Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Liriodendron Tulipifera

Regulars
  • Posts

    298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Liriodendron Tulipifera

  1. Unfortunately, I think these people, although a minority in the scientific community, are still a sizeable minority. I think they consist of two kinds of people: those who are genuinely evil (hopefully a minority within this minority), and the rest who hold these views hold them tenuously and just haven't thought about the issues critically enough. I see a lot of undergraduates come into my university with pretty radical attitudes which become moderated after a couple of years' exposure to higher education. I have reason to be hopeful despite these wackos. I used to be a pretty subjectivist secular person before I was exposed to Objectivism. There are a lot of scientists out there who are very subjectivist and just don't think about their personal philosophy very much, but are honest people and would clearly be won over to a rational outlook if challenged to debate. These are the people who need to be targeted. Members of the former group are, of course, hopeless. I spent a bit of time revieweing the students' reviews of his "ecology" class. Obviously, I am discouraged by most of the students' remarks. Reading between the lines, however, a lot of student mentioned that they thought the guy was a freak to start out with. Unfortunately, he seemed to "win them over" to his viewpoint in the end... obviously a lot of young impressionable people out there. One of my psychology friends tells me that certain parts of the brain that influence decision making and predictable life choices aren't done developing until age 25. So let's hope some of them change their minds later. Sheesh. I did like this student's review (below). At least there are some people that have listened to a whole semester of his dogma that can think for themselves. "Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views."
  2. Right! Here is a link to factcheck.org's recent article on global warming..
  3. Surprise, surprise. My former Muslim co-worker doesn't believe in evolution, either. And this is someone who is a molecular biologist. All these religious people have a lot in common, Christian or Muslim. As for the funding showing that this science is bogus, there probably won't be much. There will simply be denials and assertions, as with any politically or religiously or ideologically motivated people that don't like the truth. All they will do is ridicule and demand more proof. They will demand that scientists make cells that function. Then when scientists do that, they will say, "But these cells aren't exactly like real cells. Make those!" Then when scientists do that, they will demand that scientists make multicellular organisms. Then when they do that, they will demand that scientists cause cells to evolve into multicellular life, and from that multicellular life, form a human. Of course, none of this will ever happen, and even if it could the scientists would be accused of being "unethical" and of playing God and such, and all of this will be enough "evidence" for them that "intelligent design" must be true. F***wits.
  4. Bad analogy. I already addressed this false statement before. You simply keep re-asserting it because you can't think of a new argument. Big whoop. What if scientists were able to create a cell? Would you accept that evolution could happen? No, you wouldn't, even though the vast majority of life is unicellular. You would say, "Scientists can't create multicellular organisms!" Anyway, what would creating a cell actually prove? Think about it, I'm tired of sppon-feeding you the answers.
  5. Because this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard! @#%$^#&@ Many genes with new functions have evolved from copies of themselves inside the same organism, so there are two functional copies of the gene. One goes bad, there's still another one to play with or alter or change function or whatever. Ugh, if life is so complex why do you try to reduce the argument to something so silly as, "But this is the way everything had to happen!" Anyway, 99% of all species that have ever existed on this Earth have gone extinct. So yes, there is a high failure rate and biological systems are fragile. What's your point?? There's been 6 billion years to work with here. You can't even fathom a thousand. Yeah, ever heard of a virus?? That's because it is. Because the people who study it are constantly contributing new evidence and making it more robust. but no, you folk just want to trample on decades old examples instead of tackling the new stuff. WHY? Because you have an emotional need to believe in ID, and no matter what evidence accumulates showing that evolution happens, you will still believe in ID. Ugh. I'm done here.
