Global warming?
Google Climategate.
In other words, I am wasting time in even discussing things with you. It seems rather clear that you are only interested in dismissing anything I have to say.
An Agnostic Manifesto
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
Google Climategate.
In other words, I am wasting time in even discussing things with you. It seems rather clear that you are only interested in dismissing anything I have to say.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
And the CIA shot JFK..... But what did global warming have to do with quantum mechanics? What does inaccurate predictions about global warming have to do with the reliability of computer models. As I have expressed previously, computer models are only as good as the science and data they are given. Anyone can skew them to their own agenda. Dismissing good scientific research on the basis of citing bad research is foolhardy and stupid. This is also a red herring...
No. I am not interested in political agenda in the guise of science. I am a scientist and will not have that field dirtied by politics. If you want to discuss politics or political agenda in the guise of science, then you are indeed wasting your time. If you wish to discuss science, I would be more than happy to do so. Be aware though, my standard of proof for science implies no opinion, no conjecture, and none of these logical fallacies political debates are so prone to.
Well I think you can offer up links to old posts with a smile
instead of a scowl.It would be more considerate and decent of you
to the current members engaged in conversation.Isn't conversation the point?
People don't usually do "research" on a site like this.
It's more about being sociable.
You're like "Well you should read what I wrote where I covered that so we don't have anything to talk about"
It isn't all about what's been said in the past.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
What then? I am not allowed to discuss it because you have before. As I said, do not mention things if you do not want to discuss them. You were the one who brought up what I viewed as an incorrect idea based upon scientific data an educational background. Whether or not someone has told you before that you are wrong is irrelevant to me. Perhaps you would consider showing the same consideration you believe I should be showing in not bringing up these discussions that have been discussed at length.
New Smell Drives Evolution of New Moth Species
A new scent is enough to spark the evolution of a new moth species — and it can start with just a single genetic mutation.
Since the 1970’s, scientists have known that European corn borer moths are split between two groups. Each has a different molecular configuration of ECB, a pheromone emitted by females to attract males. The different groups are biologically capable of interbreeding — in captivity, given no other choices, they do — but in the wild, they stick to their kind.
This sort of division is called reproductive isolation, and it’s an early step in the separation of one species into two. And while the importance of pheromonal differences to moths is understood, the underlying genetic mechanisms were not known.
In a paper published in the July 1 Nature, Max Planck Institute geneticists cross-bred captive representatives of the two corn-borer groups. By comparing the gene profiles of offspring to parents, they were able to trace the pheromonal differences back to changes in the DNA sequence of a single gene called pgFAR. Exactly why such small changes should make the corn borers so picky is a mystery, but they clearly do.
“This is the first functional characterization of a gene” that produces reproductive isolation in moths, wrote the researchers. Moreover, a scan of other insect genomes showed pgFAR to be present only in Lepidoptera, the insect order containing moths and butterflies. Mutations to pgFAR have helped “generate the great diversity of pheromones used in moths, permitting the coexistence of thousands of species,” they wrote.
The findings could help design synthetic pheromones for use in disrupting breeding in corn borers, which outside the world of evolutionary biology are a common farm pest. Of course, with speciation so easily stimulated, such schemes may well lead to the evolution of new species.
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/pheromone-speciation/#ixzz0sOAfuBuo
- By Brandon Keim
- June 30, 2010 |
- 5:42 pm |
- Categories: Animals, Biology, Genetics
A new scent is enough to spark the evolution of a new moth species — and it can start with just a single genetic mutation.
Since the 1970’s, scientists have known that European corn borer moths are split between two groups. Each has a different molecular configuration of ECB, a pheromone emitted by females to attract males. The different groups are biologically capable of interbreeding — in captivity, given no other choices, they do — but in the wild, they stick to their kind.
This sort of division is called reproductive isolation, and it’s an early step in the separation of one species into two. And while the importance of pheromonal differences to moths is understood, the underlying genetic mechanisms were not known.
In a paper published in the July 1 Nature, Max Planck Institute geneticists cross-bred captive representatives of the two corn-borer groups. By comparing the gene profiles of offspring to parents, they were able to trace the pheromonal differences back to changes in the DNA sequence of a single gene called pgFAR. Exactly why such small changes should make the corn borers so picky is a mystery, but they clearly do.
