He would just say 'thats just an extinct bird and thats an extinct crocodile, lol' in reply to the above claims, because they're not actually fossils that are 'in between' those two species.

Which they never could be, because he is well, an idiot, and didnt even use species with direct relationships or appear to understand the basic concepts involved.

Votes: +10

what this pre-historic water-foul ... may have looked like
Suggesting that this water-fowl looked foul? Votes: +3

Er, “… this pre-historic waterfowl with the giant, bony-toothed bill…”, surely.

Kirk Cameron and his buddy-in-bananas Ray Comfort will just make up a new set of straw crocopotamuses when they hear of this. Votes: +8

I guess I can't spell And MSWord didn't catch it either, but thank you I have fixed the master file, and hopefully the SWIFT people will fix it here.

I know that they will just retreat behind some other stupid fake hybrid, but that doesn't make having found these two any less fun

-Martin A. Lessem, J.D. Votes: +4

Kirks comment about the Croco-Duck was just plain stupid.

What was more intriguing to me was the explanation for the Banana. A fruit, with such exquisite design, that it snuggly fits in the hand and has easy-to-peal packaging. So it must have been designed by God. With that sort of logic how does he explain, Coconuts, Pineapples, Prickly Pairs or even the humble Watermelon, all of these are delicious and would be considered, in less scientific times as the food of the God's, yet these and many others do not fit comfortably in the hand and have no easy pealing mechanism.

I guess he'd consider those fruits, the work of that evil Mr Evolution and his henchman, Natural Selection. Votes: +8

As much as I consider the original crocoduck remark to show a remarkable breadth of ignorance, I'm not wild about this as a rebuttal. Neither of the fossils represents an real intermediate between crocodiles and ducks, any more than an albino canary represents an intermediate between birds and polar bears.

Every species is either a transitional species or an evolutionary dead-end. We can show plenty of real-world examples of evolution, both in the fossil record and even among living species (I'm thinking of ring species). Yes, these aren't as amusing as the crocoduck, but holding up Anatosuchus minor as Cameron's crocodile-duck transition is simply using one falsehood to rebut another. Votes: +23

I'm glad you are taking the time to discredit creationists. But... is anyone actually claiming these species are a transition between or common ancestor to ducks & crocodiles? If those species just look like transitions but aren't related I don't think these findings are relevant to Ray & Kirk. Votes: +7

I've struggled over the last few years with trying to identify what specifically it is about creationists, conspiracy theorists, and other peddlers of Woo that makes them think the way they do. What characteristic, thinking style, or learning is missing that makes them say and do the things they do?

After reading this article and hearing Mr. Cameron's lame attempt to explain things he knows nothing about, I had to jot down a few things that jumped to mind. I'm sure there are many more or alternates to these and I'm interested in hearing what others think.

1) A severe lack of knowledge on basic scientific principles, the scientific method, the definition of a Theory, and the process by which theories are developed, modified, destroyed, and created again.

2) Lack of basic critical thinking skills. Their inability to apply logic and reason to a concept prevents them from learning, considering, or accepting new or alternate ideas.

3) An unwillingness to accept their responsibility of presenting testable evidence to back up their claims. They wrongly believe that since others cannot prove it untrue, then it must be true.

4) An unwillingness to consider alternate explanations and/or admit that their explanation could be wrong. As anyone who's ever had a discussion with a conspiracy theorist knows, any logical and reasonable presentation that can explain why the conspiracy could be false is met equally with illogical, untestable, and irrational counter explanations.*


* Side story... I have a good friend who is what I would describe as a "smart" guy. He has an engineering degree, an MBA, and has succeeded in working for top technology companies as well as start his own business. He is absolutely 100% convinced that all of Major League Baseball, including all games, and the end results of playoffs and World Series winners is fixed for the financial benefit of all involved. Each season is preplanned by the owners and the players unions like professional wrestling. From the plan of which teams will win which games, to who will be in the playoffs....the whole enchilada. Even the umpires are in on it. And in fact wrong calls by the umps are mostly purposeful to steer a game towards its rightful conclusion. He claims it's a massive conspiracy on a nationwide scale with literally thousands of people involved in the scheme. I had a bewildering 2 hour discussion with him on this one evening, walking away dazed and, quite frankly, saddened. I admitted to him it *could* be true, but was seriously skeptical that such a large cover-up could be contained. I asked tons of probing What If...? and How Does...? and What About...? questions, but each was countered with a seemingly logical explanation. Now I understand he could be pulling my leg, but it's been a couple of years since that discussion . We talk often and he's never fessed up. He's also very religious so I see some parallels to that topic as well. Votes: +11

"Evolution is a flawed theory at best." - Yes a theory, possibly flawed, as all theories can be. A discovered flaw changes the theory for the better, ie: improved and new ideas, or worse ie: the theory may be rejected. So far it is has not rejected by critical thinkers.

"Life cannot arise from non-life" - has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Abiogenesis is itself another Theory. Evolution tries to explain the changes in existing life over time, not its beginning.

Creationism.......is a theory to some, an origin of life to others, even factual to, dare I say many. But when critical thinking is applied to many of its concepts, whether you are a 'believer' or not, many BIG holes and flaws can be found. Take the Creationist view of the age of the earth, and creation itself...approx 6000yrs, give or take 7 days, how does creation explain for instance that the furthest that a human being can see, at least with the naked eye is: about 2,000,000 years old ie: M31 - the Andromeda Galaxy. Creationism, instantly fails to explain this.

There is nothing so far observed, that instantly negates the Theory of Evolution, in fact more and more evidence is being discovered that promotes the Theory as being a more accurate explanation of Natural History. Votes: +39

What creationists fail to understand is that ALL species, which have ever existed or will ever exist, are transitional. They will eventually evolve into something else.

As to Cameron's strawman, i'd say it's at about the kindergarten level of thinking. Votes: +19

I think we do science and scepticism no favours when we actively try and find Cameron's idiotic croco-duck. In the past the defence has been that evolution does not posit a croco-duck but we happily offer croco-ducks up as evidence of evolution when we find them knowinf full-well that nothing offered will match the picture Cameron used to illustrate his point and will therefore be dismissed as just another "kind".