  6. You know, Remark89, I think you should go back and read David's posts over again. And then, I think you should click on his member name and read everything else he's ever written here. You might learn something. He responded to you in a very rational manner, albeit sarcastic. You call this emotional? I suggest you go back and read all the posts here in this thread again. Did you even read them? I just did, again, all of them, to see if any of your accusations were true: of members here responding to IDers in an emotional way. They have not. Sarcasm and wit and good arguments are not the same as emotion. However, I will now become emotional because that's what you expect, anyway. Did you even bother to read any of these previous posts trying to explain to you numerous numbskulls that just walk in here, HOW evolution happens? How much time we spend trying to educate you dolts? You come in here and accuse US, established members of this forum, of getting emotional when you clearly don't even understand the arguments that have taken place in this thread. Yes, that IS a recipe for making us emotional. After all, one can only stay patient for so long. If you want to have an intelligent conversation that is fine. But please don't come in here and spout the same old rubbish that has already been posted by other people who have come out of nowhere, and then gone with their tails between their legs. Please. Also, if you have problems with David's responses to your questions or comments, which I find personally reasonable, why don't you address those in a rational manner and take him on, if you're all about argument and not about emotion? Oh, really? Somehow I doubt it. Wishing away the existence.... ah, if only it were that easy!
  7. Remark89, it sounds like you have read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." You should now go read a book called "Finding Darwin's God." You should also know that scientists have proposed mechanisms for how some of these "irreducibly" complex systems could have evolved. In fact, a paper was published on the blood clotting system just after Behe's book came out. I read this book and, as a biologist and former Christian, found it to be a very convincing argument for intelligent design. However, there are several problems with it. I won't go into them all here, but one big problem is that Behe doesn't seem to understand that the function of these "irreducibly complex" systems didn't have to be under the same evolutionary selection pressures at every point in evolutionary history. Just because a system of blood clotting proteins works as a system today doesn't mean each individual protein always had that function throughout evolutionary history. He also backs himself into a corner by claiming these systems never could have evolved, when in fact, recent evidence shows that they did. Of course, people outside of the field of evolution don't know this. They also don't want to know it. The theory of evolution doesn't say a heck of a lot about how life came into being. It's about how life evolved after it came into being. After all, it was 6 billion years ago. You expect scientists to have a rock solid understanding of how the first "cell" was formed? For goodness sake, we're still working on figuring out how many species there are on Earth and what forms of live are even out there. I have a hundred species unknown to science sitting on my desk! Sheesh, give us a break! There are only so many of us! Are you aware that only 1% of all species possibly existing in the world have been described? Don't you think at this incredibly early stage that there might be a heck of a lot more to discover out there? That there might be some very primitive organisms out there we haven't discovered yet that might hold some clues? Here, at least scientists are trying to understand how primitive cells might have formed, and what they might have been made of, instead of saying, "Oooooh, this is too hard, we're never going to figure it out. Let's just say God did it, it's sooooo much easier!!" If past experience is any clue, some bright person will come up with some interesting ideas in a decade or so, and then the ID'ers will come up with yet another reason why they still don't believe in evolution. Yes, religious people have made great contributions to science! I would argue that they were able to do these things despite being religious. Take Darwin, for example! Here was someone who wanted to be a preacher, and then guess what happened when this incredibly intelligent individual (who also obviously had a lot of fortitude to develop a theory in direct conflict with his religion) published his work? The entire religious community totally disowned him. Big surprise![/ Let me clue you into why the ID folk don't like evolution. It has nothing to do with the science being bad, wrong, or the theory not explaining anything. That is NOT the fundamental motivation, I can assure you. This is the problem: Evolution is in direct conflict with the belief that man was made in the image of God. If evolution is true, that means man evolved from animals and is not special. He is just another one of the animals, with the ability to reason. And of course, we all know what God thinks about man using his brain (see Genesis, first few chapters when Adam and Eve discover the tree of the knowledge of good and evil!) God doesn't like it very much! Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, Remark89. Scientific theories are based on evidence, and can be disproven. Intelligent design is not a theory because it cannot be disproven. It is just an idea. And not a very good one at that.
  8. That's because you are undoubtedly not a woman. And apallingly, I find that your view is not that uncommon amongst men.
