1 releases the DNA
and slides along the DNA strand,..moving closer to domain B1.

The enzyme then catalyzes the hydrolysis..of ATP
to form ADP and orthophosphate.

On product release,..the cleft between domains A and B..springs open. In this state,however,..domain A1 has a tighter grip on the DNA than does domain B1,..so the DNA is pulled across domain B1..toward domain A1.

The result is the translocation..of the enzyme..along the DNA strand in a manner similar to the way..in which an inchworm moves. In regard to PcrA,..the enzyme translocates in the 3&#8242;&#8594; 5&#8242; direction.

When the helicase..encounters a region of double-stranded DNA,..it continues to move along one strand..and displaces the opposite DNA strand as it progresses.

Interactions with specific pockets..on the helicase
help destabilize the DNA duplex,..aided by ATP-induced conformational changes.

Figure 27.17
Helicase Mechanism...

Initially,..both domains A1 and B1..of PcrA bind single-stranded DNA. On binding of ATP,..the cleft between these domains closes..and domain A1 slides along the DNA.

On ATP hydrolysis,..the cleft opens up,
pulling the DNA from domain B1 (more...see)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22374/figure/A3780/?report=objectonly

Helicases constitute a large and diverse class of enzymes...Some of these enzymes move in a 5&#8242; &#8594;..3&#8242;direction,..whereas others unwind RNA..rather than DNA and participate..in processes such as RNA splicing..and the initiation of mRNA translation.

A comparison of the amino acid sequences..of hundreds of these enzymes..reveals seven regions of striking conservation(Figure 27.18)...Mapping these regions onto the PcrA structure..shows that they line the ATP-binding site..and the cleft between the two domains,

consistent with the notion..that other helicases undergo conformational changes..analogous to those found in PcrA.

However,whereas PcrA..appears to function as a monomer,
other members of the helicase class..function as oligomers

try this link

dna replication mechanisms
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=mboc4.section.754

Stezza and others who are having difficulty understanding where OUG is coming from, have a look at www.creation.com for a complete explanation of their whole interpretation of creation. It is impossible to argue against it, because they absolutely believe that the biblical narrative concerning creation is true. I haven't seen any explanation of how the earth has been populated by all the different ethnic groups, but no doubt there will be some incredulous theory in there somewhere. Their theory on the speed of light and explanation of sedimentary rocks and fossils is a bit incredulous. I suspect that there is a bit of distortion of the facts along the way, but as the old philosopher once said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

David

ok ignoring david
who claims to not read...me/my words
[who thus voids any commentary/opinion he might try to enable based on them]

lets just say..dna..and rna..
need many things to make themselves...'propogate'[live]

but recall previously..about the process
occuring only in biological entities..

the simplist biological entity is a cell..

now the cell is described well at this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_cycle

again
look at how much it does..!
so clearly a cell needs 'be'..before any life can be

so first god was a cell....
[a cell has two parts]''a nucleus..[that acts much like inteligence..organising..much like a brain..the activities that go on inside the sacred cell]..cause

as well means/result

so lets look at..the first cell..[alpha cell]
[pre big bang..all matter..that is now called the univers..
was the size of a fullstop....{*}..
or rather..[.]

that if we could magnify it..a little
would look egsactly like a cell
[with 'god'..as the nucleous]

that then expands...[to end up a uni-cell..]
that resembles the uni-verse..in a typical...lol..cell like shape]

everything we can think of..
is inside that one alpha-cell
we call the uni-verse..but there is more..

we actually live on [in]..a cell]..
just look at the one earth...with its outer limits
[that act like a cell membraine..and its nuclious the terra firma]

so we get..though all them clues
the sun..is like a cell
even a solar system

your body..is made from cells
the plant has cells..the seed has cells
so the beginning isnt in string theory..[dna]
but in the cell ...

so lets do a soft sell

little wonder when i was shown..gods face
he showed to me as like an engorged nipple..
[ie a dot within a circle..to wit a cell...

lol if you can]

one under god,

'oy'naQ Dalo'be'chugh not nenghep lop puq.

so here is somemore to giggle over
alco-lite...lol

regardless
thats my proof...as it happend to me

[little wonder the truelly holy
cant look at gods face..or if they 'peeked'..
dare not say..*what they saw]

anyhow..read on
and see the joke

anyhow..i saw god..by threatening to go blind staring at the sun..i said god make me blind..if you must..but i must look upon thy face

so i was shown the engorged nipple
along with a vision..of the nipple [sun]
raining down..its life hjuices..life sustaining energy..photons etc

anyhow my dear..i have told that story here a few times
and still wait for your doudt..or questioning or whatever..
to get you closer to the truth...and away from the lies inherant in science theory..lol..re first life and then..evolution

so there..
name the first cellular life
[dna wont cut it]..

[and before you say ammeoba...i refuted that critter allready..it turns out that little beastie...is closer to godlyness..than first life arisen by ;..lol..chance or accident

do yourself a favour..and put up
the name..of the first living beastie

plus what it evolved into...
[or study that ammeoba..and find aswell..that even it
its being..is truelly ammasing]

but so too is god
anyhow thats my post limit again

your wrong on all counts david
put up fact not destraction

OUG,

Thanks for the info, although as a cell/molecular biologist I am aware of all of this. I am also aware that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You obviously believe in an invisible super-friend in the sky (who apparently looks like a nipple) and as you have not provided us with any alternative theories regarding the beginning of life/evolution, then I have to assume the David is correct and you believe that life was 'created' by a giant invisible nipple. Yes that makes much more sense than evolution. You win.

The best quote I have read reecently

'"Science [continues to be] the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Evolution certainly attests to that fact.

one under god,

Yahweh, Supreme Architect of the Cosmos, Kings of Kings, the Alpha and the Omega, is an engorged nipple? I'm pretty sure that's blasphemy. Why should we accept the religious views of somebody who blasphemes against his own imaginary friend?

ok final post..[for 23 hours or so]..
maybe forever...post limits are fun
so take your free shots till them..

we got ther alco ocolight..who finally
has written something able to be read...yeahh

[even if its just a mock defense
of a god she dont believe in]

she yet stood up for our beloved old teat...
who nurtures...every living thing..their very living

even the lol..biologist..so clever at spinning spin..as she is as sepperating out dna..from living cells..cells she and her ilk gotno chance of ever making..

let alone explaining/REPLICATING
how a first/cell..could possably come to 'be'bby fluke

but lets not..ignore their collective inteligence
they will in time..via study of life,,[not death]..explain
in part..how god might have done 'it'

and hope..they..by then created their *own cell
using their..*own logic and..own*dust

not busted up cell bits
that only god could have made

at least if she..is doing study..
not rote work..like refining dna for sequencing..like a robot

much like an other athiest..i once met
who specialised in..[some other aspect]..they call science..

but that is only replicatinmg..the same bacteria..into a micro evolution..to wit evolving..*a species within the same ol genus..

into a new species..NOT A NEW GENUS..

but them..decrying genus
think micro[evolution..validates macro evolution[into new genus]

lol..theorise..lol..
dna can macro evolve...into a new genus....

like a half coldblood fish..with scales..into a warm blood/beast with fur...[how strange..not one inbetween survived]..lol

in short you..who study and clone dna
what have you personally evolved

nuthin

thought so

have a nice delusion
you who cant hold forth..any origonal thought
only parrot out..peer revieuwed rot..[spin]

lol
the seggregationinst dna analyst..see the joke

never bred anything in her life...
nor evolved..even her own thinking

and an occult-lite
and the vacufuccus..ok im gone

ssstezza quote..""DNA canbe produced from..RNA and vice versa.In fact I have done this today,.""

this was her..reply to first life
but lets egsamin the words...""I have done this..*today""

today..in this case..was..""Sunday,20/November""
so clearly..this abuser..uses poetic-licence..lightly

no specific claim..to having a phd..
nor refered..to any studies..she specificly/personally..makes claim to,

nor any docterates..nor mention..of her field..beyond lab asisting/molecular biology..to wit playing with bits..

dead bits..[processing]...ie a process worker

Evolution studies..what changes..living things

dna isnt life..[in short..we have spin]

i could go on..with her delusions of grandure
but know..not to expect..any real answers..
[nor names]..of first/life..etc

she makes a point..to say later..
saying..""RNA itself..in nucleic acid,""

[in or is..!]..

so lets clarify..her ignorance
[too much..self head-slapping?]

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/583rnatypes.html

""Messenger RNA..(mRNA)..is synthesized..from
a..gene segment..of DNA
which..ultimately contains..*the information*...

on..the primary..*sequence..of amino/acids..

*The..messenger RNA..*carries the code..!
into the cytoplasm..where protein/synthesis occurs""

in short..she
is full of lies..again

so..lets go to her point,..lol,,,3

"" me.."SO you think..nucleic acid..TO BE LIFE"

[she]..Yes I do,""

so lets hear..of these other..'lives'...lol

""Several distinctive features
of..the genetic code..are clearly evident...""

ie rna..is code..
not life...!

""First,..all of the 64 codons..or triplets
have a known function,..with 61..*coding for*..amino/acids..

and the other 3..serving as a stop
or termination signal..for protein synthesis""

but..its much harder..[complicated]
[..to disprove/refute..&..*a lie

but heck
this fraud..must be held..to account

need look no further..than a google/search

""The RNA world hypothesis..proposes*..that life
*based on*..ribonucleic acid..(RNA)""

ie based on/thus not..*of itself 'life'
]you deciever[..!

or..""Carl Woese hypothesized*""...lol

""that RNA..*might be catalytic*
and..*suggested*..that the earliest forms of life
>>(*self-replicating molecules*)<<..*could have..*relied on
RNA...""

to wit..half/wit
NOT LIFE!

read..the darn link

further..you said..AFTER I QUOTED
ONLY WIKIPEDIA FACTS..!