Better to just point out all the reasons why his croco-duck demands are idiotic. Votes: +9

Dear Davis,

Allow me to provide you your "fact for the day."

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. It's only concerned with what happens AFTER life appears. The first living cell or cells could have been "God Created." The Big Kahuna could then have taken a well deserved 4.5 billion year vacation while Natural Selection did its thing and, viola, here we are. Votes: +13

The problem is that there shouldn't be any intermediates between crocodiles and ducks. Just like there aren't any intermediates between chimpanzees and humans. Why? Because at some time in the past, the two lines actually diverged from a common ancestor (Archosauria). In the case of crocodiles and ducks, their lines diverged about 250 million years ago between particular reptiles (Crocodilia) and dinosaurs (Saurischia) from the Thecodonts. Crocodiles evolved independently of dinosaurs. Ducks evolved from a particular theropod branch of dinosaurs. Therefore, there would be no crocoduck intermediate form of which to speak. There was an ancestral form much further back to which both are related.

Of course, we know that Kirk and Ray don't care about that little detail. Votes: +15

Did I say "crocoduck"? I meant to say "penguigator".
Votes: +14

Thank goodness we have not seen any crocoducks, as per Camerons picture. Evolution would not be able to explain a duck bottom half and crocodile top half any more than if we found (remains of) a genuine minotaur or centaur. In fact a discovery of any of those three would, i think, go towards proof of a God. So no Kirk, we won't ever see a crocoduck. Votes: +8

@Christie
The "delicious" irony of Cameron's 'banana' is that it was bred artificially by human farmers over thousands of years!
(Probably in Papua New Guinea)
Votes: +12

My favorite is the bit where discoverers of real evidence are deemed "unimaginative" purveyers of "unchanging naysaying orthodoxy" in the "pay of big" {"pharma" | "atheism" | "capitalism" | "communism" | "tax government" | "anarchism"}. Within recent weeks, I've caught otherwise intelligent people repeating Twoofer memes on 9/11 (every adult should pass a basic Newtonian physics class with Halliday and Resnick or equivalent as the text), "do no harm" memes on homeopathy (do no checking for purity and cleanliness, more like), "non-profit-motive" memes on homeopathy (hey, I can sell purified water for $1000/liter TOO!), etc. Votes: +3

Not to mention that those bananas are both an evolutionary dead end (they are sterile) and that their producers have to pay real fortunes to try to prevent natural selection from exterminating them.

Anyway, didn't the crodolile branch separated from the dinausors long before the appearance of the first proto-avians? Votes: +4

I realise this is somewhat off-topic, but felt the need to share one of my pet peeves, namely the use of Wikipedia as a source.

I do not think it serves the interests of the JREF (or sceptical community generally) to cite to Wikipedia in any kind of officially sanctioned posting, particularly those that are directed at criticising the views of others. To me at least, it gives the appearance that a posting reflects personal bias rather than a careful review of the evidence, as it signals that anything may be used to support the author's position, no matter how credible.

I think it is far better to practice what we normally preach, and subject our own sources to critical review before relying on them. While Wikipedia can often provide a good starting point for researching an issue, it should never be the cited source because either (i) the Wikipedia article is well-supported (in which case the more credible primary materials cited in the Wikipedia entry can themselves be cited), or (ii) the Wikipedia article is not well-supported (in which case it cannot have any more value than the views of those we criticise). Votes: +8

If we're "being duped" about evolution, who is doing it, and for what purpose?

It's easy to see the reasons for being duped about god(s) and religion, a lot of people make a lot of money at it. I've seen the vatican and the pope's summer castle.

PS Religion = Superstition + $$$$$
Votes: +7

I'll ask again - if we're being duped about evolution, what is the motivation?

Votes: +10

That life evolved on Earth is a substantial substantiated fact. Evolutionary theory is the best (and very very good) explanation for the facts. I'd like to see you contest the genetic, geological, biological, paleontological, anatomy, geographical distribution, physiology, biochemistry, chemistry, and medicine evidences which are all clearly support the factualness of evolution. I'm not really anticipating a reply that provides any real contest. Votes: +17

Evolution is a theory that seems to fit the facts.
What reason is there to reject it? Is there any evidence that disproves it?

Without some reason to disprove evolution, the fact that it fits the facts and makes sense to any rational person should limit any objections to it to, at the most, skepticism. We can reasonably say that it appears to work, but we should wait for more data.

If evolution is mutually exclusive with religion, then religion should be abandoned since there is no reason to believe there are any gods. Plus, religion has obvious alterior motives, while evolution has none.

Votes: +13

You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. They are actually independent theories.
I think that virtually everyone in the scientific community would agree that abiogenesis is in the 'absence of evidence' phase - there are certainly some intriguing results and plausible theories, but no proof.

Evolution is an entirely different subject, and its credibility would not be impacted if there was a clear demonstration that, for example, Earth was seeded with simple cells 4.3 gya. Evolution is the story of how life changed after it started, and it has an enormous amount of supporting data from a wide variety of disciplines.

Saying that evolution isn't valid because we don't know how life started is equivalent to saying that I don't know how I got from Ohio to California (I drove) because I don't know the circumstances of my conception. Votes: +14

One recent series of experiments by scientists (article link below) resulted in witnessing behavioral mutations in a bacteria that gave a distinct advantage over other generations within a multi-generational period of reproduction. Essentially, they witnessed adaptation and change based on the presence of new environmental conditions, in this case, shaking vs. not-shaking the bacteria's environment. After 10,000 generations of this bacteria multiplying (it reproduces every 52 minutes) new variations of the bacteria were observed which were able to adapt to the new shaking environment while others couldn't. Although genetically the same, this one bacteria strain was able to adapt with unique characteristics, literally before the observers' eyes.

Imagine what could happen after 4.5 billion years?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091104132658.htm Votes: +10

"As I stated, it fits a world view that, primarily, atheists/humanists choose to believe and promote. This is not limited to evolution. I'm sure you have read the latest headlines where scientists have been busted for changing data on man made global warming. What was THEIR motivation?"

