SkepticLance

As I said before, ecosystems are in a state of constant change. Remove amphibians, and that will stimulate further ecological change. However, it is unlikely that the change would be catastrophic. Loss of amphibians would be seriously regrettable, of course, since they are fascinating animals.

ttyo Your David Attenborough quote is not really appropriate for amphibians. He is correct to recognise the importance of insects, worms and other small animals that live in soil or leaf litter. However, amphibians do not hold such a key role in ecosystems.

There is a widespread and weird view of the 'balance of nature'. A lot of people see it as a vulnerable, static balance with everything on a knife edge and disaster just round the corner. Instead, it is a dynamic and constantly changing balance, with 'repairs' happening constantly. The world's greatest disaster was at the end of the Permian era, with 95% to 98% of all species on land going extinct. Yet the world recovered. Humans have already caused an enormous number of species to go extinct. The polynesians, in their spread across the Pacific Ocean, carried the polynesian rat to islands that had vulnerable bird species. It is estimated that 2000 species became extinct. Yet island ecologies still flourish. If we kill off the amphibians, that will be a tragedy, since the amphibians are a scientific treasure. However, ecosystems would readapt and change to cope with the loss, and life would continue to flourish.

I totally agree with iNow. Humans are not idiots. Or at least the scientists are not (mostly) idiots. We learn. We learned to make pesticides biodegradable. We learned to avoid chlorinated phenols. We learned not to use the A-bomb. We already know to treat GM with a degree of caution, and we have been using it for 12 years on a massive scale with no significant problems. New technology is mostly a blessing to the human species. It has led to us having the longest average lifespan of any time in our history, and the greatest health and vigor. It gives us food on the table, and the ability to travel and communicate world wide, leading to the most intellectually rich period of our history. We aint about to stop now, and life is set to become even richer.

bascule said : "Have I not told you a billion times that I personally worked on modeling how long term variabilities in cloud formation affect the general circulation of air, within the scope of a GCM? I can personally attest that this problem is being worked on because I helped work on it, regardless of how many times you claim it is not... " You are correct in saying the problem is being worked on. I never denied that. However, unless there have been some major break-throughs recently, the problem is still a problem. http://www.open.ac.uk/earth-research/spicer/INTAS/Climate1.html

To iNow All this gets nowhere. I have, in the past, pointed out to you, with references, regions of doubt and uncertainty. Such as : - the lack of ability to model the effect of cloud formation. - the new information recently on oceanic currents, which affect climate in ways the models did not predict. - the fact that Arctic sea ice last winter grew to an extent unpredicted. - the fact that Arctic sea ice before that shrank to a degree much greater than predicted. - the fact that the bulk of the Antarctic continent is cooling rather than warming, against predictions. All these are areas where studies and models are weak if not flawed. However, in spite of long protracted argument with you, and the presentation of evidence showing clearly that these are areas of doubt and uncertainty, you still act as if there was no doubt and uncertainty. After all this, you still ask for details of where global climate studies are flawed. Is there any point answering?

I seriously doubt that Carol is correct in her ideas of what motivates the theorists. However, there is no doubt that the whole global climate change issue has been heavily politicised, and that we need to be enormously sceptical about the details. When we see ex candidates for the American presidency making movies about it, and others pushing for enormous (many millions) research funding, you need to take it all with a very big pinch of salt.

bascule You and Carol are both right. Al Gore, however, is not. He tried to say that the previous interglacial warmings were caused by CO2 build up, when the warming came first and the CO2 build up did not happen till 800 years later. The current CO2 build up is a different situation, but that does not change the inherent dishonesty of Al Gore's film.

To Vlad Why do you think it has to be a disaster? Humans have had the A-bomb for 60 years now, and have used it in anger only twice, at the very beginning. Though there are idiot politicians in this world who are very aggressive to other nations (I have not used the Bush word), most are sensible enough to avoid anything that causes widespread damage. GM will be far more value than harm, in my very humble opinion.

lucaspa said : "The "bad design" argument only works against ID if you have the theology that deity is "good", "more intelligent than humans", and "kind". If the deity is not too bright and sadistic, then the "bad" designs can still be manufactured by the ID. So the bad design argument is not a scientfic argument but a theological one. The bad design arguments says that ID has theology that is not consistent with Judeo-Christianity." This is correct. However, this argument is based on a very general and broad interpretation of ID. In fact, as I am sure you know, ID is mostly a thinly veiled covering over fundamentalist Christian creationism. So, in fact as opposed to theory, ID is a very narrow and specific interpretation, which includes the concept of a perfect creator. lucaspa also said : "You can't limit "they choose to believe what they are told" to only religious faith. " This, of course, is true. However, one difference between religious faith and science is that in religion, people are required to stick to the dogma (ever hear of executions for blasphemy?), whereas in science, if it is done well, people are encouraged to be sceptical and question the various ideas. Of course it does not always happen this way. Scientists are human too, and have the full range of human faults - but at least the intent is there. I have no problem with ID or even old fashioned creationism being taught in schools - as long as it is done under the subject "religious studies." To introduce it as a topic of science is something I would fight like hell to stop!! ID and creationism are NOT science. They fail to meet pretty much any description of modern science. lucaspa's words "Do you really think science works like that? I don't. I think theories are evaluated on evidence." Tut tut. Naughty. I said nothing like that, and you are implying something I did not say. Also said : "Instead, what you showed was that skepticism is an integral part of faith. What you showed was that some religious leaders fight skepticism." Actually, the fight against religious scepticism extends throughout all religions. Not just leaders. If you publicly insulted Mohammed while in Iran, you would not live long. The ones who killed you would almost certainly be ordinary muslims - not religious leaders, and it would be their idea - not that of their leaders. Religion is ultra conservative and ordinary religious people police that conservatism with vigor. Again - a major difference between religion and science is that differences in opinion in science are accepted, and encouraged. You only have to look at the letters sections of scientific journals to see the ongoing debates and disagreements. This is not part of religion. Faith is expected to be total. You are expected NOT to dispute facets of religion.

