Are you under the impression that Brownian motion requires the same number of molecules to collide with the side of a container over the same amount of time? It's all random - so there's no such requirement... however statistically....
And that's where I don't except your niche argument - from an evolutionary standpoint - I can't accept that niches occur over such *long* periods of time...
Interesting analogy. It needs to be quantified, though. Suppose there are N diatomic hydrogen gas molecules in a cubical container of width X at a temperature T. It's possible to calculate the odds that a particular side of the container won't have any gas molecules hit it for some short time deltaT. This probability is very nearly (but not quite) zero for larger deltaT values (i.e. it's virtually certain that at least one gas molecule will collide with the bottom at least once a day.) The point is that you can write down a relatively simple equation based on the given variables that will give you that probability.
I think what you're saying is that these stable evolutionary niches represent a spectacularly improbably scenario- like the idea that gas molecules won't hit the bottom of the container at all on Wednesday. The problem is that I don't think you can derive the probability of those niches persisting with anywhere near the same amount of rigor.
For instance, try to define the problem. There are N(t) species on Earth, where N varies as a function of time. Their rate of phenotype change is P(t), but I don't have the foggiest idea how to define this in a fashion that could be useful in the type of experiment you're proposing. Perhaps to start with we could just measure the number of fins on the fish at any point in time, and define P(t) as the rate at which new fins are added or old fins become vestigial. (Obviously this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but I just don't know how to turn "rate of phenotype change" into an single variable.)
What you're saying is that the coelacanth has a very low integral of P(t) (i.e. cumulative phenotype change) over a very long timespan. I'm okay with that, except for the caveats in my last post. But then you say that this low integral of P(t) is somehow a problem for evolution. That's where I get confused, because I don't see how to calculate the probability that out of N(t) species, some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's than a particular value (i.e. the probability that the coelacanth's phenotype doesn't change so it looks the same as its ancestors). That's what I'm really interested in- some kind of quantifiable result that shows how implausible it is that the coelacanth remained the same over millions of years.
I can't write down that probability because I don't know N(t) (we don't really know how many species never made it into the fossil record). I can't figure out how to define P(t) in anything but a childishly simplistic manner. I can't figure out exactly what the fossil evidence means in terms of how low the integral of P(t) for the coelacanth is (see my last post). I also don't know how many species had similarly low integrals of P(t), which would completely alter the probability. The rate of phenotype change P(t) is driven primarily by mutation or changes in selection pressure, probably both in varying degrees. It will be different for each species based on their lifespan, environmental conditions, reproductive method and many random factors.
In short, this looks like a very hard problem.
What you're proposing is (yet another) interesting test of evolution. And I encourage you to try to rigorously define the problem in the same way that the "box of molecules" problem can be defined. If you succeed in determining a way to define that probability, please let me know at dumbscientist.com!
On a side note - this is the issue I have with arguing against evolution (and ignoring the ones against creationism for now - which i'd mostly
... I don't believe it has been demonstrated that that fish achieved such a 'perfect' design - clearly you've assumed that by it's long existence that it has - but there is nothing particularly remarkable about it despite it's age, particularly since evolution by it's nature should also be able to overcome the remarkable in it's constant arms race....
No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I just don't see anything unusual about some creatures remaining morphologically similar over geological time. Remember that we can't recover intact DNA after millions of years so we don't really know how genetically similar ancient coelacanths are to modern coelacanths. We also can't examine much of the differences in soft tissues. Their behavior patterns may have evolved tremendously over that time... we just don't know.
But even if they're identical in every way, that doesn't make a coelacanth "perfect". Just very well adapted to its niche. In a world with countless billions of species, am I supposed to be surprised that some of those species are very resilient to change? Are you under the impression that evolution requires that all species' phenotypes change at the same rate?
... if we go from rna to dna and then xnv (I made it up) how can xnv eat rna? proteins, carbs and fats? If you want a sustainable circle of life, make it out of the same stuff.
That's not the way the circle of life works. Proteins, carbs and fats aren't directly linked to DNA/RNA. The closest connection between proteins and genetic code is in ribosomes. A different set of DNA bases would require a radically different ribosome, or a completely different method of transcription (the latter possibility would keep RNA the same but allow for totally different DNA.) Animals don't need to eat DNA, they synthesize it from simpler molecules. All life would have to share some amino acids, because humans can only synthesize 12 of the 20 common amino acids, but there's no reason all life would need to have DNA with the same structure. (Unless, of course, all life is related...)
In fact, researchers are working on creating new synthetic life forms that have 12 DNA bases instead of the standard 4.
The GP was refering to people that hunt for fun. He said nothing about people that hunt for need or that use the kill for their own consumption.
I think he implied that "hunting" = "hunting for fun" by using that phrase when the original poster merely said "hunting". That's a pretty common way of disparaging someone you disagree with- create a straw man that you think represents their position.
As for the NRA it may be a legal organization in the US, but they are seen as nutcases in many places, and for many good reasons (their extreme views about gun ownership are ayathollic and confrontational, so it should be no surprise if some people find them disagreeable).
The interesting thing about intolerance is that people who practice it find ways to convince themselves that it's "for many good reasons". After all, the people across the aisle are just nutcases, so why take them seriously?
I'm not going to take any particular position on this issue, but I will note that both sides are incredibly uncivilized to each other. There are points to be made for each side (and those points are different for different cultures), but it's profoundly unproductive to label people who think differently "nutcases."
Since he probably won't say it again, I will. Thanks for proving his point for him...
But isn't that another straw man? You (in that sentence) equate one falsifiable scenario for evolution and saying since it doesn't correspond for creationism - that creationism is theology instead.
