Untestability of Evolution Has No Bearing on AGW Premise

[Claudius Denk]

Some AGW Whacko:
And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?

Claudius Denk:
I'm a scientist. I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially
human evolutionary theory. (As you've seen, I'm also quite proficient
in climatology and paleoclimatology.) You can see more of me at
sci.anthropology.paleo.

Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax:
So what's your expert take on evolution being a "settled science"?
And, regardless of that, how does the "science" of AGW sit beside the
accepted science of evolution? Does AGW theory compare in any way with
the theory of evolution? How are the two different?

The comparison between AGW and evolution is often raised on
aus.politics, as a warmist argument that if you refuse to accept AGW
theory, then you must also be a creationist. Clearly just desperation,
but perhaps your expert comment can shine some light.

Claudius Denk:
The creationist argument that you can't do an experiment
to prove evolution is true. The philosophical term for this is,
tautology. I believe evolution is true. IMO, the evidence that
supports it is overwhelming. But when it comes to doing an experiment
that attempts to achieve empirical proof of evolution (specifcally,
"natural" selection) it can't be done. I think it's intellectually
dishonest for creationists to state that since it can't be empirically
proven that, therefore, evolution is false. But I also think it's
intellectually dishonest for those that believe in other scientific
theories, AGW (the notion that CO2 causes atmospheric warming) for
example, to say that since evolution is true despite the fact it can't
be proven that therefore their pet theory is true despite the fact
that it lacks empirical proof. To make a long explanation short,
evolution is a historical science and, as such, it's results aren't
replicable. (You can't go back in time and put in different inputs
and compare them against outputs.) Climatology is not a historical
science. There is no functional reason that an experiment that
indicates CO2 causes atmospheric warming can't be replicated. So when
the AGW whackos point to evolution to explain why they can't supply
empirical support for their belief that CO2 causes atmospheric
warming it is, at best, dimwitted and, at worst, dishonest.

The difference is this: Evolution is untestable in principle.
AGW isn't. Pointing to evolution as an excuse for not
providing empirical support for the AGW premise is an
dishonest argument.

[Dawlish]

Is this the best you can do, deluded denky? Really??

[DonH]

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5ca3b337-ac47-440a...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

# It is part of the rigorous nature of empirical Science that any
Hypothesis, Theory, or Law, has to go through a formidable series of stages,
to be accepted.
You may have a multitude of Facts, but to link them Theoretically, is a
hard process.
Hence, the "Theory" of Biological Evolution is only stated thus because
it cannot, AS A WHOLE, be tested in a laboratory - that is all. It is NOT
some Fatal Weakness.
There are a host of facts supporting it, and these accumulate all the
time.
Indeed, the Piltdown Skull was proven a fake because of inconsistency.
The whole of modern Biology's Taxonomy is based on Evolution. Shellfish,
cuttlefish, crayfish, jellyfish, and starfish, may all be marine dwellers,
but none are fish.
Evolution is supported by a lot of associated data - comparative
radiation of species to fill habitat niches; recapitulation in the womb; the
basic skeleton of all mammals, and artificial breeding of livestock and
plants (as compared to natural selection).
There is also the experiment, whereby ultraviolet radiation on a gaseous
(archaic) mixture of hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapour - produced
amino-acids, the basis of proteins.
Indeed, "Life" is not a "spiritual" thing, but merely the ability of a
"chemical formula" to (a) maintain its existence, and (b) replicate itself.
So, folks, YOU are basically a chemical formula (drug addiction
confirms). We may have a human "vegetable", but not a disembodied "spirit"
(except via CGI in the movies).
Human Vanity decrees that we are the Darlings of the Gods, or even aTop
an Evolutionary Tree - the idea that we are Mad Apes is not an acceptable
concept, even if possibly true.
Likewise, AGW is a theory, supported by a lot of data - and we reject it
at our peril.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 14, 11:26 am, "DonH" <donlhumphr...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Obviously I agree with this.

>    There are a host of facts supporting it, and these accumulate all the
> time.
>    Indeed, the Piltdown Skull was proven a fake because of inconsistency.
>    The whole of modern Biology's Taxonomy is based on Evolution.  Shellfish,
> cuttlefish, crayfish, jellyfish, and starfish, may all be marine dwellers,
> but none are fish.
>    Evolution is supported by a lot of associated data - comparative
> radiation of species to fill habitat niches; recapitulation in the womb;

Yes, the fact that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (I think that's
the right terminology) is the best evidence supporting evolution in
the evolution vs. creationism debate.