""Thanks for the info,..although..lol
as a cell/molecular..biologist""...lol

YEAH got any proof...?..lol

""I am aware..of all of this.""

then..in her next breath

""I am also aware...lol..that you..don't have a clue
what you..are talking about.""

it wernt me talking..sister!

but..i think people..*get..where you come from

next..Vku..quote..""explanation..how the earth
populated..by all the different..ethnic groups,""

vku..recall noah..had sons..[with wives]!
the..&so called eves..science makes claim to

ignorance..is no excuse

you live with/by..the fruit[gifts]..of god
yet fail to see..the amasing cause..

OUG,

1. I don't need to prove my credentials to you. I'm not using my phd as evidence I know more than you. I'm sure I knew more than you before I even started by tertiary eduction.

2. Yes I work weekends.

3. I am not female. (although it is interesting that you seem to assume that people that disagree with you are female. Superiority complex?)

4. Define life.

You have neither refuted anything I have said, nor proven any of your claims. I note that you have not denied believing in a literal interpretation of the book of genesis. I am happy for you to live in this world of make-believe, however every time you attempt to claim any BS regarding science/evolution, I will be here to put you back in your box. Ignorance prevails when smart men do nothing.

one under god,

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

ok
you..just act like..
a girlly/girl

you said""1.I don't need to prove my credentials to you.""

yet have repeatedly..quoted them
at me...lol

to wit..monday..""although as a cell/molecular-biologist
I am aware..[lol]..of all of this""

but heck..you can 'be' anything

http://www.google.com/search?q=stezza+female+%3F&btnG=Search&oq=stezza+female+%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=60570l61119l0l64107l4l4l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0

but most certainly..not a qualified evolutionist
cause thats..not a science qualification!

cause its a theory..not a science

you thus are nuthin..confirmable
except that revealed..in your opinions

get some faulsifyables[science fact]
or go away

you have added little
but correction..[opinion]..without accreditisation..

[thus again..voice opinion..not authority]

you think to say little..that your clever
but usually saying little..means you lie

anyhow i will keep quoting info..from links
to let others decide..if your only fluff and wind...mate

interesting to note..
your first 3 posts here[olo]..were aimed at me

here is your first
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8921#141686

""Your correct in stating..that there is an apx..2% genetic difference..between humans and ape,..this must me taken..in the context that >90% of our DNA..does not code for genes,..thus protein.""

not acid..?

oh high..and tightly wound one

""This makes the 2% difference in DNA""

then note the qualifier,

""of which we know..
the gene function..""lol

""more significant than it sounds.""

even then..*seemingly to disagree
yet confirming..what i just said

to wit spin
you began with miss naming me..

then..""While entitled..to your opinion""

next you tried
to refute my using genus...saying

""all species are related..to each other by some means,""

to which my reply would be..
YEAH cause..the one hand of god..alone..done it

he done it ALL..
thus all..has the mark..of its creator's hand..on it

interstingly you didnt then
make claim..*to be any biologist...

""as for a cell membrane,
I'm quite sure..LOL..that lipids..can be easily formed my chemists.""

though then..of course
you claimed to be a boss

but mate..*lipids
arnt cell membranes

and if its so easy..
STOP TALKING ABOUT IT..AND DO IT..!@

but you cant..to
wit half wit..SPIN..!

interestingly..THEN ..you didnt think dna as life

""some theories would suggest viruses
and plasmids..could be considered living,""

SOME THEORIES...lol..

now your latest THEORY..is dna is life...lol

and no..
i didnt agree them..to be life then
and still dont..

continued

but then..you changed again

lol

your that teacher
doing the same..rote..bacteria-experiments..
to impress..1st year med students..gee your god...lol

lol...thought you sounded familour
and persistantly..opinionated
[biassed]..lol..TO A fraud THEORY..!

ok mate

by your own words..[that explain
why..you say..so little actual/fact]

YOU/quote..""It may be frustrating..that science
does not*..provide complete..'proof'..of its various theories*.""

not for me
i think..*most..*know
theory..*from fact..!

ALL YOU GOT..IS THEORY..and teaching 1st year students
the same bacteria party-trick...breeding..lol..the same *genus of bacteria

ONLY EVER BACTERIA!..[never anything else]
[as in..evolution..of genus]..required if valid]

your..NEVER EVOLVING ANYTHING
except..at the micro..[species]..level

not the macro level..beyond bacteria genus..
the evolving..revolving/THEORY needs

theories..are like aholes..we each got..at least one
BUT SCIENCE..*NEEDS replicatable FACT...!

get it
blind-freddy?

as for nipples..that was..the form..[cellular]..
the beginning..of the big bang..

also..the shape of the earth..and the universe

you confuse the way..with the result

but lets return to..*the cell..
[that you muggin's..can melt..in acid..
to get at..its dna..]..kill the cell

BUT..CAN NEVER..ever
HOPE TO MAKE..[create]

cause only god..can do that
[ie make a seed..or..a cellular membrain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_cycle

""The cell cycle,..or cell-division cycle,
is the series of events..that takes place..*in a cell""

noting all dna..is naturally
found..*only..*within a cell

[i will talk of..the trickery
you apply later..to get dna..out of its cell..and
then..the process you use..by rote to multiply it...

ie..process work
a thing..any monkey can do.

continue quote..events in cell..
""leading to its division..and duplication(replication).""..

replicating
the dna/rna/mitroconda..plus cell

""In cells..without a nucleus(prokaryotic),
the cell cycle..occurs via a process termed binary fission.

In cells with a nucleus..(eukaryotes),the cell cycle..can be divided in three periods:..interphase—during which the cell grows,accumulating nutrients..needed for mitosis..and duplicating its DNA—[in/cell]

and the mitosis..(M)phase,during which the cell*
splits itself into two distinct cells,..often called "daughter cells"

and the final phase,Cytokinesis,
where the new cell*..is completely divided.""

if you be..what you claim to be
here are some..of your 'teqniques'

only
you have disolved the bacteria cell..in acid
and only trick..the dna replication process..via chemical..not life

that in the end..its only reacting..to chemical input
copying/mimicing[moking]..what god does intra cellular autonimously..

which will lead..
no where near..living autonomy...
nor validate..a fraud theory

gods nature/nurture..does..it..by itself

2b continued

Come on, lets get to the point. You believe in god in the absence of any evidence for its existence. No amount of evidence will convince you that the theory of evolution is correct as this incompatible with your beliefs.

Stop being a hypocrite and apply evidence-based thought to your own beliefs.

stezza..mate..i got plenty of proof
that you..got no proof..!

its your theory*
you..supply the fact..to prove it

its not for me..to disprove..
cause you arnt..close to being right

NOT ONE CHANGE..OF GENUS
has ever been reported..nor recorded..nor proven..EVER!

only the godless..need some reason..thus flog a THEORY
implying..lol,,if you dont get it..your the ignorant one

[and human nature..is lazy
they prefer..to be..with the 'in' crowd
as dumb pigs..love to hide..in the clever sheep

yet they only follow deciete...or rather
a THEORY,..that excludes god

but..back to finshing you off

""Evidence suggests..that a semi-autonomous transcriptional network..
acts in concert..with the CDK-cyclin machinery..to regulate the..*cell cycle...""

""..Several..gene-expression..studies..in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
have identified..approximately..800 to 1200 genes..that change expression..over the course/of..the cell-cycle;""

your rote job..[breeding..and destroying..*bacteria
ie..only making rna/dna..by killing..living-cells..for killings sake

with no intrest..beyond switching..genes..on or off..
[and nothing..to do with cell..except destroying them..to get your dna/rna]

continue quote..gene expression..""they..are transcribed..at high levels..at specific points..in the cell-cycle,..''

and dead
once you disolved away..all the cell-organics
to obtain..the dna/rna..dead dna

here..are some of..the cells tricks
you might use..in your..rote process/replications...

masking as..lol..science

""Several methods..can be used..to synchronise..*cell cultures
by halting the..*cell cycle..at a particular phase.

For example,..serum starvation..and treatment with thymidine
or aphidicolin..halt the cell..in the G1 phase,

mitotic shake-off,..treatment with colchicine..
and treatment with nocodazole..halt the cell in M phase..

and treatment..with 5-fluorodeoxyuridine..halts the cell..in S phase.

lest we forget
we got..acids..and alcaloids

[opposing sides..to the same
acidifying/de-acidification process]

never-the-less
dna/rna..are instructions..*not life

..just dont be supprised..in the next life
when they..repeatedly..disolve your..'organic bits..
and replicate..only your..dna..[karma]

endlessly...or untill you wakeup..
and realise..the destructivness of all..
you so thoughtlessly..have done..by rote..to other

recall the law
more of the same..[as what you gave]..
shall be given..little wonder..you decry..the law/of karmic..comback and god

you decieve others
worse..you decieve them..into believing..*a theory
ie a hope/opinion...idea..to wit a lie..[if..you cant prove it true..]

worse..you hide behind..a mask of experteaze
claiming the respect..due to those..doing research..to find truths

when in truth..only doing..party-tricks..
to impress kiddies..into faulse-theories

bah
talk..is cheap
invent something
validate proof..into your theory..of wind

reveal faulsifyables..

one under god,

? D 'obvius ut operias, ut productio ligni et mobilis illi et moribus L'? remotio introëuntibus vobis, promitto tibi? [Afeteroy] causam inducens views caeli? Fingunt d 'colant scientificus - L gradu tuo? Est consuetudo in disciplinis doctrinarum examine, a te scelerate L? eruditio English. Does your observationem docet / Science ostendo vos teneo? T est et scientifica methodo? , Quod scientia in particulari quid sit faciendum Rereaktion nec eget ante in quam tu tibi verba in eo loco scripta sunt in eo plus ego nunc vitam. Tertio tu? ; Cum Reobsession muzzles amet, consectetur psycho aliqua. Vos mos animadverto a elit. Etiam nec dolor? ; Dixeris? Hoc mendacium ... et [fyres] non? T sprechen amittere formam? Mauris vere t (aut satis). Postremo tu? : Unus descendit Rebildenweise facti regulares. Quare "facies? T somno facias eum 'd? Vel si sobrius es? Et tamen vicit?' Est rationale: [Kath] disco magis ueri simile proferre, washer exiguam purpurrotere elit.

