So how much money do those evil conniving climate scientists make anyway?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Confounding, Mar 10, 2019.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,146
    Thanks Received:
    1,493
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,557
    For starters, during the pre- biologic period of evolution, Darwinian competition simply can not facilitate the evolutionary process. Natural selection as the term is accepted today requires the presence of at least some rudimentary form of life. This means that there is simply an assumption that processes which were completely unguided spontaneously resulted in an entity capable of both encoding information and self replication. A self replicating organism exceeds the inert matter from which it theoretically arose.

    This suggests an underlying natural tendency towards complexity that Darwinism simply can not explain and for that matter the present state of either chemistry or biology can explain The discussion gets more complex from there. I doubt that the final incarnation of the theory will be anywhere as primitive as it is today.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,146
    Thanks Received:
    1,493
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,557
     
  3. Crick
    Offline

    Crick Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    14,578
    Thanks Received:
    1,324
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    N/A
    Ratings:
    +5,576
    The term "Darwinian competition" has no specific meaning. You just pulled that out of your ass.

    Self-replication was not created by evolution. It was the other way around. As soon as a self-replicating structure appeared, natural selection began to drive it towards reproductive success. That process inevitably led to increased complexity. There is no theoretical failure and there is no paradox.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. cnm
    Offline

    cnm Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2013
    Messages:
    14,964
    Thanks Received:
    9,521
    Trophy Points:
    2,255
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    Ratings:
    +39,380
    Now that's authoritative.
     
  5. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,146
    Thanks Received:
    1,493
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,557
    My bad...for a second there I forgot that you only understand if you are spoken to in the most rudimentary manner.. What do you think natural selection is, if not a competition to survive?

    Here...as if giving you information suggests that you would actually learn something from it.

    The Janus face of Darwinian competition

    Natural selection - Wikipedia

    clip: In 1881, the embryologist Wilhelm Roux published Der Kampf der Theile im Organismus (The Struggle of Parts in the Organism) in which he suggested that the development of an organism results from a Darwinian competition between the parts of the embryo, occurring at all levels, from molecules to organs.[121] In recent years, a modern version of this theory has been proposed by Jean-Jacques Kupiec. According to this cellular Darwinism, random variationat the molecular level generates diversity in cell types whereas cell interactions impose a characteristic order on the developing embryo.[122]"


    Should have known that you really wouldn't have a clue....your knowledge on any given topic seems to me nanometers deep...

    Do you actually think about anything? Ever? How many generations do you think a given life form will endure if it does not spring forth with the ability to encode information and self replicate? After an entity is alive, it is a bit late to start trying to evolve the ability to replicate itself.

    Like I said...Evolution in its present primitive state requires the assumption that there is some sort of life already present. Tell me, you idiot, do you think entropy drove hydrogen, which according to physics was the only element in existence at the time of the big bang to forming all of the 92 elements that we know of that presently exist in nature? Entropy, as we understand it would have been perfectly happy with there being nothing but hydrogen...that is about as high a level of disorganization as is possible without breaking the atoms down to their constituent parts

    You think entropy drove the development of more complex elements from simpler ones? You think entropy drove the unimaginable number of molecular combinations resulting from those elements? You think entropy drove the evolution of increasingly complex molecules from the limited palate of basic elements to form the necessary "parts" for a self replicating organism to spring forth from inert matter? You really think entropy is responsible for that?

    Except the process began long before life ever came into existence and competition does not exist among atoms and molecules of inert matter. ....moving from nothing but hydrogen, to the building blocks of life implies ever increasing complexity, and there was nothing to drive that increasing complexity in the void, other than entropy...

    I suppose that might be true for the sort of person who simply accepts what he is told without question...Thinking people on the other hand question everything...and in questioning, find flaws that people like you never even consider. Without ever having thought of it, you give entropy the credit for moving a universe formed of nothing but hydrogen inexorably towards our development....and really skid mark...how astonishingly stupid is that?

    The very fact of the development of all the known elements, and the unimaginable number of molecules that are known and unknown from a young universe composed of nothing but hydrogen, implies on its face, some unknown natural drive towards complexity operating in the face of entropy...some unknown property that provides the potential, and possibility of evolution.

    No skidmark...in the end, if we ever figure out how we came to be, the story will bear little resemblance to Darwinian Evolution...Darwin possibly provided, the "My First Book" version of how we came to be...and we haven't moved much past that at this point....but the adult version, the one that tells the real story, will bear about as much resemblance to Darwin as the collected works of Shakespeare do to Where the Wild Things Are.
     
  6. Confounding
    Offline

    Confounding BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,912
    Thanks Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,953
    Thinking people also know when to listen to those with much greater knowledge. I'm just amazed that you can think millions of hours of research done by some of the brightest minds we have is complete BS. You haven't done enough/don't know enough to compete with the combined knowledge and understanding of the scientific community. There are people a lot smarter than us that know a lot more about this than we do. You have to understand that. There are people that have been working in this field for 50 years. You cannot compete with their level of knowledge and context.
     
  7. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball Unobtanium Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    50,449
    Thanks Received:
    10,707
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +27,065
    Those "brightest minds" are a closed cabal, hand picked by political hacks to give them the results they want.
     
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,146
    Thanks Received:
    1,493
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,557
    You keep saying that as if you have an inkling of what I know. If you are placing constraints on what I know, based on what you know, then you really have no idea. I have been reading the literature voraciously for about 30 years now. There is a reason that I can make claims of a lack of evidence with perfect confidence that no one is going to deliver said evidence and embarrass me with it.

    Climate science doesn't represent the "scientific community" Climate science is a very small branch of the scientific community and what science it produces is soft science...equivalent to the output of the hard sciences in roughly the same manner as graphic novels are equivalent to the classics....and as I said, I have been devouring the literature produced by the climate science community now for more than 3 decades. Plenty of time to have a firm handle on what the field can rightly claim, and what is political hyperbole...

    Speak for yourself...I wager that I have consumed more of the literature than most of the climate science community.

    Sorry that you think practitioners of a soft science like climate science are so much more intelligent than you...and I can't imagine what sort of esoteric knowledge you believe they possess that anyone with a decent education in the sciences can't understand. You don't seem to be willing to say what that is.

    The bulk of climate "scientists" are kids...and quite a large number of those who have been in the field have been discredited beyond redemption...james hansen, michael mann, trenberth...their ideas have proven to be wrong...that's the problem with hanging out to long supporting a very weak hypothesis...your predictions have time to come home to roost...their failures haunt them. Look at michael mann...millions spent trying to keep his data and methods secret...he knows that should they become public knowedge, that his career and fame will come to an end due to sloppiness, and outright fraud...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    14,146
    Thanks Received:
    1,493
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,557
    I always get a chuckle from people who believe that the "best and brightest" are working for government....one can only wish that were true...government is the land of the low bid...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Confounding
    Offline

    Confounding BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2016
    Messages:
    4,912
    Thanks Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,953
    The scientific community agrees with the climate scientists. Again, find me one scientific institution on the planet that disputes AGW.
     

Share This Page