Corals Adapt to Global Warming

Chuck1318 writes "Articles in Nature and New Scientist indicate that corals are more adaptable to global warming than previously thought. Large areas of coral reefs had been devastated by bleaching due to the loss of the coral animals' algae partner, which is sensitive to changes in water temperature. Some scientists had projected that coral reefs would all be gone in 20 to 30 years. Now it is found that a more heat-resistant strain of algae is able to colonize the bleached coral, returning them to life."

Comments

Once again...

[cephyn]

...Nature finds a way. The only "downside" to this good news is that people may decide that the environment is very resilient and will care less about preservation and ecological awareness. Yes, earth can bounce back from a lot, but that doesn't mean we should try and stress it from all angles at all times!

Re:Once again...

[MammaMia]

Exactly what I thought... however, at the end of the article they have this to say:

"Corals are still threatened by factors such as water pollution and damage caused by fishing. But most of these factors are easier to reverse than climate change, Baker points out, especially if conservation efforts are spurred on by the idea that corals are not doomed by global warming.

"We may have more time than we thought to put policies in place," he says. "But this argues for us really getting on top of the factors that we can control."

So, there is still a lot we can do to protect the ones that are surviving, rather than force them to try and adapt to further damage.

Re:Once again...

[Ayaress]

It finds a way, but not always fast enough. It's fine and dandy that one species has adapted while the climate changes around us, but how many others couldn't adapt to us fast enough?

Re:Once again...

[gl4ss]

nature will in all(most) cases always find a "way".

people have this nice thing about having opinions on which way is the best though...

Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster. Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.

Re:Evolution works

[Philosinfinity]

It is not a major climate change that spells disaster for life, but rather a rapid major climate change that spells disaster for life as we know it. The theory of evolution from Darwin relies on two important premises. First, that evolution occurs over a long period of time (long meaning spanning several generations. Second, that natural selection is not cumulative. This means that selection does not make for better phenotypic expression, but rather that the phenotypic expression being selected is better suited for the creature's environment at the current time. Thus, an extremely rapid change in environment can be devestating for complex creatures because there is not enough time for evolution by selection. The more drastic the climate change, the more likely that no suitable phenotype is available to be selected for, forcing the species into extinction.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

Why shouldn't major climate change spell disaster?

I suffer through allergies and asthma, and as the planet warms up, we'll see bigger spring blooms (in some areas) and greater release of VOC from trees.

That's just going to suck for me and a lot of other people.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Darwin's old fashioned- Gould's theory of evolutionary spurts claims that a beneficial mutation can appear in as little as a single generation- though it takes multiple generations of that mutation being successfull in the environment to survive. With a significantly large population, minor mutations happen all the time; and by killing off competitive phenotypes, the new phenotype is more likely to survive after a rapid major climate change.

The key words are "life as we know it"- which doesn't exclude "life as we currently don't know it".

The larger the population, the greater the chance that a suitable phenotype will find a way to survive, just as in the article algae phenotype C dying off gave algae phenotype D a chance to colonize the newfound coral reefs. Phenotype D already existed; probably for many years; but as long as phenotype C survived, it could not take over.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But it's not going to kill off the entire species, now is it? In other words, that's an annoyance, not a disaster.

Re:Evolution works

[Sepper]

But it's not going to kill off the entire species, now is it?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe Species X will disapeer and be replace by Species Y+1. But the problem is, will we know the planet will likely survive a lot of transformations, we may not....

And thoses transformation may spell doom for eco-diversity, but not life itself. You still have 'life' if there only microbes on the surface of the earth.

So, yeah, evolution is cool and all, but it has its limits... (If earth get as hot as Venus, for exemple, I doubt much species will adapt...)

Re:Evolution works

[Ayaress]

Its not so much single shocks that pose problems (although, yes, many people do claim so). Global warming will pose more problems for people than animals, I would suspect, since our technology effectively stops us from adapting genetically to changes in circumstance - we can harness fire faster than we can grow fur, invent the wheel faster than we can evolve faster running legs, and discover medicines faster than we can evolve immunities. So, when those technologies fail us, we're left even more defenseless than we were to begin with. Very hot summers in many first-world countries lead to power grid failures because of the excessive drain by air conditioning. When that happens, many people are hospitalized or even killed because of the heat. The reverse happens in cold winters. When diseases develop resistance to our medicines, we get epidemics.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

Why do I care about the entire species?

I care about myself.

Don't you care about yourself?

I want a better life for myself. Thus my concern with global warming. I've probably got another good 80 years in my life, possibly 100. If I can minimize 80 years of allergies by acting now, I'd be stupid not to.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And, of course, those able to live with 120 degree heat are largely unaffected by the power outages, and the reverse happens in cold countries.

Nobody ever said evolution was NICE.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which is more logic and rational:

1. God, using the process of evolution which he set up himself in the time before the planck constant, follows his own logical rules and ends up creating humanity.

2. Totally by accident some rules were written which had to be followed and ended up creating humanity.

And you blame people who believe in God for being illogical and irrational? Replacing the word "God" with "random accident" doesn't help the matter any- it's equally as illogical and irrational.

Re:Evolution works

[dave-tx]

It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.