If you aim to convince me (or others) to change their mind, then you must propose an alternative theory. So far you have refused to do that. Is it because it relies on your faith in the existence of a creator? Simply state your alternative theory. Why is it so difficult?

Stezza, his alternate theories come from the pseudo science at www.creation.com. only he won't admit it.

From the article:

"Like antisepsis, many scientific truths began as heresies and fought long battles for acceptance against entrenched establishment wisdom that now appears irrational: continental drift, for example. Barry Marshall was not just ignored but vilified when he first argued that stomach ulcers are caused by a particular bacterium. Antacid drugs were very profitable for the drug industry. Eventually he won the Nobel prize.

Just this month Daniel Shechtman won the Nobel prize for quasi crystals, having spent much of his career being vilified and exiled as a crank. “I was thrown out of my research group. They said I brought shame on them with what I was saying.”

That’s lesson number 4: the heretic is sometimes right."

Hence my handle...

tazer quote...""If you aim..to convince me""

i dont..aim to convince..anyone

im saying..i studied evolution intensly
and as you can confirm...life..can only fluctuate
within the parental genus..

to wit..your bacteria...are still..the same genus

just as with..darwins finches...
[in dry season..the short/beaked thrives
in wet season the long/beaked thrives...two species..of the one..finch genus.

or fruitflies..quintillions of fruitfly generations
the results..all fall within..the fruitfly genus

not one mouse..not one..'bacteria..*all fruitflies

life..comes from life..[like itself]
[thats my life experience..and no-one..has reported any different.

yet kids get sold..some accidental fluke/chance
created the first unnamed life..that then..evolved..into all the other life...lol..HOW?..

yet even..the wise ones [teachers]..like your good self
know...that bacteria breeds bacteria..[ALLWAYS..WITHIN its genus]full stop..

convince.."(others)..to change..their mind,""

mate..see the occult/lite's comments

they simply take evolution..on faith...
cause it was taught them as children..cause they need..a god free cause of life..mate its all giberish..*to them

""then you must..propose an alternative theory."'

i have...a cell based theory...
[as inspired..by the big teat vision]

in the beginning..was a cell
and lets call that cell god..[alpha cell]

then god evolved..[bang]
leaving behind..*his evolution trail

[once the master creator 'knew'..his latest creation
teashing in full..he goes into the next 'evolution']

its as good
a fairy tale..as what we got by..'evolution THEORY'

how do you clever guys..fit into it?
mate...prove the sequence..[path]..by which
'god'..evolved..into his highest incarnation..[you]

""So far..you have refused to do that."'

i only studied micro/evolution
because i soon realised..macro evolution..[exta..;out of genus..is impossable]...i dont know how god done it..

i just know..species hover..arround the genus mean...[like with darwins finches..betwen long beaked..and short beaked]

""Is it because..it relies on your faith
in the existence..of a creator?""

no dr tezza..it dont

i just know macro-evolution..
is based..on clever distortions..learned ignorances

any valid..science...is applicable
only to species evolution..not genus evolution

""Simply state..your alternative/theory.""

all life comes from life..and all life is sustained..by god
cause science cant do it..and 'life'..isnt doing it

''Why is it..so difficult?''

it dont have a name...but the lives..we do see..
are just too perfect..to have occured by chance

there is logic there..beyond evolved..'natural-selection'
you got science..BUT*..'natural' belongs to god

Interesting,

According to your theory, the number of genera must have been maximum at 'creation' as if no new genera can be formed, we must be in a constant state of decline in biodiversity (due to extinction events). If this is true, then species within the genus homo must have existed since 'creation' along with species of the genus Eoraptor. This would be supported by the finding of fossils of these genera that date to the same period of time.

Alternatively (upon a second reading of your post) it seems that you may actually believe in macro-evolution, however, it is not macro-evolution, but 'god' evolving a genus, then 'deciding' that a new genus will be evolved (with a bang, apparently). This theory would allow you to use any scientific evidence (such as the fossil record, or DNA homology) as proof of god, rather than proof of macroevolution.

On the other hand, have you ever considered that god does not exist (or is made of spaghetti)?

one under god,

? 500 'i dalu am y fynedfa, gan fod y cynhyrchiad y goeden, ac yn amodol ar newid a 50 cymeriad'? symud, wrth i chi fynd, yn addo chi? [Afeteroy] barn yn arwain achos y nefoedd? Maent yn dychmygu bod d 'yn addoliad y gwyddonydd - eich 50 gradd? Mae'n arferiad yn y disgyblaethau o ddysgu yr arholiad, yr oeddech yn 50 dihiryn? dysgu Saesneg. A yw eich arsylwi addysgu / Gwyddoniaeth dangos i chi ei wybod? Ac T yn ddull gwyddonol? , Nad yw gwybodaeth am yr hyn y dylai ei wneud yn arbennig yn defnyddio hyn o'r blaen yn y Rereaktion na chi yn y lle i ti geiriau yn cael eu hysgrifennu mewn iddo wyf bywyd yn fwy. Yn drydydd, ydych chi? Pan muzzles testun syml Reobsession ffug o rai seicolegol. Byddwch yn gweld y stori. Rhy ychydig? ; Rydych wedi dweud? Mae hon yn gorwedd ... a [fyres] beidio? T sprechen i'w golli ffurflen? Rydym yn wirioneddol t (neu ddigon). Yn olaf, ydych chi? : Un Daeth i lawr Rebildenweise wedi dod yn rheolaidd. Y rheswm hwn, "fyddwch yn ei wneud? T ac yn gwneud iddo cysgu 'ch? Neu, os ydych yn sobr? Ac gorchfygu eto?" Mae resymegol: [Kath] ddysgl yn fwy tebygol o sôn amdanynt, mae purpurrotere washo bach yma.

stirrer/tazer quote..""According to your theory,
the number of genera..must have been maximum..at 'creation'""

sorry ol mate..no
i say..that life in toto
reflects that of an intelligence...'evolving'genus

while species has its species limited bounds..[genera]

i see the journey..of god..becoming human
then becomming god..till in time we find
the good..of god in ourselves
and others

i will try..to keep it simple
for the alco-lite...

imagine you arer unique[god]..you become aware..of firstly...'the deep nuthin'
then think light to 'be'...[and it is]..in time you wonder
what is this me..that i am

so you experment...and in time decide
no...im more than this...so god is omnipresent

can be here*
and at the same time be here*

[just like quantum theory]

so god is on the inside..looking out
till in time..with a huge bang
you find nothing..else
'out there'

so god looks within...[into her; the uni-verse]
and sees her own inner light..may decide to look closer
then..in that light..she may even have 'seen'..a reflection...of her own light

[off say a bubble..or a rain drop..or dew]..

then by the simple act of imagining..what can that 'be'...
can that be me...?..isnserts dna..into a cell..
bingo the first genus

[simply by god..willing..to see
'something/anything..inside it..too]

its not too hard..to imagine god studying it..
knowing it...learning from it..teaching it things

then in time..that one cell becomes two..
[and no..she wasnt..that beta*cell neither]..
but we..got our second genus/limit...teaching

in time
god gets to knowing..all that cellbased genus
is/knows..feels..was or can be..etc
cause she created it

so are 'created''...the single cell/multicell[life evolutions]
and what was to be..two singular cell genera's..in time became multi cellular

in time she evolves..into multicellular life..
[further refined by 'natural selection']
ie by attraction..love

[it all..unfolds step by logical step]
up the scale..reflecting evolution..as we see in species vairiations

but each new genus evolution
is a teaching/lesson..path..trail fixed limit
left by gods self discovery..by means only god did do

at the highest level..of her discovery and our creation
she made man..just like..she made all before him
each..in their own place/time/face form lessons

continues

with adam..the
higher/alpha evolutionary..[eve..the beta]
as close to god..as materiality..we..can get

he..adam..[the fool
wants..what the beasts got]

so she god..takes his dna/rib..
tosses away the 'y' chromosone
and doubles up on the x..

[in the process..tweaking the dna..
to have the alpha..[XX}

and the hetrozygote mutated 'x'..
[to wit Xx =eve]...+..[Xy=a damm]

giving adam..[Xy}..his sister erve..{Xx]

[plus his wife...lover..etc]
just like the beasts,...got

[till the day..mr Xy
the clever ape...that dares ask why...[y]

realises the big slap..
god gave man-kind..[via a-damm[Xy]..
wanting his own sister..Xx]...for xxx

mate..if we dont got evidence
then fill..in the gaps..that fit available facts
evolution is only a theory...just like mine...as we chose best fits our facts

even fossiles have not closed
any of evolutions 'gaps'...

but hey ol mate

give me fact
name the first life

and what it evolved into

till then..im with love mercy grace


and god doing all of it
by logic means..dicoverable by man

!*..[but tell me
have you any..any proof..!

that..there was no
hand of god...in creation?]

ok
i thought not

SOOO
yes..i believe

""no new genera can be formed,"'
till we follow gods path..[however he done it]

if you got one...by all means speak
reveal it..[name it]...

i will adjuct my theory accordingly
[if it confirms...with the knowable/known/knowns..[..facts..]

""a constant state of decline..in biodiversity(due to extinction events)..""

