Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally? (Read 3865 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • SkepticTank
  • Global Moderator
  • Calmer than you are
  • 2,285

  • 337

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #725
[mod]three more :whyyou:
eta: fixed the link above[/mod]
  • Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 10:26:32 AM by SkepticTank

  • 758

  • 61

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #726
We cannot prove there is a God by seeng him. We can only infer that he exists from effects. And it so happens that many things in the natural world  appear to be designed  by an intelligence as Richard Dawkins has famously admitted.   The most logical inference from this evidence is "a designer" unless a  plausible "no design" mechanism can be proposed.   Since the naturalist's leading candidate for such a mechanism has now failed as shown by the "Third Wayers" ..: this leaves intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.

The third way is a no design option.
You simply do not understand why.

  • nesb
  • Sr. Member
  • 369

  • 102

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #727
Quote from:  RexT
But so too does the moth choose to go into the light.

So I have to necro this thread, because I didn't want to start a new one, in order to give my moth theory (I found this thread, searching for "moth"). I noticed a fly or something, trapped in a can, and thought he could get out if he just went towards the light. So maybe moths go towards lights, in case they burrow into a trap as larvae. Someone could probably test if their tendency helps out, by putting them in cans, and seeing how well they do at escaping, compared to other flying insects. Which would prove nothing, but would be interesting.

  • Fenrir
  • Sr. Member
  • 382

  • 109

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #728
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170118181741.htm

Quote
Rainfall patterns in the Sahara during the 6,000-year 'Green Sahara' period have been pinpointed by analyzing marine sediments. From 5,000 to 11,000 years ago, what is now the Sahara Desert had ten times the rainfall it does today and was home to hunter-gatherers who lived in the region's savannahs and wooded grasslands. The new research is the first to compile a continuous record of the region's rainfall going 25,000 years into the past.

There's a whole herd of elephants, and a few giraffes, and a sloth for Dave to ignore in there.
It's what plants crave.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,048

  • 246

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #729
We cannot prove there is a God by seeng him. We can only infer that he exists from effects. And it so happens that many things in the natural world  appear to be designed  by an intelligence as Richard Dawkins has famously admitted.  The most logical inference from this evidence is "a designer" unless a  plausible "no design" mechanism can be proposed.  Since the naturalist's leading candidate for such a mechanism has now failed as shown by the "Third Wayers" ..: this leaves intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.
Um, must have missed this.

Why wouldn't actually seeing a god not be evidence of that god's existence? Wouldn't that be an "effect"? I'd think it'd be a rather dramatic effect.

BTW, no, the Third Wayers did not show the failure of classic evolution, they showed there is another avenue for evolution, ie - HGT. But it applies only in prokaryotes, not in Eukaryotes.

In short, you fail, again. Probably because you didn't really read the ThirdWayers. Just searched for "nuggets" you thought supported your apriori conclusions. As usual.

Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 6,957

  • 1012

Re: Are there any deserts presently greening naturally?
Reply #730
We cannot prove there is a God by seeng him. We can only infer that he exists from effects. And it so happens that many things in the natural world  appear to be designed  by an intelligence as Richard Dawkins has famously admitted.  The most logical inference from this evidence is "a designer" unless a  plausible "no design" mechanism can be proposed.  Since the naturalist's leading candidate for such a mechanism has now failed as shown by the "Third Wayers" ..: this leaves intelligent design as the most plausible explanation.
Um, must have missed this.

Why wouldn't actually seeing a god not be evidence of that god's existence? Wouldn't that be an "effect"? I'd think it'd be a rather dramatic effect.

BTW, no, the Third Wayers did not show the failure of classic evolution, they showed there is another avenue for evolution, ie - HGT. But it applies only in prokaryotes, not in Eukaryotes.

In short, you fail, again. Probably because you didn't really read the ThirdWayers. Just searched for "nuggets" you thought supported your apriori conclusions. As usual.

Actually, the point of the Third Wayers isn't just that there are horizontal vectors of gene transfer, in fact I wouldn't say that was even the main theme.

I would say that the main theme is that we can understand natural selection much better if we do not focus exclusively on the gene as the target of selection, or even the organism - that selection can occur at the level of the population as well. This means that mutation rates and mechanisms themselves are subject to natural selection.

The target of their polemic isn't "Darwinism" but the neo-Darwinist hyperfocus on the gene.  Which is a bit of a straw man, it has to be said, but then that's the nature of polemics.

Below is Denis Noble's summary of the change in approach, from his paper, Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology:


Before: Modern Synthesis   Now: towards an Integrative Synthesis
Gene-centred view of natural selection   Selection is multilevel
Impossibility of inheritance of acquired characteristicsAcquired characters can be inherited
Distinction between replicator (genes) and vehicle (phenotype)   The genome is an 'organ of the cell', not its dictator. Control is distributed
The central dogma of molecular biologyGenomes are not isolated from organism and environment