What I meant was that evolution has made many predictions which, if wrong, would have demolished the theory. That's just one of those tests. However, there isn't a single test of creationism/ID. There can't be- any proposed test could be countered by the statement "Perhaps that's just the way God designed things. He's trying to test your faith."
And I don't even think it's as falsifiable as you're expecting. What if there were other non DNA types of life at the beginning (the creator experimenting / evolution doing it's thing) - but DNA was finally chosen because it had the highest utility / fitness?.
You're talking about a shadow biosphere. It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. What I'm talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it's possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science. What similar evidence could you find that would disprove creationism?
Also - a big one also is that when biology / micro biology finally comprehends physiology, running computer simulations should be possible to calculate the requirements and the odds required for each micro/macro step of the evolution of the species. Creationism should say / says that when those odds are calculated - they'll be way too high to perhaps even fit into the time frame of millions of years. So evolution should go bust then.
I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. You're right to say that this is an interesting and effective test. But it's a test of evolution. It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism in the slightest if those simulations showed that evolution could happen fast enough to account for the fossil record. After all, God is subtle and His Ways Are Mysterious. Perhaps he made life appear to have evolved, when He really created it with a snap of his fingers. Omnipotence and conscious whims can't ever be tested, because there's no limit to what God could do. There's no way to perform an experiment and say "God definitely didn't do this."
Sure - you can never defeat the argument that God uses evolution. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing ID (that doesn't use evolution) has falsifiable predictions - and that last one particularly is more like an either/or for evolution & ID.
Wait... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? Please repost them, because apparently I missed them. So far I think that you can't defeat the argument that God uses evolution, and you also can't defeat the argument that God created everything in 6 days. Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could... in principle... falsify creationism/ID.
Ancient animals alive today contradict evolution (turtles, crocodiles, octopuses, horseshoe crabs etc) - because there should be no standing still in evolution...
I fail to see how a slow rate of evolution in some species "contradicts evolution." The best example is the Coelacanth. How is it problematic that this fish evolved into a local maxima for its relatively unchanging marine environment?
Point #2 - as I mentioned - assumes the creator wanted to create indisputable proof of his existence... Point #2 is rather pointless or at least a straw man argument - as it doesn't articulate or defend the rather bold assumptions it makes of it's version of the creator.
You've missed my point. I'm not saying that the uniform nature of DNA is proof that life couldn't have been created by God. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the idea that "God created life" is compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA" as well as the evidence "each species has its unique DNA with different nucleic acids". But, as I point out, evolution is only compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA," which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead.
It is the increasing information contained in the more complex life forms that falsifies evolution of reptiles into birds and monkeys into people.
I've seen this argument before, but it's always seemed less than rigorous. For instance, what definition of information are you using? Most information theorists regard information and entropy to be closely related. So saying "information is increasing" is very similar to saying "entropy is increasing," which doesn't surprise me. If you have a definition of information that's different from Shannon's, please show me your equation so I can examine it in the same way I can examine Shannon's definition of information.
On a more concrete level, I don't understand why it's surprising that information increases over time. Mutations often produce copies of chromosomes, which is what causes Down syndrome. Immediately after this mutation occurs, it only adds a tiny amount of information to the creature's genetic code because all that extra information can be compressed into the statement "take chromosome 21 and copy it from this start codon to this end codon."
But these "extra copy" mutations aren't always harmful. For instance, many modern food crops are polyploid compared to their ancestors, which makes them larger and tastier. So it's not impossible for extra copies to become permanent. In that case, over time both copies will mutate differently, which reduces the ability to compress the extra information into a mere "extra copy". Thus, information in the genetic code increases according to Shannon's definition.
I agree that hundreds of millions of years of nothing would not necessarily falsify creationism completely, but it would add more complex 'why' questions.
And that is also something that can be studied and falsified. Will future studies show that during the last 100k years, the speciation rate was about the same as for the previous 10 million? If so, that poses a serious problem to a creation model. If future discoveries continue to back up what I said, the Biblical creation model gets stronger.
While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more "why" questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of "why" questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. I'm not convinced that a few more mysteries would affect creationism in the same way that a 1950s discovery of non-uniform DNA bases would have affected evolution.
Actually, common DNA and other biology are about the same between humans and nonspiritual animals simply because this is the design that works. God doesn't have to do too many crazy things like that to prove His existence (I think He has already done more than should be necessary for that.
And that's why creationism can never be science. It's too easy to use God's omnipotence and conscious whims to explain away any problems with the model. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not saying that creationism is wrong, and I'm not trying to bash religion. I'm just saying that it can't ever be scientific, because any "prediction" will rely on the individual theist's personal interpretation of what God "should" do. (e.g. it's perfectly okay that all life uses the same DNA bases, because God's already done more than He needs to prove His existence.)
I recognize that geological deposits aren't always in simplistic layers, so fossils can sometimes appear to be out of order when they're really not. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, billions of years ago. This would have to be carefully confirmed by isochronological radiometric dating to rule out the possibility that you're describing. But, if all those possibilities were ruled out, that fossil would be utterly incompatible with evolution. That's true falsifiability.
We know that today no fossils form because any living matter is attacked by microorganisms.
We do? Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article to back that up. I'm not a biologist, but I've been under the impression that fossils form best when the animal is quickly submerged as in the La Brea tar pits. I'm also reasonably certain I've seen a mummy that seem to have intact bones over five thousand years after death...
Why does it have to be common descent rather than a common functional design requirements?
It doesn't. You're missing the point. I'm not saying that creationism is wrong; I'm not saying that uniform DNA is proof of common descent rather than common functional design.
What I'm saying is that if DNA was different in every organism, that would be completely inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science.
So what is so unusual in claiming that natural creations originated in a mind; the supreme mind of God?