Emphasis added by me.

Speaking for myself, as one who beleives in evolution, I beleive that major climate change can or likely will spell disaster. Certainly not must, though.

And my biggest concern is preventative - if major climate change does cause disaster, then it's likely too late to do anything about it. And then we're fuct.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No- in fact, I'm just an individual in a hive. My own survival doesn't matter half as much as the survival of the genome- IF it is fit to survive. That's the ultimate lesson of evolution.

Whether you believe that lesson or not shows how much you believe in the theory of evolution. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- or does the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? Are you a Vulcan or a Randroid?

Re:Evolution works

[MarsDefenseMinister]

"Random accident" isn't a good description of how evolution works.

The game of mastermind is a good illustration of why. By random chance, it would take hundreds of moves on average to solve a game. But a good player can find the solution in 10 moves, or even less. That's because he's using a technique other than random chance. He relies on information from the previous moves to construct the next move.

The DNA in your cells did not form randomly with the formation of the specific organism called "you". The DNA in your cells formed in a manner informed by the DNA in all previous generations. That is not random.

Re:Evolution works

[Jonas the Bold]

Ugh. Shoulda posted that without karma bonus: Anyway:

I'm sorry, but you have to be truely batshit insane to believe that a personal god, as described by the bible, factually exists. If you use religion as a moral code or whatever, that's fine and even sorta makes sense (it's been tried and tested), but to seriously believe in God is just insane.

Even if we have trouble explaining or just can't explain how life on earth got started, "the magic man made it with magic" simply isn't a better theory.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Worse yet- by the time you know that the climate change WILL be major- it's likely too late to do anything about it as well- so why worry?

There's the old story from America's wild west days about the cowboy who got mad at the local tribe's medicine man. Kidnapped him, took him into town, and hung him by his ankles out of the window of the tallest building in town, and told him "Now, you old Indian, you have a problem". The Medicine Man replied- "No, it is you who has the problem. If you drop me, I die, and it is a good day to die. If you don't drop me, I live, and it is also a good day to live. Either way is fine by me.". That's the attitude we need to have towards any sort of FUD- whether it's computers or climate change.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

I thought evolution worked on individuals, and not species, in assisting or retarding that individual's reproductive and survival success?

The needs of the many are fine, but it is the needs of the one that I am responsible for. It's not a choice of either or, but it is no one else's responsibility to look after me.

So in my belief system, global warming is a threat to me, and as such it is stupid to ignore it. Just like an imminent oncoming car, or a collapsing building around me, I need to care about the things that threaten my own survival and success.

If it helps others (like caring about global warming) then the entire species benefits, and I don't mind.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.

Of course God could've used evolution-- he could've done anything we invent him to have done!

I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases.
If God is benevolent, he would never cause unnecessary harm.

How would one who acknowledges that evolution is not "nice" reconcile this?

Re:Evolution works

[Wylfing]

It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.

You are 100% on target. I see some people have already tried to defend their POV in other replies to this, and frankly I'm SO in favor of conservation and wise use of resources, but I cringe every time I see something about how global warming [1] is causing 10,000 species to go extinct every day. Yet somehow the planet and all its inhabitants carry on. Better calm down, because climate shift is the norm, not the exception.

[1] I don't doubt scientific evidence for global warming. I do doubt that human beings are powerful enough to cause it singlehandedly. And I do doubt that it's a catastrophic event unseen in the history of the planet. In fact, it seems pretty normal. We've just had a nice period of calm for the last thousand years.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases. If God is benevolent, he would never cause unnecessary harm.

How would one who acknowledges that evolution is not "nice" reconcile this?

I never said that- personally for me God is a mathematical abstract that kicked off the big bang and put some very interesting, and non-rational, constants to the universe. Thus, while he would be all-knowing, he would not be all powerfull- plus being benevolent does not neccessarily mean never causing unecessary harm, and the problems with evolution for self-centered and selfish individuals would be NECESSARY harm anyway to the greater good of survival of the fitest genome, so your agrument fails on that as well.

Re:Evolution works

[b-baggins]

No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.

We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.

Our technology fails not because it's inadequate to the task, but because the human species has a Lemming instinct in it and periodically succumbs to an irresistable urge to throw itself off a cliff.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Very good- and like in your mastermind example, is it reasable to presume that the randomness of the explosion that created the big bang would lead to such a refined technique? Or is it more reasonable to assume that there's a good player out there, who defined the rules for the technique, to let it go and watch it run? (note, missing third option which is totally silly, that of a bad player cheating and making it look like there is a technique when there really isn't one- that way leads to what the early Christians called Gnosticism).

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No one ever mentioned a personal god- neither a personal God or an utter lack of any God fits the current facts as we know them. Which is why I said what I originally said in the way that I said it- both the people who think evolution is bunk because their vision of a God wouldn't do things that way, and those who think that God is bunk because they believe in Evolution and a "personal God" would never just set the rules and wait to see how the experiment turns out on it's own, are equally insane.

Re:Evolution works

[b-baggins]

The answer to your dilemna, of course, is in the word "unecessary." Since it's a safe bet you don't know God's purposes in creation, you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm.