“This is the first functional characterization of a gene” that produces reproductive isolation in moths, wrote the researchers. Moreover, a scan of other insect genomes showed pgFAR to be present only in Lepidoptera, the insect order containing moths and butterflies. Mutations to pgFAR have helped “generate the great diversity of pheromones used in moths, permitting the coexistence of thousands of species,” they wrote.
The findings could help design synthetic pheromones for use in disrupting breeding in corn borers, which outside the world of evolutionary biology are a common farm pest. Of course, with speciation so easily stimulated, such schemes may well lead to the evolution of new species.
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/pheromone-speciation/#ixzz0sOAfuBuo
04SCTLS, your article does not prove speciation. It claims to, but the best it can do is point to, "reproductive isolation" that is an "an early step in the separation of one species into two". Basically, it points out a step occurring in nature that is necessary (but not sufficient) speciation has been met. The fact it cites does not prove that speciation has, in fact, occurred. Other steps would need to be met for speciation to occur.
Another problem is in specious nature of the "reproductive isolation" in question. "The different groups are biologically capable of interbreeding — in captivity, given no other choices, they do — but in the wild, they stick to their kind." For it to be a step toward speciation, that cannot be biologically capable of interbreeding.
Basically, this article is looking to find proof of Darwinian evolution where there is none.
Another problem is in specious nature of the "reproductive isolation" in question. "The different groups are biologically capable of interbreeding — in captivity, given no other choices, they do — but in the wild, they stick to their kind." For it to be a step toward speciation, that cannot be biologically capable of interbreeding.
Basically, this article is looking to find proof of Darwinian evolution where there is none.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Dogs are capable of interbreeding with wolves or coyotes.... Cats can interbreed with some small feline species, such as a lynx. Some rodent species are capable of interbreeding.
Reproductive isolation is an early stage of separation of species. How does this not fit the model of Darwinian evolution? The two different types of moths have a unique genetic make-up and unique characteristics. Further interbreeding can result in one type of moth overcoming the population of another type, leading to extinction among that variety. The variety that is left will have traits of both, or perhaps the traits of only one will be dominant. The dominant species may be of the newer variety, or it may be of the old variety. This is natural selection and evolution in action.
How do you think monkeys and humans became a separate species under Darwinian evolution, or homo sapiens became a seperate species from Homo heidelbergensis? Homo neanderthalensis was a completely separate species from homo sapiens, however the two species did interbreed to some degree leaving modern homo sapiens with a small percentage of traits from neanderthal man.
In the study of sexually reproducing organisms, where genetic material is shared through the process of reproduction, the ability of two organisms to interbreed and produce fertile offspring of both sexes is generally accepted as a simple indicator that the organisms share enough genes to be considered members of the same species.
In looking more in depth on this, my second point seems to be premature. However, it seems there is a lot of question as to what qualifies as a species. The definition used by the scientific community is...vague and inconsistent, to say the least. Still, I should have acknowledged that vague nature of what defines a species and it was sloppy of me not to; it comes across as a self-serving definition and that wasn't my intention. I apologize.
It has been quite a while since I have focused in depth on this issue. On this forum, especially, it gets very tedious and very contentious and I have tired of those debates. However, it can be a great learning experience too.
Here is something I wrote over 2 years ago in post #127 of this thread which shows how sloppy it was of me to forget how vague the definition of "species" is:
The definition of species is rather vague, which can work for and against Darwinism. Still the fact remains that speciation (producing a new species from existing species) is necessary and required to conclusively prove Darwinian evolution. All other evidence in support of Darwinian evolution only supports evolution if naturalism is assumed. Take that assumption away and the evidence is simply spun to support Darwinian evolution; an interesting story, maybe, but not an logical deduction based on empirical evidence. To get around that, Darwinists frequently distort and use fallacious arguments.
This example suffers from the same problem. It does not, in any way, prove Darwinian evolution unless methodological naturalism is assumed. Unfortunately, when what is being tested is, in part, weather or not natural processes lead to the creation of a new species, the findings lose any empirical veracity and the reasoning becomes circular.It does not prove Darwinian evolution. It is a necessary step, but it is not a sufficient step toward that end. And again, it depends on how you define and differentiate species as to weather or not this constitutes "reproductive isolation".