""If this is true,..then species..within the genus homo..must
have existed since..'creation' along with species..of the genus Eoraptor.""..

oh the chicken sized dinosaw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoraptor
''genus Eoraptor" is a kind of...):

reptile genus (a genus of reptiles)

Meronyms (members of "genus Eoraptor"):

eoraptor (a theropod dinosaur of the genus Eoraptor)

Holonyms ("genus Eoraptor" is a member of...):

suborder Theropoda; Theropoda
(carnivorous saurischian dinosaurs with short forelimbs; Jurassic and Cretaceous)''

its intersting to note the 'proof' of evolution
lol..based on forelimbs,,,lol..[not dna evolving]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#fig3.1.1

your claiming some evidence of...evolution
lol..based on the tree of life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree
Eoraptor,..Herrerasaurus,..Ceratosaurus,..Allosaurus,
Compsognathus,..Sinosauropteryx,..Protarchaeopteryx,..etc etc?

it seems the tree has evolved into a forrest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg

no definite root..!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
looks good..till you look at the details
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

soo..no...
limitations,..primarily
not being able/to..account the actual evolutionary history.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Structural_Biochemistry/Bioinformatics/Evolution_Trees

continues..[later]

Great, a breakthrough!

At least I can finally understand your beliefs. Evolution (both macro and micro) occur, but all is 'created/directed' by your 'god'. Makes sense.

Next time you meet her, do you mind asking her to stop all that nasty poverty/war/disease crap. Its getting old.

continues..shortly

god is...beyond sex

its not..what i believe..its what..*may have been..
because you science lot..cant fill-in..the blanks..

[its..a working..hypo-thesis..[a theory]
JUST LIKE..YOU LOT..HAVE GOT

a theory..[all you got faith..in]
plus mine...i got..my faith..in

all your facts..re species/evolution
with my certainty..that you cant name..
ANY MACRO-evolution..[into..*new genus]

[and i note..you again..didnt name..*any]

to finish..previous post
[for your amusment..and titilation]

previous/quote..continued

""While..the sequence/alignment..shows comparatively..how related..two species are,..
*there is no indication
as to..how*..they evolved""

thats..a scientist
speaking..the truth

it..like all of them..genus/evolution like steps..
emerged..as god self-discoverd..[grew into omnipotance]

over time..[by natural/expectation..progression]..
based upon logical reflection..

and god..expanding..the concepts
of what god isnt..

[yet god still..created..
and sustains..to live.].

the qualities..of all/aspects of life...[as recorded by evolutionists..who cant name..exgact..*'progression..
nor confirm it..with any science/method;..

[to wit..rote science/theory]

thus the..[my]..*theory..
[of celular..alpha/macro-evolution..[theo-wry]

[to wit..many creation events..

then//in time..homo..[adam]
who..lol..wanted hetro..[eve]

'"it seems..that you
may actually..believe
in..macro-evolution,""

autoniouse/spontanios..self macroevolution...?

*nope..

micro/evolution..
[species..with-IN genus..
changing species]..im fine..with that

but wait..till YOU find..a new genus
before granting..you..that licence..
or verifying it..as a possability

im just joining..the facts..as the facts emerge

i love science discovery..cause
it teaches me..more..about our god

[my theory continues..on
into the next lives..[spirit]
where we enter the higher..[and lower]..spiritualised evolution possabilitiess...

as..we get nearer..
or chose..to devolve..further..from god...

[reaching..the supreme state..of our own]

with our own..''let there be..light moment
as realised..SUN*S..of good...[god]

[birthing..our own new/earth]..

just like satan did..to this one
[just like god did..to the universe
by doing living/evolving..growing...our own planetry-system

undergoing..[evolving]..'our own'..genus evolution's...

[just like..lord satan..
[now our..sun]..did before us

the one true/good god
origonates..[in-spires]..all light..from..[via]..all the suns..

in all..the heavens

just like..all wells
draw..waters/spirit..from..the same deep waters

ok call it nuts,.,.
but im joining together..the facts
and filling in..my own gaps..my own thesis..[beliefs]

plus..heck
mr vuckyou

that certainly
ain't from..no 'creation site..!

anyhow..i will ignore..your witty sin-icism...
till ANY..of you..can deliver proof..of gods..non egsistance

for..all of my life experience
confirms..his living loving/hand
behind it all..

[we can know god..by loving..his creation]

that we do to/for..the least
we..do to/for..him

I wonder, is it simply because we have 2 eyes that we always seek this perfect symmetry of protagonist/antagonist?
It seems semantically questionable to me that 'scepticism' could ever be the thesis or antithesis in any dialectical event. Surely it would be more accurate to accept 3 positions; 'warmists' to the left of us, 'denialists' to the right of us...
I consider myself a sceptic, but I refuse to share a camp with the spurious 'Lord' Monckton.
We currently inhabit a paradigm, which worships intelligence and education. Sadly, neither will guarantee any immunity from bad decisions.
As I suggested in another post recently, anyone who has ever been in a close relationship, like or akin to marriage for instance, would -if they have an ounce of honesty- be familiar with the fact that the smarter partner is not always or necessarily right.
Making good decisions is not just about intelligence. Knowledge of the subject as Steven Myer has pointed out is very important, but perhaps the most important attribute is objectivity, and that is exactly what is at issue here.
Not only the scientists, but everyone who indulges in debates such as this one is being attacked (consciously or unconsciously) for a lack of objectivity. While ad hominum attacks should never be encouraged, it is nevertheless true that one's background will inevitably colour one's thinking and influence one's decisions; a point which I think Squeers was alluding to.
What a charming 20th century buzz phrase is 'confirmation bias'! 2000 years ago, the legendary Jesus was attributed with the acute observation that we should “Judge Not, Less we Ourselves be Judged”; demonstrating that in judging others we inevitably tell the world more about our own bias, than we do of the people we presume to judge. Hardly surprising that the most common criticism levelled by conservatives is that warmist scientists are only interested in the money.

I for one would be very grateful if the entire AGW thing just went away. Then perhaps we could start to address those issues we can predict; that finite resources must inevitably run out, that pollution can never be a good thing, that inequality inevitably leads to conflict...

Thanks for your posts, Grim - a breath of fresh air....

@stevenlmeyer: We are NOT going to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in any meaningful way.

My own prediction is peak oil will hit in the next few years, and failing some miracle in battery technology our only hope of keeping the tractors and trucks that drive our civilisation going will be Coal to Liquids, which roughly doubles the amount of CO2 produced per joule of energy consumed. (A miracle in battery technology is not out of the question. Eg: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/21153-sufiy/161327 )

The rest of the commentary here seems to be little more than hairy chest beating mostly over topics unrelated to the article. Such is OLO I guess.

However since no one else has, I will take Matt Ridley to task on a few things. He is right in say the most difficult thing about predicting the climate is water vapour feed back. But then he goes on to say:

"there is absolutely no consensus about [whether] ... Water vapour ... in practice amplify or dampen any greenhouse warming remains in doubt."

If he is saying there is no consensus in the climate science community about what effect water vapour will have then this flat out, unabridged rubbish. Out of the 100's of published climate scientists maybe 3 or 4 disagree with the consensus.

It's difficult to say if that's the worst of Matt exaggeration's and dare I say it outright deceit. For example this:

"It was warmer in the Middle ages"

It was in Europe. But globally average temperatures are warmer how. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

Or maybe:

"And ocean heat content has decelerated, if not flattened, in the past decade."

Well this is the graph. http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ It doesn't look "flat" to me.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. The article was a bit of a curates egg - some solid, some very flaky. And as I said, no one challenged the flaky bits. Disappointing.

PS, here is another bio of Matt Ridley: Prolific journalist, hard line libertarian, and chairman of Northern Rock Bank when it went broke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley#Northern_Rock

good points grim..the same flaws [in the science machinations...of climate change..were begat in the THEORY of evolution]

now i studied evolution in depth
only cursurilly egsamined the climate change THEORY

i note both used clever 'models..
and model based bling...its so your mind has seen
thus it is led to believe...[thing is the models/pictures graphs/trees]

mate they dont compute..
[when egasamined closely]

look at the last tre of life link for egsample
get a picture of the beastie...compare it to the next 'evolution'

there is no wat...one mutation..or rather a series of mutations can occure[in fact there are so many feedback mechanisms..like dna repair..or acidification balance in oceons..via the sxcience fact that acif is neutralised by lime]

and great briton is built on a huge limestone reef
let alone other barrier reefs[and shells etc]..science says c023 becomes limestone

so too the insanity of evolution..[of genus]
its sold to kids..just like the scam theory global warming

then adults cant dispute..because first it needs to refute all the lies stuck in our childish minds by the decievers

decievers doing what the peers decree to be true

but every science needs to have definitive qualifiers[faulseifyables]
that if refuted refute the theory

no faulsifyables no science

i would keep exposing evolution
but its clear that only stezza..has even
any vague comprehention..of the subject..

but as a teacher of the irreverant THEORy..
has had to buy into the coolaid..to get peer recognition
he has made them more important that god..doing it all for us

lies start when we are little
little white lies..that decieve kids away from the only living loving good...[god]..sustaining every life its being...

[not cleanibng up our mess...
but giving us our lives..so we can get that glory..

if only we put into action[deed/work]
the law..of love they neighbour
be his protecter

all life is your brrr-other...

its not a bother
its your br-other

OUG, I might have missed it, but how old do you think the world is and also, can you explain how it is that scattered around the world, in every continent except the Antarctic, there are people of very different colours and appearances.

David

davidv/quote..""OUG,..how old do you think the world is""''its old..very old...but in its first few millions of years..it was just a hot lump..thrown off the sun[satan]...from the deepest hell[the sun]

but thats too much for you to take in
so i will say its millions of millions of years old

but days are a measure of change[not clock nor calender time
so i 'see'..the first 'day'..as a set phase
[when the hot blob was cooling]..then to when
it became the water planet..[as day two]..even so..its trillions and trillions of day..[gods 'day measure might span the time betwen each new genus creation]

regardless...no one can know
nor confirm..but heck..the mother earth
is old..[older than 7000 years..ok?]