A more legitimate challenge to God using evolution is the writings of the New Testament where Paul makes it pretty clear that death did not exist in the world prior to the Fall of Adam. If there is no death, then natural selection cannot work, and evolution as the origin of species fails.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

[1] I don't doubt scientific evidence for global warming. I do doubt that human beings are powerful enough to cause it singlehandedly. And I do doubt that it's a catastrophic event unseen in the history of the planet. In fact, it seems pretty normal. We've just had a nice period of calm for the last thousand years.

Where I don't doubt we could cause it singlehandedly- chances are by the time we noticed it we were already too late to do anything about it. And it most certainly is NOT unseen in the history of the planet- our calm has only lasted about 600 years BTW- since the 1400s. Previous to that we had a global warming severe enough that raising Oranges in England was not unheard of, for about 200 years (which also cause a huge increase in the mosquito, flea, and rat populations- which brought us the Black Death and the destruction of 1/3rd the human population of Europe- yet still the human race survived).

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

What do you have against God?

Is belief in God more irrational than any other belief? It is only that recently science has started stripping away the need to believe in God to explain natural phenomena... but even so, that doesn't mean God doesn't or can't exist, it only means that God is a rational being!

Note, I don't even have an opinion yet on whether he does or doesn't exist.

Re:Evolution works

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Intelligent design is a different subject than the mistaken idea that evolution itself proceeds along random paths. The ultimate origin of life is a completely separate topic from the mechanisms of evolution. Both are offtopic here, and my purpose was only to explain why the often used example of a "tornado in a junkyard randomly assembling a Boeing 747" is based on the mistaken idea that evolution proceeds randomly.

If you're interested in counter arguments to Intelligent Design, there are many good sources on the web for that.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

being benevolent does not neccessarily mean never causing unecessary harm

The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?

the problems with evolution for self-centered and selfish individuals would be NECESSARY harm anyway to the greater good of survival of the fitest genome, so your agrument fails on that as well.

No, that's exactly my point: why would an omniscient, omnipotent God use evolution, which necessarily harms certain individuals, rather than something else which does not?

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm

But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, all harm (or, Evil) is unnecessary, because the same effect could be acheived through unharmful means.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.

Yea, because pharma is, like, so broke.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?

It can't be- but neither can any given harm to a finite being be unnecessary from the point of view of an infinite being. You don't know the whole plan- assuming that there is one, personaly I think it's a huge experiment and not even God knows how it will turn out in the end- therefore you don't know what harm is necessary and which is not.

No, that's exactly my point: why would an omniscient, omnipotent God use evolution, which necessarily harms certain individuals, rather than something else which does not?

Because it is necessary to the plan, whatever that plan is. Personally- I think it goes a step further down- I think God's created an experiment to recreate himself. After all, what more would an infinite being need than a companion?

Re:Evolution works

[Ayaress]

But there's no pressure to maintain that. A few bad summers will kill off a great many people with poor heat tolerance, and vice-versa in the winter, but afterwards, the AC comes back on, and heat works again. Evolution requies selective pressure, which we circumvent with technology.

A more low-level example would be eyesight. A thousand years ago, nearsightedness was almost unheard of in general populations. They couldn't correct for it, and those who had it weren't good for very much. Ever since glasses were invented, the number of people with eyesight problems has increased as those that do can live normal, successful, healthy lives.

Re:Evolution works

[Anonymous Coward]

A few problems with your claims:

For one, environmental controls haven't prevented the creation of new power plants. Consumers in Michigan said recently they could increase their power output in the state 35% within the environmental regulations, even more if they reinstate several nuclear power plants that were shut down because of operational expenses. That would have been more than enough to prevent the brownouts in my area this year, and would have been even enough even during the much worse summers we've had over the last few years. They just haven't built the additional plants.

Furthurmore, lawyers have nothing to do with the epidemics. They exist because of the overuse of antibiotics. Because of me being prescribed multiple antibiotic series while I was young, I suffered permanant ear damage from an inner-ear infection that was immune to all the available antibiotics. Lawsuits against pharmacutical companies were next to nothing in 1985. How can you blame the fact that the flu virus mutates so rapidly that the vaccine developed one year is useless two months later on trial lawyers? Not only can they not develop vaccines as fast as new strains of the flu appear, people couldn't hanlde the stress of almost constant innoculations if they could.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

OK, so God has this great plan, which we lowly humans know nothing about. Got it.

The point is this. Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?

Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving. Is it because he has to? No, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. A tri-omni God must achieve its goal without causing harm.

Designatio unius est exclusio alterius.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Agreed. Though I know of at least one optometrist that claims that this is happening on a small scale even within the eyeball itself for individuals- claims to have a method which slowly reduces the need for glasses through eye exercises. I've yet to research that claim, however.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?

Why must you burn wood to get lye? It's a part of the process- the process that he set up.

Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving.

Of course it is because he wants to, ever hear of touch love where you hurt a kid to get him to stop doing something bad, or for that matter electroshock therapy?

Is it because he has to?

This question is more interesting- he's set up the rules so that he has to, why would you expect him to go outside the rules?

No, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. A tri-omni God must achieve its goal without causing harm.

