Intelligent Design

Global Warming Quandary Resolved

Spread the love

New research out this week has resolved a long-standing, and important, quandary about the causes of global warming. While several models point to anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the leading cause of global warming, the warming trends do not quite match the history of anthropogenic CO2. In fact, shrinking glaciers and other undeniable evidences of warming trace back to about the mid seventeenth century. But this predates the significant rise in anthropogenic CO2 that came later in later centuries. Now environmental researchers have solved the puzzle. While CO2 is undoubtedly an important factor in certain warming events, by far the most significant cause is the hot air emitted by evolutionists. In other words, anthropogenic theory rather than anthropogenic industry is the root cause of global warming.  Read more

7 Replies to “Global Warming Quandary Resolved

  1. 1
    Granville Sewell says:

    Cornelius,

    For some background on the Trichoplax genome referred to by Meyers, here is a portion of an article in Science last year (vol 321, number 5892, pp1028):

    “Trichoplax adhaerens barely qualifies as an animal. About 1mm long and covered with cilia, this flat marine organism lacks a stomach, muscles, nerves, and gonads, even a head…yet this animal’s genome looks surprisingly like ours, says Daniel Rokhsar, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Berkeley. Its 98 million DNA base pairs include many of the genes responsible for guiding the development of other animals’ complex shapes and organs, he and his colleagues report in the 21 August issue of Nature…Adds Casey Dunn, an evolutionary biologist at Brown University, ‘It is now completely clear that genomic complexity was present very early on’ in animal evolution…’Many genes viewed as having particular functions in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have a much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,’ says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History in Washington.”

    This front-loading is completely fatal to Darwinism: there is no possible selective advantage for the possession of genes for traits which would not evolve until millions of years later! At least that is the apparent conclusion. I guess it is now going to be argued that these genes actually must have all had some other functions earlier…what else can they argue?!

    The attempts to make Darwinism fit the evidence have long passed the awkwardness of the attempts to make geo-centric theory fit the the new evidence found in astronomy a few centures ago.

  2. 2
    Zachriel says:

    Granville Sewell: I guess it is now going to be argued that these genes actually must have all had some other functions earlier…

    That would be the prediction. They just finished the sequencing the genome. Drawing the conclusion that they have no function would be premature to say the least. Indeed, there are strong reasons to believe they do have functions in the primordial organism and the authors offer a number of possibilities, with some empirical support from other studies.

    Although the Trichoplax body plan is simple, its genome encodes a rich array of transcription factors and signalling pathways that are typically associated with eumetazoan developmental patterning and cell-type specification. A question remains: what role do these genes have in placozoans? Cellular morphology may be deceptive, and complex gene expression patterns may define functionally distinct but morphologically cryptic cellular subtypes. This would be consistent with models in which transcription factors associated with gene expression patterns for specific differentiated cell functions in the eumetazoan ancestor were co-opted in cnidarians and bilaterians for patterning roles. We speculate that signalling and transcription factor genes may be involved in complex regulatory events required for the known processes of growth, fission and/or swarming, or the as yet undescribed processes of sexual reproduction and embryonic development.

  3. 3
    CannuckianYankee says:

    Dr. Hunter,

    A little off topic here, but I noticed that the graph on your website somewhat resembles a boomerang. Is there any significance to this? 🙂

  4. 4
    alan says:

    Hey Zachriel re. #2. I can’t help thinking you did what Granville said so OK if you think you have a case, but I would think you might think the evo: maybe this and maybe that and maybe both or maybe something new just equals a situation that is analogous to “God did it” so why do more “science? If you can explain at present anything why continue storytelling and more specifically what is the use of it all “scientifically”? What is to be accomplished other than reinforcing what you already know to be true. At the very least thinking out of that box might be more useful at least from my point of view.

  5. 5
    Zachriel says:

    alan: At the very least thinking out of that box might be more useful at least from my point of view.

    Thinking outside the box can be very useful, but Granville Sewell implies an unsupported conclusion.

    Granville Sewell: This front-loading is completely fatal to Darwinism: there is no possible selective advantage for the possession of genes for traits which would not evolve until millions of years later! At least that is the apparent conclusion.

    That’s not the apparent conclusion. The most direct hypothesis consistent with the evidence is that metazoan architecture was built on structures existing in the common ancestor. More particularly, it’s reasonable to suggest that signalling pathways in single-celled organisms were coopted for communication and coordination in multi-cellular organisms. And this is something that we can presumably determine through additional research.

    A similar example is the existence of post-synaptic scaffolds in sponges—even though sponges don’t have nerves or synapses. However, the larvae are motile and do respond to light.

    Sakarya ik et al., A Post-Synaptic Scaffold at the Origin of the Animal Kingdom, PLoS ONE 2007.

    (Of course, this entire conversation depends on the foundation of Common Descent.)

    The scientific usefulness will be a better understanding of the early history of metazoan evolution. Humans tend to be interested in themselves. It’s a character trait. (There may be eventual medical benefits, as well.)

  6. 6
    alan says:

    thanks for your input and thoughts, but I remain skeptical of a purely materialistic method to explain how and why information (DNA code) could write itself or evolve it self – especially in light of the fact that (and you will like this) that its proven fact that God did it.

    thanks again

  7. 7
    Oramus says:

    Zachariel,

    You are apparently oblivious to the fact that you are using ID language to support supposedly non-teleological processes. How does this help your case?

    Curiously, could you demonstrate co-option, cooperation, coordination and competition in strictly physio-chemical terms?

    That’s not the apparent conclusion. The most direct hypothesis consistent with the evidence is that metazoan architecture was built on structures existing in the common ancestor. More particularly, it’s reasonable to suggest that signalling pathways in single-celled organisms were coopted for communication and coordination in multi-cellular organisms. And this is something that we can presumably determine through additional research.

Leave a Reply