""can you explain
how it is that scattered around the world,
in every continent except the Antarctic,..there are people of very different colours and appearances.""

the creationists theorise..that noahs sons
and wives scatterd to the wind's..that their gene genome
genetic groups reflect the races..but also our inter-relatedness

those thinking to decend off the abrhamic branch
well thats only one truth..[only one of the many beliefs of gods many children]

anyhow...given time it can all be explained...with honest looking at the facts[and maybe an occasional accepting of spiritual guidences]

as this is all still at refuting bad science
its not off topic trolling..i do feel great pains..of those missing seing the gifts of gods amasing creation

[and dispair in that no-one saw the worth
of gods gift..[our joined share of gods inheritance

[the 'leaves' of the true tree of life..ie rev 22..

as explained..in my referances re the wikiseed/wikigeld...
to wit that biblical 12 fruits tree..[who's leaves are for the healings of nations]..

not the faux destraction of the
[tree of life projest]..[project]
linked too earlier

anyhow i love explaining

but more need to expose
the frauds of science..
[the 7th seal]

once we chose to unseal our minds eye

OUG,

This frequent claim of yours, that you’ve studied evolution in depth, is either a lie or says a lot about your comprehension skills. And no, reading http://www.answersingenesis.org does not constitute studying evolution.

If you had studied evolution - or any science at all for that matter - then you would understand that a theory in scientific terms is not just a hypothesis as you keep claiming it is with your incorrect use (and capitalisation) of the word “theory”. Even creationist websites advise that their ignorant followers don’t use the “Evolution is just a theory” argument… http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

I suppose gravity, cell theory, germ theory and black hole theory are just hypotheses too?

You repeatedly ask for falsifiables (as if they needed to be a physical item), then when you’re given (to paraphrase) “reasons as to why evolution is falsifiable”, you shift the goal posts like a typical creationist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#173151)...

<<lol...THIS IS YOUR EVI-DENSE>>

No, it wasn’t “my evidence”, it was something that would falsify evolution.

Another “falsifiable” is the complete lack of any mechanism preventing genera splitting off into several different genera; something you claim is impossible and yet are unable to come up with a reason as to why (instead, opting to raise the obvious point that no-one has ever witnessed it before their very eyes, when witnessing it would actually disprove evolution). With what we know of DNA and mutations, along with the lack of any such mechanism, it would be impossible for multiple genera to not have evolved over such a vast amount of time. The only argument you could possibly present would be to claim that the world isn’t old enough, yet everything we observe says otherwise.

A static fossil record would also falsify evolution and thus the fossil record is yet another “falsifiable”. Not only does the fossil record show genera splitting off into several different genera, but with our understanding of DNA now (an understanding that creationists are forced to brush-off as “common design”), we don’t even need the fossil record. It’s just an added bonus.

So there’s another “falsifiable” for you: DNA.

aj..you talk of fossils as evidence
please educate yourself with phenotype/versis genotype
[pheenotype means looks like...and mate just cause a fossil looks like[dont mean it is]

take the archioptrix[bird lizard thing..a so called m issing link
as previously posted it was [proved fraud..because it included modern day chiken feathers]..so looke like isnt any proof its geneticly reklated[genotype]

then there is that 'small issue'
where cold blood fish..'evolved'..into warm blood furry critter
so show me this warmblood fish..or this cold blood mammal[missing link mate]

huge gaps..that critter that walked from the seas..
didnt have shoulderblades..nor hips
so couldnt have walked

your link..it sems to go to a previous post of mine
[im not seeing what that ''evri-denser'' quote relates to]

but lets face it in your mind
you see a cat evolve into a dog
even if their closest genetic link diverged away from eacxh other long ago[according to your own theory]

mate its the complete lack of transitionals..that speaks volumes
my search found less than 10..and none was completly fasulsifyable[most based on mere fragments

anyhow here
i put ya theory on trial
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?t=3225
[and you can vote on the jury]

aj rote/quote...""you shift..the goalposts
like a typical creationist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#173151)...

<<lol...THIS IS..YOUR EVI-DENSE>>

No,..it wasn’t..“my evidence”,
it was something..that would falsify..evolution.""...lol

cool it led..to my words
and i know..*it dont faulsify anything

look at the durn werds...[what means faulse..
to those ignorant..of science terminology]..
faulsify to most..means..to lie

but in truth
the word defines..the facts
that..*if proved faulse
invalidate..the theory

so i ask for..these faulsifyables
KNOWING EVERY SCIENCE..*NEEDS THEM TO.."BE"..A SCIENCE
evolution THEORY..*dont got em..[thus isnt a science]

i note again..you didnt present any
only linked back to me...lol

"""Another “falsifiable”..is the complete lack
of any mechanism..preventing genera,[from]
splitting off..into several different genera;""

lol thats so funny
so..lol...*not having a preventative mechanism..lol for it?
dont mean..that it dont have a corerctive mechanism..THAT PREVENTS IT*!

dna repairs itself..[cause its in matching-pairs]
and thus..any change or mutation
readilly aborts..negative mutation..thus any attempt to lol..evolve..live [outside its genus]

your now claiming
lack of a preventative mechanism..
validates the impossable?

you have no idea..what your saying ol son

""something you claim is impossible""

because the cell mechanism..self repairs

""and yet are unable to come up..with a reason..as to why""

just did..ol mate

""(instead,..opting to raise the obvious point
that no-one has ever witnessed it before their very eyes,
when witnessing it would actually disprove evolution)."""

there you go
how the heck..can witnessing a thing
verify..*lol..*its impossable...

[its a sad point
you fail to make..ol mate]

""With what we know..of DNA and mutations,
along with..lol..the lack of any such mechanism,""

well dna gets repaird
so point..not made

""it would be impossible..for multiple genera
to..*not have evolved..over such a vast amount of time.""

lol

""The only argument
you could possibly present
would be to claim that the world isn’t old enough,""

as i repeatedly said
its plenty old enough..!

mate the earth is slowing down

[every 'day'..will be longer than the next]..

so one..''day''..on the first day..[earth rotation]
might have lasted one second..

till in time
a..[rotation] [day]..now =24 hours

mate so why so despirit.,.

if you got fact
name names..present ya faulsies

if you..lol..ahemmm
got em..lol..present em

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/140

An interesting read.

If one had indeed studied evolution then you would have read:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" Charles Darwin.

You may add that to my previous statement that identifying fossils of the homo genus alongside those of the Eoraptor genus. I could list falsifiables all day.

However, can you list a single falsifiable for your theory?

dr stezzra of course i have my list of faulsifyables
like the repair mechanisnms of dna
http://www.google.com/search?q=dna+repair+mechanism

the thesis to aj phillips antithesis..thesis if you will

recall his words

""Another “falsifiable” is the complete lack of any mechanism preventing genera splitting off into several different genera;""

ignoring his ignorant phrasing
the google search clearly reveals at least 3 mechanisms of dna re-pair

of copurse another faulsifyable
would be your presenting a validated change of genus

there are some other
that come to mind

but lets keep it simple
[as my reply to aj seems to have sent him away]
and avoiding debate..*dont mean its not time we had one

based on the facts of course...
[thats why i put up the world freeman society link]
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?t=3225

So evidence that DNA is not always repaired by one of these mechanisms (thus remains mutated for generations) would contradict your theory?

im wading through your link dr stezzra

quote..""It lacked however fundamental functions,
including transcription,
processes for extracellular communication,..
and enzymes for deoxyribonucleotide synthesis.

Proteomic history reveals the urancestor is closer to a simple progenote organism..but harbors a rather complex set of modern molecular functions.""

but essentially..*didnt live!

despite having...
""advanced metabolic capabilities,
..especially rich in nucleotide metabolism enzymes,
pathways..for the biosynthesis..of membrane
sn1...,2 glycerol ester..and ether lipids,

and it had crucial elements of translation,..including a primordial ribosome with protein synthesis capabilities.'''

YET....it hasnt got life
''IT LACKED...fundemonmental..fun-ctions''

clever words usage[spin]

""considered to be either"""...lol

""a simple 'progenote' organism
with a rudimentary translational apparatus

or a more complex 'cenancestor'
with almost all essential biological processes""

lol

""ALMOST all""...lol

tell me what means ESSENTIAL...?

""that urancestors were always placed
at their base and rooted the tree of life in Archaea""

thus the tree has no root?

lets keep this in context

""The tree of life..defines the
last universal common ancestor (LUCA),"""[as]

""an organism responsible for the emergence of Earth's primary lineages....*However,..the current tree of life is not universal, i.e. not all primary lineages..are represented in the tree.

The tree describes the evolution of organisms with ribosome-containing cells..(ribocells)..and does not incorporate viruses or other lineages that lack ribosomes(virocells),

>>have biological boundaries
that are difficult to define,
or are evolutionarily highly mobile""

lol

the numbers needed are huge

""recent study of 184 genomes..identified 669 orthologous protein families,..which cover 561..*detailed functional classes

that are involved in almost all essential biological processes of extant life,..including translation,..transcription and its regulation,..DNA replication,..recombination,..and repair,*

plus...""transport and membrane-associated functions,
electron transfer,and metabolism ""

in short uncountable odds
no science faulsifyability as to how/what...
chance random/event's..accumulated into a first..'life'

its just all so funny

i noted the word euacestor
so googled up images

http://www.google.com/search?q=uracestor&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

SIX results
all vague synthesis drawings
of lol proto-eonemes?

aint it grand to be in
at the theor-retical ground floor..of a new lie?

*[f] deleted

proteomes had many more pictures
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=Search&um=1&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&oq=proteomes+&aq=f&aqi=&gs_upl=259034l262122l0l263743l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&q=proteomes

but these are looking a bit like simple dna
but heck aint the pictures pretty

if only the pictures moved
[seeing is believing]

but lets go back to your words
""You may add that to my previous statement
that identifying fossils of the homo genus..alongside
those of the Eoraptor genus...""

heck lets hear your proof

""I could list falsifiables all day.""

well lets start tomorrow
[im down to one post..for the rest of the day]

.ps..
.
..i love charles darwin

""If it could be demonstrated..""

who will pay..to refute the theory...lol
the peers..KNOW its their reason de'tre..[reason for being]

""that any complex organ existed,"'

not any complex organism?
could he be refering to species modifications
[like fan tails..or long legs?..short beaks/long beaks?]