Whoa! Who let the Conspiracy Theorist (tm) out of the cage?
Evolution is no more a "world view" than gravity (not to mention "world view" seems to be a favorite phrase among postmodernist bullshitters). I haven't seen any headlines about scientists being busted for changing data on man made global warming either - then again I don't read nonsense like the World Nut Daily. If you're at all interested in evidence rather than braying about the evil scientific/atheist/communist conspiracies you can always pick up a book like Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth".

The same goes for popsaw - poor people - hung up on nonsense spewed by ignoramuses who claim that the numerous ideas that comprise the modern theory of evolution are not tested. We are yet to find any evidence against evolution (other than the dull unimaginative myths in ancient books of superstition).

Votes: +7

@Davis - The current issue about the e-mails is not that scientists were CHANGING data but about peer review and giving equal time to differing options. MadScientist's statement still stands... we've seen no headlines about scientists CHANGING data about global warming. Votes: +11

There are people that deny that the holocaust was perpetrated by the nazis, that we landed on the moon, and other things equally ridiculous.

Then there are the conspiracy people, that 9/11 was planned and executed by the US government, or the CIA, or whoever.

Then some claim that evolution is not possible. Not that they would like to see more evidence to be convinced, but that it is not possible.

A lot of these same people claim there's a god somewhere who created us, and loves us, and as proof of his love, gave us malaria and polio and other dread diseases and afflictions.

They try to pretend their arguments are reasonable and logical.
Votes: +19

"Plus, Darwin said in order to prove evolution, which is the number one alternative to God, you gotta be able to prove transitional forms. One animal transitioning into another, and all through the fossil record and life we don't find one of these. A croco-duck. There's just nothing like it. There is no one animal transitioning into another"This displays a vast ignorance on the part of Kirk regarding the scientific method. Specifically, he is ignoring the premise of falsifiability: a scientifically valid hypothesis must have a criteria that is able to be tested and thus potentially proven false, specifically because no hypothesis can be 'proven'. Evolution is a falsifiable theory, creationism is not.

Furthermore, the concept of transitional forms is flawed, in that ANY form can be considered transitional. Since the form of a species is in a constant state of (very slow) change, all forms may be considered transitional in that the current form is simply the form in between the one that was and the form that is yet to come.

Evolution is a flawed theory at best. This is because it is founded upon an impossible premise.Life cannot arise from non-life. If you think it can, then please apply for the JREF prize. And yes, abiogenesis is germane to this discussion. You cannot hide behind the usual placards ("it doesnt matter how we got here" "we still dont know how we got here, etc etc") Evolution is a theory based upon previous absurd assumptions. This is not so much a push for creationism, but just a critique of evolution. You guys are being duped on this and the man made global warming hoax. Its almost humorous to observe.

The theory of evolution is an explanation as to how life diversified; it is NOT an explanation of how life came into being in the first place. You are making the very common mistake of conflating evolution with other matters entirely. Thus, abiogenesis theories are to be addressed separately as they pertain to a different process altogether. Additionally, you are forgetting that the explanation put forth by the creationists is simply another form of abiogenesis - albeit with divine intervention - the claim being that we arose from clay.

Lastly, global warming has even less relation to evolution than abiogenesis.

...But I see these points and more have already been covered. Oh well!

Reading on, I see Popsaw is making the same conflation mistake, plus some quote mining.

As for the people rather bemused by the references to climate data and emails, there is currently a rather large scandal occurring based on the release / hacking of emails and data from the Climate Research Unit in England which are being examined very closely. The usual media is of course rather poor at reporting any scientific issue or debate that is not brought to their attention via press release, but one particularly scholarly blog is keeping close tabs on developments, namely wattsupwiththat.com... or was it .org? Anyway, fascinating reading. Votes: +3

Please do copy and paste your email response from Randi..I would be interested in reading it. You see the thing about quoting an article to back up a statement, demands that it is open for review, and you have now opened this up...also giving Randi the chance to respond to your statement as well.

Also I have not seen any headlines for scientists "changing" data.

Changing data is hard to do, unless that particular scientist or group creates and holds the originating source of the data, which in some circumstances would never be known if it was changed. For example an unrepeatable data set, such as an historical temperature record. Curiously, a conspiracy theorist may think that the scientists in the world have simply changed this data for the purpose of demonstrating climate change. But to change this particular data set once it has been recorded and published is something that is very hard, actually impossible, to hide. Why would scientists and meteorologists, last century and earlier falsely record temperature data for an issue they would have little realization of, that would be occurring now, i.e. global climate change?

One thing about conspiracy theories is that there are many question that can be asked of the theory that cannot be clearly answered. Unless of course you think that "for their own agenda" really explains things.
Votes: +9

People like popsaw believe that if something can't be duplicated in a lab, it can't be 'scientific' and therefore, it shouldn't be believed. Since we have not been able to create sustained hydrogen fusion in a lab, it follows that belief in the sun is unscientific and therefore, Creationists can't possibly believe the sun exists. Votes: +9

Don't egg-laying mammals like monotremes such as the duck-billed platypus count as transitional forms? Do Creationists think they are simply a hoax? Votes: +3

At least we know that Kirk Cameron is writing and speaking in support of a particular belief system. When he states that there are no “transitional forms” we understand that he doesn’t know that there are none, his beliefs require that there be none. Challenging him is to challenge to his wider audience as well – a frustrating but (probably) worthy undertaking. The deniers that I see posting here have no similar standing – we are their audience. It’s a form of narcissism – they see themselves as engaged in some kind of contest with science – a rebel, possibly heroic – tilting at windmills. If they are posting in support a belief system, I see no information about their beliefs that allows them to make comments such as “life cannot arise from no-life” as though it were a statement of fact. No one knows that abiogenesis is impossible; they can only believe that it is so. Challenging these deniers is a distraction, somewhat akin to questioning a purveyor of snake oil as to the efficacy of his product. Votes: +9

To think that someone so ignorant in science could achieve such eminence in show business! Shocking!