Again, it's not unusual. It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. It's interesting theology, though. I think someone absolutely should be able to get a divinity degree by asking those types of questions.
They believe that God designed the universe for the maximum benefit of human civilization and to fulfill God's purposes for the universe as quickly and efficiently as possible, and build a model on that. For example, to sustain civilization, humans need 4 billion years of biodeposits. RTB predicts that life appears on earth as quickly as could possibly be allowed under the conditions, and that is what we see. There is evidence of life existing 3.8 billion years ago, just millions of years after the Late Heavy Bombardment. A way to falsify this would be to show that life emerged over hundreds of millions of years, as most evolutionists have tended to assume.
I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence. I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of his creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)
I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution (I've explored this topic here.) It just seems like there wouldn't be any way to perform an equivalent calculation for a miraculous creation of life.
They also predict that future observations in astronomy will show more and more evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe.
... which wouldn't affect their position in the slightest if it didn't pan out. After all, God is subtle and His ways are mysterious. Perhaps He designed the universe to look like it wasn't fine-tuned, just to test our faith.
Another prediction is that since humans are created specially in God's image, there should be no clear genetic links with hominids.
In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA. In fact, they shouldn't even share our DNA bases- they should have a completely different genetic alphabet. That way, we couldn't possibly be related to them. That would be clear evidence that evolution was wrong, and it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. In essence, Darwin made a prediction that all life would use the same DNA many decades before we found out that was actually the case.
But the fact that this isn't true doesn't falsify creationism, because it's easy to assert that God created all life with the same genetic code as proof that there's a single creator, rather than multiple deities.
It also explains the sudden burst of such things as advanced tool use, jewelry, and religious artifacts on the scene about 50,000 years ago.
Is the modern technological renaissance proof of God's intervention in the world? After all, our technology has undergone a similar change in the last several centuries. Since it's usually not possible to date objects that old with a temporal resolution much less than a century, future creationist archaeologists might conclude that the rapid invention of computers is evidence that God was responsible for it.
And, just like today, no scientists in the future will ever be able to prove them wrong. Because they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. Natural, objective laws are annoyingly restrictive and can be proven wrong by clever observations.
Copenhagen Interpretation of QM doesn't make predictions (and isn't falsifiable), but there seem to be no objections to it being taught in science classes.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.
By that definition, evolution is not science either. It has never predicted anything and never will.
I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.
But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:
If a fossil is ever discovered significantly "out of place", like the fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, that would be the end of evolution. Intelligent design is utterly indifferent to the fossil record because the Creator could simply have designed an intentionally deceptive fossil record.
It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases- a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.
That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.
I was in fact working with climate scientists for a while, and i was quite shocked that most think its appropriate to misrepresent the certainty of the models because they "know" best.
What a coincidence! I, too, work with climate scientists. And my experience with scientists in general is that they're much less likely to overstate their case than other people. Scientists are more likely to add caveats to their statements, and less likely to make statements of certainty when all that the evidence supports is "strong probability". What you're describing is just the normal way scientists act.
Holy shit, I completely misread that! I thought you said they DIDN'T think it was appropriate. Please post their names and research affiliations so I know who to avoid at conferences!
(The reason I misread that comment was, I think, because my experience from 10 years in science has been completely opposite to yours. Of course, it's possible that your experience was more representative than mine...)
IPCC is run by a political origination with an axe to grind....
I've read through their reports and rebuttals, and I've not seen any difference between the science they're reviewing and my own work (or the work of my colleagues or my advisor). In fact, some of my personal research results support their conclusions. I guess that means that my dissertation research is just politically motivated claptrap?
Hell even ask about model details and your slammed with a global warming denier label. You don't get your question answered.
Wow. If you politely asked a climate scientist for details of their model, and got that reaction then you were talking to a pretty bad scientist. Alas, PhDs cannot be revoked...
The science is now so obscured with media and other groups agenda bias that its pretty hard to claim its not all politics.
The science isn't obscured from where I'm sitting, and it isn't for anyone within driving distance of a university library. Those biases you're talking about don't make it into the peer reviewed journals like Geophysical Research Letters. I'd recommend those sources over the secondhand sources that you're reading. They sound like horrible sources of information.
Really what does your emotional state ("I'm pretty scared") have to do with the science?
Umm... I'm not writing a scientific journal article right now. It's just an online forum. I definitely wouldn't include statements like that in my article submissions.
I was in fact working with climate scientists for a while, and i was quite shocked that most think its appropriate to misrepresent the certainty of the models because they "know" best.
What a coincidence! I, too, work with climate scientists. And my experience with scientists in general is that they're much less likely to overstate their case than other people. Scientists are more likely to add caveats to their statements, and less likely to make statements of certainty when all that the evidence supports is "strong probability". What you're describing is just the normal way scientists act.
Now tell me again why people shouldn't think that the science is just as politicized as the rest of the debate?
Show me an experiment from a peer reviewed journal article that you think is politicized. I'll review it and get back to you. On the other hand, if you were talking about Rush Limbaugh's editorial about climate science, then I think we mean different things when we use the word "science".
Global warming is a consequence of climate change. Global cooling is a consequence of climate change.
I think the term global dimming more accurately describes a separate problem that is sometimes referred to as global cooling. Aerosols decrease the size of cloud droplets, thus increasing the albedo (whiteness) of the clouds. This reflects more sunlight back into space. Its effects have been seen in long-term sunlight brightness studies (in Israel) and in long term evaporation rate measurements (amazingly, evaporation depends on the number of photons hitting the surface rather than just the temperature, so it serves as an independent check of the phenomenon).