""which could not possibly..have been formed by numerous,
successive,...slight modifications,"""

all sussesfull and all adding tyo survival
the odds become huge

then and only then
if refuted...only then will

""my theory""
of species evolving..[and im fine with species evolving]
just not NEW*..genus emerging

only then...'my theory..""would absolutely break down" Charles Darwin.

recall him
knowing his genus from his species
tell me why..did he write 'EVOLUTION ...of SPECIES*

not evolution..of genus

his species evolution is completly valid
but our sumation..of species info..into evolution of genus..
is approaching a colluded fraud...with no faulsifyables its a con

darwin was a great man..[i found him by study of pigeons]
via levi and hollanders..the pigeon encyclopedia

corrosponded with hollander
got into much other stuff
with mozaic grafting and celular modifiation/by synthesis

i do not make his words lightly

yes you can put up faulsifyables...
that if refuted..*refute your theory

im fine with that

please present them

Thats alot of words to avoid one small question. I'll repeat,

You stated:
"of course i have my list of faulsifyables
like the repair mechanisnms of dna"

And I questioned:
"So evidence that DNA is not always repaired by one of these mechanisms (thus remains mutated for generations) would contradict your theory?"

POST LIMITS DEAR BOY..!

back to your last question

*noting..no genus evoltion
out*..of genus..was presented..!

but..i note..your clever....
[planned use..of an outlyer?]
to negate..the normal formalty..
of automatic..dna repar mechanisms

""So evidence..that DNA is
not always..lol...repaired
by one..of these mechanisms..""

one..
cant exclude*
or refute..the other two

one..dont confirm..all..
or indeed indicate its..applicable to all

so no..
it will cleverly be..some complex annomility..[outliner]..
that destracts..from the sure facts..
THAT..dna gets repaired..*

heck
look at the word..RE-paird

dna pairs..are gods way
of making sure..change of genus..can never happen

but.at species level..sure

a mutation that..*isnt fatal
can be expressed..if domminant..at species level

[like a fan tail..or frill in a pigeon..
or multiple eyes/legs etc on a fruitfly]
or paired..*if ressesive

""(thus remains mutated..for generations)""

SURE..within its genus bounds
AT SPECIES level

ie..only within the species
of the given genus...

[unless we get into
inserting mutations..manually...like gmo]

[ie corn..that makes the 3rd generation sterile]
or inserts salmon genes..into strawberries]

""would..[that]..contradict your theory?""'

not in the least...

i know all dogs..are genus cannus
all breeds of dogs..are species..*within canus genus..

so any mutation..from any dog
[or pigeon..or fruitfly/human..any life]..

will transcribe
into any other species....[*in the same genus!]

as long as breeding is factilitated..into fertile progeny
that again breed..*WITHIN their genus bounds

gmo dont count

so present..it..by all means
lets keep an open mind..lets focused on facts

but if,,
(its not a change of genus]
its refuting..the flawed evolution..of genus thesis..!

oh well
thats it for me for the day

4 limit posting..makes refuting destractions difficult

BUT not impossable

keep it comming

will reply/refute
as fast as i can post

*please present faulsifyables*
that state definitivly...what it faulsifies

and what if refuted...would faulsify
the thesis..theor-rised..

refuting..or proving one
cant refute..or validate..them all

be specfic
very specfic

we will..get at
how..god done it

*in time
[his time..or ours?]

lets get it together

now?

i pick..a picture

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.abrf.org/ABRFNews/1996/December1996/wilkinsfig1.GIF&imgrefurl=http://www.abrf.org/ABRFNews/1996/December1996/Proteome.html&usg=__9H1lhVK5mcnfz4kogzl4mH3svkw=&h=435&w=681&sz=9&hl=en&start=2&sig2=jcT2_V0Ak1k5cnv9JPrGqw&zoom=1&tbnid=NJMk29iMWEKRhM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=139&ei=KkvRTsqLCsW4iQeC4aXcBg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dproteomes%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1

to quote..""we still do not understand..how
the simplest living organisms
actually work.""

at least honesty..

OUG,

Every line of your posts confirms that you have not studied evolution in the slightest, outside creationist material.

<<...please educate yourself with phenotype/versis genotype>>

Please educate yourself on stratum. The distribution of fossils throughout the stratum (and over the continents for that matter) consistently supports evolution.

As for the archaeopteryx, nine others have been found under well documented conditions and six of them have feathers. Then there are the other transitional fossils between reptiles and birds such as Deinonychosaurs, Sinosauropteryx prima and Protarchaeopteryx - among others. So like Peking, Nebraska and Java man, it turns out this is instead just another fraud of creationism.

<<huge gaps..that critter that walked from the seas.. didnt have shoulderblades..nor hips so couldnt have walked>>

Your comment about hips and shoulder blades only further reveals your ignorance of evolution.

Considering how rare fossilization is, it's surprising that we have any transitional fossils let alone thousands. That you only ever found ten just confirms my suspicion that all your in-depth study of evolution was restricted to creationist material.

The whole "missing link" bit is just another dishonest little tactic of creationists, because if the gap is filled, creationists then just point to the two smaller gaps that are now on either side of the new discovery.

<<...in your mind you see a cat evolve into a dog even if their closest genetic link diverged away from eacxh other long ago[according to your own theory]>>

I liked this comment of yours. It contains its own refutation because the common ancestor you refer to wouldn’t have been a dog or a cat.

Thanks for the link, but unfortunately I can’t view it without logging in. No matter, I read all about the Dover trial and those creationists suffered such a thumping defeat that they didn’t even bother appealing. Yours should be no different.

So there we have it, OUG, you’ve failed to show why any of my falsifiables aren’t actually falisifiables and after all those posts to Stezza, haven’t been able to point to a mechanism that would prevent a genus from separating off into multiple genera.

dear aj...im moving your question here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91819#p91819

its in the public part of the forum
so you dont need to join..nor log in

so reply YOUR words there
where i will be quoting them..line by line

im over trying to do this under 350 word limit
plus 4 post limit...[heck i done the other one
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

under a 2 post limit....[but noted in re reading it..many of the full conversations...[i posted to the nz forum..have simply disappeared]
http://www.civilrights.org.nz/forum/index.php?topic=334.0

but i posted them there..to give a full reply
which i couldnt do..here..with 700 word limit as it was then

im finding much the same here now
with 4 post limit

and am now working backwards
from your post...over there
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91819#p91819

where i can explain in full
not have to play word tricks with a word count

for egsample your delusion that the evolution trial
was judging evolution..that case ol son..was re teaching creation[god]..in a scuiernce class was kosha...[and of course religeon isnt science]

nor is evolution
but the case asked
is teaching god science

and the reply is no it isnt

it never judged evolution
which is a theory

i note yopu think stratification to be some sort of proof
well mate look up erosion..tell me old boy..what happens when fosil beds get eroded?

say an old one's//dinosaws
mixes in the flood water..with new homo ones

they accumulate in a layer on the flood plain ..[stratification]
and a fossil layer is made..[thus fossil fragments..but never full fossils]

thus add in no dna to join phenotype with genotype
[well i sttatted explaining it at the link

let me know if you can read it
i will post it anywhere you can acces

its time you got educated
go the link

ask here..or there
im sure you allready looked last time
i linked you to there..[but cant be botherd finding..where i told you of it]

anyhow now im cutting your previous words
will reply them at the first link page
soon

OUG,

Thanks for the offer to take this to a different forum, but I’m not enthusiastic about doing so when you have repeated your arguments there about falsifiables and referring to evolution as “just a theory” yet again. When you are not capable of even beginning to demonstrate a basic understanding of what evolution is in four 350 word posts every 24 hours, then I don’t see how removing those restrictions is going to make any difference.

<<for egsample your delusion that the evolution trial was judging evolution..that case ol son..was re teaching creation[god]..in a scuiernce class was kosha>>

I realise the Dover trial was about teaching creationism in schools, but the creationists’ defence was to try to place a question mark over evolution and in doing so, were crushed under the shear weight of the evidence for evolution.

I can't make sense of what you're saying in regards to stratification, but this part did catch my attention…

<<thus fossil fragments..but never full fossils>>

Never full fossils? There are thousands of them and when you include the fossils that are only fragments, then we’re talking tens of thousands.

And you propose to educate me?

aj you first claim..you cant acces the evolution topic

then when i open..a new one refuse to click on it

""Thanks for the offer..to take this to a different forum,
but I’m not enthusiastic..about doing so..

when you have repeated
your arguments there about falsifiables"""

mate you got none
thats clear..you got a fossil theory
i fully demolished..it at the link
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018

your ignorances re phenotype/genotype etc as well
though why prophessor stazza..didnt
is a shame...he knows the genetics

you..tried to redirect into fossils
then lol deney the validity of your own word

lol...""I can't make sense
of what you're saying in regards to *stratification,""'

lol..you bought it up
its explained better at the wfs link

<<thus fossil fragments..but never full fossils>>

""..Never full fossils? There are thousands of them""'

not in the gaps ol mate
i refuted that theorty at the link too

'"and when you include the fossils
that are only fragments,..then we’re talking tens of thousands""'

simple ol boy
PRESENT THEM HERE.

put up your links

you just spout off illinformed opinion
then acuse me of

""And you propose to educate me?""'

wouldnt dream of it boy
one dont waste time on fools
one correctsd them..then allows them to chose to ignore or learn

you clearly cant learn
you cant even evolve your own mind
let alone hope to validate the frauds of evolution ..by throwing fossils at the messager

your posts here
reveal without fossils you got nuthin
and even re them are in denial of terminology

wish the bacteria breeder
had the guts to tell the truth

but heck it is what it is

and evolution is a theory
opinion..masked as science

please note that no evolutions have been faulsified..ever
thats why they didnt name names or give proof

this is what you dimminishe the living loving good for
materialists fables..evolving theories..revolving opnion

OUG,

I never said I refused to look at your link. I read it all. In fact, that’s exactly why I was able to make the judgment call I made earlier when I said, “but I’m not enthusiastic about doing so when you have repeated your arguments there about falsifiables and [are still] referring to evolution as “just a theory” yet again.”