Isn't the implicit creationist argument like this?-- "Every fossilized living thing that has ever been found has belonged to some species or other; none has ever been found that was between species; thus, there are no transitional fossils; thus, there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution." Votes: +6

I think the whole creationist movement is the silliest thing going. God or no god, why do you want to die on a hill that is so rife with inconsistencies. If you want people to believe in god, then find something meaningful to hook that on. All you do when you insist that something is a certain way when it clearly is not is to undermine your credibility.

As in: "Well, he was clearly wrong about evolution, how can I believe anything else he says". Duh. Give it up. Votes: +3

Also I have not seen any headlines for scientists "changing" data.

This may prove to be interesting reading for you:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

It should be noted that mere emails were not the only thing leaked; attached to those emails were large logs of the raw data used in climate science - tree ring measurements and the like - as well as the code used in the graphing algorithm. Part of this code is examined here:
http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof-behind-the-cru-climategate-debacle-because-computers-do-lie-when-humans-tell-them-to/
Votes: -2

Re the climate change debate (sorry to stray off topic). You said it yourself "holds the originating source of data". Prof Jones did, in that the complex computer program used to manipulate the data was never released (how do you peer review without ALL the information) and the data published was as a result of this manipulation. He refused all attempts to obtain the program details under the freedom of information act. The program details were released by a whistle blower and found to contain REM statments such as ;fudge factor. Not exactly scientific. All the programing bias seems to be towards "tilting" the data.
There is a lot more to the story but as usual the press has all but ignored it.
Prof Jones and his unit are the main source for the IPCC.
Motive? Does £20,000,000 in grants sound OK? Votes: -1

@popsaw: Even for 1975, Harold Coffin clearly had no working concept of the theory of evolution as it existed then (and he is equally, perhaps deliberately, ignorant of geology). I can really expect no more of Coffin since he's an abject liar hell-bent on deceiving people into believing his nonsense. Comparatively large life forms which are somewhat amenable to mineralization/fossilization developed around the Cambrian period - in short, easy to spot fossils evolved during that period. Could the ancestors of some of the earliest of those ancient animals be found? The answer, based on evolution, is "yes, if a mechanism exists for preserving such fossils". I don't know if any fossilized remains of animals have been found from an earlier period, but there are fossil imprints by animals. Once again, predictions of evolution are supported and Coffin is once again confirmed to be a liar.

As for your selective quoting of Carl Sagan, that is simply crass deception as pointed out years ago by various people, for example:

http://ithinkthereforeiamithink.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/2895/post2895899.shtm


You should go to a library and read Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" or Coyne's "Why Evolution is True" if you want to get some idea of the facts that creationists ignore or attempt to skew.
Votes: +4

You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution, they're 2 different things.

Then, your argument for god (you didn't say which one) is that it's less unlikely than abiogenesis. You ignore any other possibilities.

I saw a TV show about dog breeding. Different traits and characteristics were selected and bred in dogs. Do you contend that beagles and Jack Russells were created directly by god (pick a god, any god)? What about the new strains of infuenza, did god recently create those for us, because he loves us so much? Or did they evolve?

Votes: +5

I like how when cornered, you still state evolution exists, but only on your terms. Please then, seeing as you have much more insight than the rest of us, explain how much variety can happen within a species, when this can happen, and what factors limit, change, or suspend this action. If you find yourself unable to do this, then you may want to rethink the way you present your personal opinion as fact.


Creationist arguements always go something like this.

1. Evolution cannot happen **blank** ( second law of thermodynamics, no crocoducks, etc) prevents it.

Then some scientific fact debunks this. The creationist typically moves on to....

2. Evolution cannot happen because life arising out of non life dosn't make sense ( to me).

It is explained evolution and abiogenesis is different.

3. No it isn't.

Small scale experiments in bacteria, or breeding, etc. Are brought up to bring the conversation back to evolution.

4. Well i believe that things like evolution happen, but only when it would make sense to me.

Notice how you stance of " evolution is false" always, gets watered down as the dreaded facts are brought into the picture. Creationists would do better to get evidence for thier side, before attempting to assert the falsehood of any other side of the arguement. I mean for all the creationist bluster, i have yet to see a proper scientific theory, the reason for this is obvious. A proper theory can be falsified. And for creationists to say ** blank ** would prove us wrong, just isn't in thier make up.

Votes: +8

Personally, I believe that the original species were created with the capability to change, adapt and produce variety. Just as two humans that procreate will produce offspring that will not be exact carbon copies however, believe they will always be humans.

But in your case we'll make an exception. Votes: +3

A bumper sticker for folks who believe in a creator and know that evolution is a fact.

My Creator is smart enough to create a Universe that Evolves. Is yours?

I'll wager $1,000,000 that Kirk won't ever have one of these on his bumper. Votes: +5

Kirk Cameron and his partner-in-crime, Ray Comfort are just doing the same thing as Uri Geller, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, et al, do.

They lie.

They lie to make a living. The bigger the lie and repeating it as often as possible is how to make the maximum profit. Votes: +7

There are lots of facts that scientists DON'T want you to know about Crocoduck, because they have their own SECRET agenda.

Crocoduck was a real jerk, in fact Crocoduck was a TROLL. Crocoduck would get on pre-historic forums for skeptical transitional creatures (now extinct skeptical transitional creatures) and hi-jack whatever conversation he wanted to...he constantly went off topic. If it was about the massive die off of tree ferns, he'd post about how T. Rex (king of all dinosaurs) was not really King, and could not provide an official birth certificate, and about how transitional creature scientists were all lefty pinkos.

When the other transitional creatures on the forums would tell Crocoduck to knock it off, he'd act all butt-hurt. He'd then complain endlessly about how the other transitional creatures could NOT be true skeptics because they did not believe exactly as he did and trusted scientific data more then they trusted the word of Crocoduck.

Kirk Cameron may not believe that Crocoduck existed and had descendants, but I certainly do. Sure, they are bi-pedal now, but their behaviors and duck/crocdile sized brains haven't changed....In fact, I could introduce him to a few Crocoducks in my vicinity. Votes: +5

Let's call a shovel a shovel here.