It's not such a big deal anymore because regulations were effective at curbing emissions of these aerosols. Unfortunately, it used to act to counter greenhouse gases like CO2...
This is a phenomenon that is as old as the earth, and to think we can just stop it when we want to is ludicrous.
I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about natural variability, and I'm talking about human-caused climate change. Scientists are aware that both phenomena exist, and based on the research I saw at the December 2008 American Geophysical Union conference, I'm fairly confident that we can tell how much climate variability is due to humans.
The climate has changed in cycles, and despite the CO2 lobbys best propoganda, the climate was already on an upward curve regarding CO2 before we even discovered fire.
Vostok ice core data confirms that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. But in all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. (It's hit higher levels millions of years ago, but that was a slow and gradual change. Plus the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different solar luminousity and biosphere so comparisons across that much time are tricky.)
And if you take those same records which are used to promote the current scare tactics, you would see that after it (CO2) goes up, it goes down - way way down. It is cyclic.
I presume you're referring to the Vostok ice core data I just linked. You're right to say that natural variations are cyclic- that graph displays variations that are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles which are caused by periodic variations in the earth's orbit.
But I'll reiterate the point I made in my original post: CO2 concentrations are at 380 ppm today. That's a level it hasn't hit in the last half million years. If we're seeing natural variability alone, it's quite a coincidence that it occurs right when we started excavating fossil fuels to fuel a billion cars.
Plus, the Vostok data is a little difficult to analyze in this manner, but it seems like at Vostok the CO2 always increased 600 years AFTER the temperature started to increase. At least, that's the way it used to work. Right now, the CO2 concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, that suggests that we're not facing natural climate change, we're dealing with anthropogenic abrupt climate change.
First, it's in a sun-synchronous orbit. That means that it only passes over a certain spot on the earth's surface at a particular time of day, which never changes from day to day. As a result, it can't tell if gravity is different at that spot at a different time of day. Secondly, the GOCE mission is expected to fall out of the sky in 20 months (and that's if the ion engine works well). It just won't be up there long enough to measure a long enough time series for any serious analysis.
What are the other new features of GRACE2 over GRACE?
The "drag-free" concept that GOCE is using has been popular at the GRACE Science Team Meetings. This would allow GRACE's altitude to be lowered from its current ~500km (starting) altitude to something more like 200km. Lowering the altitude increases the spatial resolution because from very far away the Earth's gravity field looks exactly like a point mass's. The closer to the surface the satellite gets, the more of the extra features are revealed.
A laser ranging system is also being considered, but we're having a great deal of trouble getting our noise floor (due to mis-modeled forces on the satellite and errors in modeling known sources of gravity fluctuations such as tides and atmospheric circulation) low enough so that we're actually limited by the reduced accuracy of the microwave system. Until then, it's hard to argue for a more expensive system that doesn't seem necessary.
I've seen interesting proposals for a more complicated orbit geometry. David Wiese proposed a "cartwheel" orbit where 2,3 or 4 GRACE satellites would revolve around each other as they orbit the planet. Sometimes the satellites would be at the same altitude, at other times they'd be right on top of each other. The laser ranging systems would be continually synced, so measurements of gravity variations could be made along radial directions instead of along the theta (or phi, depending on which spherical coordinate system you prefer) direction. These added degrees of freedom could help eliminate a strange, unexplained error source that we whimsically call "longitudinal striping" (Sean Swenson developed a smoothing algorithm that reduces it, but we still don't really know why it happens).
Aside from that, we're just trying to make sure that there IS a GRACE 2. Many of our long term measurements are limited by the short (~6 year) timespan of the data. GRACE is slowly falling out of the sky (I think it's projected to burn up in 2012 or so) and it's dangerously low on propellant. We need another mission like GRACE to extend the time series, and it's best to launch the second mission before the first one fails to cross-validate the time series from both satellite systems.
As a climate scientist, I've seen that shift in wording too. I think it was largely a PR move, designed to combat fundamental misconceptions that laymen have regarding "Abrupt Climate Change" (the officially accepted title).
Most people don't understand the difference between weather (purely local phenomena, hard to predict because it requires extremely complex vector-valued numerical models of the motion of the atmosphere) and climate (purely global phenomenon, easier to predict because it just requires summing energy input and subtracting energy output). They stuck the word "climate" in there to emphasize that today's cold temperatures in Joe Schmoe's town don't "disprove" climate change.
Global warming is a little simplistic. A more accurate description is that our addition of greenhouse gasses has reduced the volume of energy leaving the planet while leaving the energy input constant. As a result, the average energy in the atmosphere is increasing, which allows the system to "explore more of its phase space". More energy means more opportunities for extreme weather- even weather that involves colder temperatures! (Again, note that weather is local.)
The word "abrupt" was added to emphasize that what we're experiencing isn't a natural process. The ice core from Vostok shows that CO2 hasn't risen above 300 ppm in the last half million years. It's at 380 ppm now, which is almost certainly due to human activities. This rapid increase hasn't happened in the hundreds of thousands of years over which we have records. The consequences aren't likely to be pretty. Hence, "abrupt".
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but climate change has me pretty scared. I might live to see some of the effects (drought, famine, extreme weather) and I wonder if my life will be as comfortable as my parents was. I used to assume that advancing technology would make my life much better, and I'm just now coming to grips with the possibility that it won't.
But what really scares me is the ostrich-like manner with which people react to the problem. They seem to be in denial, which is understandable. Scientists aren't bringing good news, so it's natural to be resentful. But I figured that some deep survival mechanism would kick in eventually as people looked at the rigorous nature of the modeling, the diverse data sets all leading to the same conclusions, and the myriad positive feedback effects that makes climate change accelerate on its own.