And you continue to do this even now in your most recent post. You have not “demolished” my argument that the fossil record is a falsifiable at all. A static fossil record would falsify evolution as would finding complex creatures in the lower stratum. Then there’s DNA (that you haven’t addressed), which would falsify evolution if the DNA of each genus bore no resemblance to any other genera.

The reason we don’t see any of the above, is because evolution is a fact. As even you later go on to say, “please note that no evolutions have been faulsified..ever”.

<<your ignorances re phenotype/genotype etc as well though why prophessor stazza..didnt is a shame...he knows the genetics>>

My “ignorances”? You’re the one who doesn’t appear to realise that when we can’t get DNA from fossil, then a smooth transition throughout the stratum indicates more than just phenotype. Or is your God out to deceive?

<<you..tried to redirect into fossils>>

Um… no, the topic of fossils is exactly what brought us to the whole phenotype/genotype bit.

<<lol...""I can't make sense of what you're saying in regards to *stratification,""' lol..you bought it up>>

Yes, and what little sense I could make of what you were saying seemed to bear no resemblance to what I was talking about.

<<[No fossils] in the gaps ol mate>>

What part of, “We’re lucky to have any fossils at all” don’t you understand?

<<PRESENT THEM HERE.>>

Here’s a short list to keep you busy for now… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

<<your posts here reveal without fossils you got nuthin>>

Err... yeah, despite my mentioning earlier that the fossils are just an added bonus.

Real bright, OUG. Real bright.

please note 810 word..[full reply]
is here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91859#p91859

this is the first
and last..ie one 350 word page..

to read..full post
read..link
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91859#p91859

aj..
*from
..your own link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[quote],,""Ideally,..this list
would only..recursively..include *'true' transitionals,""

[what the heck?
read on]

BUT...!..
""fossils..*representing ancestral specie
from which later groups evolved,""

IS THEORISED
to have..'evolved'

""but*..*most""..lol

""*if not all""...lol

"",,..of the fossils..shown here
represent...*extinct side/branches,""

lol...side branches..that dead-ended
thus..*cant be 'transitiionals

but mearly...""more or less..lol..closely related
to the true ancestor.[2]""'

lol
the true..non linked ancestor?
linked only..*in theory..via dead ended..dead ends...lol

these dead ends..""They will..all include details
unique..to...lol..their own line..as well.""'

ie looks like..the same
but geneticly..very dubious

""Fossils having relatively few..such traits are termed "transitional",..

while those..with a host of traits
found....[NOTE!}..*neither in*..the ancestral...
n*or derived group..are called "intermediate".""

get it clever boy?

""Since all species...*will always be subject
to natural selection,..the..very term "transitional fossil"..is essentially...*a misconception.""

from the mouths..lol..of your peers

you said..""A static fossil record
would falsify evolution""

but the fossil record..is far from static
things change..they are dead ends..extinct side branches

bits and fragments..WITH NO MEANS..TO VERIFY GENETICLLY WHO 'evolved'..into what..no direct linkage/cause affect..to anything[get it?]

your 'far from static..faulsity[evolution]
..''as would finding complex creatures..in the lower stratum."""

hey here..is an idea
NAME NAMES

lets go facts

your last link
refutes itself...

[noting]the HUGE//GAPS...look AT..the Nautiloids..&..Ammonoids Evolutionary Series...lol./..a pointy shell..into a spiral shell...[their are both shells..get it?]

look at..Evolution of insects...lol
insect into insect...*into..lol insect,,,ha ha

lets look at evolution..of spider
into [lol]..spider

or lets go..the invertibrate..lol into fish
LOOK AT THE actual..drawings/PICTURES..ol mate..

you being conned..!

where the transitionals
from the shark..to the swordfish..or the swordfish
to a..lol ray..?

look at the bony 'fish'
note the lack of transitionals
between Adreolepis..and flatfish..into flatfish..lol
into telios[fish]..into eeel..into sea horse

NOT ONE TRANSITIONAL..!

but the fishy evolution/fairy tale..goes on...lol

eel/seahorse..lol..evolves into lamp-prat..that
revolves into sun fish..lol.that catfish/rabbit-fish/perch/promfit fish/blowfish

to wit half/wit
fish..into fish

BUT EVEN THEN..NO TRANSITIONALS...!

lol..on a transitionals link...

you get scammed..when you dont read DETAILS..*mate

but your lies go on

Fish..to Tetrapods...see the joke
the complete*..lack of intermediates

your infinite faulsifiables..is delusion..ol/mate

""Then there’s DNA..that you..haven’t addressed),""'

dna*..NOT FOUND..*IN FOSSILS!

dna that gets..repaired
as soon as it is mutated

try reading..my previous posts ol boy
you igmopring..my words
dont mean..no one cant..look and read them
unless they chose to be..blind and ignorant..like your good self

mate..i hate doing this..to you
but you got nuthin..the sooner you realise that..
dr stezza and i..can try to reason things out

""which would..falsify evolution
*if the DNA..of each genus..bore no resemblance..to any other genera."""

no dear ignorant one..
linkage means..there will be...*MUST BE common dna
with minour evolutions..to prove..the ';evolution
made minour change..[to wit evolved/mutated...

from this into that

valid facts..that science can compare..and judge
that is..if anyone is still checking..anything
most like you..prefer simplistic ignorances

prefer faith..in a theory

""The reason..we don’t see..any of the above,
is because..evolution is a fact.""'

lol..so sad
at so many levels aj

""As even you..""
even me...?..you again think..to twist me
lol..into your proof

ok..lets egsamine...me said..

..even you..""..later go on..to say,
“please note..that no evolutions..have been faulsified..ever”...

you certainly..aint giving any...!~
cause evolution..aint got none..!

thus none..lol..have been faulsified
CAUSE NONE..lol..PRESENTED...!

get it?

there is..no elephant poop..in your backyard
cause..there is no elephant...keep twisting..ol mate

"""My “ignorances”?..You’re the one
who doesn’t appear..to realise..that..we can’t get DNA..from fossil,"""

mate i have..*repeatedly..*said the same

so yes..your agreeing with me
i agree..thats right,...no dna from fossils

thus only pheno..not geno..[no genes
means no proof of linkage

""then..a smooth transition
throughout..the stratum..indicates more..than just phenotype.""

please re/clarify..with proof
you got a link?...[that ensures..this is a constant generalisation
or..a constant opinioon..[law]..only..in your mind?

""Or is your God..out to deceive?""

god is not..into decieving
but what..*you run out of fact
so now attack god?...lol

""the topic..of fossils..is exactly
what brought us..to the whole phenotype/genotype bit.""

yes
because..no dna..
means no proof..of linkage

its like..a bit of puzzel piece....
[that fits..but is ignoring the pictrure..[genes]..

with that vital info..missing..that means
its the right/shape..but not*..provably
[faulsifyably]..from,..the right puzzel..

your seeing nothing..of the real/picture

ok blind freddy can see the lie
of transitionals not transitioning

and im sorry if your upset aj
you gone silent for now..as has the professing stezza

dont that just speak volumes folks

your theory is fraud
the science behind global warming is a lie too

how many more lies will sdecievers sell to you
convince you to be truth

know that most assanitations were done to leaders
daring to issue their own money..from sadam insane..to gadafi
[who wanted their limitec oil payed for in solid gold]

to jfk who wanted presidential order 11.110
right back to ceaser who dared issue his own coin..with his head on it to asure the metal quality..[who then built much of the great tourist traps with it]

so many lies are based on getting gulible followers
heck blind freddy can see through the pictures that sell the fraud

learn to visualise the words folks
not be decieved by visions

i will miss the mad professor..
professing evolution theory as science

but then again who isnt professing...
even here we watched what aj professed
but could not confirm

fossils are pretty clever stuff
but have no science validity ..because they are based on phenotype[lookslike]//not genetical change [dna mutation..that REALLY NEEDS wrote large over it

dna *evolution..needs to produce the changed dna
all else is smoke and mirrors

its funny how in the end of these topics
[as long as i havnt got susapended again]
how things go quiet..one would hope it was because they are thinking

but mostly..its because
they thought they knew it all
then found they believed in nuthin

better you recognise god now
that later when beliving in god isnt a choice

but dont sewat on it
we were all lied to..
[and the decievers really resent those they decieved asking them why]

silence
yes thats some sort of proof
those who remain mute are under a crisis of faith

or just being childish
and churlish

ask
just the facts
naming names

result
nuthin*

the fool confound's the wise

Yes, OUG, it certainly does…

<<you gone silent for now..as has the professing stezza

dont that just speak volumes folks>>

It speaks volumes about just how bored I got. I’ve had my fun and you haven’t demonstrated a level of comprehension that would inspire me to continue any further.

If all you’re going to do is claim that there are no falsifiables while failing to adequately address why the falsifiables that I mentioned are not falsifiables, then I really can’t be bothered anymore.

You fail to understand that while most fossils don’t have DNA, life today does and that’s all we need.

You fail to understand that transitional fossils can be “dead ends” and that we don’t need the exact common ancestors between any two given genera alive today.

You fail to understand the fact that we are lucky to have as many fossils as we do have and so pointing to gaps is futile.

You fail to understand that not all mutations repair - there are hundreds of examples of mutations that haven't - so you still haven’t pointed to a mechanism that would prevent a change of genus.

You fail to understand the significance of finding primitive sea life in the lower stratum and more complex life in the upper stratum.