It is my considered opinion that at some time we will understand how the chemicals of life could have naturally occurred using a chemical evolutionary model. We will also have greater understanding of how these chemicals interacted to produce more complex self-replicating systems that we might think of as life. Potentially at some point we may be able to replicate this process on a VASTLY accelerated timeframe (down from, what, hundreds of millions of years to within a single human lifetime) by artificial selection and manipulation of the environment.

Of course, we may never replicate all of the processes that produced the first "life". As I parenthetically mentioned, this took a very long time and happened under conditions that we don't understand in detail. Presumably it happened in Earth's oceans of the time, that's an extremely variable solution over an extremely large area, subject to different chemical, electrical, thermal, and radiation effects. However, the fact that we have not reproduced the process does not imply that it didn't happen. Evidence suggests that it did.

Regardless of the origin of the first chemicals of life, the process of evolution by variation and natural selection after the initial "life" existed explains observations extremely well.

There is no possible reading of the fossil record or of modern biochemistry that is consistent with a single act of creation. Votes: +4

@WillyK: That would be a good sticker to distribute to godless people. It may even be possible to find religious people who would put it on - though the ones who don't outright reject the 6-day creation myth usually don't want to attract the attention of the 6-day creationist types and the loud ones who are proud to put on bumper stickers like "god hates fags" are in the creationist camp.
Votes: +1

@popsaw:

"Just as two humans that procreate will produce offspring that will not be exact carbon copies however, believe they will always be humans."

See, that's where you get things so horribly wrong. If you'd only read (and understand) On the Origin of Species, you'd know that future humans (if the species does not become extinct through some catastrophe) will be undeniably different from our current species - perhaps not even able to successfully interbreed (if you could somehow recreate the current species in the future). There will be many common traits just as we have many common traits with modern descendants of species which diverged from our common ancestors millions of years ago. The neanderthal has been determined to be a related species with a common ancestor to modern humans rather than a direct ancestor and yet they are so similar to humans. Some people say they have evidence that the neanderthals still existed about 10,000 years ago. We don't know why they became extinct; as far as we can tell they were intelligent social tool-making apes much like our own species; there are many ideas but not enough evidence to make a conclusive statement about how they came to an end. We also know that our own species (well, technically the direct ancestors of our own species) were almost driven to extinction almost 100,000 years ago. So, barring extinction, modern humans will evolve into a very different species, perhaps even diverge into separate species, but the process may take a few hundred thousand years. We can already see evolution at work by just looking around; since many human populations have been isolated for somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 years we already see many superficial changes which may have been driven largely by differences in the environment, but even that is apparently not a long enough time to create distinct species in us apes.
Votes: +4

@popsaw:

"The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in the materialistic theory of evolution than it does to believe in God!"

No, it takes an effort to look at the evidence and understand what people are saying. It takes little effort and no application of thought to believe in gods. Evolution is based on evidence, not faith. God is based on faith and social manipulation. For example, how do you even know you've got the right god? God told you, did he? From what you've written so far I'd say you've been reading far too much material from the Jehovah's Witness; you should pick up some real books with real evidence such as "On the Origin of Species", or if you want a more recent book, Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth".
Votes: +7

Only problem I have with this article: There is no "Creation vs. Evolution debate". There are only people who understand science, and people who don't. Votes: +14

we've seen no headlines about scientists CHANGING data about global warming

Second go at this. I seem to have been censored the first time, for some unfathomable reason.

The media have kept very quiet about this, but New Zealand climate scientists have been caught changing data without adequate explanations:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/11/man-made-warming-in-new-zealand.html

As a Kiwi I did not believe that our scientists would do such a thing, but I tracked down the original data (at the NIWA site) and the above post is quite correct. "Adjustments" were made to the data, but it was published without acknowledging them.

In Australia it was not changing data, but careful cherry picking of data that has given the same result.

So we know that the problems are not "just at one university" as the climate warmers insist. The falsification of data is starting to look like a trend. Votes: -9

You changed the subject, and said stuff about something else.

You're a moron, a waste of time. Votes: +6

So, many Crocoducks in New Zealand? Votes: +0

This was not a post about global warming but:

Forget all the temperature data and the extrapolations of the various climate models. All the data one needs to look at are the fact that the arctic ice is melting, glaciers are disappearing, antarctic ice sheets are falling into the ocean and the sea level is rising. What more does one need to know? This proves that the planet is warming. Whether the warming is caused by human activity or not (in my opinion it is) we need to do something about it before there is a global tragedy. The only thing that we can do about it is to lower the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even if the cause is not greenhouse gases, lowering the amount of human-caused greenhouse gases will help the situation.
. Votes: +0

All the data one needs to look at are the fact that the arctic ice is melting, glaciers are disappearing, antarctic ice sheets are falling into the ocean and the sea level is rising.

You see, this is what really, really annoys the climate sceptics. The same old rot, trotted out time after time, with no investigation into whether it is true, or what it means. We'll address the logical fallacies first.

1. Argument by anecdote. Take four things only secondarily associated with climate and from them build a world view. If I name four people who take homeopathy and are cured, is that acceptable evidence?

2. Argument by non sequitur. Of course Antarctic ice is falling off! It's been doing it for centuries, millenia. It does not fall off faster if it is warmer though. In fact, Antarctic has been putting on ice slowly recently. Of course more ice means more ice to fall off. Icebergs are drifting further north too, but we aren't allowed to talk about that because it suggests cooling.

3. Argument by cherry picking. Glaciers are not melting world-wide. Some are gaining, some are melting. (The alarmists are only interested in the melting ones, naturally.) But in any case melting glaciers are not proof the world is warming. Take an ice-cube from your fridge and place it on the bench. It will melt. It will even continue to melt if the room gets a little colder, because all melting says is that the ambient temperature is warmer than 0. Likewise with glaciers - they have been melting for centuries (on average) because we are going through a long warm period. That does not prove the world is getting warmer, but only that it is (as it has been for a long time) too warm for glaciers. The current scare about glaciers is a total media beat up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

4. Argument by exaggeration. Sea levels are rising. Very, very slowly. Too slowly to make much difference, as it happens.