> the
> basic skeleton of all mammals, and artificial breeding of livestock and
> plants (as compared to natural selection).
>    There is also the experiment, whereby ultraviolet radiation on a gaseous
> (archaic) mixture of hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapour - produced
> amino-acids, the basis of proteins.
>     Indeed, "Life" is not a "spiritual" thing, but merely the ability of a
> "chemical formula" to (a) maintain its existence, and (b) replicate itself.
>     So, folks, YOU are basically a chemical formula (drug addiction
> confirms). We may have a human "vegetable", but not a disembodied "spirit"
> (except via CGI in the movies).

We may be "just" chemical but causally we link back billions of years
by way of evolution. That isn't specifically spiritual but it is
mysterious. And, AFAIC, the best thing about spirituality is
mystery.

> Human Vanity decrees that we are the Darlings of the Gods, or even aTop
> an Evolutionary Tree - the idea that we are Mad Apes is not an acceptable
> concept, even if possibly true.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but my experiences confirm that
most people find comparisons of humans to apes to be reprehensible.
In my experiences, even those that claim otherwise are really just
lying to themselves.

> Likewise, AGW is a theory, supported by a lot of data - and we reject it
> at our peril.

Oh brother! AGW is just bad science.

[Lee Olsen]

On Jan 14, 10:23 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I'm a scientist.  I specialize in evolutionary theory,

You specialize in lunacy.

http://tinyurl.com/84u45d4
McGinn: "In groups they can probably stand down a jaguar. But that's
about it.
Let's be serious here. Hominids were/are no match for a pride of
lions, a
pack of hyena, or even a pack of dogs."

Jaguars live in South America, you illiterate twit.

Go back to school and try to learn something this time.

From: "Lorenzo L. Love" <lll...@thegrid.net>
Subject: Re: Female Proclivaties and Capital Madness. [was: gradualism
sucks]
Date: 1999/06/21
Message-ID: <376ED09C...@thegrid.net>#1/1
Niccolo Caldararo:
"You really need to do some reading (and I've said this before). You
should read, and I mean read not just skim which seems to be the
thread of
your work here, Kathy Schick and Nicholas Toth's Making Silent Stones
Speak
(1993). It is embarrassing to you (or should be) for you to
continually make
statements which most of us know are unsupported by the data. You need
to
read the literature and find which ideas you have which are just plain
wrong
and which are worthy of development."

Dan Barnes:
"Unfortunately your theory is not in the position where it
can be directly addressed which is why a number of people
have suggested that the best thing you can do is do
substantial background reading, reframe your arguement and
come back again. This is what would happen if you were a
first year university student and I don't see why there
should be an exemption in your case."

Greg Laden:
"Jim: Regarding the above (culled) questions; Imagine yourself in a
graduate student seminar asking your professor these questions? Well,
I'm
not your professor, and you're not my student, but it is an
interesting
thought experiment. I think of myself as very thoughtful of my
students,
and helpful to them, but if a student came back at my questions or
comments
with this sort of response, I would be very unhappy, and there is no
telling what would happen!!! Read the stuff. If you have a vague
memory
of it, that is not good enough. You should be saying things like "No,
you
are wrong. McGrew is irrelevant, because...." etc.! I've given you
the
names of a half dozen scholars who have done important work related to
what
you are interested in. Hit the books, kid!"

Su Solomon:
"Jim I cannot see that this 'idea' of yours is in any ways much
different
to that which was posted almost a year ago on the old PalAnth List.
Once again we have unsubstantiated claims re your interepretation of
the
mechanisms of evolution and the palaeoanthropolgical literature.
I did take the trouble to read your five thousand four hundred words
of
your latest manifesto. From my reading of this, I gathered that in
the
intevening 11 months you have not appeared to have read any of the
comments or advice that were given to you last time you posted an
extermely similiar 'unsubstantiated idea re evolution'. If you had
taken onboard any of the advised literature that was given at that
time,
then if is not evident in this latest of postings."

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/15/2012 5:23 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Some AGW Whacko:
> And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?
>
> Claudius Denk:
> I'm a scientist. I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially
> human evolutionary theory. (As you've seen, I'm also quite proficient
> in climatology and paleoclimatology.) You can see more of me at
> sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax:
> So what's your expert take on evolution being a "settled science"?
> And, regardless of that, how does the "science" of AGW sit beside the
> accepted science of evolution? Does AGW theory compare in any way with
> the theory of evolution? How are the two different?

**There is, nor has there ever been a "theory of evolution". Darwin
proposed the 'Theory of Natural Selection' to explain the fact of
evolution. Similar deal with AGW. The AGW theory attempts to explain the
rapid warming being experienced on this planet at present.

**Wrong. Evolution has been observed and tested many times. Natural
Selection is still a credible, if unproved, theory.

> AGW isn't.

