Create account

TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
There is not a single observationi of such a thing.
2 / 71 1
1,000
replied 2292d
Also we can show how the eye evolved over time. There is a spectrum of complexity in eyes found in nature. Starting with light sensitive cells to full out telescopic eyes.
1
1,234
John_Doe
replied 2291d
Please show me.
replied 2291d
2
1,234
John_Doe
replied 2290d
How does distinguishing between light and dark make you better at surviving?
1
678
replied 2291d
I am guessing you never watched the Cosmos series were they showed just that?
1
1,234
John_Doe
replied 2291d
Please tell me you dont base your knowledge off of tv nonsense.
replied 2291d
No I don't, but you asked for the info, and that is an easy place to find it. That said Cosmos was not TV nonsense. It was knowledge presented by a scientist.
John_Doe
replied 2291d
Fair enough. I will look into it.
replied 2291d
On what should people base their knowledge?
John_Doe
replied 2291d
Proper research that refers to sources that you can check etc. Has discovery channel ever presented any criticism to global warming. If they have it is just as a strawman.
replied 2291d
Why does global warming deserve to be criticized? Does any serious, professional and reproducible research refute it?
John_Doe
replied 2291d
You have to define it first. Are we talking the natural change in the worlds climate? Global warming/climate change caused by humans?
replied 2291d
No one has seriously refuted anthropological climate change. The evidence for it is quite conclusive.
John_Doe
replied 2291d
A good place to start.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#2fdef4c03bb3
replied 2290d
I have read a lot of the propaganda against the science. There is nothing behind it. Like that list of "scientists" that don't belive in global warming turns out to be regular people.
John_Doe
replied 2290d
It says 9000 phds. Dis you see how the 99% was manipulated? Anyway, ask why the narrative was changed from global warming to climate change.
replied 2290d
Those phD's aren't in a relevant field. Their opinions are worthless. Research and data are what matter. It was not a narrative change. Just that it involves more than than warming.
1
John_Doe
replied 2290d
Is it warming or cooling, cant be both.
replied 2290d
It can be more complicated then that though. The issue is the excess energy in the system due to an albedo imbalance. The extra energy usually is noticed as more heat, but not always.
Barricade
replied 2291d
Everything deserves to be criticized, as long as you have enough evidence to refute it.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
Even the simpliest form of photon detection requires a massive and complex amount of DNA. Stop pretending otherwise.
replied 2292d
That was actually one of the first things to evolve in single celled organisms actually. Mostly so things could move to or from light. Sight actually evolved with the ability to move.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2291d
In theory. One which doesn't makes sense anyway.
replied 2291d
You know something doesn't become a theory until it has been verified, right?
1
replied 2292d
So called pit eye requires only up to 100 cells. Look it up.
John_Doe
replied 2291d
So single cell organism quickly go from 1 to 100 now he can see?
replied 2291d
Doh.. single cell organisms do not have a pit eye. I thought this is obvious. SCO can detect light and react to it - spot. More complex eye on a SCO look up warnowiid
replied 2292d
I hope you joking. We observe and track those changes. We can see where we had two chromosomes fuse together after we split from Chimps. We can see what use to be ends fused together.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2292d
No I'm not joking. Stop pretending we have observations of a fully complex set of new DNA coding from scratch. There is not a single one.
replied 2291d
What are you saying there is not an example of? We have observed how mutations to genes in DNA happen. What we have not observed is the natural formation of DNA (or origins of life).
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2291d
And none of them are responsible of whole new set of codes. Only tweaking or merging existent code or the removal of.
replied 2292d
We have created entirely new DNA from scratch ourselves. That is beside the point though. Evolution would be disprove if DNA could just create whole new complex chains in one go.
1
1,234
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2291d
If evolution would be a slow process we should witness as of RIGHT NOW mid-organs with no functions. There is not a single instance in the whole world showing that.
1
567
replied 2291d
Like your appendix? Vestigial organs they are called. Look them up.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
"Normally, the appendix sits in the lower right abdomen. The function of the appendix is unknown." It doesn't mean it has none because you're too much of an idiot to figure out.
replied 2290d
It is a vestigial organ. Even the routing of the bloody vessel around the thyroid is left over from fish ancestors.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
lmao you have quite a lot of imagination I must admit.
replied 2290d
I just listen to people who are experts in the field. Your questions on the issue remind of something Mr. Garston said. "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people."
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2290d
"Experts" sitll have different opinions on that matter. What you actually do is listening to "expert" who confrims your bias.
1
replied 2290d
Experts have difference of opinion on stuff they are trying to figure out. They do not have a difference of opinion on older well known issues.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2289d
Science is about questioning everything you think your know. If you don't, you don't do science.
replied 2289d
I understand science. You are oversimolifying things. I do questions the issues. That is why I know climate change is real. I spent a long time thinking it wasn't.
1
3,000
replied 2289d
#1 Everything changes #2 Climate may be warming now
But then food for thought. Is it really good or bad that the Earth is warming up.
We've been conditioned: Climate change=bad
replied 2289d
The issue is the rate of change. We have seen times the climate changed this quickly before. Every time it happened we call a mass extinction event. Yes it is bad.
1
3,000
replied 2289d
It may be bad for the extinct, but it may be good for the new species.
For me, I like it a bit hotter, thank you.