What makes you so sure that it really is harm? Just because it feels like harm to you and me- does that make it so? I suppose you're the type of parent who claims they will never spank their kid either. Or say no to them. Or do anything that could cause them "harm". The same religious tradition that claims the three omnis (omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipotence) for God also claims that God is first and foremost a *FATHER*. Not a Mother, coddling with love, but a Father, a disciplinarian. And how does a disciplinarian show love? With authoritarian dictates and an iron fist of punishment. Worse yet- he doesn't even let us know EXPLICITLY what those dictates are (a few thousand people over a few thousand years got together and wrote a book on what they thought those dictates were- but ended up with so many contradictions that you have to take their cultures into account to read it)- rather he punishes us in ways that seem quite mysterious at the time, pushing us towards a goal that we're not allowed (or maybe even able) to know. And for that- you would reject Him. You don't even know what the goal is- all you can see is your own pain, and you reject him on that alone.

A tri-omni God MUST cause harm- because to not cause harm would be to not be benevolent in the long run, you do more harm by being permissive with a child than by setting boundaries and rules. So therefore your basic premise is at it's root wrong- because a permissive parent is anything other than benevolent, therefore a permissive God is not benevolent.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

Humans are imperfect beings, and I totally agree with you on all points about effective parenting requiring saying "no," punishment, etc. We truly do become stronger with pain.

But to compare humans with God is to compare imperfection with perfection.

Why would God, as a Perfect being, set up such a system wherein harming people is the only way to teach them and make them grow? A Perfect being wouldn't have to do that, and could achieve the exact same thing without doing it.

We really are running in circles here!

[For the record, I don't reject God because I feel I have been hurt in some way. I reject God on the basis of logic (e.g. the problem of evil), and because the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing.]

Re:Evolution works

[VendingMenace]

ah, now you are into tricky grounds...

Evolution acts on a SPECIES, but it is affected by the mutation and survival of INDIVIDUALS.

that is to say this; the definition of evolution is: achange in distribution of phenotypes (or gennotypes -- depending on when we are talking about) within a species. that is to say, if today we look at the species of feild mice and observe that 1% of them are albino and the reast are normal brown and then we look at the species 15 years from now and find that 10% are now albino and the reast are plain brown, we would say that the SPECIES of feild mice has evolved. However, the species has evolved because of traits that INDIVIDUALS carried. Traits that made them more or less fit, evolutionarily speaking.

So, evolution works on species (or populations, to be more exact).

Now, MUTATIONS are an individual effect. That is to say that indivuals expereince mutations and these mutations may be passed on to future generations to such an extent that the species expreiences evolution.

I hope that all makes sense.

One other point needs to be added. While it sounds correct to say that you are only responsible for yourself. After all, it is evolution by natural selection, is it not -- and only the most fit pass on there genes, right?

Well, yes and no. Mostly no, i guess. The idea is that the fitness that is aforded by genes is directly linked to the ability of the organism that carries those genes to pass on the genes to future generations. That is to say that it is an individuals "desire" to insure that the most number of future organisms carry his/her genes.

So far so good. However, this does not nessesarily mean that the individual itself MUST reproduce. By insuring the survival of closely genetically related organisms, an organism can pass on its genes more effectively.

For instance, lets say that you have 9 full siblings (its alot, i know, but bear with me). ON average each of these siblings will share 25% of your genetic makeup, correct? Then each of their children will share, on average, 12.5% of your genes. Now if you were ever put in a position such that by sacrificing yourself, you could save all your siblings, then it would be in your favor to do so. Because every time all 9 siblings have a child, it would be as if you had 112.5% of a child --statistically speaking. So it is actually in your genetic best interest to insure the survivial of your siblings -- even over your own.

Now, this may seems a bit academic becuase even the most absured royal families never had more than 9 full siblings (that is a TON). However, it illustrates a truth that is found in nature. Namely, the hive. the above situation is not totally dissimilare to what is found to be the case in bee hives. that is why drones are willing to sacrifice themselves to save the hive. It is in there genetic self-interest.

Ok, so the point here is this: you cannot just arbitrily state that you are only responsible for your needs. Evolutinarily speaking, it behoves you to look out for the species as a whole. That is not to say that you must help out your direct competitors, but rather that, you would be in a tight spot if you have no more females (or males, as the case may be) to breed with. You do not live in a vacume -- and your genes "know" it. Thus, at times you will feel promted to act in a benevolent looking mannor. BUT fear not -- it is most likely in your best interest in the long run. :D

Anywyas, i hope that helps, and shows you why acting to benifit your species in general can actually help you out too (and even be to your advantage).

I think that is all i have to say right now.

Re:Evolution works

[Anonymous Coward]

Because god had a choice-
Create us pefect, but with no will, or to grant us free will.

Because God gave us Free will, we were allowed to sin. The story of the apple is a story of free will- we decided to disobey God, and this is one of the few things that God cannot control, because God decided in our creation that he would give up power in that area. Have you ever had the ability to control something, but decided not to?

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

Why can a perfect being not have free will? Does God not have free will?