**AGW is the best fit theory to explain the present warming.

Pointing to evolution as an excuse for not
> providing empirical support for the AGW premise is an
> dishonest argument.

**The YOU need to present an alternate theory to explain the warming.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Swampfox]

On 15/01/2012 5:23 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:

Another whacko spamming aus.politics, as if we needed more of them.
Go back to fantasy land.

<snip>

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 14, 1:06 pm, Trevor Wilson <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

> On 1/15/2012 5:23 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:

<snip>

Claudius Denk:

Pointing to evolution as an excuse for not
providing empirical support for the AGW

premise is a dishonest argument.

Trevor Wilson:
Then YOU need to present an alternate theory
to explain the warming.

Claudius Denk:
Well, the notion that humans have the ability to accurately measure
world temperature is absurd to me.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Nice summary Claude. The other point, of course, is that both the
evolution and CO2 experiments are happening right now. The difference
with the AGW experiment is that the inputs (AGHG levels) are claimed to
be at highest levels ever, and at highest rate increases ever, yet the
predicted output (increased global temperatures) has stopped! Ka-boom!
AGW -> bunkum... as verified by experiment. Evolution can't be falsified
like this, but AGW "theory" certainly has been.

--
"If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop
for about a thousand years. "
-- Tim (it ain't a gonna rain no more) Flannery
- Australian Climate Commissar

[Trevor Wilson]

On 1/15/2012 12:29 PM, Claudius Denk wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:06 pm, Trevor Wilson<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:
>> On 1/15/2012 5:23 AM, Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> <snip>

**,snip restoration>

**There is not, nor has there ever been a "theory of evolution". Darwin

proposed the 'Theory of Natural Selection' to explain the fact of
evolution. Similar deal with AGW. The AGW theory attempts to explain the
rapid warming being experienced on this planet at present.

**Wrong. Evolution has been observed and tested many times. Natural
Selection is still a credible, if unproved, theory.



>

> Claudius Denk:
> Pointing to evolution as an excuse for not
> providing empirical support for the AGW
> premise is a dishonest argument.
>
> Trevor Wilson:
> Then YOU need to present an alternate theory
> to explain the warming.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> Well, the notion that humans have the ability to accurately measure
> world temperature is absurd to me.

**Then you need to learn a little about science. It's not that
difficult. You don't understand the distinction between the fact of
evolution and the Theory of Natural Selection and you don't understand
squat about AGW either.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Apart from the facts that natural climate variation has occurred
throughout the Earth's history, and the fact that the warming has ceased
for over a decade:

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment
and it is a travesty that we can’t. " --
Kevin E. Trenberth - head of the Climate Analysis Section at the USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, IPCC lead author.

and the fact that just because science can debunk one piece of junk,
doesn't oblige it to provide an "alternative", there's really not much
left for you to do Claude.

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:23:15 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Untestability of Evolution Has No Bearing on AGW Premise

Phenomena observed in nature do not require testing,
Shit-for-brains. Evolution is not testable any more than sunlight
is.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Wally W.]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:41:53 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:23:15 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
><claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Untestability of Evolution Has No Bearing on AGW Premise
>
>Phenomena observed in nature do not require testing,

Surely, you meant to say something else.

Are you saying experiments are unnecessary?

>Shit-for-brains. Evolution is not testable any more than sunlight
>is.

Is sunlight not tested in spectroscopy?

It's time for some sleep.

You've been at this too long.

[Earl Evleth]

On 14/01/12 19:23, in article
5ca3b337-ac47-440a...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "Claudius

Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> But when it comes to doing an experiment
> that attempts to achieve empirical proof of evolution (specifcally,
> "natural" selection) it can't be done.

I don't see it that way. It has been determined a number of times
at the lab level, you need fast rereproducing species, bacteria.
insects.

We have been doing it for centuries with dogs.

[Dawlish]

On Jan 15, 1:38 am, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax

This one has his visor turned up to "deny everything". Utterly
stupid.

Well if GW has stopped, bet me $10,000 we won't get a record annual
global temperature in the next 5 years. Easy money for a stupid like
you.

You won't bet, of course, because you know full well it hasn't
stopped, don't you?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

I don't play silly betting games, not even with Hansen's crystal ball
judging by its appalling track record. I'm interested only in the
science - in this case the failed hypothesis test of AGW. The fact that
you would even propose such a stupid bet for such a naturally variable
phenomenon as climate is clear demonstration of your scientific ignorance.

[bringyagrogalong]

> This one has his visor turned up to "deny everything". Utterly
> stupid.
>
> Well if GW has stopped, bet me $10,000 we won't get a record annual
> global temperature in the next 5 years. Easy money for a stupid like
> you.
>
> You won't bet, of course, because you know full well it hasn't
> stopped, don't you?

