Our Oceans are Under Attack

Last first.
There ARE well known biological limits.
I posted the liger didn't receive size limiting genes because neither of the parents passed any.
Variation within species IS limited in numerous ways, max/min size being just one such limit. You can't breed a cockroach sized dog or an elephant sized cockroach..

I observed that if, IF evolution is the creation mechanism, then these LIMITS evolved too.
Why would these limits evolve, if changing morphology from one species into another was the function of evolution? Was a GOOD thing?

if we observe such limits now, isn't it reasonable to project they always existed?

To postulate that in the past, different rules applied, is a belief in un-natural exceptions in the past. How did RULES evolve, if they did? Laws of physics evolved?
if you can't prove something, but believe it anyway, it's faith based.

If you keep lab populations under stress they aren't being unmolested. If you leave them unmolested, they revert to original form. Quickly! Genome obviously intact.

Most observed mutations ARE classed as 'birth defects". Because they ARE defects, not improvements. I can't think of ANY beneficial "mutations".

Verification of species evolving into other morphology has been the dream of fossil seekers since Darwin. They're still hoping to find the first ONE!

The lens evolutionists view and interpret fossils through is evolutionism. Man from Oz---evolves into---oztrich, or emu. Drawing lines between two species doesn't mean they are connected or related in anyway, especially not in family trees. It's an ideological distorted point of view and interpretation. Not a fact.

 

I specifically mentioned the ostrich (with OZ for fun) and emu, because their morphology is very similar. Evolutionists think they must of had a common ancestor 80 million years ago. the "MUST" arises from a belief in evolution.
They could look similar because they function similarly, a result of design. It's just as reasonable to suspect they have similar designs because of a common architect. And otherwise not related.

"Courtesy of Patricia Ferrer, Copyright 2002, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, used with permission

A: Differences? Yes, the birds are different but even more remarkable are their similarities. Even though they live continents apart — the ostrich in Africa and the emu in Australia — the look-alike long-necked, long-legged birds are both flightless runners. They are champions.


AP photos
The emu and ostrich. Their keepers indicate the birds' relative sizes.


Differences: The emu is about 25% shorter than the ostrich and has three toes. The ostrich has only two (the only bird with two toes). They live in similar terrain — open country — but widely separated.

Both belong to the same order of birds but not the same family. That's analogous to us being in the same order (primates) with Old World monkeys but not in the same family (ours being 'great apes and humans').

Back to how similar the birds are. Why are they so similar since they are in different animal families? Primarily because they are both superb runners.

"In fact, they are more specialized for running than almost any other animal," emails biologist A.T. White of Palaeos.

"...[T]hese two birds have relatively the largest total hind limb extensor muscles yet recorded for any tetrapod [four legged animal]," states locomotion expert John Hutchinson of the Royal Veterinary College, UK.

The ostrich and emu run better (not faster but a better combination of speed, power, and endurance) than the others. "This is particularly true," says White, "of the emu, which devotes almost one-third of its entire body mass, bones and all, to leg extensor muscles."

Both birds have compact bodies whose center of gravity hovers directly above their speeding feet — giving them maneuverability and good balance. Both have short, almost-horizontal thighbones and long shins and ankles — maximizing acceleration and mechanical advantage. Both have long necks and good vision that capitalize on speed in an open country.

Moreover, ostriches and emus have the same body plan. The birds apparently share a common ancestor who lived long ago on the gigantic landmass, Gondwana. When Gondwana broke up about 75 to 85 million years ago, Africa split off, and then Australia/Antarctica sailed slowly away (plate tectonics). See figure. With a widening ocean between them, the ostriches and emus were forced to evolve separately thereafter. At least, this is the best current theory.

"...Africa was really quite isolated, even for flying birds, for a substantial period of time. Thus even if ratites were still flying birds in the Late Cretaceous [about 80 million years ago], they were stuck on the African ship once it left the dock," says White.


Courtesy of A.T. White
The super continent, Gondwana, as it appeared in the Late Cretaceous (about 80 million years ago). Tectonic plates drift and wrench the land apart. Africa and South America have split off from Gondwana. Australia and New Guinea are splitting off from Africa.


You might wonder why ostriches and emus still seem so similar since they have evolved on separate continents for about 80 million years. "


The same can be said of all the different kinds of animals. Or asked.
Similarities exist because of a common architect. We share 50% of our genome with carrots!