Have I ever had the ability to control something but chose to let it work itself out? Of course, but I'm not omniscient. An all-knowing God knows what will happen before it happens, so it's not like the story of the apple in the garden of eden would surprise it.

Re:Evolution works

[VendingMenace]

now, without tipping my hand either way (agnostic or deist) and without trying to troll or flamebait. I want to poing out a few things about your last line...

First, You say you reject god on the baisis of logic, however...
1) Our logic system is either;
a) incomplete -- and thus flawed
b) Self-referential thus self-contradicting and thus flawed (i think this is the upshot of Godel, yes?)

2) You proposition (for the sake of argument) that an all-knowing, all powerfull, all benevolent god might exists *except* that evil exist. Yet, you freely admit that our knowledge is flawed and our understanding limited. And yet you stand from your shaky position and question that which you admit knows infinately more than you, has your best interest in mind, AND has the power to best effect outcomes.

In effect, you are claiming that a being with the tri-omni's cannot exist, becuase you (a non-tri-omni) cannot make sense of the situation. This just seems sort of silly (no offense intended). Of course, we can only judge from what we uderstand, so perhaps this is a tight spot.

Secondly, you say "the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing."

Now, humor me, and pretend that i am a religious person. I now make this claim; God created the universe. Everything that we observe and cannot observe. Thus, what we see through the lense of science is the created universe, seen thought a tool that god has given us the ability to use.

THere. Now i have just dreamed up a universe that is at least as interesting and amazing as the one that science observes (since it is the same universe) and perhaps even more so. Since, there *may* be things that we cannot observe. And interesting abstraction at the very least.

Anyways, i just wanted to post that (my thoughts). I want to emphasize again that i am not trying to be mean at all. I am just pointing out where i think your argument may fail. However, you may be able to correct my flawed reasoning. WHich would be cool for sure. I am always up for learning. :D

Re:Evolution works

[VendingMenace]

LMFAO! "batshit insane"!!!! Wow, that is good, i will have to use that sometime in the future. Thanks for sharing that one :D

But now onto the actual reason for this post...

Why does a person have to be insane to belive in a god? I am truly curious. Until such a time as it can be proven that there is no god, then why should people that belive in a god be classified as insane?

I guess, what i am trying to say is, what is it about a personal god that makes him impossible?

Just curious to here your reasoning, that is all. :)

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What is the thing God is trying to achieve, in your estimation? How do you KNOW that a perfect being could achieve the exact same thing without doing it? How do you KNOW what the purpose is- when none of the rest of us do?

Just a thought experiment, drawn on one of my favorite science fiction stories from one of my favorite authors- let's say, for the sake of argument, that time itself is circular; that the begining of our universe, the "teacup of ultimate density" that was before the big bang, is also the death of our universe, what happens when entropy finally runs down. God could, in that situation, be indeed our descendant- and therefore, his purpose would be to create himself. The ONLY way he knows how to do this is the way that happened before- for however infinitely many cycles this has been going on.

Under those circumstances- wouldn't God be constrained, no matter how all powerfull he was in THIS universe- by time itself? One insane diety by the five billionth cycle, but still constrained.

Funny though- you reject God on the same basis that I require a God- because the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than any one religion, any process lacking a creator, could possibly create.

Hmmm- there's another thought entirely that could explain it all- God is not only all three omnis, he's a fourth omni as well- omniinsane.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

Yes, and isn't caring about global warming, reducing my suffering from asthma and allergies, and improving the air quality going to help benefit my species, my family, and last but not least myself?

Re:Evolution works

[Jonas the Bold]

Hehe, thanks. Anyway, why it's insane:

The fact that it can't be disproven doesn't mean much, lots of stuff can't be disproven. You can't prove there aren't pink unicorns, you can't prove this sentence isn't in spanish when nobody's looking, you can't prove that your dog isn't a criminal mastermind. However, if you believed any of these things, you'd be considered insane.

If you believed it because you found some really old book that told you it was true, you'd still be considered insane. The only reason, as far as I can tell, for people to believe in God is that a really old book tells them to. The bible is bronze age mythology.

It's insane to believe in God because there's absolutely no evidence or indication (outside the bible) that he exists, and theres no plausable explaination as to how he could possibly exist (almost by definition).

The fact that there's a really old book that says he exists is not enough evidence to believe something as out there and unreconsilable with reality as an invisible man in the sky.

Re:Evolution works

[BerntB]

Darwin's old fashioned- Gould's theory of evolutionary spurts claims that a beneficial mutation can appear in as little as a single generation- though it takes multiple generations of that mutation being successfull in the environment to survive.

Could you specify what exactly Gould wrote that contradicted Darwin -- and that was new in evolutionary biology?

For instance, I thought a mutation by definition happened in an individual organism in a generation? The rest, as much of it as parses, doesn't seem exactly new, either.

Serious references, please, not just books by Gould.

Re:Evolution works

[astar]

I personally do not have a lot of use for evolution, but I know a little about mathematics. The grand systhesis is traditionally describable by a continuous function, and Gould implicitly argues for a discontinuous function. Your point seems to be that at a small enough time scale, traditional approaches are also discontinous. I think that begs the rather far-reaching systemic bias toward continuous functions in the grand systhesis and elsewhere.