  9. Here are my answers to some of your questions, NewYorkRoark. Do you think human industrialization has added unnatural amounts of carbon into the carbon cycle? It depends. What do you mean by "unnatural?" If man is considered part of nature, no. If by unnatural, you mean pumping carbon out of the ground and releasing it at a very fast rate compared to what has happened in the past 400,000 years, yes. For a good explanation of how we know that the recent rise in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, see this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 Do you think the amounts of unnatural carbon are significant? Well, sure, I would guess it is statistically significant, if all you mean by that is there's been a 30% or so rise since last century. As for significance to global warming or whether the two are related, I don't think anyone has that answer. Do you think this significant contribution has led to or acted as a catalyst for global warming? Maybe. A year ago I would have said, "Definitely, yes!" But now that I've done more reading on the issue I'm not so sure. Scientists can't seem to agree on it, from what I can see. Science is a human enterprise, and as such, one's ideology pr religion or the desire for money, fame, recognition, etc. can get in the way of figuring out what the facts are. However, you can't just dismiss any scientific article as garbage simply because you don't like what it says. Primary literature is peer-reviewed by fellow scientists and editors, which means that other people in the field (often people who are rivals of sorts) have to approve of the paper before it can be published in a scientific journal. Primary literature is really the best that we have in terms of determining what the truth is. TommyEdison is right. Some junk gets through, but guess where the papers proving that it's junk are published? You guessed it - another primary source, usually the same journal so it can be read by everyone who read the junk paper. The journal Science is a primary source. The journal of the Sierra Club is not. Neither is Scientific American. You don't have to have a PhD to publish scientific papers. As long as your data and reasoning are good, as deemed by others in the field, you can publish something. There are a lot of brilliant scientists who only have a bachelor's or master's degree. Likewise, having a PhD (Michael Crichton does have a PhD) doesn't make what you say authoritative, just because you say so. As for Michael Crichton, I don't know what his credentials are other than he is associated with Hollywood and is a novelist. I'm not saying this to be a smart-ass. He is obviously a very clever person. I'm just pointing out that none of what has been presented in this thread as being written or spoken by him is primary literature. Now, having said all of this, the website that I am citing in this post is not primary literature. I happened across it by googling. However, the authors rely heavily on primary literature for their postings, most of them have written many peer-reviewed articles in this field, many posts are contributed by many scientists in the field (not just one person), and the group does not appear to have an ideology that is creating a bias in their work or their interpretation of the scientific literature. They also appear to be quite open to debate.
  10. OK. Now, how do you decide whether someone is an environmentalist? On an ad hoc basis, simply because you don't like the data they've presented? Gotta love this cartoon: http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/db/2006/03/05/index.html
  11. Yes, that is the way it is done, and recent evidence from Science appears to indicate it is an accurate method. Apparently, the data from Antarctic and Arctic ice cores are surprisingly comparable. See this site, which gives a summary of two Science articles and links to the original ones: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=221 Now, as for estimates of CO2 PRE-600,000 years ago, I really have no idea how this is done. I've read things like "the early atmosphere was 80% carbon dioxide." I have no idea how those levels are arrived at, but I would like to know! Just to keep perspective, I remember reading somewhere that CO2 levels inside that biosphere thing they constructed with the humans living inside for several years sometimes reached 3800ppm. I believe that is the figure. Obviously, CO2 levels must reach much, much higher levels before they are actually directly harmful to human health. I don't even know what that level is, but I believe there are some articles dealing with it. Also, y'all can just call me Monica in future threads. Liriodendron tulipifera's a bit of a handful. It's kind of a joke. A good friend of mine calls himself Aesculus after his favorite tree, the buckeye. The yellow poplar, or tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera) is my favorite, because of its strange leaves and flowers. Hence the name.
