SkepticLance

bjaminwood. You try to refute dendrochornology measurement of time by quoting someone who claims Pinus radiata sometimes has more tree rings than years of growth. Maybe. However, the guy that makes that claim is wrong on matters of fact in the same article, such as the maximum number of tree rings seen in bristle cone pines (counted to over 5000). However, it is irrelevent. Datings are made by a wide range of hardwoods, and slow growing softwoods. Even if radiata pine can double its tree rings, which I seriously doubt (Your author lied about bristle cone pines. Why should I believe him on this?), we do not use radiata pine for dating. Also bjaminwood, you have not explained the datings measured from alpine lakes, glacier deposition, sedimentation measures etc. The total bulk of evidence is overwhelming.

The simplest way to a drug high, and quite legal, is a bottle of whiskey.

Azure Phoenix. On the question of how necessary is sexual reproduction. Bacteria can survive without it. At least some varieties, that do not undergo gene transfer. Higher animals cannot, at least long term. Short term, asexual reproduction brings great benefits. It massively reduces genetic variability, though. As you commented, as long as the environment stays constant, that does not matter. However, no environment stays perpetually constant. And do not forget the biotic part of the environment. All you need is a new virus entering the habitat, and ....

Lots of psychology books are dead before they are published, since lots of them are full of theories, with little science to back up said theories. This is mostly true of what is called 'clinical psychology'. Research psychology in general is much sounder.

Based on what we know of the requirement for genetic variation in order for organisms to adapt to environmental changes (such as a new disease), whip tail lizards are clearly on the road to extinction. Sexual reproduction is necessary.

gib. Your reasoning is excellent. I don't know the answer, either, but suspect it is to do with further information processing in the brain, more than any receptors closer to the eye.

Bjaminwood. Obviously the key to puncturing your bubble is to disprove your idea that the world is 10,000 years old at most. If you are able to think rationally, and cling to real facts (are you?) then we can do that. 1. Dendrochronology. The science of tree rings. When a tree grows, it lays down rings, whose width differs according to the season. A good growing season, and all the trees in a particular province lay down a thick ring. Poor growing season sees a thinner ring. Any period of, say, 6 years, leaves a pattern of thicker and thinner rings that is every bit as distinctive as a bar code. These patterns can be followed back in time. Due to these 'bar codes' the same period in time can be identified from tree to tree. Thus, a tree just felled can show a 'bar code' representing a time 3000 years old (many trees survive more than 3000 years). Then a dead tree that fell 2500 years ago can be identified by the same bar code. Another bar code, say 5000 years old, can then be identified. And so on back in time. There is a museum in Europe with slices of trees, beginning with one recently felled, and going back to trunks dug out of wetlands, going back to, at least 20,000 years. A continuous record going back more than 20,000 years. bjaminwood. If you are able to think rationally, this alone bursts your bubble. 2. Alpine lakes. Certain lakes that freeze in winter, and thaw in summer, lay down layers of sediment. The way it works is this. In summer, with no ice layers, the water is turbulent. This keeps fine sediment suspended. Only coarse sediment settles to the bottom of the lake. In winter, with ice cover, the water is still. The fine sediment settles. Over the years, this leaves layers. Coarse/fine, coarse/fine etc. A core sample taken from such a lake allows scientists to count back through the layers, and count years. This has been done. Sorry, your 10,000 years takes a dive. These layers go back many times that. 3. Carbon dating. Tree rings and lake sediment dating allows us to check the carbon dating system. 20,000 year old tree rings are dated by the carbon dating method. 30,000 year old shells, found in a lake sediment layer, is dated by the carbon dating system. I both cases, carbon dating is shown to be accurate. And other carbon dating takes us back to 50,000 years. The world is PROVEN to be at least 50,000 years old. 4. Glacial layers. Ice is laid down seasonally, leaving annual layers in glaciers. Ice core samples are taken and the layers counted. These have now taken us back a million years. The world is at least a million years old. 5. Ocen sediment. The rate of ocean sediment layer deposition has been measured. We know the total depth of these ocean sediments. This takes us back 50 million years. These measurements have been made on numerous sediment types. The results are consistent. 6. Sedimentary rocks. Knowing how quickly sediments form allows us to calculate how long sedimentary rocks took to form. This calculation leads us to the inevitable belief that the world is at least hundreds of millions of years old. 7. Radiodating. The same principle used, and proved in carbon dating, can be used with other radio-isotopes. For example Uranium 235, which breaks down over a known period, leaving other known isotopes. This method has ben cross tested against other methods such as 5, and 6 above. It works! All methods have been tested against other methods. Cross testing is meticulous and extraordinarily thorough. There are experts who could detail this process in far greater length than I can, and write entire books on all the dating methods, and how they have been used to cross test each other and demonstrate the essential correctness of our current dating systems. The inevitable and final conclusion is the the world is 4.5 billion years old. Any attempt to deny these very thoroughly tested and proven scientific results, can only be based on an irrational willingness to deny facts.

