The Reality of Climate Change

A Canadian scientist @KHayhoe who helped write the fairly recent climate report is visibly “frustrated” these days because what President Trump said about man-made global warming where he agreed with some of it, and flat-out disagreed about its predictions. While criticizing the report for being unfair to the US in particular while not involving other nations who pollute a lot more. The President went on to say that we are the cleanest we ever been. Emissions in the US has been decreasing. It decreased roughly by 3 percent last year. Moreover, CO2 levels worldwide haven’t been increasing either, its been flat for the last 3 years. To disagree with the report according to Katharine Hayhoe is like denying the existence of gravity which many mainstream creationists have heard this argument before involving evolution. So they are using the same argument but for a different issue.

Now before I go any further, I want to explain something, this is not a normal topic because the goal of this blog is to focus more on creationism and evolution along with new discoveries in science but since there are similarities in how some Scientists get so caught up in a particular narrative which we have seen in various explanations of evolution vs observations instead of allowing the evidence to lead, this topic gets addressed from time to time. Let’s begin…

Those of us who are old enough or those who younger but have read some history in this area might know that there was a little ice-age that would eventually doom mankind which began around the late 1880s when records of the weather began to be kept on a regular basis and used today. Then a shift occurred in the early 1980s to a belief in man-made global warming which was later renamed as “climate change” as we know it today. Scientists who believe in man-made climate change argue for a fixed climate. Historically, the weather has changed, there have been three major warming periods for example which happened long before the industrial era. The earth also has experienced cooling periods before the industrial era. This means the climate is a complex system that is changing and will change in the future. To try to change that to a “fixed climate” is not logical.

Like similar reports before it, this one paints a picture of the demise of the human race, economically, health and safety. Historically civilizations have done better under the warming periods than in cooling periods. Not only that but vegetation also does better in warming periods than in cooling periods. Vegetation also does better with a higher level of CO2. If you ever have visited a commercial greenhouse, the concentration of CO2 is generally 4X higher inside than in the surrounding environment on the outside. Why? Because the plants grow better, produce better. When the plants grow better they tend to absorb the CO2 as food then in return, the plants produce more oxygen for the environment! If you look at the condition of plants over the last 30 years or so you will notice that the earth has become greener as a result of more CO2. If we get rid of CO2, plants would decrease and eventually die which means life would cease. Of course, it is not possible to get rid of all the CO2 on earth. Right now fossil fuels are the most efficient way of creating energy for human consumption. It’s doubtful that it will change anytime soon, however, alternative energy isn’t a bad idea and may have more of an impact many years down the road but there are problems with cost, innovation, the market, all of which, restrict its possible potential, and even with this potential it still isn’t enough to replace fossil fuels entirely. I’ll go more into later on in another post on this issue sometime in the future. 

Another factor often times overlooked in these reports is water vapor which is a major greenhouse gas. Why are scientists who believe in climate change not concerned about water vapor? Because lawmakers cannot regulate it in order to control people’s behavior in its use! What about fires like in California? Aren’t they increasing because of man-made global warming? This, in general, has been mentioned in this recent report and often pointed out by man-made global warming advocates. In the 1920s and 1930s, there were way more wildfires in the United States which burned a lot longer and burned more land than today. Why? It is simple, fewer people and better technology! There weren’t as many people to fight those fires, and getting water to the fires was much more difficult back then as they didn’t have things like airplanes or helicopters to dump tons of water on the fires.  Transporting people in general to the fires or out of the fires is much easier today compared to back then. Since it wasn’t plausible to fight a fire with water due to the lack of means, instead, people had to make firebreaks and wait for the fire to burn itself out! So wildfires are not burning as much as they did in the past! However, there is a connection with forest management and wildfires! No connection with man-made global warming and wildfires!

What about the ice-caps melting causing a massive increase in the sea level and the polar bears starving? The ice-caps show the earth’s weather doesn’t act as one unit. The North pole has been decreasing while the South Pole’s ice has been increasing in the last 20 years. Icebergs are different in the South than in the North. Air circulation is different and other factors make them different thus the ice is affected differently. This in itself doesn’t prove man caused it to happen. Polar bears are another animal, the population of polar bears has increased over the years so much so that they wander into settled areas looking for food. A reduction in population would promote a healthier population much like they do with certain animals in the United States.

In conclusion, the recent report like other reports before it is geared toward trying to motivate people for action within a certain narrative. Money is also a factor, universities get more funding based on embracing man-made global warming. For example, there were not global warming skeptics who were allowed to contribute to the recent report. Usually, governments do not allow funding for skeptics so naturally, you’re going to discover more research papers that are for this issue rather than against it. And professors that may question man-made global warming are often censored in the public schools from giving students another side of the argument. The only fear that they have is the gravy train along with other political issues might be affected if the public doesn’t go along with their narrative of promoting a fixed climate. There is no hard evidence that man causes weather changes nor can fix them to the desired level that certain scientists feel comfortable about. The earth’s weather made changes in the past and will do so in the future as the Lord will’s it.  

