Science

[inked]

Earniel, that article was quite interesting. The bacteria clearly mutated over time and acquired a new ability to utilize a substrate previously unavailable to it as an energy source. But it also did not become other than E. coli. So from my recollection of microbiology in general this is mutation in an organism and not evolution of or into another.

In general one could hypothesize that such a series of mutations under the guidance of natural forces favoring particular mutations with a survival advantage in those conditions could lead to an organism different from the earlier organism - a new species. This is not demonstrated here. What is demonstrated is the ability of mutations to occur and under certain conditions to favor continued existence of the strain within the established species.

Clearly mutations that are not lethal to the organism may confer a survival advantage to be expressed later when conditions are right. My personal favorite was the testing of bacteria cultured from permafrost frozen English sailors in Alaska for antibiotic sensitivities and/or resistance. Amazingly, the bacteria were from 300 years or so prior to antibiotics and yet they had the capability of being resistant! Until the pressure of medical antibiotic usage was applied, this capability was unused. But these bacteria were still clearly in their major groupings of Staph, Strep, etc.

Similarly, the recovery of the flu virus of 1918's pandemic has allowed study of its mutations since that time and helped in the understanding of which factors render virulence stronger. But these are still identifiable flu viruses.

So, mutation occurs. Like the bumper sticker says!

IR and Earniel, yes, some transitional fossils have been found and one expects more to be found. My question was how many of these would be considered necessary for validation of the theory. Observation and all that sort of thing about the repetitive nature of the process.

IR, I am a fossil, it's true. Baconian methodology and evidence requirements and observational evaluations....... ... and too evolutionary for some creationist types and too delusional for some less-than-stringent-scientism-ists . I often feel that I am indeed meeting my purpose in life!:cool .

Gaffer, it's plain and simple eugenics. You could do the same thing by killing all the identified carriers of the genetic defect (which is, of course, what "disposing of affected embryos" means) at any age before reproduction. So, why not screen the general population in the first and second grades and "dispose of" all the identified carriers. The solace of having prevented their passing on the defective gene should more than compensate for the difficulties encountered in their disposal.

We have indeed seen this before:

http://www.nodussolutions.com/Medica...et/History.htm
"In 1920, two distinguished German scholars, the law professor Karl Binding and the medical doctor Alfred Hoche, wrote the crucial work “The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life” (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens).'

Margaret Sanger's work in America to keep the inferior races down (and she meant negroes, Irish, and oriental immigrants) and the eugenics movement in America are well documented but little understood or researched.

With prenatal diagnosis the opportunity is to kill off the affected individuals before they are born. More expensive but less messy. The bodies are only a few cells or so as opposed to all those nasty corpses. And the ovens would probably contribute to global warming too, now that I think of it.

[Count Comfect]

Alright, inked, I think we're getting close to the "agree to disagree" stage, where no number of fossils or amount of observable evidence pointing to evolution will convince you because you always demand another example. But here goes at least once more:

From "The Beak of the Finch" (Jonathan Weiner, Vintage Books, 1994). p 234-5

Originally Posted by Beak of the Finch

[Biologist Jeffrey] Feder has also studied a line of flies that looks identical to haw flies and apple flies but infests blueberries and huckleberries...if you take some apple flies and some blueberry flies and put them in a jar together, they will mate and produce perfectly normal-looking, healthy, hybrid flies. They appear to be absolutely interfertile in the jar. But Feder has inspected the genes of adult flies collected from neighboring blueberry bushes and apple tress. He finds that their genes are clearly distinct and "species-specific," peculiar to the apple fly or the blueberry fly. So they hybridize rarely, if at all, in the wild. They are not passing genes back and forth between them. Even where the highest branches of a blueberry bush and the lowest branches of an apple tree are interdigitated, mingling like the fingers of two hands, the two species are still not mixing. Each fly is feeding on the fruit of its kind, and mating true to its kind, as isolated as if the blueberry and the apple flies lived on far-flung islands

We have here the beginnings (and only the beginnings) of speciation. They are interfertile in the lab, but not in nature; they are slowly accruing already notable differences in genotype, and they mate neither at the same time nor in the same place. They occupy different ecological niches, and they are slowly pulling apart. Emphasis on slowly: in the same chapter Weiner references the comparison between the apple fly and the haw fly, which have begun diverging in the same way as the blueberry and apple flies , but starting in the 1860s (they had previously been simply one group). They are not as far apart even as the blueberry and apple flies, but the process is working on them as well. It is a slow process; the time-scale is simply too large to expect to have seen two species at the exact moment of division. But it is happening, and its processes can be observed.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

So from my recollection of microbiology in general this is mutation in an organism and not evolution of or into another.