Of course he won't bet.

He's all piss and wind like all flat-earthers.

---------

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it
has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice
caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space,
and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off
the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the
main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

"The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large
quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor.
Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so
global warming further.

"We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can".

- Stephen Hawking

[Gordon Levi]

Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>On 14/01/12 19:23, in article
>5ca3b337-ac47-440a...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "Claudius
>Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> But when it comes to doing an experiment
>> that attempts to achieve empirical proof of evolution (specifcally,
>> "natural" selection) it can't be done.
>
>I don't see it that way. It has been determined a number of times
>at the lab level, you need fast rereproducing species, bacteria.
>insects.

Here is your chance to make your reputation as an evolutionary
biologist. It is fundamental to Darwin's theories that new species,
including fish and trees, can be created by the process of natural
selection. Can you provide a single example of a new multi-celled
species that you can prove was created by natural, or experimental,
selection? You can use any of the accepted definitions of "new
species" but you should bear in mind that "cannot reproduce" is not
the same as "do not choose to reproduce".

>
>We have been doing it for centuries with dogs.

I think that if we had created a new species we would not call it a
dog!

[Addinall]

On Jan 16, 12:23 am, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >On 14/01/12 19:23, in article

> >5ca3b337-ac47-440a-9e59-d211b0715...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, "Claudius

> >Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> But when it comes to doing an experiment
> >> that attempts to achieve empirical proof of evolution (specifcally,
> >> "natural" selection)  it can't be done.
>
> >I don't see it that way. It has been determined a number of times
> >at the lab level, you need fast rereproducing species, bacteria.
> >insects.
>
> Here is your chance to make your reputation as an evolutionary
> biologist.

Hardly. Pick up a copy of Evolution sometime.

Lots has been written about the speciation and evolutionary
change in plants such as Molluginacae That adopted the C4
photosynthesis chemistry and anatomy.

The phylogenetic analysis is quite robust for a number
of flowering and non-flowering plants.

> It is fundamental to Darwin's theories that new species,
> including fish and trees, can be created by the process of natural
> selection. Can you provide a single example of a new multi-celled
> species that you can prove was created by natural, or experimental,
> selection? You can use any of the accepted definitions of "new
> species"

"Speciation is dependent on genetic change: changes at the
DNA level allow populations to diverge and ultimately to
form new species." (Harrison 1991; Coyne 1992; Coyne and
Orr 1999).

> but you should bear in mind that "cannot reproduce" is not
> the same as "do not choose to reproduce".
>
>
>
> >We have been doing it for centuries with dogs.
>
> I think that if we had created a new species we would not call it a
> dog!

This is also a good article from a good journal. But ya have to pay
for it.

New grass phylogeny resolves deep evolutionary relationships and
discovers C4 origins

Grass Phylogeny Working Group II†
Article first published online: 24 NOV 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03972.x

© 2011 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2011 New Phytologist


There must be some stuff on PloS somewhere.

Mark Addinall.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Notable too is that proponents the theory of evolution actively and
enthusiastically welcome investigation of the theory into the past
record. AGW puts up a magic barrier just before the (very recent) MWP
and also wants the mid 20th century cooling excluded, as well as the
*rate* of the early 20th century. And now the plateauing/cooling of the
21st century (the TTP - Trenberth Travesty Period) disregarded. Not too
much data left to work with there I'm afraid. :-(

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 15, 10:03 am, Addinall <addin...@addinall.net> wrote:


> "Speciation is dependent on genetic change: changes at the
> DNA level allow populations to diverge and ultimately to
> form new species." (Harrison 1991; Coyne 1992; Coyne and
> Orr 1999).

> New grass phylogeny resolves deep evolutionary relationships and
> discovers C4 origins
>
> Grass Phylogeny Working Group II†
> Article first published online: 24 NOV 2011
>
> DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03972.x
>
> © 2011 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2011 New Phytologist
>
> There must be some stuff on PloS somewhere.
>
> Mark Addinall.