Instead, people seem to react as though the existence of climate change is somehow a political question rather than a scientific question. They don't seem to be looking at that evidence. Instead, they seem to decide that their political party's position on climate change is "X", so they believe "X". (Note that I'm talking about the existence of anthropogenic abrupt climate change. I realize that our response to climate change is a legitimate political question.)
GRACE has found what many believe to be an ancient impact crater in Antarctica. It might have been responsible for splitting Antarctica away from Australia, and might have been responsible for the Permian extinction. The researchers note that it formed 260 million years ago- around the right time, and it was directly opposite to the usual culprit- the Siberian traps. It's possible that the impact sent shockwaves around the world, which converged on the antipodal point and triggered the Siberian traps.
But that's a "new" 260 million year old meteorite. What you're talking about is a 3 billion year old impact with something the size of Mars. Plate tectonics have probably erased that evidence. Also, large scale impacts are HARDER to find than smaller impacts because large impactors penetrate the crust, and magma rises up to fill the crater.
Interesting notion, but I'd be surprised if it's possible...
I am a physicist working with GRACE data, and I feel the need to nitpick. GRACE uses a microwave ranging system, not a laser ranging system. The increased accuracy of a laser ranging system wouldn't be useful because there are so many other sources of noise, but it is being considered for GRACE 2.
Also, the baseline between the GRACE satellites is more than a couple dozen miles. On average, GRACE A and B are 220 km apart.
GOCE is an amazing satellite, and its low altitude combined with its ion engine (to precisely compensate for drag) will increase the resolution of our STATIC (i.e. not time dependent) gravity field maps. But it can't replace GRACE's measurements of the changing gravity field. GRACE has provided independent measurements of the Greenland ice sheet melt and helped to correct water storage models, which underestimated the 2005 Amazon drought.
My research involves pushing GRACE's temporal resolution even further down. Rather than detecting annual signals or slowly varying linear mass changes (like ice sheet melt), I'm trying to measure the gravity changes from ocean tides. My preliminary results show that GRACE can detect gravity fluctuations from twice-daily tides, which means that it can be used to improve our ocean tide models. This helps oceanographers, but indirectly helps all gravimetry because tides are a source of noise even for static measurements of the earth's gravity field. Modelling the tides better can help to reduce this noise.
Greg Egan made that question the central part of his book Distress. While I think this is an interesting notion, it's ultimately a purely philosophical (rather than scientific) idea because it can't be falsified.
For the same reason that very weak breezes don't knock us over: they carry momentum, but a very small amount of it. Our legs are more than capable of reacting to this small force.
In fact, the momentum carried by light is so small that its detection requires sensitive instruments. But light does carry momentum, which is the basis of a solar sail.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting analogy. It needs to be quantified, though. Suppose there are N diatomic hydrogen gas molecules in a cubical container of width X at a temperature T. It's possible to calculate the odds that a particular side of the container won't have any gas molecules hit it for some short time deltaT. This probability is very nearly (but not quite) zero for larger deltaT values (i.e. it's virtually certain that at least one gas molecule will collide with the bottom at least once a day.) The point is that you can write down a relatively simple equation based on the given variables that will give you that probability.
I think what you're saying is that these stable evolutionary niches represent a spectacularly improbably scenario- like the idea that gas molecules won't hit the bottom of the container at all on Wednesday. The problem is that I don't think you can derive the probability of those niches persisting with anywhere near the same amount of rigor.
For instance, try to define the problem. There are N(t) species on Earth, where N varies as a function of time. Their rate of phenotype change is P(t), but I don't have the foggiest idea how to define this in a fashion that could be useful in the type of experiment you're proposing. Perhaps to start with we could just measure the number of fins on the fish at any point in time, and define P(t) as the rate at which new fins are added or old fins become vestigial. (Obviously this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but I just don't know how to turn "rate of phenotype change" into an single variable.)
What you're saying is that the coelacanth has a very low integral of P(t) (i.e. cumulative phenotype change) over a very long timespan. I'm okay with that, except for the caveats in my last post. But then you say that this low integral of P(t) is somehow a problem for evolution. That's where I get confused, because I don't see how to calculate the probability that out of N(t) species, some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's than a particular value (i.e. the probability that the coelacanth's phenotype doesn't change so it looks the same as its ancestors). That's what I'm really interested in- some kind of quantifiable result that shows how implausible it is that the coelacanth remained the same over millions of years.
I can't write down that probability because I don't know N(t) (we don't really know how many species never made it into the fossil record). I can't figure out how to define P(t) in anything but a childishly simplistic manner. I can't figure out exactly what the fossil evidence means in terms of how low the integral of P(t) for the coelacanth is (see my last post). I also don't know how many species had similarly low integrals of P(t), which would completely alter the probability. The rate of phenotype change P(t) is driven primarily by mutation or changes in selection pressure, probably both in varying degrees. It will be different for each species based on their lifespan, environmental conditions, reproductive method and many random factors.
In short, this looks like a very hard problem.
What you're proposing is (yet another) interesting test of evolution. And I encourage you to try to rigorously define the problem in the same way that the "box of molecules" problem can be defined. If you succeed in determining a way to define that probability, please let me know at dumbscientist.com!
No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I just don't see anything unusual about some creatures remaining morphologically similar over geological time. Remember that we can't recover intact DNA after millions of years so we don't really know how genetically similar ancient coelacanths are to modern coelacanths. We also can't examine much of the differences in soft tissues. Their behavior patterns may have evolved tremendously over that time... we just don't know.
But even if they're identical in every way, that doesn't make a coelacanth "perfect". Just very well adapted to its niche. In a world with countless billions of species, am I supposed to be surprised that some of those species are very resilient to change? Are you under the impression that evolution requires that all species' phenotypes change at the same rate?