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Has The Assumption Of A Unique Genome Been Overthrown

Consensus in the scientific community told us that every cell in our body has a copy of our unique genetic code.  It is an interesting proposal but practically impossible to verify with current technology until now. There has been advances in sequencing technology taking place which make it possible to check this assumption.

Researchers studying induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC’s) (adult stem cells reprogrammed back to embyro stem cells used for medical treatments) have discovered copy number variations (CNV) in cells derived from skin cells. Most assumed these changes occurred in the process of inducing them to the pluripotent state but Yale researchers checking to see whether CNV’s are also found in the somatic cells from which the iPSC’s were derived.

Their paper published in nature says…

“Using PCR and digital droplet PCR, we show that at least 50% of those CNVs are present as low-frequency somatic genomic variants in parental fibroblasts (that is, the fibroblasts from which each corresponding human iPSC line is derived), and are manifested in iPSC lines owing to their clonal origin. Hence, reprogramming does not necessarily lead to de novo CNVs in iPSCs, because most of the line-manifested CNVs reflect somatic mosaicism in the human skin….”

“Overall, we estimate that approximately 30% of the fibroblast cells have somatic CNVs in their genomes, suggesting widespread somatic mosaicism in the human body. Our study paves the way to understanding the fundamental question of the extent to which cells of the human body normally acquire structural alterations in their DNA post-zygotically.” 

What do they mean by “Somatic mosaicism? It’s basically jargon telling you that genomes differ from cell to cell! But not only in copy number variations (CNV’s), but they discovered it in single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP’s) also. The long held assumption about you having only one genome is thus falsified. This discovery is telling us we have numerous genomes!

How is this going to affect genetics and evolutionary studies? Ever since the Human Genome Project published its epochal map of “the human genome,” there have been maps of other animals including chimps. But from what we know now about genome variations do those maps reflect reality in nature and are these maps depended upon which somatic cell was sequenced?

Geneticists have been aware of variations between individuals of a species which is why various ethic groups have been included in studies but this new discovery is finding significant variation within an individual’s own cells! It is not known at this time on how significant these changes are considering their study was based only on skin cells. But it is quite possible this could be a game changer…

“The prevailing wisdom has been that every cell in the body contains identical DNA. However, a new study of stem cells derived from the skin has found that genetic variations are widespread in the body’s tissues, a finding with profound implications for genetic screening, according to Yale School of Medicine researchers.”

As far as the story of evolution, it has been claimed for years about small differences between human and chimpanzee genomes. What if the percent difference is a function of the source cells used? If there is a difference then that means any conclusions about human-chimp similarities would prove unreliable. Which cells should be averaged? Will the averages converge or diverge, depending on which cells are selected? Philosophers of science can have fun with this one!

Creationists have taken some of the claims about evolutionary similarities and differences based on genetics with a grain of salt and now this belief has been confirmed by this scientific study! This is going to be one of the more interesting areas in science!

Evolutionary History In Its Latest Hype

After telling a story about how Neandertal Man could only communicate with grunts, and who was supposedly unable to make clothes to wear and supposedly had very low intelligence and was a different species than modern man, was found to be advance and intermarried with modern humans. DNA revealed, modern humans and Neandertals hardly differ at all, also modern humans and Neandertals differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways!

This is not all, another supposed precursor to modern humans with only primitive ability has been falsified. Homo Erectus was found to have advanced toolmaking abilities. Like Neandertals, Homo Erectus interbred with modern humans which means they are members of the same species. Another aspect complicates the whole evolutionary story about Homo Erectus. Only discovering the tools in Africa and finding none in Asia, suggesting that somehow the technology was lost while migrating. It’s a small problem compared to discovering interbreeding going on with modern humans at a massive scale. Like Neadertals, they are human like you and me.

With early evolutionary history taking such hits with recent discoveries, the media decided to hype another “missing link” or “transitional form” by saying this will rewrite our evolution with a better understanding. Really? More questions than answers has been a pattern in evolutionary research. Now we see, Australopithecus sediba is put into the lime light. Wait, hasn’t this been reported on before? Yep! Media outlets Live ScienceNational Geographic and Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily’s headlines went like this, “New Hominid Shares Traits With Homo Species: Fossil Find Sheds Light On the Transition to Homo Genus from Earlier Hominids.” 

With all this hype, there was much controversy between other experts and those who made the discovery. Scientists were at odds with each other on whether or not the bones were buried together, or fell through to other levels after burial. Also things like taxonomy where scientists disagree on whether it should be classified as Australopithecus or Homo. If classified a “Homo” there would be no impact on the story of human evolution.