  12. Doubtful. Carbon is not a limiting factor for plant growth. Nitrogen is. If plants (or plant-like protists such as algae) were responding to carbon because it was a limiting factor in their growth, we would not see an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide each year, all other factors being equal. We would either see the level of carbon dioxide remaining constant or decreasing. See the attached graph of carbon dioxide levels since they began to be measured at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, starting in 1959. I found this on NOAA's website. From what I can find on the internet (this is not a primary source and I don't know how the data were collected), the level of atmospheric CO2 does not seem to have gone above 300 ppm in the past 400,000 years. See this site: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html Even so, the picture is complicated by the fact that other "greenhouse gases" are out there, such as methane and water vapor, and each would have a different contribution, depending on their concentration and "heat trapping capacity" - for lack of a better term, to global warming.
  13. Forget about finding an answer to whether global warming exists, or whether it is caused by humans, on a forum. This issue is highly politicized, to such a high degree that even scientists can't make sense of. What if humans aren't contributing to global warming, not even 1%? Does this mean that global warming (IF it is occurring) apart from human activity is nothing to concern ourselves about? As for biodiversity, the question, do you value organisms for their economic or aesthetic benefit? For ecosystem function (after all, they evolved for a reason)? Or simply because you like seeing them there? I am fairly confident that even if global warming is taking place, ecosystems will continue to function just fine, but I am not an expert in this arena. I think you would need to do a lot of primary literature searches and critical reading to determine which types of organisms are affected (if at all) by global warming. Just to keep things in perspective, something like 99% of the species that have ever existed on Earth have gone extinct. Presumably, that's because the organisms in question were "too feeble" - i.e. not able to adapt quickly enough - to survive the environmental conditions that caused them to go extinct. I am not confident that current rates of extinction have much to do with global warming, although that would be a concern for migration of organisms IF it were occurring and assuming the rate of change in climate were too fast for the organisms to move or adapt (say, seed plants that relied on wind for seed dispersal). I think larger concern in terms of extinction is loss of habitat and alien introduction. Consider any species with a large home range that has gone (or is reputed to have gone) extinct. The problem is one of loss of habitat - for example, the ivory-billed woodpecker (believed to be extinct for 50 years, just recently re-discovered, maybe.... see Science). A lot of other problems have come with introductions of alien species. Consider New Zealand, for example. Tons of bird species have gone extinct because it's a group of islands that have had no predators for the past 60-80 million years. The only native mammal is a bat. Therefore, a lot of flightless birds or birds that have not needed to evolve (or maintain) defenses went extinct after humans introduced rats, stoats, cats, and possums. The situation for birds is comparable in Hawaii because of the introduction of a non-native mosquito. American chestnut and American elm are pretty much non-existent in the United States for the same reason: introduction of non-native organisms by human activity. There will continue to be a lot of things out there going extinct for as long as humans keep changing the world, moving around the world, and moving other organisms with them.
  14. Amen, brother! Who else likes fiords? Check out this picture of Milford Sound in South Island, NZ. The bloodsucking blackflies are pretty brutal, though. They must have been photoshopped out of that picture! NewYork, as a geologist, New Zealand should be on your list! Volcanoes, mountains, etc. Check out my gallery of NZ pictures. http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...galleryId=14118 I also rate Zion NP as one of the most beautiful places I've ever been. Getting to go there regularly would actually make living in Utah worthwhile. Looks like you're taking the southwest route to San Fran. On another trip, check out Craters of the Moon National Monument(?) in Idaho: http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...galleryId=14119 Relatively close by, the descent from Yellowstone and into eastern Wyoming is really, really beautiful, too, with its red soil: http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...ictureId=162767 Yellowstone was a little crowded for my liking, and not that spectacular. The Grand Tetons are nice, though. If you are still in NY state, I'm sure you're already aware that there are cool things nearby. Although not as spectacular, they're still cool. For instance, Chimney Bluffs near Sodus Bay. http://nysparks.state.ny.us/parks/images/chimney.jpg And Tinker's Falls near Tully, NY: http://harperkay.homestead.com/files/Tinker_falls_2.jpg
  15. Call me crazy, but I've always found him kinda cute. (Albeit not in that picture!) Ok, this is my last addition .... before this spins out of control!
  16. LOLOLOL. Maybe he's referring to beautiful acting? After all, Paul certainly is, if we define beauty in terms of versatility.