That's not the way the circle of life works. Proteins, carbs and fats aren't directly linked to DNA/RNA. The closest connection between proteins and genetic code is in ribosomes. A different set of DNA bases would require a radically different ribosome, or a completely different method of transcription (the latter possibility would keep RNA the same but allow for totally different DNA.) Animals don't need to eat DNA, they synthesize it from simpler molecules. All life would have to share some amino acids, because humans can only synthesize 12 of the 20 common amino acids, but there's no reason all life would need to have DNA with the same structure. (Unless, of course, all life is related...)
In fact, researchers are working on creating new synthetic life forms that have 12 DNA bases instead of the standard 4.
I think he implied that "hunting" = "hunting for fun" by using that phrase when the original poster merely said "hunting". That's a pretty common way of disparaging someone you disagree with- create a straw man that you think represents their position.
The interesting thing about intolerance is that people who practice it find ways to convince themselves that it's "for many good reasons". After all, the people across the aisle are just nutcases, so why take them seriously?
I'm not going to take any particular position on this issue, but I will note that both sides are incredibly uncivilized to each other. There are points to be made for each side (and those points are different for different cultures), but it's profoundly unproductive to label people who think differently "nutcases."
Since he probably won't say it again, I will. Thanks for proving his point for him...
What I meant was that evolution has made many predictions which, if wrong, would have demolished the theory. That's just one of those tests. However, there isn't a single test of creationism/ID. There can't be- any proposed test could be countered by the statement "Perhaps that's just the way God designed things. He's trying to test your faith."
You're talking about a shadow biosphere. It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. What I'm talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it's possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science. What similar evidence could you find that would disprove creationism?
I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here. You're right to say that this is an interesting and effective test. But it's a test of evolution. It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism in the slightest if those simulations showed that evolution could happen fast enough to account for the fossil record. After all, God is subtle and His Ways Are Mysterious. Perhaps he made life appear to have evolved, when He really created it with a snap of his fingers. Omnipotence and conscious whims can't ever be tested, because there's no limit to what God could do. There's no way to perform an experiment and say "God definitely didn't do this."
Wait... when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? Please repost them, because apparently I missed them. So far I think that you can't defeat the argument that God uses evolution, and you also can't defeat the argument that God created everything in 6 days. Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could... in principle... falsify creationism/ID.
I fail to see how a slow rate of evolution in some species "contradicts evolution." The best example is the Coelacanth. How is it problematic that this fish evolved into a local maxima for its relatively unchanging marine environment?
You've missed my point. I'm not saying that the uniform nature of DNA is proof that life couldn't have been created by God. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the idea that "God created life" is compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA" as well as the evidence "each species has its unique DNA with different nucleic acids". But, as I point out, evolution is only compatible with the evidence "all life uses the same DNA," which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead.
I've seen this argument before, but it's always seemed less than rigorous. For instance, what definition of information are you using? Most information theorists regard information and entropy to be closely related. So saying "information is increasing" is very similar to saying "entropy is increasing," which doesn't surprise me. If you have a definition of information that's different from Shannon's, please show me your equation so I can examine it in the same way I can examine Shannon's definition of information.
On a more concrete level, I don't understand why it's surprising that information increases over time. Mutations often produce copies of chromosomes, which is what causes Down syndrome. Immediately after this mutation occurs, it only adds a tiny amount of information to the creature's genetic code because all that extra information can be compressed into the statement "take chromosome 21 and copy it from this start codon to this end codon."
But these "extra copy" mutations aren't always harmful. For instance, many modern food crops are polyploid compared to their ancestors, which makes them larger and tastier. So it's not impossible for extra copies to become permanent. In that case, over time both copies will mutate differently, which reduces the ability to compress the extra information into a mere "extra copy". Thus, information in the genetic code increases according to Shannon's definition.
While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more "why" questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of "why" questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. I'm not convinced that a few more mysteries would affect creationism in the same way that a 1950s discovery of non-uniform DNA bases would have affected evolution.
And that's why creationism can never be science. It's too easy to use God's omnipotence and conscious whims to explain away any problems with the model. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not saying that creationism is wrong, and I'm not trying to bash religion. I'm just saying that it can't ever be scientific, because any "prediction" will rely on the individual theist's personal interpretation of what God "should" do. (e.g. it's perfectly okay that all life uses the same DNA bases, because God's already done more than He needs to prove His existence.)
I recognize that geological deposits aren't always in simplistic layers, so fossils can sometimes appear to be out of order when they're really not. That's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a fossil of a chimp laid down in Precambrian rock strata, billions of years ago. This would have to be carefully confirmed by isochronological radiometric dating to rule out the possibility that you're describing. But, if all those possibilities were ruled out, that fossil would be utterly incompatible with evolution. That's true falsifiability.
We do? Please cite a peer-reviewed journal article to back that up. I'm not a biologist, but I've been under the impression that fossils form best when the animal is quickly submerged as in the La Brea tar pits. I'm also reasonably certain I've seen a mummy that seem to have intact bones over five thousand years after death...
It doesn't. You're missing the point. I'm not saying that creationism is wrong; I'm not saying that uniform DNA is proof of common descent rather than common functional design.
What I'm saying is that if DNA was different in every organism, that would be completely inconsistent with evolution. Evolution is thus falsifiable in that manner. Creationism can work either way, so it's not falsifiable and therefore not science.
Again, it's not unusual. It's just not falsifiable, and therefore not a scientific statement. It's interesting theology, though. I think someone absolutely should be able to get a divinity degree by asking those types of questions.
I don't have mod points- someone mod parent up!