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
A very common misconception. You're confusing neoDarwinian evolution with natural selection. Darwinian evolution teaches that one species evolved into an entirely different species. What neoDarwinian evolution teaches is that, for example, a monkey evolved into a human.
This would involve new genetic information being written which cannot happen. Your example of immunity does not account for this, because even those people who passed immunities to their parents ARE STILL HUMANS. They didn't become a NEW SPECIES. Can a human breed with an ape and produce a new species? Even if it could happen, this still is different from Darwinian evolution, which teaches that as a particular species of horse needed to reach the higher leaves on the trees, it stretched its neck and over millions of years giraffes evolved - which is absurd.
You're wrong about the DNA changes. I'd suggest you do a little study on the matter. It is a scientific FACT that DNA mutations always involve a loss of information, not a gain.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
There you go again, making stuff up. So, your theory starts with "Assume this one ape suddenly appeared with opposable thumbs." SUDDENLY! That is absolutely NOT the way Darwinian evolution teaches that it happened. Evolution teaches that the environment required gradual changes to adapt to it. Your scenario is more like Creation than Evolution. It's less of a logical leap to assume that God created a man with opposable thumbs alongside an ape without them. And it doesn't require the scientifically impossible feat of writing new genetic information from nothing! You've been watching too many Mel Brooks movies, apparently. Very telling that your scientific knowledge consists of Shelley Long and Ringo Starr. [Assume Tommy Chong voice] "And then, this one Cro-Magnon dude, he like totally yanked his back or something, and stood up straight, and yo, it was like cooooooool, dude! And then, like, the chick who didn't look like a Cro-Magnon was like totally into him and stuff!"
Even then, this mutation that you've 'conjured up' demonstrates a loss of information! How do you know that the other female apes preferred a male that couldn't swing in the trees as adeptly as the others? Remember - Mel Brooks was NOT a scientist, although he may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!
It's amusing how you just make things up to support your 'hypothesis' - but that's exactly what evolutionary 'scientists' do as well. Theory doesn't fit the facts? Make up something! :bowrofl: Just like Alan Guth that invented the 'inflation' idea to (futilely) explain the light-travel-time problem that evolutionists have not been able to fit into the big bang model. Just as the Cambrian Explosion was made up to account for the lack of transitional forms which evolution MUST HAVE to be proven true. Heck, the Cambrian Explosion more closely resembles Creation than it does Evolution.
If this was apparent in high school science then you should stop misdefining mutation. A mutation is a mistake in the genetic process and you keep misusing the term. Maybe it's been too long since high school and you should refresh your memory? And I'm talking about science, not rolling blunts.
Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. But no new information is being written, no new species is evolving.
Again, this doesn't demonstrate Darwinian evolution from species to species. Even if you could substantiate your claim that humans are getting taller, which I doubt you can, they are still humans. No new genetic information is being written that changes species. You are making the same mistake you made in our last discussion on this - you're confusing the word 'strain' with 'species.'
But by all means, fox, please keep responding - your responses are amusing and fascinating.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This article confuses 'recombination' with 'evolution.'
See Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell, Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627, 1967.
Sorry foss - I was trying for simple is best... It was just a simple way to show how mutations aren't degradations, but rather just 'different'. Having 2 eyes one on side of a fish's head isn't going to happen in one generation, or 200 generations, but it does slowly happen, and then you have a fish that has 2 eyes on one side of his head, because it is better for him to see what is coming for him when he is lying on the sea floor. It seems like a pretty bad thing if you just take it at face value - but, in reality - very adaptive.
But, I think it is a mutation, when the eyes start to move over - his DNA is now different than his ancestor fish. Maybe I am misusing the term - it was high school.
But maybe Berkley is misusing the term as well... Or Prof. Futuyma - a leader in evolutionary sciences... "You can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation." From Live Science... "The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called "mutations."fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Recombination doesn't result in new species either - only variation within the species. It's merely a shuffling of genes that are already there. Again - no new information is being written!Sorry foss - I was trying for simple is best... It was just a simple way to show how mutations aren't degradations, but rather just 'different'. Having 2 eyes one on side of a fish's head isn't going to happen in one generation, or 200 generations, but it does slowly happen, and then you have a fish that has 2 eyes on one side of his head, because it is better for him to see what is coming for him when he is lying on the sea floor. It seems like a pretty bad thing if you just take it at face value - but, in reality - very adaptive.
