Volcanic Eruptions Caused Ancient Warming And Cooling

[HAL 9000 96]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Now there is something that seems to be absent from this whole GW thing.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

Lumber Industry Scientists, no doubt!

Indeed. Adaptation meaning mechanisms that the beetles can employ to prey on more than one weak food source. You may be referring to human adaptation... thereby circumventing the cause altogether. Engineering the planet may also end up being one road we don't want to go for the potential to open up more cans of worms politically and environmentally.

And yes... imagine that... industry scientists may have a financial interest in healthier forests. Dead trees are not very usable in lumber usage. They are usable for biomass power though... but the current cost of harvesting this dying/dead wood is more expensive than just cutting it and letting nature run its course.

Adaption all the way around. I am fascinated from my own observations, of how the wild birds have adapted over the years, in their dealing with humans. It seems they have lost their fear of humans, as I watch them steal food, even organize ambushes. The raccoon population also has become rather notorious in their efficiency at waylaying unsuspecting suburbanites in outlying areas. Al this greenbelting has brought nature in close proximity with humans again.

The possum I saw on my back deck the other day makes me think so as well. But...

I just think that it isn't an adaptive mechanism per se. Adaptation deals with the genes present, not the push for food in novel environments because they're not finding it in high enough density in their native niche.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Now there is something that seems to be absent from this whole GW thing.

You know this as a scientist?

Be very careful how you establish absolutes and conclusions here.

Biological progression is not the 'exact' thing you're making it out to be. Adaptation is one tricksy little #######.

Don't copout yet and say i'm not a scientist so I can't know anything.

Lets talk about the facts. Which i gave you. Dr. Hal

Its a fact that the beetles were triggered by the droughts, and the fact that the trees are so densely packed, all roughly around the same age, that allowed the beetles to destroy millions of trees rather quickly (which are still standing there.) The numbers have decreased since 2002 when that report was written, but there is plenty in that report that disagrees with you. And get this.... It was written by scientists!

Lumber Industry Scientists, no doubt!

Indeed. Adaptation meaning mechanisms that the beetles can employ to prey on more than one weak food source. You may be referring to human adaptation... thereby circumventing the cause altogether. Engineering the planet may also end up being one road we don't want to go for the potential to open up more cans of worms politically and environmentally.

And yes... imagine that... industry scientists may have a financial interest in healthier forests. Dead trees are not very usable in lumber usage. They are usable for biomass power though... but the current cost of harvesting this dying/dead wood is more expensive than just cutting it and letting nature run its course.

Adaption all the way around. I am fascinated from my own observations, of how the wild birds have adapted over the years, in their dealing with humans. It seems they have lost their fear of humans, as I watch them steal food, even organize ambushes. The raccoon population also has become rather notorious in their efficiency at waylaying unsuspecting suburbanites in outlying areas. Al this greenbelting has brought nature in close proximity with humans again.

The possum I saw on my back deck the other day makes me think so as well. But...

I just think that it isn't an adaptive mechanism per se. Adaptation deals with the genes present, not the push for food in novel environments because they're not finding it in high enough density in their native niche.

You are thinking more hardwiring, but I am seeing learned behaviour as well. Nuture does favor nature, so I am sure many of these traits are genetic, just waiting for an opportunity to be manifested.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

[HAL 9000 96]

I remember that example. That is an adaptive mechanism to blend in with the substrate they hung out on. To avoid predation.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

Ahh the peppered moth. The story goes that dirtier times brought easier opportunities for birds to eat the white moths off the black trees, and in cleaner times eat the black moths off cleaner trees. Only problem is that the moth's don't rest on trees during the day time when birds would be active and eating them. So, they glued the moths to the tree for the photo-op. The NOVA documentary moths were laboratory bred moths, and technically they only saw 2 wild moths over a 25 year time-frame during the day. They cannot explain where they go during the day, and therefore could not observe wild birds feasting on moths. The whole thing is a put on. Which I'm not sure why, because there are plenty of other examples of adaptation and variation that are great visual examples for students to see.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

Ahh the peppered moth. The story goes that dirtier times brought easier opportunities for birds to eat the white moths off the black trees, and in cleaner times eat the black moths off cleaner trees. Only problem is that the moth's don't rest on trees during the day time when birds would be active and eating them. So, they glued the moths to the tree for the photo-op. The NOVA documentary moths were laboratory bred moths, and technically they only saw 2 wild moths over a 25 year time-frame during the day. They cannot explain where they go during the day, and therefore could not observe wild birds feasting on moths. The whole thing is a put on. Which I'm not sure why, because there are plenty of other examples of adaptation and variation that are great visual examples for students to see.

I don't think they had NOVA back in 1972.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

Ahh the peppered moth. The story goes that dirtier times brought easier opportunities for birds to eat the white moths off the black trees, and in cleaner times eat the black moths off cleaner trees. Only problem is that the moth's don't rest on trees during the day time when birds would be active and eating them. So, they glued the moths to the tree for the photo-op. The NOVA documentary moths were laboratory bred moths, and technically they only saw 2 wild moths over a 25 year time-frame during the day. They cannot explain where they go during the day, and therefore could not observe wild birds feasting on moths. The whole thing is a put on. Which I'm not sure why, because there are plenty of other examples of adaptation and variation that are great visual examples for students to see.

I also remember how creationists attempted calling that set of experiments fraud. I wonder why.