I will troll a bit and say that if the creationist were to leave out the Bible and their delusional personal gods, then they might be able to come up with a decent argument on evolution having a direction, which argument would be against Darwin. But Gould would maybe fit better to their argument.

Re:Evolution works

[RedWizzard]

It always amazes me how many people believe in evolution, yet still believe major climate change must spell disaster.

From a human point of view the important disaster factor is the economic cost of climate change, not how many species do or don't survive. Still, it is absolutely certain that at least some species will not survive major climate change (either warmer or cooler). That may be natural, but it could still be considered a disaster.

Re:Evolution works

[BerntB]

Uhm, I really don't get the relevance to my question. What, if anything, is the difference between Gould and the standard evol biology model?

(I am asking a bit of a trick question. The way, if any, which Gould's position was different from standard evol biology is diffuse. Gould liked it that way. See e.g. for something Gould didn't want to answer...)

Besides that.

How do you explain that evolutionary algorithms work if you don't think evolution works? You have seen articles discussing evolution of e.g. eyes, I hope? Go read up on criticism of Behe, or something.

Re:Evolution works

[TheLink]

I'm definitely no expert but I suppose that's what happens when God decides to make creatures in his own image.

You get some destructive interference, and you get some constructive interference. And that's even though you know exactly how it'll turn out.

If you get nothing, then you probably didn't succeed in making something in your image.

Re:Evolution works

[Scrameustache]

The fact that there's a really old book that says he exists is not enough evidence to believe something as out there and unreconsilable with reality as an invisible man in the sky.

That is why it is important to indoctrinate them as soon as possible, and to get those youth to submit to indoctrination on a regular basis. At least once a week on sundays, and preferably everyday; before eating, before going to bed...

You'd be amazed what you can make people believe in if you indoctrinate them well. Godspeed ;-)

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

But then God is not omnibenevolent. Typhoon Rananim has just killed over 100 people in China. If God knew this would happen, had the power to stop it, and chose not to, then he is not purely benevolent.

Re:Evolution works

[astar]

I never said evolution is not a nicely pragmatic and successful theory. I said I did not have much use for it in a throwaway as I went on to a criticism from outside its boundaries. But I note an appeal to pragmatism in your response and I do reject that appeal.

The thing that caught my eye was in a parent post where it seemed to me you were saying the standard theory is in fact discontinuous in the detail, and thus not different than punctuated equilibrium for instance. I think that sort of position could usefully be informed by some of the great debates in mathematics. I think here of Newton vs Leibnitz and the controversies surrounding Euler.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Either God has free will, or we do, not both?

Also, since when did omniscient cover prescient?

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

How do you KNOW that a perfect being could achieve the exact same thing without doing it?

Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable.

How do you KNOW what the purpose is- when none of the rest of us do?

Never said I did.

[Chop part about cyclical universe and God possessing only knowledge gained from previous generations... sounds like interesting science fiction but I have no comment.]

Funny though- you reject God on the same basis that I require a God- because the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than any one religion, any process lacking a creator, could possibly create.

Where did this creator come from then? What created the creator?

Look, personally I have no idea if there's some kind of creator. If there is, and if we ever discover it, it will no doubt be through scientific process, just like everything we currently know about the world has been. Why insist on there being God to fill the holes of human knowledge? Hasn't he been kicked out of enough holes already?

Hmmm- there's another thought entirely that could explain it all- God is not only all three omnis, he's a fourth omni as well- omniinsane.

Well, if God created us in his own image, then you might be onto something there. :-)

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

Either God has free will, or we do, not both?

I don't know, that seems to be what the AC I replied to was saying...

Also, since when did omniscient cover prescient?

Err, omniscience is infinite awareness. The very definition of prescience, in Merriam-Webster, is devine omniscience...

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Because it is all-knowing and all-powerful. Such a being could do literally anything-- even that which to us is impossible or unimaginable

All knowing/All powerfull within what scope, would be the question?

And if you don't know the purpose, how do you know what scope constitutes "harm" vs "not harm".

Look, personally I have no idea if there's some kind of creator. If there is, and if we ever discover it, it will no doubt be through scientific process, just like everything we currently know about the world has been.

Exactly my point to begin with (and actually, the begining of science itself was the "search for clues to the mind of the creator through observation of the creation"). And no on kicking God out of holes- because for every hole you kick God out of, six more show up. It's pretty much become an unwritten rule of science that the more questions you answer, the more questions you discover. If there's any purpose to the universe at all, then there MUST be a creator- and if there is no purpose to the universe at all, then we've got some troubling and non-rational constants that need explaining that simply could not have come about by accident.

Planck's God anybody?

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Err, omniscience is infinite awareness. The very definition of prescience, in Merriam-Webster, is devine omniscience...

I never trusted Webster after I found out that in their first edition they defined a Tory as "A damned fool". However- this leads us back to the definition of scope. Say, for the sake of argument that we have a three-dimensional God much like us. Tri-omni three dimensional God at that. But since he's three dimensional, though his knowledge, power, and benevolence stretch out infinitely in all three dimensions- the future is closed to him, as is the past, he's living in the present. This is why scope is oh so important in these discussions. Infinity Alph-Null is not equal to Infinity Alph-one- yet both are still infinite. Therefore- while prescience is divine omnicience; it does not automatically follow that the subset of mere omnicience is always prescient.