But, I think it is a mutation, when the eyes start to move over - his DNA is now different than his ancestor fish. Maybe I am misusing the term - it was high school.
Example:
Plant breeders increased the sugar content in sugar beets from 6% to 17% over a period of 75 years. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.
I have a question for you, fox - do you want to start name-dropping, which will lead to the inevitable result of dueling position paper linking, or do you want to discuss the concepts normally? It is clear to me that your understanding of evolution only goes as far as what you've read since this topic came up. Heck, if you want to go that route, I know a physicist personally who has read over 150 books on the subject and I can put you in touch with him.
And yes, both of your sources are misusing the term - they have to in order to make it work for evolution. Nice try at appeal to authority logic - but I don't have any respect for 'evolutionary scientists' - they have an agenda and their 'facts' are filtered through their worldview. So I'd rather discuss this in scientific terms if you don't mind.
I think most people then misuse the term - I can pull article after article after article that uses random mutation as one of the cornerstones of Darwin's theory. As well as article after article that uses that same cornerstone to say that Darwin was wrong - that random mutations cannot alone account for how we are today (all those ID sources).
So, foss - what term do your sources (please list) use if it isn't random mutation. Remember - we are talking Darwin... You might want to re-read the Origin of Species Foss.
I am not saying if it is right or wrong - just that the term 'random mutation' is the 'common' term. Heck even shag used the term.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
..... Do you have any idea how much time I spend on genetics? I would equate this to suggesting to you that you don't know what the 10 commandments are. (let's take our differing interpretations of the bible aside) Before you presume to lecture me on DNA, genetics and evolution, I would suggest you do a little study on the matter, and not the study that results from reading creationist stories and bastardizations of these matters. Try some real scientific study, then you can argue with me the problems with evolution vs intelligent design, because there are places where evolution seems like a stretch, or requires faith to fill in the blanks, but you are nowhere near touching on them.
New genetic information can happen.... Take the example of the moths. Mutations do NOT always involve a loss of information. Evolution just means CHANGE not gain, it is the process of adaptation to an environment, and it does not imply the creation of a separate species. However, eventually as a species becomes separated from their ancestors, and the difference in genetic information becomes too great, they become unable to interbreed. There are no scientific facts that say mutations in genes always result in a LOSS of information. Mutations in genes usually means a dormant gene will become active. We carry a TON of genetic information that our we do not use. A prime example would be those people that are born with fur. I know you have heard of or seen them before on television. They didn't just create a fur gene. A gene that had become dormant simply reactivated.
Now, gaining a genetic immunity to disease..... HOW is that not evolution? Those people evolved to cope with an environment. Evolution, once again, does not mean new species. To say otherwise is a mischaracterization of evolution. Then again, I suppose it is rather convenient to your side to simply state that it is not evolution. Very well then, what do you call the process in which those people were able to adapt to an environment with new diseases, then pass this new information on to their children, and have children born with immunity to this disease? Not to sound condescending, but, did God come down from heaven, give their genetics new information since we, his imperfect designs, have no mechanism for storing this new information in our genetic code on our own? Why didn't god just create us with the ability to adapt and evolve in our environment?
The giraffe.... a favorite of creationists.
Well, let's take Darwin's explanation, since most people just make assumptions based upon what they learned when they visited the zoo at 6 or what they can observe immediately:
"...the individuals which were the highest browsers and were able, during [droughts], to reach even an inch or two above the others, will often have been preserved.... By this process long-continued... combined no doubt in a most important manner with the inherited effects of increased use of parts, it seems to me almost certain that any ordinary hoofed quadruped might be converted into a giraffe."