I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence. I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of his creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)
I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution (I've explored this topic here.) It just seems like there wouldn't be any way to perform an equivalent calculation for a miraculous creation of life.
... which wouldn't affect their position in the slightest if it didn't pan out. After all, God is subtle and His ways are mysterious. Perhaps He designed the universe to look like it wasn't fine-tuned, just to test our faith.
In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA. In fact, they shouldn't even share our DNA bases- they should have a completely different genetic alphabet. That way, we couldn't possibly be related to them. That would be clear evidence that evolution was wrong, and it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. In essence, Darwin made a prediction that all life would use the same DNA many decades before we found out that was actually the case.
But the fact that this isn't true doesn't falsify creationism, because it's easy to assert that God created all life with the same genetic code as proof that there's a single creator, rather than multiple deities.
Is the modern technological renaissance proof of God's intervention in the world? After all, our technology has undergone a similar change in the last several centuries. Since it's usually not possible to date objects that old with a temporal resolution much less than a century, future creationist archaeologists might conclude that the rapid invention of computers is evidence that God was responsible for it.
And, just like today, no scientists in the future will ever be able to prove them wrong. Because they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. Natural, objective laws are annoyingly restrictive and can be proven wrong by clever observations.
The Copenhagen interpretation is commonly viewed by physicists as a way to wave all the metaphysical issues raised by quantum mechanics off to the side. As Feynman once said, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. [regarding quantum theory]"
It's true that interpretations of quantum mechanics aren't experimentally distinguishable (yet-- I've seen some proposals in this direction that seem interesting). But that's scarcely relevant because no undergraduate or graduate quantum mechanics class spends any significant time worrying about interpretations. Most physicists focus on the predictions, which have been verified to an absurd number of significant figures. Students work problems that give real, experimentally testable answers.
It's also true that popular science books give the impression that quantum physics is mystical, and that physicists spend all their time worrying about Schrodinger's Cat. We don't. I think it's an interesting question, and personally prefer the Everett-Wheeler interpretation, but it's not the central issue. Be careful not to let the interpretations of the equations obscure your view of the equation itself.
I've already discussed this in detail on Slashdot, and have archived the conversation here.
But I'll copy the most relevant part. There are several specific predictions that evolution makes:
That's what falsifiability means. There has to be some type of evidence which could, in principle, prove the theory wrong. I've linked to many many more tests in the conversation that list was taken from.
Science is falsifiable. It produces specific predictions. Creationism/ID doesn't.
Holy shit, I completely misread that! I thought you said they DIDN'T think it was appropriate. Please post their names and research affiliations so I know who to avoid at conferences!
(The reason I misread that comment was, I think, because my experience from 10 years in science has been completely opposite to yours. Of course, it's possible that your experience was more representative than mine...)
I've read through their reports and rebuttals, and I've not seen any difference between the science they're reviewing and my own work (or the work of my colleagues or my advisor). In fact, some of my personal research results support their conclusions. I guess that means that my dissertation research is just politically motivated claptrap?
Wow. If you politely asked a climate scientist for details of their model, and got that reaction then you were talking to a pretty bad scientist. Alas, PhDs cannot be revoked...
The science isn't obscured from where I'm sitting, and it isn't for anyone within driving distance of a university library. Those biases you're talking about don't make it into the peer reviewed journals like Geophysical Research Letters. I'd recommend those sources over the secondhand sources that you're reading. They sound like horrible sources of information.
Umm... I'm not writing a scientific journal article right now. It's just an online forum. I definitely wouldn't include statements like that in my article submissions.
What a coincidence! I, too, work with climate scientists. And my experience with scientists in general is that they're much less likely to overstate their case than other people. Scientists are more likely to add caveats to their statements, and less likely to make statements of certainty when all that the evidence supports is "strong probability". What you're describing is just the normal way scientists act.
Show me an experiment from a peer reviewed journal article that you think is politicized. I'll review it and get back to you. On the other hand, if you were talking about Rush Limbaugh's editorial about climate science, then I think we mean different things when we use the word "science".
I think the term global dimming more accurately describes a separate problem that is sometimes referred to as global cooling. Aerosols decrease the size of cloud droplets, thus increasing the albedo (whiteness) of the clouds. This reflects more sunlight back into space. Its effects have been seen in long-term sunlight brightness studies (in Israel) and in long term evaporation rate measurements (amazingly, evaporation depends on the number of photons hitting the surface rather than just the temperature, so it serves as an independent check of the phenomenon).
It's not such a big deal anymore because regulations were effective at curbing emissions of these aerosols. Unfortunately, it used to act to counter greenhouse gases like CO2...
I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about natural variability, and I'm talking about human-caused climate change. Scientists are aware that both phenomena exist, and based on the research I saw at the December 2008 American Geophysical Union conference, I'm fairly confident that we can tell how much climate variability is due to humans.
Vostok ice core data confirms that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. But in all that time, the maximum CO2 concentration never went above 300 ppm. (It's hit higher levels millions of years ago, but that was a slow and gradual change. Plus the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different solar luminousity and biosphere so comparisons across that much time are tricky.)
I presume you're referring to the Vostok ice core data I just linked. You're right to say that natural variations are cyclic- that graph displays variations that are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles which are caused by periodic variations in the earth's orbit.
But I'll reiterate the point I made in my original post: CO2 concentrations are at 380 ppm today. That's a level it hasn't hit in the last half million years. If we're seeing natural variability alone, it's quite a coincidence that it occurs right when we started excavating fossil fuels to fuel a billion cars.
Plus, the Vostok data is a little difficult to analyze in this manner, but it seems like at Vostok the CO2 always increased 600 years AFTER the temperature started to increase. At least, that's the way it used to work. Right now, the CO2 concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, that suggests that we're not facing natural climate change, we're dealing with anthropogenic abrupt climate change.