Likewise, the creator of this universe, would have to be external to this universe- but would not neccessarily be outside of a greater metauniverse. Like an onion- the core is as much a part of the onion as the skin, but the skin contains the core.

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

So you didn't answer my question. Where did this creator come from?

Re:Evolution works

[hal9000]

Wow, you should be in Athens with these mental gymnastics... You can go twenty metauniverses deep if you want, but I'm still gonna ask you who created the first one.

I really don't have anything more to add. Sorry, but I'm going to bail on this one.

Re:Evolution works

[Idarubicin]

No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.

Actually, I thought that the private electricity cartels tended to restrict supplies to artificially increase prices. (See California, 2001.) Unreliable power infrastructure is the result of basic stinginess, laziness, and greed (see East Coast blackout, 2003) as well as poor regulation of the electricity market. Power is generated where it's cheapest, not where it is neeeded--consequently, the major transmission corridors on the grid carry a lot more current than they used to even a few years ago. Combine this with sloppy maintenance and monitoring of those corridors and you get last summer.

Re:Evolution works

[Marxist Hacker 42]

From his creator of course- on back to an infinity of meta-universes deep- or for that matter, if you take the circular time argument instead- from your descendants. See why abortion is such an important issue to some people? :-)

Re:Evolution works

[CrimsonAvenger]

Now, this may seems a bit academic becuase even the most absured royal families never had more than 9 full siblings (that is a TON).

Well, no. As I recall, one of my great-grandfather's had 11 full siblings. It is not terribly common now, but as recently as early this century, it was relatively common in rural areas.

Note that large numbers of full siblings only rarely all reached adulthood - childhood mortality was quite high. But it did happen, now and then.

Re:Evolution works

[CrimsonAvenger]

No way of telling, actually. Whether we undergo a rapid climate change now or not, we won't be able to definitively state that we are better/worse off as a result. Who knows what may have popped up under the alternate condition?

I recently saw an article that stated that CO2 levels were higher than they had been in the last 420,000 years. Which implies that they may have been higher than now as recently as 420,000 years ago. Which also implies that most hominid evolution took place in conditions more extreme than are current.

Note however, that it is generally accepted that civilization came into being during a time when the climate (where various civilizations appeared, at least) that was almost ideal. It was worse before, and has been getting worse since. It is likely to continue so, whether we undergo a sudden climate shift or no.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

Hmm, maybe. But we can tell what things trigger my asthma, and we can try to see cause and effect relationships...

Increased rainfall mean increased spring bloom means increased pollen count, so any atmospheric effect that toes the line in amount of rain is better than one that increases the volume of rain.

Likewise increased winds means increased airborne particulates, so any effect that toes the line rather than increase local wind/storm activity...

Increased rainfall also mean increased vegetation, which leads directly to increased rodent population and wild animals that feed off rodents, and an increased in dander, fur, hair, dust mites, and similar things, etc...

So we can't judge 'better or worse' for a total, but we can measure what effects improve the quality of life of individuals affected.

Re:Evolution works

[CrimsonAvenger]

Yep. Entirely true. As far as it goes.

Increased temperatures lead to melting ice-caps, which lead to shutting down Ocean Conveyer, which leads to ice age, which locks up water in glaciers, which leads to more deserts, which leads to LESS things that aggravate your allergies.

That's another climate change scenario, that favours you. We won't know which one you have to endure until it happens. And if it never happens, we won't know whether climate change would have helped you or hurt you.

Re:Evolution works

[Anonymous Coward]

Gould's theory of "evolutionary spurts" did *not* claim that significant things could happen in "as little as a single generation". And it does no credit to his memory to associate him with phrases like "Darwin's old fashioned". (Most of his colleagues never forgave him for becoming a rich and famous writer of popular science books, and it is unfortunately fashionable to denigrate the quality of his science. Sour grapes, in my opinion.)

One of the classic arguments against Darwin was to say "Darwinian evolution postulates continuous gradual change, but we don't see this in the fossil record, so something must be wrong." The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (most famously associated with Gould and his colleague Niles Eldredge) simply points out that "continuous gradual change", of the kind that would not make you notice anything weird between one generation of organisms and the next, could nonetheless produce a noticeably different species in around 5,000 years, more or less. Since the geological time scale is millions of years, the fossil record is not going to "record" these transitional periods, instead, in the fossil record, new species seem to appear "suddenly". It's just a question of different time scales. From the geological time scale, new species do appear "suddenly". But from the time scale of an individual organism's life, new species take hundreds of generations, which is not sudden at all.

That said, it becomes an interesting scientific question to try to understand the causes of stasis, which nobody ever looked at in such a context before Gould and Eldredge. What are the factors that keep a species unchanging (as we can see from the fossil record) for millions of years? And then what are the factors that cause it to undergo speciation?

None of this provides any comfort in the face of global warming, which is predicted to significantly change climate in less than a century. 5,000 years from now lots of new creatures will have evolved in interesting ways to take advantage of the new opportunities, but for us organisms who have to live through the change, and cannot expect to live for 5,000 years, it's basically going to suck.