To iNow I find the grandparent effect very interesting. It explains a couple of unusual things about humans. 1. Our very long lifespan 2. The reason males live almost as long as females. In other primates, in the main, lifespan is limited to the time that parents can assist in improving survival of their offspring. And females mostly live a lot longer than males, since they are needed to assist offspring survival. Among humans, where grandparents are useful, evolution has given us a long lifespan. Males live almost as long as females, reflecting a stronger grandchild survival from the efforts of the male grandparent, as well as the female. For us humans, it is probably more accurate to suggest that evolution has not finished with us till our grandchildren reach adulthood. Then 'Mother Nature' is happy for us to die. Hence our '3 score years and ten.'

To swansont The question related to probabilities. I gave what I see as the most probable answer. Sure, it very likely won't happen, but we are talking relative probabilities. From that point of view, I still say Hillary is the most probable first woman president at this point in history. Next year the probabilities might be different. And wasn't Gerald Ford the last president to have entered office as VP replacing the boss? Admittedly not being elected, but still ending up president.

To iNow I understand your point. The way evolution works on humans is that characteristics that have an effect later in life have a lesser influence on evolutionary change than characteristics that have an effect earlier in life. Important note : The effect may be smaller but they still have a significant effect. A lot of this is the grandfather principle. Keeping a grandparent alive, fit and healthy longer assists in improving the odds of survival of the grandchild, since grandparents assist in caring for the young. An effect such as gum infections from impacting wisdom teeth would be negatively adaptive, even if it happens only to older people, since their reduction in fitness and survival reduces the survival chances of grandchildren.

I am writing this out of a sense of frustration. Just saw my doctor (actually, he was away and I got stuck with a locum). I suffer from gout - thankfully very mild. Here are a couple of facts about gout. 1. Epidemiologists have found that four standard cups of coffee per day correlate negatively with gout incidence. 2. One of the more effective gout reduction methods is to drink lots of water - 8 large glasses per day. Well, I have this quirk - I hate the taste of water. I like to add something. Scotch is best, but 8 glasses of water per day liberally flavoured with scotch might have undesirable side effects! Instead, I have trained myself to take my coffee ultra weak. One standard cup of coffee has the same amount of coffee as 4 large mugs the way I drink it. In discussion with said locum, I was told to drink coffee moderately, and drink lots of water. I told him that I took 12 large mugs of ultra-weak coffee per day. He told me that coffee was a diuretic and I should stop that, and switch to 4 cups per day plus 8 glasses of water. Doh!!! Anyone else have stories about encounters with educated idiots?

The most likely first woman President, as of this point in history, is Hillary Clinton. Obama has not chosen his running mate, but he would have to be very silly to ignore her, since she carries an awful lot of support. If the result is Obama President and Clinton as VP, then she stands to inherit if he gets killed. There is a lot of speculation that he would be a prime target for assassination, since there are heaps of total nutters who cannot stand the idea of a black president.

Mr Skeptic said : "Yet until recently, and still in poorer countries, people loose lots of their teeth," Would this not result in evolution towards more durable teeth rather than retaining extra teeth? Recently tooth loss comes from tooth decay, from eating sweeter foods. However, in the past, tooth loss has resulted more from abrasion. In less 'processed' times, food often contained dirt and sand grains. When chewed, these abraded teeth down. Having extra teeth, especially some that caused problems by impacting, would not appear to me much of an adaptive advantage when all teeth were wearing down together.

To Mr. Skeptic There are indications from charcoal deposits which suggest that our species had fire since well before our species actually evolved. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_erectus.html This implies cooking, and hence a reduced need for hard chewing and lots of teeth. There has been enough time for the beginnings of evolution away from wisdom teeth. On the theological argument, I really have a problem. With a being (God) who may be mere wishful thinking, debating his motives is really unlikely to have any value in a real world. There is little doubt that the first books of the bible were pretty much myth, legend, and possibly parable. Not even much history.