 

There are countries with 50% income tax also. I don't want it.
I don't see any chance of Americans adopting voluntarily, a carbon tax.
Because it would be inflationary and an unfair burden on the majority of Americans.
That leaves instigation and enforcement of a carbon tax by unconstitutional means as the only way it could happen.
Would YOU force it upon us against our will?
Many AGWers in the US would.
if you wouldn't force it on us, let it alone. We won't volunteer for it.
I notice YOU haven't argued against the inflation, except to say other countries exist with it.
I suggest any Americans in favor of a carbon tax, immigrate to those countries that have it.
Everybody is happy then.

 

Who is this we, friend? Please speak just for yourself. This is a democracy, isn't it? You know, "One man, one vote."

 

I have no intention of engaging in a discussion of biology, evolution or related matters with a person who has already closed their mind. Sorry but it reminds me of the warning about teaching a pig to sing.

The fact is, you are wrong. The simplest and most immediately obvious example of evolution is in bacteria, which due to selection for antibiotic resistance most certainly HAVE evolved so as to render a large number of antibiotics totally useless.

Your position is the same as the Church in the Middle Ages when the heliocentric 'theory' was accepted wisdom. They were wrong then, and you are wrong now. I frankly don't give a damn what your twisted reasoning is, in fact I find it somewhere between amusing and appalling the effect that the level of ignorance and deliberate denial by people such as yourself has on education in the USA.

FWIW I worked in animal genetics as a scientific programmer (IOW I designed experiments and analysed a ton of data over many years) where we deliberately applied selection pressure to a group of animals to weed out 'bad' genes and propagate 'good' genes. It works. I also am the designer of neonatal screening software that processes blood samples on over 160,000 babies every year, looking for treatable genetic disorders, and the database contains over 20 years of data. So when I say that I decline to bother arguing with you, it's because doing so would be the equivalent of me, who is barely competent to handle a dinghy, arguing with you about ship handling.

PDW

 

Fair enough about being more qualified than I.
I didn't want to argue evolution anyway.

The bacteria being antibiotic resistant evolving argument.
You are aware, I hope, they have found resistant strains in unexposed wild populations and in frozen corpses in the arctic, explorers who died before invention of any antibiotics.
Seems when non resistant portion of bacteria population are killed, the resistant portion of bacteria population flourish. Didn't mutate, just opportunistic, and already existed.

 

I'm one of the majority opinion, hence the WE WON"T.
We aren't a democracy you know? We are a republic. Representatives vote for us, if they want to be re-elected.

from 'THE HILL'. Can't post the url, I'm reading by ixquick proxy, can't read otherwise.

"Carbon tax proposals are a non-starter in the GOP-controlled House. And Republicans combined a bloc of centrist Democrats threaten to thwart a carbon tax in the Senate. On top of all that, the White House has said it won’t pursue a carbon tax."


Tarrance Group Poll 2014
"Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they oppose a carbon tax “paid by businesses of all sizes,” compared with 35 percent of those who favored the concept.

The poll doesn't take into account different schemes for a carbon tax — for example, there’s variability in policy circles when deciding whether to apply a fee at the point of carbon emissions or fossil fuel extraction.

Still, the responses differed greatly among parties. A majority of Democrats — 54 percent — favored a carbon tax, while 80 percent of Republicans rejected it.

"Ultimately, just like the unpopular cap-and-trade legislation, these regulations will ruin hard-working people in manufacturing, transportation, mining, and electricity generation, and increase costs for everyone else. All that pain would be exchanged for nothing. The nascent science of global warming has produced certainty on one point, at least: It instructs us that even draconian reductions of America’s carbon emissions will do virtually nothing to lower global emissions, much less temperatures."



"With even EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy testifying to Congress that her agency’s (CO2) rule would have no measurable impact on climate indicators, it is clear that American electricity customers are being forced to pay for a measure that accomplishes little to nothing."

Learn from Australia's 2 years carbon tax experience.

“Today the tax that you voted to get rid of is finally gone,” declared Prime Minister Abbott last Wednesday, “a useless destructive tax which damaged jobs, which hurt families’ cost of living and which didn’t actually help the environment is finally gone.”

 

Fine, then no doubt you can produce the original papers that "they" published, to back up your claim. Go for it.

 

Given the standard of your arguments re evolution, I'd say there's a damned good chance you are descended from a carrot.

 

Oh right, so you're not talking about size limitations on genomes. I thought that's what you were on about, given the way you worded it.

Your question makes no sense, not surprisingly. Evolution doesn't "have a function" nor is it "good" or "bad". You're making the mistake of thinking in Biblical terms.

Anyway yes, genes that limit body size evolved. Good so far. Why would they evolve? Think about it for a minute. I know you don't want to, but it's necessary so bear with it.