5. Straw Man - "This proves that the planet is warming". Good, we are agreed then. But the argument among sensible people has never been if the planet is warming. The rate of warming is disputed, of course. But the main problem is that we cannot identify a definite cause and, as a result, we cannot identify the correct solution.

Even if the cause is not greenhouse gases, lowering the amount of human-caused greenhouse gases will help the situation.

And this is the proof that the Climate Warmers are actually the woo cranks, and not the deniers. Read this line and weep folks. Rather too many of them want to drastically cut economic activity on the basis that it is good for us. Nothing at all to do with whether it actually has any effect or not. If greenhouse gases are not the cause, then lowering them will have no effect at all. To think otherwise is "climate homeopathy". Votes: -6

@Mark P:

"As a Kiwi I did not believe that our scientists would do such a thing, but I tracked down the original data (at the NIWA site) and the above post is quite correct."

Oh, sure, go ahead and pull the other one. If you had the qualifications to process the data (meteorology, or at least physics with some basic meteorology), you'd see that there's nothing hidden and nothing secretly changed. I'd say you have no relevant qualifications and there are some humongous tells. For example, if you ever had anything to do with meteorology you wouldn't be acting like such a hero in being able to find the original data on the NIWA site; I can easily get original data from most of the globe - and at no cost. Even if NIWA were to get some strange notion and ask for money in exchange for the data, I could go and get it for free anyway thanks to various agreements by member states of the World Meteorological Organization. However, let me ask you a very simple question which will expose you for the liar you are: What methods did you use in your analysis? Come now, we all want to know so we can see if (1) your analysis is valid and (2) we can reproduce your claimed results.


' "Adjustments" were made to the data, but it was published without acknowledging them. '

Really? What sort of 'adjustments'? Are they beyond globally accepted practice; for example with pressure measurements the final reported values are adjusted to mean sea level and that is what you see on the weather charts on the TV news. Did you even know that extremely basic fact of meteorology, or is that already too complicated for you? Here's another extremely simple question which will expose you as a liar: what is the typical adiabatic lapse rate for Wellington? I'm also tempted to ask you for the corresponding Merriman constant for that lapse rate.


"In Australia it was not changing data, but careful cherry picking of data that has given the same result."

Really? How was the cherry picking done? What is this "same result" that you are talking about? I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about so I'll have to assume that you have no idea either; you certainly don't communicate like anyone who has even the most rudimentary understanding of meteorology.


Another big tell of course is that a simple search with 'google' reveals that you are merely parroting other claims - unless of course you *are* the original author of those amusingly ignorant articles. Either way, you have no credibility.
Votes: +0

If you had the qualifications to process the data (meteorology, or at least physics with some basic meteorology), you'd see that there's nothing hidden and nothing secretly changed.

I tried to post the various temperature links, but if you post too many links here it will assume you are spamming and block you. This guy has a go at it better than I can:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

All I did was take the various long run temperatures from the NIWA site, average them, and plot them. Not sophisticated, but close enough considering the difference alleged. It showed that the increase in temperature over time was slight, in line with the allegation that NIWA were fibbing. It was not meant to be a publishable paper - I just checked the data to see if the allegation was correct.

The issue of "nothing secretly changed" depends what you mean by "secret". Do NIWA admit it when pressed? Yes. Do they actually tell people that they have decreased past temperatures and raised modern ones when they publish their graphs? No. Because their purpose is to scare the public.

if you ever had anything to do with meteorology

Nice try. What has weather got to do with it? We're talking about climate. You can waffle on all you like about meteorological terms, but they don't affect the issue in hand. It's the usual "if I blind them with my majesty maybe they won't notice that the figures are dodgy". (For what it's worth I have a post-graduate degree in Chemistry. I was good at Physics, but I didn't do too much. I am not overwhelmed by it though.)

We could also talk about the absorption by CO2 that supposedly causes this whole "greenhouse" thing. Except CO2 is already at near enough to saturation in the relevant band. So adding more CO2 doesn't increase the amount of energy being trapped. This has been known for a long time, of course, but the climate people still haven't quite worked out how to get round it. As you can tell, I don't think they ever will, because the warming isn't caused by CO2.

But that's not relevant either to my accusation, which is that some figures have been fiddled for presentation to the public. What is relevant is that if you look at the historical temperatures over the last 100 years in New Zealand (sites like Hokitika and the Chathams are particularly good, since no urbanisation issues) it is clear that there is no recent spike in temperature. Yet somehow NIWA manages to process this into a recent rise. Actually, a spectacular rise which bears no resemblance to what we have observed in recent years. There is no need for much physics. They say temperatures are rising rapidly. Their own thermometer readings show no such rise.

Really? What sort of 'adjustments'? Are they beyond globally accepted practice

Well, they are accepted practice among the AGW crowd. That's precisely the point. The adjustments being made are bogus.

For example, it is well known that modern temperature readings are too high because of the urban heat island effect. You would therefore expect readings at places like Auckland Airport to be slightly too high (tarmac and jet engines tending to warm things). But instead NIWA revises its modern figures upwards! I call bogus on that.

In Australia it was not changing data, but careful cherry picking of data that has given the same result."

Really? How was the cherry picking done?

If you take say 100 temperature readings over time that are entirely random, then on some of them will show a trend downwards and some a trend upwards, just from random fluctuations. If you exclude those that trend downwards from your data set, you automatically get an entirely bogus upward trend out of nothing.

The Australians took their thermometer readings, and excluded those that tended to negate the trend upwards. Votes: -1

So...can anyone answer how Crocoducks contributed to global warming? Votes: +3

@popsaw

First, of course, animals without hard parts do not fossile as readily as those that do. That's not to say that we don't have any preCambrian fossils, just that there is a built-in bias, created by nature, as to what types of animals are most likely to fossilize.

Second, the Cambrian "explosion" was not really a sudden explosion, but more of an extended event, that lasted some 15 million years.

Third, an August 2005 article in Scientific American (The Early Evolution of Animals, David J Bottjer) describes a small and relatively simple bilaterian - a bilaterally symmetrical animal - found in strata that is dated to between 580 million and 600 million years old. That's roughly 45 to 50 million years prior to the beginning of the Cambrian explosion, and about 55 to 75 million years prior to the trilobites of the Burgess Shale.