Sorry. Both are you are wrong. The two genders co-evolved. Neither is older than the other. We only need to look at representatives of older versions of sex in the more 'primitive' life forms still represented today. In terms of evolution, the two genders are equal. Babies imprint on the first person to give them total attention. This is normally the mother. When a woman gives birth, during labour there is a surge of oxytocin (also called the love hormone) into her bloodstream. This is not something I am making up. It is measurable, and has been measured. Reference : New Scientist 29 April 2006. The sudden surge of oxytocin gnerates a dramatic emotional effect, 'imprinting' the woman on her baby. Generating powerful love. After that, it is hard to keep Mum away from baby. However, there is another imprinting, on the father. He also comes to love baby, though in a less dramatic way. If, for any reason, mother cannot be primary care giver, Dad takes over that role, and babies 'imprint' onto their father. I know personally several examples where a child gives first emotional call to its father, and only secondary to Mum.

if we are a product of evolutionary pressures, does this mean that if eating habbits continue, in the distant future, we will eat the same fatty foods in an excess manner, but not get fat? so that the amount is no longer an excess manner, and we'd all have to eat like that just to manage There is a theory relating to sexual selection that says, since we prefer slim people as mates, then those people will become more reproductively successful, and we will evolve towards slimness. On the other hand ....

Of course the sun is not standing still. It has all kinds of different movement in relation to all sorts of other objects. It rotates with the galaxy. It moves within the galaxy with an extra movement on top of the rotation. The galaxy itself is moving relative to other galaxies. The planets orbit the sun, and their gravity moves the sun in what relatively is a small circle. Put all these movements together, and the sun 'dances' its way across the vacuum of space.

I am not sure of your question? The item suggested that a couple of men ate fish that had been infected, or eaten, some plankton that contained a hallucinogenic toxin. Lots of living things in this world produce poisons to kill, or more often, provide a nasty taste, to ward off those that might eat them. I presume that the algae involved did this as defense. Those poisons, when eaten by a species that is not targeted, such as humans, may have effects that are widely different to that which evolution originally 'designed'. Another example is nicotine, made by the tobacco plant as a nerve poison to kill those caterpillars that feed on it. In humans it is still a nerve poison, but slows the neurotransmitter rate, thereby providing an addictive and temporary 'high'.

Swansont touched, correctly, on the real reason. Like all other biological phenomena, it can be related to evolution. We evolved the capability to add fat to our bodies, because of the boom/bust nature of food gathering experienced by our hunter / gatherer ancestors. When times were good, they ate well. At those times, they stored excess calories as fat. When times were bad, they lived off their fat reserves. After all, they didn't have fridges! Even today, when humans are put into a starvation situation, those who are fattest to begin with, survive longest. It may also be worth noting that, in today's world, those with debilitating diseases, such as cancer, and who have a store of fat, survive longer.