To bascule Your graph does NOT explain the pattern. There was a temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 - a drop from 1940 to 1976, and then another rise. Greenhouse gases explain the final rise, but the fall is unexplained by your graph. In your graph, sulfate forcings drop from 1905 to the present, rather than over the period of cooling, while your rather debatable solar forcings show little effect over the cooling period. I see nothing, and no combination, in your graphs to explain the 1940 to 1976 cooling.

From bascule "On the plus side, models have always had trouble with the 1940-1970 cooling No? That's entirely explicable based on radiative forcing inputs due to a decrease in volcanic activity (resulting in lower levels of sulfate aerosols) and increased solar activity." bascule, If you double check your figures, I think you will find that is not so. Sulfate reduction had been close to linear for a period that well precedes the cooling. No change there. Solar activity as shown by sunspots remained relatively stable over that period, except for normal cycles, and cannot be used to explain the cooling.

The 17 May 2008 issue of New Scientist has an item called 'The old curiosity shop' about vestigial organs. It lists a few human vestigial organs, which I found of interest. 1. Vomeronasal organ. A remnant of the old system of detecting pheromones. Apparently, in humans, the receptor cells are non functional, but the overall structure is still in place, though useless. 2. Goose bumps. Tiny muscles attached to hair follicles to raise them in cold weather. In other mammals, this increases thermal insulation. In humans, with our tiny hairs, it is useless. 3. Darwin's Point. A protrusion of the outer ear in a few humans. It appears to be the remnant of a structure for pivoting the ear. In humans, with immobile ears, this structure is useless. 4. The tail bone. Obviously, humans do not need the remnant of the bones of the tail. It is interesting though, to note that there are more than 100 medical reports of babies born with tails. I wonder how an intelligent design enthusiast would explain a human born with a tail! 5. Wisdom teeth. We all know that these are useless and a problem to many, with impacting on other teeth etc. It is interesting that over a third of Homo sapiens are born today with no wisdom teeth. With the movement to softer foods and smaller mouths, our species appears to be evolving away from wisdom teeth. Vestigial organs MUST be a problem to those who promote intelligent design versions of creationism.

Yes. Definitely possible in theory. Though it may not always be easy. A similar thing was done with golden rice. A gene was taken from a weed, and transferred into rice, making a type of rice that manufactured beta carotene, which is converted in the body to vitamin A. The new rice was tinted slightly yellow giving it the name 'golden rice'.

lucaspa said "But you are still finding a theological flaw in Fundamentalism and in the Argument from Design." We could end up arguing semantics here. I would call it a flaw in the logic used by fundamentalists, rather than a theological flaw. As I said, we will probably not agree on the business of 'faith'. I stand by my statement that most people follow the faith of their fathers, and do so simply because they choose to believe what they are told. Sure, there have been times when faiths change. Here in NZ the polynesian native peoples - the Maori - became Christian instead of polytheists. It happened because they met a clearly more powerful and wealthier people - the Europeans and their missionaries. They were told a new message. They accepted it, and probably because the power of the new white people was so clear cut. This led them to choose to believe what they were told. However, for each generation in which religious faith changes rapidly, there are numerous in which there is no, or little change, and people simply follow the faith they are taught. For example, the Maori had 600 years in NZ before the Christians arrived, meaning about 24 generations with no change compared to the one or two generations of rapid change in religious belief. In either case, for the majority of religious people, the faith is simply what they were taught, and chose to believe. Faith is choosing to believe what you are told. This is very far from science, and my argument does not, in any way, reduce science. Scepticism is a vital part of science. The unwillingness to believe what you are told runs throughout scientific history and has led to many break throughs. This is quite contrary to religious faith. In fact, religious history is full of examples of religious leaders actually killing those who question. eg. the Inquisition, and some Muslim societies (like the Taliban) today. Scepticism is a vital part of science. It is a massively, and sometimes violently, resisted quality in religion. Faith is almost the opposite of scepticism.

If you pluck out a grey hair, the new one growing back will be grey, since the basal cells are not pumping out pigment. However, it will not affect nearby hairs. They will stop their pigment production in their own good time.

A single hair may be darker at top and greyer at bottom. Hairs go grey as the basal cells stop producing pigment. This happens at individual follicles, meaning that the whole head of hair does not go grey all at once. It kind of sneaks up on you, a hair at a time.

Potassium Argon dating encompasses the correct time span. However, it is only useful if the fossil relates to a lava flow. This is because, when rock is melted, as in lava from a volcano, any Argon inside the rock is released (Argon is a gas). After the rock solidifies, any Argon 40 present will be the result of Potassium 40 decay. By measuring the Argon 40 in the lava, the time at which the lava was molten can be calculated. If a fossil is found in sedimentary rock, and a lava flow is on top the the rock, then K/Ar dating can date the lava, and thus set a minimum date for the sedimentary rock, which will, of course, be older than the time in which the lava was molten. If the sedimentary rock is on top of the lava, then a maximum date can be set. Ideally, the fossil in the sedimentary rock will be between two lava flows. This is more common than you might think, since a sedimentary layer can sometimes be plotted for hundreds of kilometres.