Re:Evolution works

[2nd Post!]

True. There are more local effects we can control though.

Smog, via auto pollution. Less auto pollution, less smog, less smog, less asthma. Smog is also correlated to temperature as well!

Temperature, ie the heat island effect, determined by local building codes and policies. Besides being cooler and more comfortable, higher temperatures precipitate more release of VOC

Higher temperature also means increase in cooling load, which translates to increase in local energy usage... Which means more pollution at local energy providers. Generally lower energy usage translates to lower pollution at power plants.

So all of those things can be done, locally, to improve air quality, reduce asthma, reduce allergies, and improve the quality of life for everyone, if people cared to do so. We don't need to think about long term environmental change, which we can't yet predict or affect, and we don't need to think global. There are things we can do locally, temporally and spatially, that will improve everyone's quality of life, and are important reasons to be environmental without retreating to the rubric of 'global warming' or 'save the earth'. All it takes is personal self interest, ie 'save myself' and 'local comfort'.

Chalk up one more

[Jesrad]

Chalk up one more for these guys.

Re:Chalk up one more

[Tiassa]

Chalk up one more for these guys.

I did not read anything by that Lomborg fellow, but I RTFA, and the articles do not say "Rejoice, for Global Warming is a myth!", but rather "Rejoice guardedly, for we may have a bit more time than we feared to rein in Global Warming."

So I wouldn't break out the Champagne yet.

--
Severin's first law: "For every ratio, there is an equal and opposite irratio."

Re:Chalk up one more

[skaffen42]

I did not read anything by that Lomborg fellow

Maybe you should. He doesn't say global warming isn't happening, he just says that adapting to it is probably cheaper and more efficient than stopping it.

Re:Chalk up one more

[smcavoy]

easier to adapt, as long as you live above sea level, and are not on a small island.

Why?

[barakn]

AFAIK, Bjorn made no predictions about coral bleaching and thus deserves no credit. Furthermore, the coral researchers indicated there may be unforeseen consequences of the change in algal symbionts that may be harmful to ocean ecology

And there's little discussion of the effects of CO2 absorption by the oceans. This will increase the oceans' acidity. Recall that the coral skeleton is mostly calcium carbonate, which is labile to dissolution by acid.

Re:Why?

[Jesrad]

The point is that it's good to keep a healthy dose of skepticism when in comes to environmental changes, before walking the streets wearing a 'DOOM' sign.

Ranges Change

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

One thing to remember about global warming and cooling (both of which have happened before) is that the global ranges of both plant and animal species change with the changing climate. Reef building corals will be found at higher latitudes as the Earth warms. Ocean current patterns will change too, of course, more critacally in the Atlantic than the Pacific. Reefs may disappear in a particular place, but corals will still survive.

On Sciscoop earlier

[apsmith]

Last night in fact: here.

This is very encouraging news - but just because corals will survive doesn't necessarily mean we will...

Oil is still at record high prices by the way...

Bit of a no brainer...

[p4k]

...since at times in the recent (geologically speaking) past the climate has been significantly warmer than today and the coral survived then. Something the global-warming-doomsday brigade have seen fit to ignore.

It's also worth noting that damage due to pollutants tends to get *under*reported as everyone's so keen to blame global warming. We need to do more to actually reduce the amount of shit we tip into the oceans, rather than bleating about how everyone *else* should stop using their cars.

Re:Bit of a no brainer...

[Red Rocket]

We need to do more to actually reduce the amount of shit we tip into the oceans, rather than bleating about how everyone *else* should stop using their cars.

So the shit we tip into the oceans is bad but the shit we tip into the atmosphere is OK? That's a bit inconsistent.

Re:Bit of a no brainer...

[enosys]

Maybe the point is that there's a lot of shit that's far worse than carbon dioxide.

Re: Myopia

[some guy I know]

claims to have a method which slowly reduces the need for glasses through eye exercises

I think that you may be referring to what is called the "Theory of Accommodation".
A couple of sites with more info: Site 1 Site 2
(Caveat: These sites are pushing the method, and so are not necessarily objective about it.)

adapt?

[Transcendent]

Corals Adapt to Global Warming ...what global warming?

Specify the difference!

[BerntB]

it seemed to me you were saying the standard theory is in fact discontinuous in the detail, and thus not different than punctuated equilibrium for instance.

Again:
If you want to discuss differences between the standard evol biological theory and "punctuated equilibrium" and other of Gould's positions -- please define the differences. Give references that aren't just Gould papers/books (especially since he seems to have varied the exact claims over time).

That was more or less what I wrote. Now I've written it to you two times, too!

The way I've read about Gould was that to understand his exact position is like old Kremlology. :-)

That was the way Gould wanted it -- he seemed to try to give the public a wrong impression about the state of evol biology. (See this reference from previous article.)

Re:Specify the difference!

[astar]

ah, where is my clue bat.

What is wrong with the reference to the Euler controversey? On fundamental issues, you have to go to primary sources anyway. And any of your math friends will have a gloss on this. Some assembly required.