Global Warning/Climate Change

[RZehr]

central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins.

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.

If a fish learned how to hold its breath and climb out on land, that doesn’t mean that it’s offspring would inherit that ability?

[Ken]

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.

If a fish learned how to hold its breath and climb out on land, that doesn’t mean that it’s offspring would inherit that ability?

Exactly, learned or acquired traits are not inherited.

However if there was a drought and large numbers of fish were left to survive in conditions of little water then those fish who had certain genetic traits that allowed them to better survive in low water conditions would be more likely to survive and successfully pass those traits on to their offspring. And over many generations those traits can improve through the same repeated process generation after generation.

That is the basic theory of evolution through natural selection. It posits that in any population there will be genetic variability and that genetic variability can produce differences in “fitness” or survival in a given environment. In other words, nature is selecting for traits that confer the most fitness in a given environment in EXACTLY the same way that humans do when they selectively breed plants and animals for certain traits, and how we have hundreds of varieties of dogs, apples, and chickens. That is artificial selection as opposed to natural selection.

[Robert]

central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins.

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.

There is some debate about this. The epigenome seems to carry some traits to the next generations that were environmental in nature.

[Ken]

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.

There is some debate about this. The epigenome seems to carry some traits to the next generations that were environmental in nature.

Yes. I'm not actually super in tune with all the latest research in this area. I just cited it as a basic theory in biology that generally governs how we understand genetics and inheritance and yes, evolution. If there turn out to be exceptions then the theory will have to evolve so to speak into some more sophisticated version order to accommodate new information.

That is how science works. If you want to make your name in science, come up with a discovery that re-writes or overturns some existing understanding or theory, not some discovery that merely confirms what we already know or think that we know. Nothing will give a young scientist more instant fame and fortune than proving his or her elders were wrong. Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. were all famous for upsetting the existing body of science, not confirming it.

[justme]

If you want to make your name in science, come up with a discovery that re-writes or overturns some existing understanding or theory, not some discovery that merely confirms what we already know or think that we know. Nothing will give a young scientist more instant fame and fortune than proving his or her elders were wrong. Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. were all famous for upsetting the existing body of science, not confirming it.

come to think of it, that's exactly what Jesus did. He's famous for upsetting the existing body of religion, not confirming it.

[temporal1]

come to think of it, that's exactly what Jesus did. He's famous for upsetting the existing body of religion, not confirming it.

“yes, but” .. they did these things without focus on billions+billions in guaranteed personal profits by force of the sword.
once billions+trillions are involved, and often ‘way less, human nature factors in, bringing out the worst.

as i’ve said before, i’m grateful not to be faced with such temptations. many of us hope we would stand strong. but.
i’d prefer not to be tested.

[Ken]

If you want to make your name in science, come up with a discovery that re-writes or overturns some existing understanding or theory, not some discovery that merely confirms what we already know or think that we know. Nothing will give a young scientist more instant fame and fortune than proving his or her elders were wrong. Galileo, Einstein, Newton, Copernicus, Pasteur, Darwin, etc. were all famous for upsetting the existing body of science, not confirming it.

come to think of it, that's exactly what Jesus did. He's famous for upsetting the existing body of religion, not confirming it.

Yes, people tend to forget that he was very much a radical and revolutionary. I wonder if many Christians would recognize him he if returned to walk among us today.

[Soloist]

Yes, people tend to forget that he was very much a radical and revolutionary. I wonder if many Christians would recognize him he if returned to walk among us today.

Thankfully He tells us how to tell His return apart from false.

[MaxPC]

Back on the topic of AGW, there really isn’t much data or “law” to refer to. We really don’t know what the impact is of burning lots of fossil fuels.

Likewise, our current science can’t explain why the universe is allegedly mostly made of dark matter and dark energy, or why the evolutionary tree of life (family tree) has so many intermediate forms that we have zero fossil or otherwise record of.

Indeed. Additionally, the latest data indicates (not conclusively yet) that the universe is not expanding, contrary to popular hypotheses.

Intermediate forms may not have existed in a direct line to man. There are continuing to be discoveries of modern human remains that predate hypothesised ancestral mammals. Modern humans form have been in existence longer than hypothesised previously.

As to fossil fuels, and their effects, I agree that we cannot determine long term impact of that activity. We have already seen the flora and forests compensate for extra CO2. In the future there may or may not be more data.

[Josh]

central dogma of biology that information flows in one direction from DNA to RNA to proteins.

Perhaps in normal scenarios but that is ignoring retroviruses and transcriptase.

Well yes. It is really more along the lines of, you can't spend your life training yourself to be super fast, super strong, or super fit, and then pass those traits on to your offspring. What you pass on to your offspring are the genes that you were born with, not traits that you might have developed since then.

The study of epigenetics shows this is not actually the case. For example, people who are drinking during pregnancy are more likely to have children who grow up to be alcoholics. The same mother (or father) who quits drinking’s future children are less likely to be alcoholics.