  17. What would you like to do with your dog? That's key to determining what type of dog you want. Do you want the dog for protection, companionship, playtime, an exercise buddy, skijoring? The qualities you want will dictate the breed. I don't recommend purebreds unless you are certain of the quality of the breeder, and this is difficult for a new owner to gauge. How about an adopted greyhound? You'd be past the puppy stage that would require a lot of time, and after their racing careers, greyhounds only need to release short bursts of energy and really don't require a lot of daily exercise. They're actually great dogs for apartments, although it seems counter-intuitive. Some retired racers have behavioral problems, but most are actually very well-socialized with other dogs and just need to be taught things like going up and down stairs, which they've never had to encounter before. Or how about a Jack Russell terrier? Little dog body with a big dog personality. If you live in a high rise, it can probably be litter trained. I would not recommend a border collie, german shepherd, or a pit bull (as purebreds). They are extremely intelligent/energetic/willful and need an experienced dog owner and lots of training and/or exercise to remain happy. Of course, if you've had dogs before or are confident that you can commit to a big responsibility, it wouldn't be a problem. I would not recommend a lab puppy, either. I agree with Moose that labs rock, but as puppies they can be extremely destructive. I speak from experience. My lab's excessive oral fixation was his ultimate downfall a couple of months ago. He never grew out of it. At 7 years of age he actually cracked a marrow bone in half (I didn't think this was physically possible for a dog) and swallowed one piece. The vets couldn't dislodge it. I had to put him down, and I've been bummed ever since. I can't even think about a new dog. But anyway, enough! I just came on this post, but by now you may have chosen already! Hope you post a picture of your new pup when you get him or her
  18. That is fascinating; I had not heard about this before. Thanks for the reference! I should have given a better example of a very obvious example of violation of the central dogma: the activity of reverse transcriptase. I also should have said that the central dogma states that the information flow is only one-way. (Alice, I know you know this, but there might be some other people here who are a little confused about what I was saying before.)
  19. From what I remember, Felix, the 1-2 papers I bought were also nonsense. They were filled with junk and conspiracy theories. The problem with those who help the homeless is that they don't know how to help. They think that everyone out there is there because they "fell on hard times." They can't understand why anyone would want to live on the street. My mom is one such person. It's taken her a long time to understand that there's really nothing she can do to help, if they don't first want to help themselves. A few years ago I stopped here in Syracuse to talk to a young girl who was on the street. I felt really sorry for her, and she said she wanted to get to Minnesota to see her brother. I offered to buy the bus fare, but there was excuse after excuse. It was all a load of crap. She only wanted money for something I wouldn't even buy for myself - drugs or cigarettes. On the other hand, I've offered to buy homeless people food, and most refuse or get angry (they just want money) but there was one guy who took me up on an offer of a hamburger and a coke, and was very grateful. That was really the one and only positive encounter I've had with a homeless person in my many years of interaction with them.
  20. My reservation is that the term "fit" brings certain images to mind in most people: that of a strong, physically fit, healthy individual. The term fitness is used a lot in biology, but it doesn't mean physically fit in this sense. The fittest are those with genotypes that allow them to be the best adapted to the conditions at hand and thus have the greatest resources for reproduction. This is why the allele for sickle cell anemia stays in African populations: there is a fitness advantage of individuals heterozygous for this allele. It confers protection against malaria. Those who are homozygous for the sickle cell allele will die of sickle cell anemia. Those who are homozygous with two normal alleles will die or malaria. Those individuals who only have one allele for sickle cell anemia and a normal allele (heterozygous) are healthy and do not have sickle cell, nor will they die from malaria. I agree that Wallace doesn't get as much credit as he deserves. My reservation is relatively small - only that people understand what they're talking about. We have a similar problem, as you noted, with the term "natural selection" since people see it is a force, and thus they think that something or someone must be behind that force. aaargh!