But it is a first, big step: that mutations can lead to new abilities that offer advantages to the organism. The evolution theory contains so many mechanisms, natural selection, mutation, adaptation, sexual choice, etc... that it will take more than one study to prove evolution as a whole.

I have always found the adherence to species a bit ambiguous. Species is a system we impose on the world to make sense of it. Every fossil that looks a little bit different is classified as a different species. Even modern species are often still continually devided into new species, like the African elephant, or the giraffe for instance. Even among amphibians, there have been a number of recent changes in the classification. Are the animals suddenly changed? No, it's only our understanding of them that has changed, and their species-classification often changed accordingly.

IR and Earniel, yes, some transitional fossils have been found and one expects more to be found. My question was how many of these would be considered necessary for validation of the theory. Observation and all that sort of thing about the repetitive nature of the process.

A good question, but one difficult to answer. I'm inclined to say: as many examples as are necessary for scientific consensus, as have been conceived. I'm inclined to think you are a follower of Popperian philosophy too, Inked: all the evidence supporting a hypothesis does not make it true, but one negative outcome will prove it undeniably false.

[inked]

Popperian, eh? Thank you, Earniel. I learned something today. If I understand the wikipedia entry on Popper and falsifiability, I'm not sure he would have regarded evolution as science necessarily, would have he? Is evolution falsifiable in his sense?

But no amount of observation does not mean that a hypothesis elevated to theory will not be disproved tomorrow...now, that I can agree with wholeheartedly. But in the meantime we can trust the hypotheses elevated to theories on the basis of serial, repetetive observations of successful predictions, yes. Just like Newtonian physics semed absolute until Mercury's orbit wouldn't do as predicted and ...... voila! Einstein und de special relativity and general relativity and ...... quantum mechanics und probabalistics which Einstein did NOT like ....

You get my drift, I hope.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

You get my drift, I hope.

Absolutely... if one cannot argue science, they hide behind philosophy.

[inked]

Yes, BJ, and we shan't remind you that scientists were known as natural philosophers before they were called scientists. You might lose faith, or whatever it is you have in them....

[inked]

Mr Gaia tells all:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rue&print=true

Goodbye, Cruel Gaia, you're going to miss us when we are gone! You have one last chance to cut back on your 90% contribution to global warming or we are toasted - just like 99% of all the species that have ever been! O cruel, cruel Gaia!

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Mr Gaia tells all:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rue&print=true

Goodbye, Cruel Gaia, you're going to miss us when we are gone! You have one last chance to cut back on your 90% contribution to global warming or we are toasted - just like 99% of all the species that have ever been! O cruel, cruel Gaia!

I have no idea what your comments mean, but the article is interesting. He makes a good point about carbon trading, which I have no belief in whatsoever: It's self-delusion to expect that trading carbon quotas between nations is going to even ripple the water much less do anything about the problem.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I have no idea what your comments mean, but the article is interesting. He makes a good point about carbon trading, which I have no belief in whatsoever: It's self-delusion to expect that trading carbon quotas between nations is going to even ripple the water much less do anything about the problem.

I was confused myself, but what I think he means is that it's like driving a 9-tonne truck over a bridge with a 9 tonne limit- you can load up an extra tonne of cargo because the truck is supplying 90% of the weight.

Or, better, if by free-wheeling down Suicide Hill your car gets up to 90kph, and Deadman's Curve at the bottom has an Absolute Top Speed Limit of 90kmh, it's okay to step on the gas to get it up to 100, because you're only contributing 10kph to the total speed.

[inked]

Mr Gaia pointed out that human contribution to carbon production was essentially negligible and of no consequence to the cycle and therefore doom is unavoidably certain.

Not to mention he debunked the whole carbon offset fudge offered at a price by the developer of the Internet and rewarded with a high minded prize of some sort as an homage to futility in this chap's view.