I found this:

http://www.nescent.org/science/awards_summary.php?id=202

Grasses (Poaceae) are arguably the most ecologically and economically
important plants on Earth. Poaceae contains ~10,000 species, and is
notable for exceptional evolutionary lability in photosynthetic
pathway: recent studies have suggested at least 17 origins (and
several reversals) of C4 photosynthesis. C4 grasses dominate vast
areas of the world, and reconstructing C4 evolutionary history is
fundamental to understanding the rise of tropical and subtropical
grasslands and the faunal communities they support. Here we outline a
directed effort to best utilize the data accessible in two public
archives: NCBI and GBIF. We will infer the largest possible phylogeny
of grasses, and reconstruct evolutionary patterns of photosynthetic
pathway variation and environmental niche diversification. We will
also refine two recently developed analysis pipelines for both NCBI
and GBIF data and make these accessible to the broader research
community. Such pipelines will stimulate a new age of discovery by
making macro-evolutionary ‘mega-analyses’ a possibility for a wider
range of researchers. A final task will be to plan a strategy for
building a species-level tree for Poaceae, and the efforts outlined
here will make an important first step by re-organizing the grass
phylogenetics community to facilitate a grand collaborative sequencing
effort. Filling in the tips of mega-diverse clades is arguably the
current challenge for phylogenetics. Grasses are well positioned to be
among the first lineages of this size where complete taxon sampling is
possible, but only if efforts are strongly coordinated across multiple
research groups. A complete Poaceae phylogeny will provide
unprecedented opportunity for macroevolutionary research.

[Addinall]

On Jan 16, 10:29 am, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax

A convenient slope ;-)

It is becoming clearer that the warming we have seen (which has mostly
gone away)
is the result of a couple of step functions, and drawing a linear
trend line through
cherry picked data points is as useful to science as is nose-picking.

Mark.

[hersheyh]

The only way that one could experimentally test AGW is to run the
experiment on a different planet. The problem is that we only live on
one planet, not several. Just as we only live in a time-frame that is
not the time-frame of evolution. Like evolution, which has testable
mechanisms (both change due to neutral processes and change due to
selective process are testable in our time-frames). Evolution can
easily be inferred from knowledge of the empirically observable
mechanisms applied to longer time-frames. And the inferences can
easily be tested by reference to the available evidence left behind.
The factors that affect climatic temperature (especially the
difference between a simple black body earth and the observed earth)
can be empirically demonstrated in the lab, where different gasses can
be tested for their ability to slow the transfer of heat by absorption
in the appropriate wavelengths. Other, possibly confounding factors
can then be either included or ruled out as important factors. This
then can be tested by observing the correlation between changes in
*climate* (not weather) over time and also by inference from knowledge
of the factors that have and do affect planetary temperatures in the
past (there is "fossil" evidence of this) and planetary temperatures
elsewhere. And of course it is quite possible to see and record
temperature changes and pH changes when they occur in human lifetimes
as they are doing now.

Climate deniers, like evolution deniers, do so not because of the
science, but because they don't want to accept that their religion or
politics is wrong, having entangled their religion into the realm of
scientific reality in the first place (and unnecessarily so) by claims
that if evolution is true then the Bible cannot be literally true or
that if climate change is true then humans can have a global impact
that requires some form of collective action for the common good
rather than the greedy short-sighted selfish individualism with no
regard for future generations that the Ayn Randian right regards as
always the best form of inaction.

[Gordon Levi]

All very interesting but I repeat, "Can you provide a single example

[Claudius Denk]

Couldn't we test and measure the degree CO2 effect atmospheric
warming?

> Just as we only live in a time-frame that is
> not the time-frame of evolution.  Like evolution, which has testable
> mechanisms (both change due to neutral processes and change due to
> selective process are testable in our time-frames). Evolution can
> easily be inferred from knowledge of the empirically observable
> mechanisms applied to longer time-frames.  And the inferences can
> easily be tested by reference to the available evidence left behind.
> The factors that affect climatic temperature (especially the
> difference between a simple black body earth and the observed earth)
> can be empirically demonstrated in the lab, where different gasses can
> be tested for their ability to slow the transfer of heat by absorption
> in the appropriate wavelengths.

Okay, and . . . ?

> Other, possibly confounding factors
> can then be either included or ruled out as important factors. This
> then can be tested by observing the correlation between changes in
> *climate* (not weather) over time and also by inference from knowledge
> of the factors that have and do affect planetary temperatures in the
> past (there is "fossil" evidence of this) and planetary temperatures
> elsewhere. And of course it is quite possible to see and record
> temperature changes and pH changes when they occur in human lifetimes
> as they are doing now.
>
> Climate deniers, like evolution deniers, do so not because of the
> science, but because they don't want to accept that their religion or
> politics is wrong, having entangled their religion into the realm of
> scientific reality in the first place (and unnecessarily so) by claims
> that if evolution is true then the Bible cannot be literally true or
> that if climate change is true then humans can have a global impact
> that requires some form of collective action for the common good
> rather than the greedy short-sighted selfish individualism with no
> regard for future generations that the Ayn Randian right regards as
> always the best form of inaction.

So, you disagree with conservative politics and therefore AGW is
right? Isn't this basically what you are telling us?