  21. I lived in Toronto for nearly a year, ending in August. Part of what drove me nuts was the attitude toward homeless people. They were everywhere. Toronto has a huge homeless problem, fed by the attitude of the people who live there. At Christmastime last year, I was going crazy with the amount of "help the homeless" ads on TV. They built some huge shelter there last year, spent millions on it, and the homeless don't even go there. Many of the homeless in TO were either drunk, mental, or young people just wanting to live on the street. Their parents give them cell phones to communicate, so this makes it easy for them. Where I lived, on the corner of College and Yonge, we had several drunks who would just hang out there panhandling all day long. One my one block walk to the grocery store I would be approached by literally 2-3 people every day. I would work from home, and at times it was very annoying because there was one guy on the block who would scream filthy words at the top of his lungs for up to an hour. There's actually a newspaper (I forget the name of it) specifically for homeless people to buy at around 50 cents, which they may then sell at a higher price. One is supposed to buy it for a dollar from them, but most of the homeless people selling it want more. From what I understand, they keep all of the money. I used to buy this paper from one guy outside the Carlton Cinema, because he was an interesting fellow and would hold the door for me, etc., but once he started bugging me for more than a dollar, I avoided him. The conversation wasn't worth that much! This article is no surprise at all. There are a lot of Canadians that will do anything to "help" the homeless. I like Canada and Canadians, but they really go over the top on this and other "social" issues.
  22. Well, it depends. Was the tree was suffering from heartrot or saprot?
  23. First of all, I can't agree more with what Kevin Delaney and JMeganSnow have said. It seems to me, solely from what you have written, is that your problem is not that of a lack of shared activities with your wife, but the lack of a similar worldview or philosophy toward life. Do you think that even if you could share some similar activities with her that you would actually enjoy them, or would you still be dreaming about sharing these activities with someone else better suited to you? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know what your answer would be to this one.) About six months ago I broke up with someone who was a very wonderful guy - the best guy any woman could ask for - and we had a lot in common. But shared hobbies and interests, similarities, or "nice treatment" do not a romance make! (And it doesn't sound like you even have these things in your marriage now!) There has to be some fundamental and initial attraction to that person, physically and mentally. Is there or was there ever that attraction to your wife, or were you together simply because it was "comfortable" and she was "nice"? Were you ever passionate about her at some point in the past? If so, why? Can you (or can she) get that back? God did not put your marriage together. YOU put the marriage together. I doubt as a Christian your wife would even agree with that one. So ask yourself - Is it worth it? As for the most important issue to you - your kids. I come from a very "dysfunctional" background - my mother divorced my birth father, who was a drunk and a druggie, and gave me up for adoption because he didn't want to pay child support. He physically abused both of us. She is now in another marriage with a man who adopted me when I was five, and he was not a much better father. I turned out FINE. It all forced me to become a very responsible person early on in life. I am now a successful, responsible adult. Yes, I had a few years where I was bitter toward my parents for making the decisions they did. but who on this earth is not mad at their parents at some point in their life? If they are well-adjusted people, and you provide them with the proper tools for living life, they'll get over it eventually. As long as your children know that you love them, they should turn out fine. You have some difficult decisions ahead of you. Good luck!
  24. 2003 Pontiac Vibe. I love it. It carried me, a friend, my dog, and all our gear across the country and back. Pretty good for a little car. The back seats fold completely flat so there's a lot of storage space. It's also deeper than most small cars, so you sit up in the seats rather than have your legs straight out in front of you. It also gets good gas mileage! Can't beat the dependability of Toyota and the exterior styling of Pontiac. It now has 75,000 miles on it, not a major repair yet. These two pictures are in Oklahoma. My dog Moses just loved to sit in the driver's seat. http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...galleryId=14119 http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...galleryId=14119 And this one is in Craters of the Moon National Park in Idaho. http://monicabeth.squarespace.com/display/...galleryId=14119
  25. "Now, Bart, don't make fun of graduate students, just because they made poor life choices!" - Marge (Boy can I identify!) I got lots of cool stuff. Gift cards to the grocery store, the gas station, Target, and Starbucks; chocolate, cash, pajamas, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...