Plus, did you know that the Earth has never been as green before?
1
678
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Earth was much greener during the time of dinosaurs. And the atmosphere was also approx 3X more richer in CO2. Coincidence? I think not.
1
replied 2288d
And yes, you may be right(any link?) My data goes only about a million-10 million years back. Dinosaurs got extinct earlier than that.
1
replied 2288d
Exactly, because trees feed on CO2.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Climate change is most probably real. The cause is highly debatable.
replied 2288d
The cause is the burning of fossil fuels. We can tell that the added CO2 in the atmosphere has lower C14. Because it is millions of years old and already all decayed to C12.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Explain why most astronomers are actually saying it"s because of the sun being in a super phase? Why nobody let them talk in the news?
2
3,000
replied 2288d
That is actually denier propaganda. Astronomers actually debunked that it isn't caused by solar cycles since those cycles do not at all correlate to the changes in the climate.
1
replied 2288d
Typo of course. The solar cycles do not correlate to climate change at all. Looking at solar cycles disproves that they can be a cause.
1
replied 2289d
I think I lost track of who was the climate change denier and who was the evolution denier.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
"Proofs" shouldn't raise more questions than answers.
1
replied 2288d
They don't. Your just not the only person I have been discussing denier propaganda with.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Being whatever NOT denier is being science denier. Science is about questioning all the time.When I look at the "proofs" of climate change and evolution I find them rather unconvincing
1
replied 2288d
Probably because you have not looked at all the info, or understand the science on the subject enough to evaluate the data. Science leads to the conclusion that both are true.
1
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2288d
Conclusions about scientific fields that goes beyond the scale of human beings can never lead to conclusion with a high degree of certainty.
1
replied 2288d
What makes you think these simple things are beyond humans? They are not even leading edge fields.
1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2290d
Is this guy stupid? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_zQXgJ-dXM4&t=22s
replied 2290d
Yes he is.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2289d
If you think one of the top chemists in the world is stupid but can't counter a single one of his claims, I'd say YOU're the one who's dogmatically religious and anti-science.
replied 2289d
If he thinks evolution didn't happen then he is just being an old fool. Religion can cloud the mind. Even scientists are not immune to cognitive dissonance sometimes.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2289d
That's not what he's arguing. He's saying that the first cell spontaneously creating itself is a miracle beyond any described in the Bible. You're the one with cognitive dissonance.
replied 2289d
Ah, he is arguing against a strawman then. That isn't the theory on how it happened. First came RNA, them DNA. Protein structures and then cell walls came later.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2289d
What you're describing is a creation myth. I don't believe you watched that video, and I don't believe you ever will because you're afraid of anything that threatens your religion.
replied 2289d
I scanned though it. Read what was on his screen a few times. It doesn't matter what he thinks anyway. It matters what all the findings and scientists think. Not one guy.
1
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2289d
Lol it doesn't matter which came first! You have to freaking make it in the first place, and then have it not deteriorate until the proverbial monkeys can type shakespeare.
replied 2289d
It is actually a lot more likely than he understands. The basic building blocks of life self assemble all the time. Even on comets.
1
replied 2291d
The tail bone in humans. Touch your ass at the base of the spine for proof we had tails once.


About Privacy Terms Stats