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

We don't have to. We have the real live experiment running right here on
Earth right now. And the experimental results are demonstrating very
clearly that the "theory" of AGW is failing... badly. Apparently record
high levels of CO2, increasing at record rates - a sure recipe for
rocketing record temperatures according to AGW. Yet for more than a
decade now... nada, zilch, zip, zero. Ergo: AGW -> bunkum.

[Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax]

Wouldn't a "compare and contrast" exercise be of more relevance to the
subject? For instance, has the theory of natural selection ever
predicted the appearance of a spaghetti monster creature, which will
threaten "the planet" and encourage the "natural selectionist
reactionaries" to waste huge sums of money and instigate wealth
redistribution programs based upon this theoretical omen? Has natural
selection ever predicted the emergence of some particular species, but
the result turned out to be the diametrical opposite of the prediction?
It would appear that the proponents of natural selection have the
gumption to stay within their acknowledged limitations of the theory.
Compare and contrast with AGW.

[Earl Evleth]

On 15/01/12 15:23, in article u8m5h7hhvonithnhd...@4ax.com,

"Gordon Levi" <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

> It is fundamental to Darwin's theories that new species,

Stop ---- his theory was incomplete because he knew nothing about genes
and mutation. It was correct with regard to natural selection.

We know now that without mutation the genotypes remains the same, meaning
that species change can not occur. Our individual phenotype variations
do not give rise to new genes. Identical twins have the game gene pool
but with time the active and inactive genes change, the mix of genes
does not.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 16, 10:17 pm, Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax

Well stated.

I agree 100 percent. We don't need another planet to run an
experiment. We already have absolute proof that CO2 doesn't cause
warming.

We have to stop treating science like it's a religion and scientists
like priests.

[Dawlish]

Who are "we"? It's certainly not anyone who has an interest in
science. "We" obviously refers to the tiny number who go by the name
of; "The Deluded"? <laughing>

[Addinall]

On Jan 17, 3:30 pm, Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:

I see the problem now. You're fucking stupid.

Mark Addinall.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> Some AGW Whacko:
> And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?
>
> Claudius Denk:
> I'm a scientist. I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially

Please post your educational background that validates you
as a scientist ->

> human evolutionary theory. (As you've seen, I'm also quite proficient
> in climatology and paleoclimatology.) You can see more of me at
> sci.anthropology.paleo.
>
> Oy Rool Out a Carbon Tax:
> So what's your expert take on evolution being a "settled science"?
> And, regardless of that, how does the "science" of AGW sit beside the
> accepted science of evolution? Does AGW theory compare in any way with
> the theory of evolution? How are the two different?
>
> The comparison between AGW and evolution is often raised on
> aus.politics, as a warmist argument that if you refuse to accept AGW
> theory, then you must also be a creationist. Clearly just desperation,
> but perhaps your expert comment can shine some light.
>
> Claudius Denk:
> The creationist argument that you can't do an experiment
> to prove evolution is true. The philosophical term for this is,
> tautology. I believe evolution is true. IMO, the evidence that

> supports it is overwhelming. But when it comes to doing an experiment

> that attempts to achieve empirical proof of evolution (specifcally,

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 17, 8:38 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > Some AGW Whacko:
> > And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?
>
> > Claudius Denk:
> > I'm a scientist.  I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially
>
> Please post your educational background that validates you
> as a scientist ->

Well, I don't know. I tend to think it's my dedication to being
accurate, substantive, specific, and explicit in my theoretical
thinking that makes me a scientist. But I do have a healthy
appreciation for educations, which is reflected in my educational
background.

You, obviously, don't carry the burden of being substantive, specific,
and explicit in your theoretical thinking. So tell us about your
"educational background."

I think it's great how the internet allows me to talk about what's
most important to me and you about what's most important to you.

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <bo1ah7pn4ocnqscno...@4ax.com>,

Gordon Levi <gor...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>All very interesting but I repeat, "Can you provide a single example
>of a new multi-celled species that you can prove was created by
>natural, or experimental, selection?"

Interesting that you had to add the "multi-celled" qualifier. But then,
I suppose that's because you know that it's been demonstrated in the
lab with single-celled organisms.

Evolution doesn't happen over night, and multi-celled creatures take
much much longer.

Although it turns out that there have been some very interesting new
developments in that area:

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/01/18/0118213/multicellular-life-evolves-in-months-in-a-lab

I think you'll be needing to invent more qualifiers to your challenge
shortly.

--
-Ed Falk, fa...@despams.r.us.com
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

[Earl Evleth]

On 18/01/12 8:52, in article jf5tom$2qo$2...@blue-new.rahul.net, "Edward A.

Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:

> Evolution doesn't happen over night, and multi-celled creatures take
> much much longer.

Bacteria are intrinsically loners. On the other had Eukaryotic cells
almost all form multicellar species. Moreover each one has a sex
and that generates multi-celled structures. Unlike bacteria which
are designed for fast reproduction Eukaryotics are not in a hurry.
But they eventually radiate more freely and that is were evolution
occurs.

Bugs are the best candidates

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


Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis
pomonella, ... The best-documented creations of new species in the
laboratory
were ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation


Yes Dorothy, evolution does occur in the lab.

[Tomasso]

Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 18/01/12 8:52, in article jf5tom$2qo$2...@blue-new.rahul.net, "Edward
> A. Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>> Evolution doesn't happen over night, and multi-celled creatures take
>> much much longer.
>
> Bacteria are intrinsically loners. On the other had Eukaryotic cells
> almost all form multicellar species. Moreover each one has a sex
> and that generates multi-celled structures. Unlike bacteria which
> are designed for fast reproduction Eukaryotics are not in a hurry.
> But they eventually radiate more freely and that is were evolution
> occurs.

Well, that's untrue. More protist eukaryotes species than all the
multi-cellular species. In general, protists reproduce asexually.
Multi-cellular usually reproduce sexually, but there are exceptions
and a grey zone.

> Bugs are the best candidates

Bugs?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
>
>
> Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly,
> Rhagoletis pomonella, ... The best-documented creations of new
> species in the laboratory
> were ...
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

We have speciation of lizards between our front yard and our back yard.

The Jack Russells in the back yard exert strong evoluationary pressure
on slow skinks. The front yard skinks can't reproduce with the back
yard skinks because they can't catch them, as well as geographic
isolation (on a small scale).

> Yes Dorothy, evolution does occur in the lab.

Agreed.

T.

[Earl Evleth]

On 18/01/12 23:38, in article
UMWdndTbGP2Y14rS...@westnet.com.au, "Tomasso" <t...@sso.com.au>
wrote:

> Earl Evleth wrote:
>> On 18/01/12 8:52, in article jf5tom$2qo$2...@blue-new.rahul.net, "Edward
>> A. Falk" <fa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Bugs are the best candidates
>
> Bugs?

Insects. Those of them that breed rapidly.

There are plenty of example of insects which change under the
pressure of survival, one of the first example are moths
in England, which went from a light to all black color
due to the pollution of the industrial revolution. This
might not be a mutation but an forced selection among existing
genes. Speciation is complete when they spins offs can't mate
or produce fertile individuals, such as a mule.

However tigers and lions are clearly different species and
the mixed progeny fertile. But comparing all felines I doubt
that one can mix a domestic cat with a big cat and get anything.

>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
>>
>>
>> Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>> One example of evolution at work is the case of the hawthorn fly,
>> Rhagoletis pomonella, ... The best-documented creations of new
>> species in the laboratory
>> were ...
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
>
> We have speciation of lizards between our front yard and our back yard.
>
> The Jack Russells in the back yard exert strong evoluationary pressure
> on slow skinks. The front yard skinks can't reproduce with the back
> yard skinks because they can't catch them, as well as geographic
> isolation (on a small scale).
>
>

Interesting. Biology is not my field but I have read a half doesn books
on evolution in the last year. Some of the stuff I have to read and reread
many times for it to sink in.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:33:19 -0500, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>

wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:41:53 -0700, AGWFacts wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:23:15 -0800 (PST), Claudius Denk
> ><claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Untestability of Evolution Has No Bearing on AGW Premise

> >Phenomena observed in nature do not require testing,

> Surely, you meant to say something else. Are you saying experiments
> are unnecessary?

Okay, clown, tell us all how someone tests evolution. (This ought
to be good.....)


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Edward A. Falk]

In article <CB3D8C51.2102E4%evl...@wanadoo.fr>,

Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>There are plenty of example of insects which change under the
>pressure of survival, one of the first example are moths
>in England, which went from a light to all black color
>due to the pollution of the industrial revolution. This
>might not be a mutation but an forced selection among existing
>genes.

Yes, be careful. The moths are an excellent example of natural
selection, but not of evolution since no new species were
created. There were dark and light moths both before the
industrial revolution and after. Changing conditions only
changed the balance.

[RichTravsky]

Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> On Jan 17, 8:38 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Claudius Denk wrote:
> >
> > > Some AGW Whacko:
> > > And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?
> >
> > > Claudius Denk:
> > > I'm a scientist. I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially
> >
> > Please post your educational background that validates you
> > as a scientist ->
>
> Well, I don't know. I tend to think it's my dedication to being
> accurate, substantive, specific, and explicit in my theoretical
> thinking that makes me a scientist. But I do have a healthy

You are vague and can't even post a link to your own "hypothesis" much
less one cite you've used in your stuff. You are an intellectual coward.