And to top it all off, in typical creationist form, you quote-mine the Wiki article I linked to in order to misrepresent it.

duplicated here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91933#p91933

aj said it...""You fail to understand..that
while..most fossils don’t have DNA,..
life today..does..
and that’s all we need."""

you know..you just might be right..tonto

so..*how about developing..todays]..

living genus/species..
by dna changes..of todays dna
i[wait for it]..into the mythical ancestor

change your current dna..to where..
the curerent dna...is reverse 'engeneerd]...
to actually re-produce...the so called..lol..ancestorial genotype*...

of course failure to do that
*will invalidate your thesis

[HEY I JUST MADE UP
A FAULSIFYABLE for you...!]

but its easier to make up a theory
[or even a faulsifyable]..than proove it

and thats why the THEORy of evolution
is built upon huge gaps and lies

even building it on stoner fossils
its still shaky ground

as the koran says
fIRST..make one like it,...

*FIRST
failure to do it
will invalidate ya thesis

so lets set..a time limit
im betting..not in either yourn..nor my life-time

get it?

but the funny boy goes on

""You fail to understand
that transitional fossils can be “dead ends”""

nope mate
i said it

""and that we don’t need
the exact common ancestors
between any two given genera alive today.""

mate if it was only one
i would say fine
but there are NONE
not one...

and thus your opinion..looks weak

noting
you still havnt NAMED names

""You fail to understand
the fact..that we are lucky to have
as many fossils as we do have..and so pointing to gaps is futile.""'

with you..lot fixated on ya gappy cccrappie/theory
of course ..lol..it is

you think
a lot of science..=..a lot more gaps
that are just fine...more proof of nuthin

[but mate think..NOT one gap filled..!

thats suss

think my bro

""You fail..to understand that not all mutations repair"'

wrong again oh rainman

i said minour variations
within the genus level egsist
[thus clearly didnt get 'repaird]..

i have even named a few
[fantail colour..long legs..etc
*all in the genus liva

""there are hundreds of examples..of mutations
that haven't-...""..repaired..

..""so you still haven’t pointed
to a mechanism that would prevent a change of genus.""

not my theory
mate..present thats fact first

get it?

see my links
repair at the species level
ensures genus..*cant change

[think mate..people cant fly
thus logiclly..i cant fly]

if species..evolves into other genus
what stops species mutating out of genus
means case closed

too far..from the genus mean
it simply aborts..or mercyfully..dies
very early..in its shortend life

if you got science
you would pre$ent it

""You fail to understand..the significance
of finding primitive sea life..in the lower stratum
and more complex life in the upper stratum.""

pleasee explain einstein
[it couldnt be that a lot of land
began its life underwater]...and that much of the micro flaura still lives today..[there is two reasonings refuting your absurdity]

""And to top it all off,
in typical creationist form,
you quote-mine the Wiki article I linked to
in order to misrepresent it.""

lol mate
the words say what i quoted

it was your proof
and now its my fault..you put me onto the site
the words explain themselves..refute what you think you are saying

ps..you conveniantly ignore the huge gaps
you know where bacteria evolve into insects..[or whatever you nutters think 'evolved from what']

the transitionals FROM YOUR LINK
was fish...lol..into fish
insects..lol into insects

not much of a transition
IT WAS YOUR PROOF

you hit your own goal

Yes, OUG…

<<i said minour variations within the genus level egsist [thus clearly didnt get 'repaird]..>>

…and it’s many minor variations that accumulate over millions of years that eventually cause a species to separate off into multiple genera. As even you said…

<<too far..from the genus mean it simply aborts..or mercyfully..dies very early..in its shortend life>>

I mean, it’s not like a reptile’s scales become feathers within a few generations or anything like that.

So still no mechanism.

<<the words say what i quoted>>

Of course they do. They’re also put into context when one reads the entire paragraph too.

<<the transitionals FROM YOUR LINK was fish...lol..into fish insects..lol into insects>>

You didn’t have much of a look then.

There were transitionals for reptiles to birds and land animals to sea creatures, etc.

you will find..your illistrated..reply/here

http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91936#p91936

be specific

get..some names
put up..specific links!

like i did..at the link
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91936#p91936

refute..what is revealed
at the darn link

*name names
aj/[quote]..''There were transitionals..for reptiles to birds[/quote]

it was bull
so i clicked..on the specific link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

[

first words...!

[QUOTE]

The origin..of birds
is contentious
[/quote]

so it..cant be science..!
some..holdoout..*peers disagree..so
*its not..a science

get/it?

lol
then this spin

[quote]
T. rex and birds
are..*more closely related..lol..to each other
than either is..LOL..to Alligator...[/quote]

this is based..on a single dna sample[trex]..lol

so tell me..ol mate

i have had my hand..in the guts of a bird
[chicke/pigeon]..they are warmblooded

and i skined..a few lizards
their guts..is cold blooded

so are these...lol..dino'sores
warm like birds..or cold..like lisard

if cold like lizzie..then
how it get half/cold blood
half/warm blood..

in a massive evolution jump?
l;ol

there are many differences..biologily/phisologicly
between cold blood
and warm blood mechanisms..

[any feature missing..and
the..cold reptile mutant..is dead]

this picture..is a hoot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dino_bird_h.jpg

see that..the breat of a chicken
looks nothing..like the ribcage..of a lizard

and lizards..dont got..the muscules
and dont got..the deep keel bone..they attatch to..either

but heck..you seen
the dino/saw size duck
so now..&you believe dino-pigs fly

please point out
where your claiming to be 'right'
and where...im wrong

[quote]
and land animals..to sea creatures,etc.[/quote]

i presume your talking of the wolf-cow
that devolved..lol..into a lol whale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale

ok backtrack here
lets egsamin
lizard to mammal..[note not to all
or any...*real living mammals

funny bout all these gaps..eh bluey

see this guy..[clearly a reptile]
evolving lol..on its way to warm blood mammal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thrinaxodon_Lionhinus.jpg

evolves lol..into this....*drawing of a fury mammal lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morganucodon.jpg

evolves into this drawing..lol
of a fury mammal lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yanoconodon_BW.jpg

now look at this joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals

or compare skulls ya numbsculs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

look ol mate

I HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC
so im know im not wasting your time

PLEASE MATE
be specific

reveal SPECIFICLY
what ya got

lol

OUG,

I’m not reading the other website anymore so don’t bother posting there. From what I’ve seen, it’s just more of the same misunderstandings, misrepresentations and pointing to gaps in our knowledge (most of which aren’t even there) as if absence of evidence meant evidence of absence. Then there’s the occasional corker like this one...

<<i presume your talking of the wolf-cow that devolved..lol..into a lol whale>>

“Devolved”? Just because they went back into the water, you refer to it as devolving? I suppose their genome “lost information” too, eh?

That’s another classic creationist claim.

<<if cold like lizzie..then how it get half/cold blood half/warm blood.. in a massive evolution jump?>>

As a side-effect of slow, gradual changes in the cardiovascular system due to a need for increased aerobic activity and metabolic rate...

http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/30.pdf

Enjoy.

I’ll look forward to your quote-mining and misrepresenting of the article.

AJ, he is just trying to baffle you with BS, stop trying to educate him. It doesn't work.

David

i know aj..is a time waster
putting up..unread link..after link

now his authority
is a magazine article
http://compphys.bio.uci.edu/bennett/pubs/30.pdf

the actual science/text
not turning up..in his search?

or him..not being able/qualified
to egsamin/confirm..the actual numbers

or the studies....quote mined..
to write the darn..arty-cle linked..2..!

[note..the evolutionist/list/QUOTE mining..
at the end..of the article..lol

read the..mined titles..
lol..grabbing at straws]

here is
its own..words

[quote]

Summary.

Resting and maximal levels..of oxygen consumption
of endothermic vertebrates..exceed those of ectotherms
by an average of five-to tenfold.[/quote]

so all of a sudden overnight
the croc/odd-dile critter
that turns into a prarie/weasal/dog like mammal...[re-incarnates?]..

with five fold
the cold blood beasty metabolic..capacity

[quote]Endotherms..have a much broader range of activity
than can be sustained..by this augmented aerobic
metabolism.[/quote]

which your croc/like thrinolo-so-dont
again look at..what is claimed

to jump from reptile..to...
fury weasal/dog..like thingy

an overnight jump
from a croc looking..coldblood skined water beastie
into a warm blood prarie/dog/weasal..looking thing..with fur

[quote]..Ectotherms..are more reliant upon,..
*and limited by,...anaerobic metabolism..during activity.[/quote]

suddenly this majic...lol..evolutionary jump
has mammalian lungs...muscles/extra blood/activities

[where is the lung-fish school THEORY..gone to...
has this been dropped]..lets just recall..these many dead-ends..

im looking..at a croc mutant..that died..[dead ended]..
dont fit nowhere...not a link..lol..to that weaseldoglike mammal fury critter..[morganzolaium]

please note....""A principal..factor
in the evolution of endothermy..was the increase
in aerobic capacities..[lol]..to support..*sustained activity.""

to wit..the ability/capactitie
to affectivly use/utilise..[and a reason]for
an increase in lung capaqctity..with the five fold increase of mitrachondia..of blood cells and 5 time bigger lungs..

[then..the muscles/bones/nerve's...
lol..to do the extra/activity]

little wonder..mr vuko3you..wants the commentary..to end

he like..you got no clue..[but he is..beginning to realise ..ow little he actually knows]]

the thing..re quote minding...[you lot hate..when..its not you]
is us..reading the words..then pointing/out
the lies..your decieving peers wrote..quote/mined

pointing out the very impossability..of the very thing
they are trying to patch over..*now

to keep those..decieved/...deseeved/.qed
let he..who will be decieved...be decieved

lets see..if you listen to..your lord and master..mr vuck3oyou
or persist..in avoiding..*naming names

anyhow..as for not posting..at the other forum
or the topic ending..if you chicken/out..like stezza

think again
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91980#p91980