Now, who do you believe? Mr. Gaia theorist or the Al Gore-ithem?

(Hint the comments were either *ironic* or *sarcastic* or *flippant* or *deeply held to be true by some and Mr.Gaia* or all of the above.)

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

Mr Gaia pointed out that human contribution to carbon production was essentially negligible and of no consequence to the cycle and therefore doom is unavoidably certain.

Not to mention he debunked the whole carbon offset fudge offered at a price by the developer of the Internet and rewarded with a high minded prize of some sort as an homage to futility in this chap's view.

Now, who do you believe? Mr. Gaia theorist or the Al Gore-ithem?

(Hint the comments were either *ironic* or *sarcastic* or *flippant* or *deeply held to be true by some and Mr.Gaia* or all of the above.)

It's Dr. Gaia you know.. In any case James Lovelock (the guy's real name) has a theory about a self-regulating system of the Earth that I actual find much appeal to. I'm reading a book called the Wild Law, a brilliant read that touches on the importance of enwidening our horizons of how we are entirely dependent on our Earth and extending the scope of our jurisprudence: including in our laws certain rights of nature itself (not in a rigid, authoritarian manner) as a nod to its equal standing with us if we truly want to keep our environment clean and our planet sustainable for us to live on. There's really something Tolkienesque, the emphasis on the Ents and the forests in the Lord of the Rings, about it
That said, there's a lot less scientific basis for Dr. Lovelock's self-regulating system (the Earth as one massive unified organism), and although I like the theory it is far from supported (though far from disproved) by science as of yet.
You seem to be under mistaken impression that he believes human-induce global warming is neglible Far from it. Dr. Lovelock is from what I've read, an advocate of nuclear power as a result of this and advocates a complete stop in coal-powered energy facilities (He even speaks about funnelling large amounts of CO2 down into the deep oceans, a very intiguing idea which could make a real signifiance!) He seems to believe we've crossed the threshold of a point of no return (speaks about it in that article), but there are so many differing forecasts about this and it is near impossible to make predictions, much less come with concrete dates. I am at least very sceptical to concrete future predictions about the world's global system that take place 100 years into the future: it's just too advanced for us to possibly predict that most of the world's population will wither away by then!

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel, a couple of months ago

Well, I just signed up for the Canadian database for matching stem cell and bone marrow donors.

I fulfilled a new year's resolution today by completing the last step of the registration process (i.e. posting a blood sample).

So maybe someday some of my stem cells will find a new host. That's a cool thought, I think

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

It's Dr. Gaia you know.. In any case James Lovelock (the guy's real name) has a theory about a self-regulating system of the Earth that I actual find much appeal to. I'm reading a book called the Wild Law, a brilliant read that touches on the importance of enwidening our horizons of how we are entirely dependent on our Earth and extending the scope of our jurisprudence: including in our laws certain rights of nature itself (not in a rigid, authoritarian manner) as a nod to its equal standing with us if we truly want to keep our environment clean and our planet sustainable for us to live on. There's really something Tolkienesque, the emphasis on the Ents and the forests in the Lord of the Rings, about it
That said, there's a lot less scientific basis for Dr. Lovelock's self-regulating system (the Earth as one massive unified organism), and although I like the theory it is far from supported (though far from disproved) by science as of yet.
You seem to be under mistaken impression that he believes human-induce global warming is neglible Far from it. Dr. Lovelock is from what I've read, an advocate of nuclear power as a result of this and advocates a complete stop in coal-powered energy facilities (He even speaks about funnelling large amounts of CO2 down into the deep oceans, a very intiguing idea which could make a real signifiance!) He seems to believe we've crossed the threshold of a point of no return (speaks about it in that article), but there are so many differing forecasts about this and it is near impossible to make predictions, much less come with concrete dates. I am at least very sceptical to concrete future predictions about the world's global system that take place 100 years into the future: it's just too advanced for us to possibly predict that most of the world's population will wither away by then!

I've heard some pretty wild sustainable development ideas before. I'm afraid I haven't had an opportunity to read up on this one.
When I have more time, I'd like to post a few of my own.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Mr Gaia pointed out that human contribution to carbon production was essentially negligible and of no consequence to the cycle and therefore doom is unavoidably certain.

What coffeehouse said.