Prime Evil. I am not terribly thrilled about 500 ppm carbon dioxide either, but not because I think it will lead to global warming catastrophe. However, such a massive change may have other, unpredicted effects. Worth noting, though, that some researchers believe the world had 10 times historic levels of carbon dioxide in parts of the Cretaceous, and the temperature was 10 Deg. C. warmer than now. If these researchers are correct, and they may not be, then it implies that a mere doubling of carbon dioxide will not result in the catastrophe you fear. I am not keen either, on the idea of massive forest cover loss. I suspect, though, that if this happens, it will be due to people cutting down said forest, rather than any temperature increase. If the forests are left to themselves, increased carbon dioxide actually speeds tree growth. Another interesting datum not often mentioned in these discussions. The stomata in plants open wide to obtain the carbon dioxide needed for photosynthesis. Experiments have shown that, when added carbon dioxide is available, the stomata do not open as wide. This cuts down on the main area of water loss from plants, and makes them more drought resistant.

Phi for All. I do not believe blood type has anything to do with being a vegetarian, but gender and age certainly do. Women in their reproductive years (meaning they lose blood during menstruation) need substantial iron in easily assimilatable form in their diet. The best is red meat. If they are totally vegetarian, they have to either take enormous pains selecting their food to get enough iron, or else take supplements.

Prime-Evil. Consider this. This is almost a natural law. Warm areas ALWAYS have greater biodiversity and greater biomass than cold. Is it therefore so undesirable for the world to warm up a bit?

Prime Evil. I do not dispute global warming. The world is warming up. I do not dispute that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are increasing. I do not dispute that AGGs have the property of increasing the insulating properties of the lower troposphere. And I do not dispute the logic that an increase in AGGs should result in an increase in global warming. However, logic has no place in science. The most important and most basic rule in science is this : "Any scientific idea must be confirmed by substantial empirical testing." Simple isn't it? And the global warming catastrophist paradigm has not been confirmed by substantial empirical testing. For those who do not know, empirical means derived from experiments or observations, as opposed to theory. Theory often is the enemy of good science. Once global warming catastrophism has been confirmed in the proper scientific way, I will accept it. However, we are a long way off that so far.

bjaminwood. I have been strongly criticised in the global warming posts because I am skeptical of conclusions that come purely from computer models, and am looking for strong objective, empirical evidence before accepting their conclusions. I am very skeptical of anything for which there is not good, solid, objective and empirically derived evidence. Obviously, there are things for which I and others like me, have to accept because the source is reputable. If a reputable scientific journal publishes a peer reviewed paper based on good research, we tentatively accept it as 'true' until demonstrated otherwise. This does happen, as witness Korean stem cell research. Once the level of evidence rises above a certain level, then we consider it to be effectively 'proven' and accept it as such. The scientific principle of biological evolution is one such, since the sum total of all evidence for this process would now fill several encyclopaedias. Denial of such is not skepticism. It is insanity. On the other hand, Genesis is mostly myth and legend. The objective evidence suggests that the stories in Genesis were handed down by word of mouth for generations. And we all know what happens to messages like that. They end up grossly distorted. You will undoubtedly argue that it is 'divinely inspired.' However, the bible contains too many contradictions. The Old Testament especially. Indeed, Old Testament teachings are not even compatible with Christ's teachings.

First, Prime Evil, I do not deny any facts. It is interpretations of facts that I am occasionally in dispute with. If you are talking about conclusions drawn from computer models, you should realise that these are not facts. These are little better than speculations. Dr. Andrey Illarionov, an economic advisot to President Putin of Russia, visited NZ two years ago, and said that the government of Russia is not convinced of the paradigm you espouse. However, they have gone along with it as a matter of political expediency. One of the main reasons for this is that the Russian economy 'imploded' and ended up with carbon dioxide emissions that are lower than in 1990. Consequently, under Kyoto, they will receive $$$$$$$ from nations that release too much. I suspect that Russia is not alone, and that a lot of national governments are not convinced of this paradigm, and 'go along' with it for political reasons.