Fourth, we have multiple tens of millions of years' worth of soft bodied Ediacaran fauna. The Edicaran time frame also includes fossil remains of sponges and cnidarians.

Fifth, before the big shelled animals of the Cambrian, we have fossils of what are called "little shellies" or "small shelly fossils", which dominate the early Cambrian from about 545 MYA to about 520 MYA (trilobites show up about 530 MYA, IIRC).

Sixth, going back before all of those, we find fossilized remains of bacteria that are some 3.5 billion years old.

Votes: +2

@popsaw

How is the existence of a Creator not MORE of a problem than the existence of the Universe?

1) A Creator would be greater than the entire current universe -- including us humans, with our highly complex biochemistry. God must be greater than all that: otherwise, those who worship the Creator are worshipping the wrong thing! Since God would be greater than the entire current universe, including complex biochemistry, it's more logical to accept that the entire universe -- in its current, full-blown, ultra-complex state -- came to exist without a cause than it is to accept that God exists without a cause.



2) Now let’s switch from looking at how things are now, in the current state, to how they were in the beginning.

God would have always been as great as He would be now, so the religious explanation is stuck. It still has to assume that something greater than the entire current universe, including all of its ultra complex biochemistry, exists without a cause.

On the other hand, the universe was not always as large & complex as it currently is, and it did not always contain the ultra complex biochemistry we see today. No life existed in the universe until long after the Big Bang occurred (for life on Earth, some 9 billion years). Further, all that is needed to kickstart inflation is a sphere of vacuum, smaller and simpler than a single proton. So for the naturalistic position, it’s not our entire universe, in its current, full-blown state, including the ultra-complex biochemistry of life, that needs to be explained, but rather just something smaller and simpler than a single proton.

So here is the final comparison expressed as an argument.

How is it at all logical to have no problem accepting that something greater than entire current universe, including all of it ultra complex biochemistry, could exist without a cause, while at the same time having a huge problem accepting that something smaller and simpler than a single proton could exist without a cause? It’s not.


3) It is illogical, unsupported, and nonsense to speak of intelligence existing prior to the existence of time, space, energy, and matter.


4) It is also illogical, unsupported, and nonsense to speak of actions being performed prior to the existence of time, space, energy, and matter.

Votes: +3

@popsaw

1) Don't conflate spontaneous generation and abiogenesis: they are different.


Spontaneous generation, which has been refuted, had the following characteristics:

a. the relatively instantaneous origin of life: the process took a few days or a few weeks

b. the life that originated could be complex: frogs, rats, flies, etc.

c. life was originating repeatedly and regularly: all around us today. Life’s popping up easily and frequently.

d. life had been arising continually throughout earth's history.


Abiogenesis, which is still an area of much scientific investigation, has the following characteristics:

a. a prolonged origin of life, requiring millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of years.

b. the first life was extremely simple: simpler than a bacterium. It could have been a molecule that could replicate itself.

c. life arose just once.

d. life arose 3.5 to 4 billion years ago only.



2) You don't seem to be up on your science.

a. Activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides were produced under prebiotically plausible conditions.

b. Activated ribonucleotides can polymerize on montmorillonite. (In addition, cyclic nucleotides can link up into long chains, up to 110 units long, in the proper bonding ... in water ... without catalysts).

c. Multiple ribozymes (catalytic RNA molecules) that performed biologically relevant reactions (RNA ligases) were found in a large pool of RANDOM SEQUENCE RNA molecules.

d. Scientists have evolved a general purpose, RNA-dependent, RNA polymerase ribozyme, capable of copying up to 20 nucleotides of just about any RNA sequence thrown at it.

e. Jack Szostak has made good progress showing the plausibility of a single-gene protocell. He works with fatty-acid vesicles, which are prebiotically plausible. The vesicle also contain montmorillonite, which, as mentioned above, catalyzes the linkage of nucleotides into chains. He has shown that nucleotides can enter the vesicles, but once they are linked together they cannot exit. Thus providing a means of concentrating nucleotides. Further, he showed that vesicles with more RNA in them "steal" fatty acids from their neighbors. This results in competition, and growth.


Is it all worked out, from A to Z? Nope, but a lot of progress has been made in the past 10 years.

Votes: +1

I do feel guilty for going off topic but:

That the world is warming is hard to miss. The reason to get in under control soonest is because if too much fresh water dumps into the ocean from the poles, that great thermostat changes and it can then bring on a mini ice age. Then there will be incentives to create green house gasses :>. Denying that the world is warming is more dangerous than one might think. And it is possible that it is too late to stop the process from starting the ocean current reaction. Food production alone is reason enough to try to prevent that. We shall see.

I have a policy that I never argue with crazy people. There is no reward because crazy people are not subject to logical arguments so there is no winning, or even agreeing to disagree - and it hurts your head.

Votes: +0

Croco-duck...I would pay to see one of them. As for that chap getting hoisted by his own leotard...is that a bit like a wedgie? Votes: +0

@Mark P:

Well, you've been caught lying again numerous times.

(1) If you really had raw data rather than adjusted reported values, you'd have to do a lot more than simply average and plot when you're comparing two different sites (or even two different thermometers installed at different times st one site). But you say you saw a 'slight increase', which is what I would expect without even looking at the data, so how big is this 'slight increase'? I still don't believe you ever even so much as downloaded the data. No one cares if your calculations aren't meant to be published; you should still be able to describe in detail what you've done, otherwise you just look silly making claims because you have no proof that you've even done anything.

(2) "Nice try. What has weather got to do with it? We're talking about climate. You can waffle on all you like about meteorological terms, but they don't affect the issue in hand."

That's a very transparent foil; you're only proving that you're an utter ignoramus. Meteorology has everything to do with climate.

(3) "Well, they are accepted practice among the AGW crowd. That's precisely the point. The adjustments being made are bogus."

You still haven't answered the question: What adjustments are being made by NIWA that are not established practice in meteorology? Your claims are clearly bogus.