Nevertheless, and pardon the tangent, but the experiments were validated in wild moths.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

Ahh the peppered moth. The story goes that dirtier times brought easier opportunities for birds to eat the white moths off the black trees, and in cleaner times eat the black moths off cleaner trees. Only problem is that the moth's don't rest on trees during the day time when birds would be active and eating them. So, they glued the moths to the tree for the photo-op. The NOVA documentary moths were laboratory bred moths, and technically they only saw 2 wild moths over a 25 year time-frame during the day. They cannot explain where they go during the day, and therefore could not observe wild birds feasting on moths. The whole thing is a put on. Which I'm not sure why, because there are plenty of other examples of adaptation and variation that are great visual examples for students to see.

I also remember how creationists attempted calling that set of experiments fraud. I wonder why.

Nevertheless, and pardon the tangent, but the experiments were validated in wild moths.

The experiments were actually invalidated, because they got mixed numbers. In one part of the forest, A CLEAN one I might add, they got more black, and in another industrialized area they got more white ones. And mix and match. They did not OBSERVE them, they set traps. The birds to not feast on the moths - so they glued them in place for the birds to pic off for the video.

U of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne even admitted that it was BS.

[HAL 9000 96]

Yikes that's another thing you're talking about there Bill.

Sure, behavior has its genetic roots as well. And certain behavioral traits that we've inherited (as well as other animal species) have given us selective advantage in the process of evolution... but the time scale on this is off. What you're meaning to say (I think) deals more with the drive to feed and how an animal's necessity for fuel may override its fear of 'us.'

I guess that could develop into an adaptive mechanism of selectivity if the environmental situation doesn't pan out for the better. But in history this usually has led to small scale extinctions instead if the species have been limited in geographical range.

Nature is opportunistic, that is for sure. And there will be winners and losers in any change to the enviroment, but that has been the nature of life, the basis for the theory for evolution, is it not? From my high school biology days, I remember how one species of moth changed from white to gray, within a decade, due to all the sooting in and around London. As factories switched to cleaner sources of energy, the species managed to change back to the winter white color.

Ahh the peppered moth. The story goes that dirtier times brought easier opportunities for birds to eat the white moths off the black trees, and in cleaner times eat the black moths off cleaner trees. Only problem is that the moth's don't rest on trees during the day time when birds would be active and eating them. So, they glued the moths to the tree for the photo-op. The NOVA documentary moths were laboratory bred moths, and technically they only saw 2 wild moths over a 25 year time-frame during the day. They cannot explain where they go during the day, and therefore could not observe wild birds feasting on moths. The whole thing is a put on. Which I'm not sure why, because there are plenty of other examples of adaptation and variation that are great visual examples for students to see.

I also remember how creationists attempted calling that set of experiments fraud. I wonder why.

Nevertheless, and pardon the tangent, but the experiments were validated in wild moths.

The experiments were actually invalidated, because they got mixed numbers. In one part of the forest, A CLEAN one I might add, they got more black, and in another industrialized area they got more white ones. And mix and match. They did not OBSERVE them, they set traps. The birds to not feast on the moths - so they glued them in place for the birds to pic off for the video.

U of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne even admitted that it was BS.

A very nice guy also. One that is often misquoted by creationists, even with the reality that he himself is an evangelical christian and an evolutionary biologist. He went after the original set of experiments. Majerus validated the original conclusions with a wild design. No glued moths.

The problem with going down that road is that the study of genetics is VERY much limited to molecular biologists. I couldn't even start to talk about genetic mutation and its mechanisms to you for fear of being completely misunderstood as you have do so on every occasion that has brought about a lecture here on GW and evolution.

[HAL 9000 96]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

[HAL 9000 96]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

Its still there because the experiments have been validated.

Predation is a fact of life.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

Its still there because the experiments have been validated.

Predation is a fact of life.

The whole premise is false. That the bark on the trees was lighter or darker based on the pollution. This made darker or lighter moths more vulnerable during the day depending on the situation.

THE MOTHS DO NOT REST ON THE BARK OF TREES DURING THE DAY - AND SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GO - BIRDS ARE NOT AWAKE EATING MOTHS AT NIGHT - SO THEREFORE ITS BS

[HAL 9000 96]

Plus it would bear to state that a photo op is precisely that.

Predation based on mimicry (camouflage) is then the study is it not? Even if the original experiment glued the moth to the tree, if the bird can't see it, it won't swoop down to pick it. Imagine someone spending years capturing or raising moths to glue on trees to then create data based on that. Still valid. Unless you'd like to argue that the birds have smell from flight or more than 25m away... by all means I'm all ears. But that isn't the case, and bird brains do not have a huge amount of brain space dedicated to olfactory processes. There's another Chicago researcher called Cliff Ragsdale you should look up on that too.

You just proved that you don't read what I say either.

Birds do not eat the moths - Birds diurnal, moths nocturnal - do not rest on trees. There has never been an instance where birds were naturally observed eating the moths. Yet in almost every science textbook its still there in black and white.

I don't care about whether its about evolution or creation in this instance. Its just a strange tactic to use when there are far better examples of variation.

Its still there because the experiments have been validated.

Predation is a fact of life.

The whole premise is false. That the bark on the trees was lighter or darker based on the pollution. This made darker or lighter moths more vulnerable during the day depending on the situation.

THE MOTHS DO NOT REST ON THE BARK OF TREES DURING THE DAY - AND SCIENTISTS STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY GO - BIRDS ARE NOT AWAKE EATING MOTHS AT NIGHT - SO THEREFORE ITS BS

So the grad students I know that collect starlings from 1AM until 4AM must be full of #######. Or the collections from 2PM until 5PM.

And STARLINGS ARE BIRDS.

(and they eat moths, among other bugs)

Seriously Joe... please... if you don't know what you're getting yourself into... don't play.

Edited October 29, 2009 by HAL 9000