What is most likely, is that a Giraffe's neck extended as their legs did, since their legs are unable to support their weight if they bend at the knees. They evolved longer legs so they could see farther and run faster. Therefore, the ones with longer legs could outlive the shorter legged ones in their area, meaning they could mate more. This lead to increasing the dominance of the gene that causes growth in their neck. Those ones who were taller also were able to reach higher into foliage to eat, therefore they had less competition for food. The taller ones could also reach further to get water, where as shorter ones would have had to venture further into the mud around drying ponds, and would have been more likely to sink, become stuck, and die. This does not mean giraffes went hungry or thirsty for millions of years. This just means that the tallest among the group were least likely to go hungry or thirsty, therefore reproduced in greater numbers. If you combined the two explanations I gave, you have a perfectly reasonable explanation to the long neck of the giraffe, and one that in a way, could even be a natural phenomenon in an area that was sparsely vegetated and drought prone like african savanna.
....
Now.
Evolution means CHANGE. Generally a change to adapt to an environment. Nothing more. Nothing less. To try and stick to out of context information, creationist semantics, and wrong information passed around to argue against evolution is silly. At this point however, you are nowhere NEAR how DNA functions.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Not accurate. Having grown sugar beet crops for quite some time, I learned a little bit about them. Last time I grew sugar beets, we were growing right around 2000 acres of them. Syrup created from things like sugar beets and carrots back in the 1500s, they began selectively breeding them in the late 1700s and by the early 1800s, they had gotten the sugar content of beets up to 5-6%. IIRC it was WAY lower back in the 1700s when they started selective breeding and their attempts to manufacture sugar from beets. I believe it was around 2.5-4%, just a little more than carrots. This selective breeding has continued to modern varieties of sugar beets which have a sugar content around 20%. We do not breed them to have a higher sugar content, because that is all the more sugar the plant can have in it while still being a plant. The bulk of the plant is still biological matter and water. Beets are unlike sugar cane. Sugar cane has a hollow interior in which it stores excess sap and sugar. Sugar Beets store the sugar inside their root (the beet) in the cells of the root. To increase the sugar content further would create a plant that cannot grow to maturity well, or growth will be stunted causing a lower yielding plant (since the roots would be smaller, therefore the plant would be smaller, so not as much growth would be possible). The sugar content would be too high and the plant would rot. We selectively breed sugar beets so that their sugar content DOES NOT increase. This has nothing to do with genetics. We could continue to breed them until the sugar producing gene becomes stronger and stronger, but then we would not have a usable crop. There is no total number of sugar producing magic cells that get concentrated in a certain place and then we cannot breed in any more. BTW, we also selectively breed them to be smoother than sugar beets from the wild as well. Where do you think that comes from, concentrating the smooth genes? There is no limit to what we could do with them given time and proper selective breeding. The problem is we would end up with unusable crops and lower yields.
So, you are saying that "evolutionary scientists" have an agenda, therefore you have no respect for them or their discoveries. But you want to discuss this scientifically? How do you discuss this scientifically if you want to ignore evolutionary science? You are not having scientific or honest discussion if you want to ignore any science that does not jive with your world view, just because it goes against your faith and your opinion. Now.... Let me ask you which is more likely. The creationists filter information to match their world view and deem all these discoveries as lies or heresy because they do not match their world view, or evolutionary scientists make everything up because they want to hide the truth from us and win nobel prizes, and it is a giant global conspiracy to make you think that we evolved from monkeys just so we will respect them more when we see them at the zoo.
What does an evolutionary scientist have to gain? The existence of evolution does not disprove the existence of god. It just changes some of the circumstances of the creation myth. Heck, god could have had earth going all along, stirred some primordial soup, and watched what came out. He could have set up evolution specifically so that we would result from said soup. Do you really think god would have tossed out all those fossils just so he could create unfaithful?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Your red herring has nothing to do with what I posted. You don't represent all sugar beet planters. I was referring to a specific series of incidents that happened since the 1800s and clearly not you. Your anecdotal evidence does not disprove my statement, nor does it disprove that what I said happened. It's just a red herring. In fact, your comment actually makes my point for me.
Because it's junk science, just like Global Warming. You don't give Creationists any more credibility, so you definitely shouldn't take it personally.
Straw man and appeal to ridicule. I'm not ignoring science, just not lending any credibility to false 'facts' presented by biased shysters whose government funding depends on them coming up with 'evidence' that perpetuates their false beliefs. In fact, I emphasized keeping the discussion to a scientific level. But if you want to discuss speculation such as interrelations between opposed-thumbed apes and non-opposed-thumbed apes, I can bring Biblical evidence into the discussion as well, right? As far as you implying that I'm a conspiracy theorist, I can PROVE that they made this stuff up. There are literally dozens of examples.