(4) "For example, it is well known that modern temperature readings are too high because of the urban heat island effect."

It's a well-known myth among the ignorant. How does, say, the "urban heat island effect" in Auckland affect the surface temperature of the Southern Ocean? How about something simpler: How big is this "heat island effect" of yours and where is your proof?

(5) "If you take say 100 temperature readings over time that are entirely random, then on some of them will show a trend downwards and some a trend upwards, just from random fluctuations."

I hope no one claiming to be a scientist is stupid enough to take 100 random temperature readings and plot them. Besides, you can't even get that claim right. If you had 100 random readings from some period and you sometimes get a negative slope and sometimes positive, then odds are there is no significant trend (or else a few points of bad data) and the analysis would show that: no trend. If there is a significant trend of any sort, then even a random sample of 100 points will show it even though that's still an unbelievably stupid thing to do because you leave out most of the data.

(6) "We could also talk about the absorption by CO2 that supposedly causes this whole "greenhouse" thing. Except CO2 is already at near enough to saturation in the relevant band. So adding more CO2 doesn't increase the amount of energy being trapped."

Really? Well, that's news to me. You see, I build instruments that use different absorption bands of CO2 to measure its concentration along distances ranging from 2cm to about 300km so I know the properties of CO2 very well. In fact, increasing CO2 will still cause further absorption in all bands regardless of any saturation effects - and I seriously doubt you have any idea what 'saturation' is.
Votes: +2

In fact, increasing CO2 will still cause further absorption in all bands regardless of any saturation effects - and I seriously doubt you have any idea what 'saturation' is.

Of course I know what saturation means. It means no more can be added/taken away. So once CO2 reaches saturation no more energy will be absorbed. Really, anyone reading your statement above with any physics or chemistry will know you are making this up! Once saturation is reached (or nearly reached) adding extra makes no (or little) difference.

Sure CO2 might absorb in wavelengths "from 2 cm to 300km". But the absorption of radio waves (the km) is hardly going to affect global warming! The heat bands which CO2 absorbs, which are not already covered by water (the main greenhouse gas) and other atmospheric constituents, is small. And it already does all it can, so adding more CO2 makes no difference (saturation).

That's why the real climate scientists are trying to move the effects into the troposphere (or elsewhere) to get their desired result. They don't go round pretending that the problem doesn't exist.

Meteorology has everything to do with climate.

No it doesn't. Weather is not climate. Again you make such obvious false statements!

I have a degree in Chemistry. Theoretically, all drug effects on humans are applied chemistry. In reality chemists cannot predict much useful about drug effects, as the human body is too complex a system to be reduced to simple organic chemistry. Doctors have managed to develop drugs (say penicillin or aspirin) without applying any chemistry to the process at all. Afterwards the biochemists might have a stab at saying how they work, but that is all retroactive.

So it is with climate. Let's face it, meteorologists can't predict a week into the future with any accuracy! The idea that meteorology can be used to predict climate years into the future is laughable. Instead climate scientists (only some of whom have meteorological classifications) have to develop different models working from higher level principles. Sadly, they remain mired, like the biochemists, mostly being able to explain things after the fact, and with little predictive ability.

How big is this "heat island effect" of yours and where is your proof?

Are you deliberately being obtuse? All sides of the argument acknowledge that there is a UHI effect. To say that there isn't places you at odds with every serious person. The scale of the UHI and how to deal with it are heavily disputed, but to go and argue that it doesn't exist is just stupid. Ask any glider pilot if it exists!

With that I have had enough. Readers who are interested in urban heat effects, and in looking at long term thermometer records that show little rising can look elsewhere. The MadScientist is clearly mad, and I am no longer going to feed his need to argue even the simplest matters. Votes: -1

I've seen those rubber shoes, a guy at work wears them all the time.

I haven't tried them yet. Might they become extinct?

Votes: +3

Climate is defined as average weather.
. Votes: -2

conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&


....
Votes: -8

I really wish they'd name this after Kirk. Kirkcameronus Growingpainus has a nice ring to it. Votes: +0

...then how come apes like them so much? Votes: +0

Which is why I also included the articles and not just the Wikipedia references (Which I tried to double check as much as possible before hand). Votes: +1

@Mark P:

"Of course I know what saturation means. It means no more can be added/taken away."

Epic fail right there Mark P. Come on, you've demonstrated numerous times already that you're a liar and an ignoramus. Are you gunning for title of Ignoramus Maximus or something? I'm not even going to waste time reading the rest of your drivel; you've already proven beyond any doubt that you're an idiot and know absolutely nothing about CO2, the weather, or climate. Now why should anyone believe you're the "expert" you claim to be?
Votes: +0

then why is the pineapple so difficult? And English walnuts? Votes: +2

http://www.partiallyclips.com/index.php?id=1636 Votes: +0

One of the problems with the cretards here is that they are thinking discontinuously in two ways:

First, they assume that there is some magical difference between life and non-life, so that the former can't come from the latter. This is an artificial distinction: whether we consider something alive or not is a matter of definition, not of some fundamental magical property that living things possess. If you look closely enough at the boundary between what we consider life and non-life, you'll find some things that could plausibly be classified on either side.

Second, they make a similar error when it comes to species. Again, we choose to describe organisms as belonging to different species as a matter of convenience, there is no fundamental, unchangable 'essense' of a species. If you start with a modern human and look at its parents, grandparents and so on, you'll eventually get back to the common anscestor humans share with other apes, then further back, our common anscestors with other organisms. These will all look very different from modern humans, but there's no point at which a particular organism's offspring differ radically from it. This is for the simple and obvious reason that change is gradual and accumulates over time.

If they could correct these errors, some of their objections to evolution might evaporate. Votes: +2

6 days ago, Christie posted (above) about the banana's "easy-to-peal" packaging.

I had no idea banana skin could be rung like a bell. Votes: +0

"I didn't read the rest of your drivel" is a common ploy made to disguise the fact that you have no rebuttal. Also, I don't recall MarkP ever claiming to be an expert; in fact, the only one to use that word on this entire page is you. Votes: +0