First, it's in a sun-synchronous orbit. That means that it only passes over a certain spot on the earth's surface at a particular time of day, which never changes from day to day. As a result, it can't tell if gravity is different at that spot at a different time of day. Secondly, the GOCE mission is expected to fall out of the sky in 20 months (and that's if the ion engine works well). It just won't be up there long enough to measure a long enough time series for any serious analysis.
The "drag-free" concept that GOCE is using has been popular at the GRACE Science Team Meetings. This would allow GRACE's altitude to be lowered from its current ~500km (starting) altitude to something more like 200km. Lowering the altitude increases the spatial resolution because from very far away the Earth's gravity field looks exactly like a point mass's. The closer to the surface the satellite gets, the more of the extra features are revealed.
A laser ranging system is also being considered, but we're having a great deal of trouble getting our noise floor (due to mis-modeled forces on the satellite and errors in modeling known sources of gravity fluctuations such as tides and atmospheric circulation) low enough so that we're actually limited by the reduced accuracy of the microwave system. Until then, it's hard to argue for a more expensive system that doesn't seem necessary.
I've seen interesting proposals for a more complicated orbit geometry. David Wiese proposed a "cartwheel" orbit where 2,3 or 4 GRACE satellites would revolve around each other as they orbit the planet. Sometimes the satellites would be at the same altitude, at other times they'd be right on top of each other. The laser ranging systems would be continually synced, so measurements of gravity variations could be made along radial directions instead of along the theta (or phi, depending on which spherical coordinate system you prefer) direction. These added degrees of freedom could help eliminate a strange, unexplained error source that we whimsically call "longitudinal striping" (Sean Swenson developed a smoothing algorithm that reduces it, but we still don't really know why it happens).
Aside from that, we're just trying to make sure that there IS a GRACE 2. Many of our long term measurements are limited by the short (~6 year) timespan of the data. GRACE is slowly falling out of the sky (I think it's projected to burn up in 2012 or so) and it's dangerously low on propellant. We need another mission like GRACE to extend the time series, and it's best to launch the second mission before the first one fails to cross-validate the time series from both satellite systems.
As a climate scientist, I've seen that shift in wording too. I think it was largely a PR move, designed to combat fundamental misconceptions that laymen have regarding "Abrupt Climate Change" (the officially accepted title).
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but climate change has me pretty scared. I might live to see some of the effects (drought, famine, extreme weather) and I wonder if my life will be as comfortable as my parents was. I used to assume that advancing technology would make my life much better, and I'm just now coming to grips with the possibility that it won't.
But what really scares me is the ostrich-like manner with which people react to the problem. They seem to be in denial, which is understandable. Scientists aren't bringing good news, so it's natural to be resentful. But I figured that some deep survival mechanism would kick in eventually as people looked at the rigorous nature of the modeling, the diverse data sets all leading to the same conclusions, and the myriad positive feedback effects that makes climate change accelerate on its own.
Instead, people seem to react as though the existence of climate change is somehow a political question rather than a scientific question. They don't seem to be looking at that evidence. Instead, they seem to decide that their political party's position on climate change is "X", so they believe "X". (Note that I'm talking about the existence of anthropogenic abrupt climate change. I realize that our response to climate change is a legitimate political question.)
GRACE has found what many believe to be an ancient impact crater in Antarctica. It might have been responsible for splitting Antarctica away from Australia, and might have been responsible for the Permian extinction. The researchers note that it formed 260 million years ago- around the right time, and it was directly opposite to the usual culprit- the Siberian traps. It's possible that the impact sent shockwaves around the world, which converged on the antipodal point and triggered the Siberian traps.
But that's a "new" 260 million year old meteorite. What you're talking about is a 3 billion year old impact with something the size of Mars. Plate tectonics have probably erased that evidence. Also, large scale impacts are HARDER to find than smaller impacts because large impactors penetrate the crust, and magma rises up to fill the crater.
Interesting notion, but I'd be surprised if it's possible...
I am a physicist working with GRACE data, and I feel the need to nitpick. GRACE uses a microwave ranging system, not a laser ranging system. The increased accuracy of a laser ranging system wouldn't be useful because there are so many other sources of noise, but it is being considered for GRACE 2.
Also, the baseline between the GRACE satellites is more than a couple dozen miles. On average, GRACE A and B are 220 km apart.
GOCE is an amazing satellite, and its low altitude combined with its ion engine (to precisely compensate for drag) will increase the resolution of our STATIC (i.e. not time dependent) gravity field maps. But it can't replace GRACE's measurements of the changing gravity field. GRACE has provided independent measurements of the Greenland ice sheet melt and helped to correct water storage models, which underestimated the 2005 Amazon drought.
My research involves pushing GRACE's temporal resolution even further down. Rather than detecting annual signals or slowly varying linear mass changes (like ice sheet melt), I'm trying to measure the gravity changes from ocean tides. My preliminary results show that GRACE can detect gravity fluctuations from twice-daily tides, which means that it can be used to improve our ocean tide models. This helps oceanographers, but indirectly helps all gravimetry because tides are a source of noise even for static measurements of the earth's gravity field. Modelling the tides better can help to reduce this noise.
GRACE isn't dead yet.
Greg Egan made that question the central part of his book Distress. While I think this is an interesting notion, it's ultimately a purely philosophical (rather than scientific) idea because it can't be falsified.
For the same reason that very weak breezes don't knock us over: they carry momentum, but a very small amount of it. Our legs are more than capable of reacting to this small force. In fact, the momentum carried by light is so small that its detection requires sensitive instruments. But light does carry momentum, which is the basis of a solar sail.