Let me ask you this - given the fact that Global Warming has been shown to be a hoax and that the data used to build Al Gore's hockey stick has now been discredited as having been falsified by 'scientists,' what do you think is more likely - that that is the only time that's ever happened and that all scientists are inherently good and moral and honest, or that some scientists are corruptible and human and probably value their money more than accuracy?
They have a lot of $$$$ to lose if they're wrong. As far as the reasoning behind it, I suggest you study up on humanism. There is a clear disadvantage to unbelievers if the existence of a real, just God is shown to be true. After all, if God really exists, (and you don't really know for sure that he does) He might actually hold you accountable for how you live your life. That is problematic for, oh, I don't know, EVERYBODY. And if there is a God, and the Bible is true, then evolution is FALSE. The Bible and evolution are NOT compatible. In fact, Theistic Evolution and Darwinian evolution are NOT compatible. So, which view of evolution do you believe?
You're just ranting now. If you want to discuss this from a scientific standpoint, pick a topic and discuss it. Right now you're just making wild stabs. You have to pick your poison and stake out a position rather than just throwing stuff against the wall to see if I can answer it.
To sum up your post:
1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Red herring
3. Appeal to ridicule
4. Straw man
5. Changing the subject
Let me know when you're ready to discuss science without the condescension and mockery. As far as I'm concerned, that's insulting. If you can't be civil, then don't address my posts. I wasn't addressing you anyway. So, are you stalking me now?
The scientific community is not "pure as the wind driven snow". They are just as prone to corruption and abuse as any other institution. A big reason for this is the fact that the vast majority of funding comes through the government. Therefore the incentive structure inherently encourages sensationalism. This also lends to political interests corrupting the scientific community.
Climategate is the most recent example, but the corruption has, arguably been more severe in the Darwin vs. ID debate. This is because, in addition to the political corruption in the scientific community, that community is also dominated by Atheists and to the Atheist religion (and yes, it is effectively a secular religion) Darwinism is their creation story. While evolution doesn't threaten Christianity, ID and creationism (and they are not the same thing) does threaten Atheism. As Richard Dawkin's put it, "Darwin made Atheism intellectually credible."
Eisenhower said this in his farewell address:
Climategate is the most recent example, but the corruption has, arguably been more severe in the Darwin vs. ID debate. This is because, in addition to the political corruption in the scientific community, that community is also dominated by Atheists and to the Atheist religion (and yes, it is effectively a secular religion) Darwinism is their creation story. While evolution doesn't threaten Christianity, ID and creationism (and they are not the same thing) does threaten Atheism. As Richard Dawkin's put it, "Darwin made Atheism intellectually credible."
Eisenhower said this in his farewell address:
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present—and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
Actually Foss - I had seen this one refuted before, because it is quoted a lot on creationist sites as 'proof'. However, FIND is correct - and many studies back him up...
(FIND - you probably have more - I just wasn't sure if you have argued against creationism lately
This is sort of a 'standard response' on creationist sites)From Hexokinase as a Sugar Sensor in Higher Plants
Elevated sugar levels cause stunted growth, reduced photosynthesis, enhanced anthocyanin accumulation, and curled, chlorotic, and necrotic leaves (Casper et al., 1986; von Schaewen et al., 1990; Dickinson et al., 1991; Sonnewald et al., 1991, 1995; Tsukaya et al., 1991; Huber and Hanson, 1992).
Shag - do you have quotable numbers on that allegation - a source like Rassmussen or something that polled scientists on religious/lack of preference?
But Foss, didn't you state earlier that the OT was about Jews and Jewish law - that the New Testament sort of 'overwrote' the OT. Is it just parts of the OT? Do you take the OT entirely at its face value? You said before you didn't. How do you know what parts (such as the Adam and Eve account) to believe, and what parts not to believe - like witch hunting?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Really, fox, even for you, that's a pretty weak argument. You're confusing history with law - and misquoting me. I never said 'overwrote' - if you're going to quote me incorrectly, you don't deserve to be treated with respect. A piece of advice - if you want to refer to something I said, find it and quote it. Don't just take wild stabs at it.