> appreciation for educations, which is reflected in my educational
> background.

Which is what ->

> You, obviously, don't carry the burden of being substantive, specific,
> and explicit in your theoretical thinking. So tell us about your
> "educational background."

Again? BS in chemistry, co sci, minors in psych, math, anthro, master's
work in anthro before a good job came my way.

Your turn ->

[RichTravsky]

RichTravsky wrote:

>
> Claudius Denk wrote:
> >

> >
> > Well, I don't know. I tend to think it's my dedication to being
> > accurate, substantive, specific, and explicit in my theoretical
> > thinking that makes me a scientist. But I do have a healthy

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 22, 8:14 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > On Jan 17, 8:38 pm, RichTravsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > > Claudius Denk wrote:
>
> > > > Some AGW Whacko:
> > > > And what's your area of expertise, shit for brains?
>
> > > > Claudius Denk:
> > > > I'm a scientist.  I specialize in evolutionary theory, especially
>
> > > Please post your educational background that validates you
> > > as a scientist ->
>
> > Well, I don't know.  I tend to think it's my dedication to being
> > accurate, substantive, specific, and explicit in my theoretical
> > thinking that makes me a scientist.  But I do have a healthy
>
> You are vague and can't even post a link to your own "hypothesis" much
> less one cite you've used in your stuff. You are an intellectual coward.
>
> > appreciation for educations, which is reflected in my educational
> > background.
>
> Which is what ->
>
> > You, obviously, don't carry the burden of being substantive, specific,
> > and explicit in your theoretical thinking.  So tell us about your
> > "educational background."
>
> Again? BS in chemistry, co sci, minors in psych, math, anthro, master's
> work in anthro before a good job came my way.

What I'm not seeing here is any evolutionary biology, paleontology
(geology), or paleoclimatology. If you want to participate in
discussions about the origins of hominids I would suggest you consider
further education.

[Earl Evleth]

On 19/01/12 19:50, in article oqogh75l2iuv9djft...@4ax.com,

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

>> Surely, you meant to say something else. Are you saying experiments
>> are unnecessary?
>
> Okay, clown, tell us all how someone tests evolution. (This ought
> to be good.....)

Evolution is an observable fact, which grew out of a theory.

It is akin to gravitation, a fact, and heliocentricity, a fact.

One fact is that the older the geological formation, the older
the fossils are. No rodent fossils are found which date 100
million years ago, This occurs in all species, animal and plant.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:35:14 +0100, Earl Evleth
<evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On 19/01/12 19:50, in article oqogh75l2iuv9djft...@4ax.com,
> "AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> >> Surely, you meant to say something else. Are you saying experiments
> >> are unnecessary?

> > Okay, clown, tell us all how someone tests evolution. (This ought
> > to be good.....)

> Evolution is an observable fact, which grew out of a theory.

More correctly, the theory grew out of the observed facts.

> It is akin to gravitation, a fact, and heliocentricity, a fact.
>
> One fact is that the older the geological formation, the older
> the fossils are. No rodent fossils are found which date 100
> million years ago, This occurs in all species, animal and plant.

Indeed. But the subject was "testing evolution:" there is no such
test because evolution cannot be tested. Evolutionary theory of
course can be tested, and has been tested, but evolution cannot be
tested and therefore never will be.

The exact same is true for human-caused climate change. One can
test our (humanity's) understanding of the laws of physics, but
one cannot test human-caused climate change: human-caused climate
change is an observed fact just like evolution.

[RichTravsky]

What I'm not seeing here is you running from direct questions.

So tell us about your "educational background."

We're waiting.

[Green Turtle]

"DonH" wrote in message
news:vFkQq.1538$v14...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...

"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5ca3b337-ac47-440a...@k28g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> Claudius Denk:
> The creationist argument that you can't do an experiment
> to prove evolution is true. The philosophical term for this is,
> tautology.

try this one where Dr. Peter Atkins gets humiliated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco

Super Turtle

[RichTravsky]

We're STILL waiting.

Do you think it's not obvious that you are completely evading my
questions, you fruit loop. - you

Why come to a discussion group if you don't want to discuss anything?

[Claudius Denk]

Me neither.

>  So tell us about your "educational background."
>

> We're still waiting.

Education is great, but it's no substitute for passion.

[RichTravsky]

So you're not going to participate?

> > So tell us about your "educational background."
> >
> > We're still waiting.
>
> Education is great, but it's no substitute for passion.

AH, you have no education. Ignorant passion will take you no where

[RichTravsky]