So fast forward more than a year later. You have most scientists in this field not liking  the term “missing link,” preferring instead the terms “transition [sic] form” or “intermediary form,” because it implies more firmly that they are there but just haven’t been discovered yet. In reality, there is no difference.  All of a sudden this discovery is promised to answer numerous questions about human evolution. Again, it’s just hype. Actually it continues to raise more questions than answers. The size of the brain seems to be one of the major problems, you see, size is important in evolutionary history. Evolutionists expect to see brain sizes increasing, with toolmaking ability (no tools were found), and changes in hands and feet.

The confusion about the fossil rather than a clear-cut analysis only suggests reasons from those researchers, why they remain working in this field. “Berger says it’s not surprising that the fossil is a confusing mixture, pointing out that that is exactly what we would expect in a transitional fossil.” We know the hype in these publications is used to sell to readers, also to promote evolution, but many in the public do not accept the story. Like the other two, this latest hype will be another disappointment of early evolutionary human history but not for creationism, variants within a kind.

SETI Demostrates Faith With Fiction

Many are convinced there are alien life forms out there…Scientists have went from searching for advanced beings to micro-organisms but have yet to produce on shred of evidence on either one. Now there is another way being promoted…In Physorg

“She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies laid out in a 2007 Scientific American article, “Are Aliens Among Us?” So far, there’s no answer. And finding one would be fraught with difficulties, as Davies himself acknowledged. Unusual organisms abound – including chemical-eating bacteria which dwell deep in the ocean and organisms that thrive in boiling-hot springs – but that doesn’t mean they’re different life forms entirely.”

Shostak calls himself a scientist, but what accomplishments has he done? What he calls as “science” is not. Single point conclusions with observables is not science but rather storytelling. Shostak is basically telling the public is don’t believe in the miracles God rather believe in the miracles of materialism. Dead chemicals became alive even though it’s never been observed, because we are here? That’s not science!

Without observables like HNA or ANA (something like human DNA) for alien life forms to draw inference from, there is no foundation or basis for the belief! Instead, he tells this story about how aliens could be not only living among us but also inside of us. What makes him think aliens even exist at all and why just at the micro level? Believing in human evolution is not evidence, believing in the big band is not evidence, believing in one animal turning into a totally different animal isn’t evidence for alien life forms.

This also has to do with relevance for the purpose of funding. The micro world is vast with many unknowns that have yet to be discovered and many things that will never been discovered. While the public at large does have an interest, it’s still not science nor relevant or practical to spend millions upon millions of hard earned dollars looking for something that they are totally in the dark about.

Skeptic Michael Shermer and Strange Evolutionary Ideas

An interesting lecture was held a few days ago by Shermer called; “Why Darwin Matters” which also caught the eye of one ID proponent, Dr Caroline Crocker who was featured in the movie “Expelled.” Not surprisingly, Shermer was advocating science as a tool which ought to be used in terms of believing in evolution while dispelling Christianity and religion in general. Dr. Caroline Crocker who attended the lecture quotes Shermer on what he defines as science…

“Looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.” He also states about religion as being; “anthropocentrically absurd” and then suggests almost like those in the New Age Movement and other cults about reaching a higher form of spirituality,  “we need to “climb to a higher plane of humanity and humility” and embrace “sciensuality”

Evolution is made up of many risky predictions (often times are falsified), and story telling. For example, Shermer admits the Universe is finely tuned which enables our existence, but takes this observation to what he calls a “higher plane of humanity” by explaining his faith in parallel universes in order explain the source of how our Universe was finely tuned even though there is not one shred of evidence for it. I kid you not, this isn’t a romantic science fiction narrative but actually a proponent of the no God exists crowd who believes in strange story telling.

Shermer claims the intelligent design movement is part of creationism, then he argues ID would be rejected on the premise that scientists would not get an answer to the question as some from his neck of the woods have asked me from the past as well and that question is, “who created God or what created the intelligent agents?” And since this is supposedly the case, Shermer believes the God of the Bible couldn’t exist otherwise one could explain how God was created. Again, this sounds like something coming from heathenism because pagans believe their gods were created while Christians believe God always existed meaning no beginning and no end, eternal. It’s also an attempt to try and counter criticism of many strange ideas which are not explainable coming from the belief in evolution.

Now if I was doing an interview with Michael Shermer, two of the questions I would ask him would be, how could you believe in many other universes than our own when one cannot answer where those phenomenas came from? And then I would ask, “what created natural selection in the first place?”

Another example of so-called climbing the plane of humanity was reported in science daily

“The researchers have taught a computer to find regularities in the natural world that become established laws – yet without any prior scientific knowledge on the part of the computer. They have tested their method, or algorithm, on simple mechanical systems and believe it could be applied to more complex systems ranging from biology to cosmology and be useful in analyzing the mountains of data generated by modern experiments that use electronic data collection.”

Material particles like computers do not comprehend natural laws, nor can these computers build any sort of viable system on it’s own. This is intelligent selection, not natural selection which is an unthinking process that is not “programmed” by human intelligence, yet they mistakely called it Evolved Machines. Such strange evolutionary ideas from those who do not believe in God!