Any species has bones and musculature suitable for a certain range of sizes. If you make an individual too large on the same body plan, bits start failing. People that don't stop growing due to genetic malfunction have problems like that. Backs and knees and all sorts of bits start packing up. Basically, being excessively large for the body plan is maladaptive, and will therefore be selected against.

If you adapt the body plan, you can get larger. This is why we have elephants and mice. Critters evolve to a form that suits their circumstances. The genes that regulate body size in elephants are not set to the same limits as in mice (in case you hadn't noticed).

However, under some circumstances you can get dwarf populations of various critters evolving, that have a smaller body size coded in their genome. This is fairly common with animals on islands, and of course Pygmies are a well-known example in humans. Are you suggesting Pygmies were created separately to other humans? Good luck with that one.

Who said anything about different rules in the past? You seem rather confused. Yes, laws of physics are relevant of course. You can't do a lot of evolving if you are determined to ignore physics. That will mess you up big time.

And yes, your position is faith-based. We know that. You should learn some science.

Really? Gee. I can. How long a list do you want? And are you aware that if you want to get picky, all humans are mutants? There is no one "human genome", and the differences between individual genomes are caused by, that's right, mutations.

Yeah, sure. In your dreams.

ETA: Barnacle, look up "recurrent laryngeal nerve". See if you can understand why it is a problem for your views.

Oh and that reminds me, look up Tiktaalik too, and see if you can understand why that is another problem for your views. The two are related, but the second has other factors you should find problematic.

Note that I don't expect you to read one article and suddenly accept evolution, but it you are going to deny it you should at least make an attempt to understand the arguments.

 

Only 3953 pages to go.

 

The place could cook to a crisp and some here would say it was "natural variation" !

 

so how much HAS it warmed in a century?

Global warming isn't uniform. The continental U.S. has warmed by about 1.3°F over the past 100 years

I read that a couple degrees DROP in temperature could plunge us into another ice age.
Let's warm a little rather than freeze.
I simply don't understand the panic ya'll get into over a tiny bit of CO2 and a little over a degree F warming.

Do you expect earth to be a constant temperature?

I'm sorry but YOU have to deal with your hysteria. I DON'T!
And NO carbon taxes!
In fact maybe I'll withdraw all offers to help at all or in anyway.
I'll go fire up my smoky charcoal grill and broil some ribs.

 

"The most logical reason is that the RLN design is due to developmental constraints. Eminent embryologist Professor Erich Blechschmidt wrote that the recurrent laryngeal nerve's seemingly poor design in adults is due to the "necessary consequences of developmental dynamics," not historical carryovers from evolution.3

Human-designed devices, such as radios and computers, do not need to function until their assembly is complete. By contrast, living organisms must function to a high degree in order to thrive during every developmental stage from a single-cell zygote to adult. The embryo as a whole must be a fully functioning system in its specific environment during every second of its entire development. For this reason, adult anatomy can be understood only in the light of development. An analogy Blechschmidt uses to help elucidate this fact is the course of a river, which "cannot be explained on the basis of a knowledge of its sources, its tributaries, or the specific locations of the harbors at its mouth. It is only the total topographical circumstances that determine the river's course."4

Due to variations in the topographical landscape of the mammalian body, the "course of the inferior [meaning lower] laryngeal nerve is highly variant" and minor anatomic differences are common.5 Dissections of human cadavers found that the paths of the right and left recurrent laryngeal nerves were often somewhat different from that shown in the standard literature, illustrating Blechschmidt's analogy.6"

About humans. We are different because we are combined subsets of two parent genomes. My brother suffers from allergies and I don't. I'm a resistant mutation?
Nope. Mom suffers allergies, dad doesn't. TAHDAH!

 

Tiktaalik?
So?
It's a unique extinct species. Most species are extinct. 99 percentile, I think I remember?
As I pointed out, taking two different species, connecting them with a dashed line on a chart, does NOT make them related.
Just because animals have similarities in appearance of certain body parts doesn't make them related.
Evolutionists INTERPRET it relates that way, because they believe in evolution, but that's not the only possible interpretation.
Can you PROVE Tiktaalik was anybody's ancestor?
No. It just fit's in your worldview, so you hold it up as example.
I see an example of the incredible variety and diversity of different animals, and none need be descended from another different animal. Kind begets kind.


But didn't I claim and predict that evolutionists like AGWers have in common, they attack anybody that disagrees as mentally deficient or uneducated or willfully ignorant?

Thanks for making my point, gentlemen.

Oh, I'm not an anomaly.

Public's Views on Human Evolution | Pew Research Center's Religion ...

www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight

30 Dec 2013 ... Six-in-ten Americans say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time,” while a third reject the idea of evolution

I'm in the minority on this one, but not in the minority of folks in my generation.