No, inked, you've totally misread the article. What Lovelock is saying is that though the amount of carbon produced by humans is enough to put us over the tipping point on global warming, it's still small enough that there are measures we can take to counter the effect.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Mr Gaia tells all:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...rue&print=true

Goodbye, Cruel Gaia, you're going to miss us when we are gone! You have one last chance to cut back on your 90% contribution to global warming or we are toasted - just like 99% of all the species that have ever been! O cruel, cruel Gaia!

He's correct that we are ultimately screwed, though he points to the wrong reasons.

[inked]

BJ, I'm right for the wrong reasons! I love it!

Purely unscientifically, Christians believe that we shall outlast even the universe in its (take your pick) a) cold death due to never ending expansion, b) the big crunch when expansion reverses, c) all the never ending cosmos ends up as a uniform field of low energy/low mass steady state. All have been proposed by science as the ultimate end; but where in the timeline of science?

And, TWIMC, I intended no disrespect by failure to use the title appropriate to this gentleman. It was not indicated in the article. By the by, I don't think I misread it. The 90% of carbon output is natural. And that output has demonstrably been up and down several times over the billenia.

[brownjenkins]

We'll be taken out by an asteroid or the death of our sun long before any of those things.

The thankful part (for us), is that even the major effects of warming are well beyond our lifespan. We have all been born in a good time to be human, make the most of it!

[inked]

BJ, should we (that is the persons now alive) just live it up since we won't pay consequences for our behaviours? Or did you mean that humans should live it up before the asteroid impact renders our poor materialist existence impossible? And, if the latter, why exactly should we be responsible for use of resources to whom?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ, should we (that is the persons now alive) just live it up since we won't pay consequences for our behaviours? Or did you mean that humans should live it up before the asteroid impact renders our poor materialist existence impossible? And, if the latter, why exactly should we be responsible for use of resources to whom?

"Should" is a very moralistic term. I was merely addressing reality. We currently exist in a unique frame of time. A few hundred years where humanity can live an prosper in a way never seen before.

It's something we should be thankful for. Not that long ago, death was much more common and existence relatively short. And the future may very well bring similar conditions, or worse.

Most of the choices involving polluting and using up our environment apply just as much to the quality of our own future, unless you are quite old. Even if you choose not to believe in the more long term global warming issues.

But, ultimately, we are doomed to be no more... not even a memory. So some tempered enjoyment along the way wouldn't be the worst path to follow.

[inked]

Hmmm..."should is a very moralistic term", eh? Then how does your requisite enjoyment of anything in the face of the total inconsequence of anything existent now or ever fail to be a "should"?

""Should" is a very moralistic term. I was merely addressing reality. We currently exist in a unique frame of time. A few hundred years where humanity can live an prosper in a way never seen before.

It's something we should be thankful for."

To whom or what, I must ask? To be thankful for means to be thankful to someone for something?

"Not that long ago, death was much more common and existence relatively short. And the future may very well bring similar conditions, or worse."

Last I heard, death was still at 100% worldwide. Average life expectancy globally remains at 45 - which it was 100 years ago in the USA (but due to our terrible healthcare system now is only 88 for females and 78 for males - oh, my how horrible). The future is sure to continue the present just as it has done for the past: tomorrow's death rate will be at 100% and for most of mankind life will be nasty, brutish, and short. Really fortunate victims may die before their statistically average 45 years are up and be spared the angst of enduring their lack of meaning or worth until that time. Aborted babies will be the most fortunate at not having to endure any of their lives, so they may be regarded as having achieved the highest possible good in the shortest amount of time - if you happen to regard them as human, of course.

Polluting? Using up resources?
"But, ultimately, we are doomed to be no more... not even a memory. So some tempered enjoyment along the way wouldn't be the worst path to follow."

Since nothing ends in nothing having arisen from nothing, there is no imperative to conserve or not pollute. There is, in fact, no reason for "tempered enjoyment" nor a better or "the worst path" to follow. There is no reason to do anything other than consume in one wild long party into the blackness of non-meaning and non-existence.

Watch for your invitation to this party! Everyone who is anyone - and who doesn't become nothing before arriving - will be there. But only for the briefest of times on a cosmic scale and never.

Gee, BJ, you make it all so..............meaningless.