You're being dishonest - as usual.
And fox - are you going to respond to the rest of my post that I addressed to you? I believe I asked you if you want to play dueling position papers, and it looks like you do. Apparently you want the discussion to devolve - that's how you sabotage these threads, isn't it: Ad nauseum, ignoring points made by others, changing the subject, misquoting people, and asking loaded questions.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Sugar beetActually Foss - I had seen this one refuted before, because it is quoted a lot on creationist sites as 'proof'. However, FIND is correct - and many studies back him up...
(FIND - you probably have more - I just wasn't sure if you have argued against creationism lately
From Hexokinase as a Sugar Sensor in Higher Plants
Elevated sugar levels cause stunted growth, reduced photosynthesis, enhanced anthocyanin accumulation, and curled, chlorotic, and necrotic leaves (Casper et al., 1986; von Schaewen et al., 1990; Dickinson et al., 1991; Sonnewald et al., 1991, 1995; Tsukaya et al., 1991; Huber and Hanson, 1992).
Sugar Beet - Beta vulgaris
Up until the High Middle Ages, the only sweetener available in Germany was honey. Beets as source for sugar have been used since the 19th century. Sugar beet now accounts for nearly half of the worldwide sugar production. In 2007, sugar beets were cultivated on 1.7 million hectares, producing 17 million tons of white sugar.
Aside from Germany, where sugar beet cultivation extended on 390,000 hectares in 2007, the main producers in the European Union were France and Poland.
Crystal Sugar and Other Products
With their ten-year average sugar content of 17.5 percent, sugar beets provide the raw material for the production of crystal sugar. The by-products are sugar beet foliage and molasses. Sugar beet foliage is either used as green fertilizer or as cattle feed. The sugar content of the molasses is used for industrial alcohol production, as a culture medium for yeast production and also as livestock feed. Sugar beet more and more comes into focus for bioethanol production because of its good productivity per unit area; the good methane yields per hectare have also come to attract attention to sugar beet tailings as quick-fermenting substrate for biogas production.
New market segments are opened by the so-called "industrial beet", i.e. sugar from beets used for industrial purposes like pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical preparations (human and veterinary medicine), chemicals and synthetics (thermoplastics), citric and amino acids (animal feed industry) and fermentation products (yeast production).
Success Through Single Seed and High Sugar Content
The sugar content of old varieties was very low. From the 1930ies, when sugar beet yielded some 5 tons of sugar per hectare, yields have nearly doubled to 9.9 tons per hectare in 2007. Moreover, the multigerm character of sugar beet made cultivation extremely cumbersome, since plants had to be thinned by manual hacking. In 1966, the first monogerm hybrid variety has been registered in Germany. Monogerm varieties generate "seeds" (fruit) with only one true seed, thus avoiding the arduous task of thinning.
Intensified sugar beet cultivation also gave rise to increasing infestation pressure. Plant breeders responded with stringent resistance breeding, crowned by success: in 1983 the first rizomania tolerant variety was registered, in 1998 the first nematode resistant variety, in 2001 the first rhizoctonia resistant sugar beet variety. Today, farmers can choose between a multitude of sugar beet varieties with double or even multiple resistance to pests and diseases, depending on the relevant local and agronomical conditions.
Demands to an Energy Plant
Yields of 15 tons of sugar per hectare are expected to be possible within a few years. Breeding efforts also focus on resistance and processing quality. Particular attention is paid to the demands to sugar beet in its new role as energy plant. Biotechnology can play an important role for achieving these objectives.
***
As you can see, I'm right. Furthermore, you didn't disprove my statement. We're clearly talking about two different periods here. I was making an argument that selective breeding was tried and the percentage of sugar hit a ceiling. Both of you simply used a red herring - but FIND's post clearly confirmed the facts of my statement. Here's his money quote:
...did nothing to show inaccuracies in my statement and IN FACT confirmed it.
Are you contesting the notion that the scientific community is dominated by Atheists?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
No. Your statement was that Sugar content in beets could not be improved beyond that point due to the genetic make-up of the plant. This is untrue. The plants are selectively bred to keep the sugar content of the plant at this level and no higher.