Sunspot. When we talk about the anthropic principle, or the multiverse, or a divine creator, we are way, way out in left field. We are in speculation country, otherwise known as neverneverland. Lets not talk about evidence. There ain't none!

Prime Evil. Kyoto is a bust. This is not political. This is a simple calculation of cost versus benefit. Your continued reference to Kyoto as something to be desired shows that, unless you come up with something new, that you are arguing a rather defunct point. As I said, I have no problem with action to reduce deforestation or other activities that burn fossil fuels. However, they have to be intelligently thought out, and a proper cost/benefit analysis carried out. Kyoto does not live up to that criterion. And that is based on maths, not politics.

Prime Evil. Sorry, but I do not think you read my posting well enough. Kyoto is a BUST, and always has been. Cthulhu. You, at least appear to argue intelligently, and read what I have to say. Thank you for that. A few comments on your last posting. Clouds and their importance. Clouds are made of water vapour and can have one of two possible effects. First : They might dramatically increase the greenhouse effect. Water vapour is the most potent greenhouse 'gas' of all. It has been estimated to make up 70% or more of the total greenhouse effect. Increasing clouds increases greenhouse effect. Second : Clouds increase the Earth's albedo. Reflects heat out into space - a cooling effect. Does the first effect or the second have the biggest impact? No-one knows. Your reference suggesting a prediction of cooling effects from aerosol influence. Sorry. I read it carefully, and it does not say that. Predictions of the next 100 years. Your suggestions are reasonably sensible. You suggest a 1 to 5 Deg. C. increase. I think a better suggestion is 0.5 to 1 Deg C., based on history (extend the line on the graph). However, though we disagree, yours is more sensible than most such suggestions I have seen.

Prime Evil. I have no problem with rational means being used to reduce deforestation (use sustainable plantation forestry) and the burning of fossil fuels (research and implement alternatives). However, any action taken should be subject to rational cost/benefit analysis. On this basis the Kyoto Protocol is just plain stupid. Cost is enormous (one estimate, published in 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' suggests 5 trillion US$ over 100 years), and benefit is miniscule. The same source calculated a reduction in the INCREASE only of greenhouse gases to 95 years worth over 100 years. ie. a 5% reduction in INCREASE. No actual reduction in greenhouse gases. There are clear measures that can be taken that do not carry this enormous cost, and will, in the long term, be far more potent than Kyoto. Such as developing a hydrogen based energy economy. Such as developing new generation nuclear power. If we need to do something, let's do it in a sane and rational manner.

Cthulhu. Comments on computer models. These are not simply calculations on a computer. They are an attempt to simulate an enormously complex system, and those who prepare such models are themselves painfully aware of how inadequate their models are. Not only is the software and the supercomputer used inadequate to the task, but there are parameters which cannot as yet be modelled. eg. the influence of clouds, which we know are MORE important than greenhouse gases in determining temperatures. Yet they cannot be modelled. Computer models can indeed be tested, and they have been. And they have failed the test. The logical test for a computer model is to retroactively test against the 20th Century temperature changes, knowing the greenhouse gas changes that took place in the 20th Century. This has been done, with many computer models. Not one, not a single one, has successfully modelled the 20th Century. They consistently exaggerate the temperature change, and fail to predict the possibility of cooling. Yet substantial cooling took place, 1940 to 1976 (more than one third of that entire time period). If we cannot predict in hindsight, how the hell can we predict the next 100 years?

I have no faith in ANYTHING. Something I am very proud of. Instead I follow the rational approach and judge everything on the basis of the objective, empirical evidence that supports it. Faith means simply believing what you are told. People loved by P.T. Barnum, who said : "There's a sucker born every minute." If your belief system is based on faith, instead of evidence, you fit Barnum's ideal.

Sunspot. The short answer is that it does not happen because it does not happen. We have a reasonable idea of what is going on in the sun, and the fusion of iron is not it. The reason, though, is related to energy. It just takes a hell of a lot to fuse iron atoms. Thus, it happens in supernovae.