Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Hvizsgyak]

Yeah, that really makes me wonder about you. Misanthropy is hardly going to attract anyone to your faith (apart from other misanthropists).

Well, I was going to let this all go with just a sigh but you've really made this bigger than the quirky joke that it started out to be so, I felt I should add this piece of info in in my defense. You seem quite proud of the fact that you chose Enki (the Sumerian god who supposedly saved the human race). In my defense, I have chosen God who has saved the human race. In my case though, I have chosen the True God (the God of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Faiths - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). He not only saved humans to live out their lives on Earth, He also saved humans so that after they die, they can be with Him in Heaven for all Eternity if they choose. Enki only saved the humans so they could live on Earth a limited (and controlled by sin) amount of time. Jesus died for all humans so they could live forever in Heaven.

Yes, our God destroyed life on Earth at one point, during the Flood. Humankind were a very evil lot then (possibly because Enki and his creations taught humans how to war, study astrology, do things they shouldn't and weren't suppose to be doing - of course this is all just a play on words since I'm combining two different religious views when they probably shouldn't be combined but it sounds good and is fun). But our God sent His only Son to save the humans by showing them the True God and showing them how to love one another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I miss @Mountainmike now. I really do, despite there being no common ground between the two of us, or between him and anyone else really.

 

[Larniavc]

But our God sent His only Son to save the humans by showing them the True God and showing them how to love one another.

No apologies please.

 

[sjastro]

I miss @Mountainmike now. I really do, despite there being no common ground between the two of us, or between him and anyone else really.

You miss the self professed genius whose posting history shows the stark opposite, I don't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You miss the self professed genius whose posting history shows the stark opposite, I don't.

At least he was entertaining, rather than... whatever's going on here now.

 

[The Barbarian]

You miss the self professed genius whose posting history shows the stark opposite, I don't.

I kinda like him myself, even if I disagreed with him constantly.

 

[Mountainmike]

You miss the self professed genius whose posting history shows the stark opposite, I don't.

it does not take a genius to find the gaping holes in your knowledge.
you get so lost in complication you forget the basics.
I suspect you must find it all too difficult.
You know what the math says, but seemingly do not understand what it means or the limitations of it,

Like energy balance on windmills, that shows the wind must slow, and with that comes consequences for climate.
If you take potential energy, you must lose kinetic energy. So you need to start with the basics.

Or on another tack , And you have only one unverified data point on earth age from long extrapolattion which makes massive assumptions about starting point and constant process with nothing else influencing.. So you quote a precisuons as though it were accuracy. It’s a single data point, time will tell whether other predictions disagree.

The graveyard of YOUR kind of certainty is well populated , even in radio dating.
You- and they - clearly don’t and didn’t understand metrology.
I don’t know how old the earth is, and neither do you. certainly not to the accuracy you claim.

Alas some of us have to use advance Math for prediction but we also have to know the limitations.
i spent a career finding limitations In models. So on this I know better than you.

I can’t be bothered arguing with someone who doesn’t understand basics.

The sad thing about some posters here , is they are clearly competent researchers in their day jobs. But they check it in at the door on forums like this, to post their beliefs instead. Like the one who liked your post wrote total nonsense about the state of knowledge on life development.

I cant be bothered.

the world is far too intrersting to waste time discussing with those who prefer to post their “ enlightened” beliefs instead of scientific argument. Although in your case I think complication is a problem for you.

 

[Mountainmike]

and as an addendum .. I guess
@Warden_of_the_Storm
Putting a laughing emoji on a post because he is unable to challenge it says it all about why I don’t post here!

if you want me to post , then contest what I said using SCIENCE warden. There’s got to be a first time for everything! I

Do you understand energy balance better than Sjastro?
perhaps you would like to explain it to him. I’ve given up. But he clearly needs help.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

and as an addendum .. I guess
@Warden_of_the_Storm
Putting a laughing emoji on a post because he is unable to challenge it says it all about why I don’t post here!

if you want me to post , then contest what I said using SCIENCE warden. There’s got to be a first time for everything! I

I don't need to contest anything because you've not posted anything to contest. You just saying that Darwinian evolution, an already outmoded and scientifically superseded view of evolution, does nothing except show that you are really just talking out your bum, as per your usual.

Once again; just SAYING that it's a theory in crisis does nothing to SHOW that it's a theory in crisis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Like energy balance on windmills, that shows the wind must slow, and with that comes consequences for climate.
If you take potential energy, you must lose kinetic energy. So you need to start with the basics.

That's an interesting idea. Can you show how any phenomenon of evolution is prohibited by mechanics or thermodynamics?

the world is far too intrersting to waste time discussing with those who prefer to post their “ enlightened” beliefs instead of scientific argument.

Right. So let's see your argument, here.

Edit, regarding your windmill comment; there is evidence that massive wind farms say 10 km wide can indeed increase local warming. Not remotely like the effects of fossil fuels, but not negligible. So you have that right. No magic energy; thermodynamics always wins.

 

[sjastro]

it does not take a genius to find the gaping holes in your knowledge.
you get so lost in complication you forget the basics.
I suspect you must find it all too difficult.
You know what the math says, but seemingly do not understand what it means or the limitations of it,

Like energy balance on windmills, that shows the wind must slow, and with that comes consequences for climate.
If you take potential energy, you must lose kinetic energy. So you need to start with the basics.

Do I have go over this again to get it through your thick skull wind kinetic energy is not converted into potential energy before, at, or after the rotor.
Since you claim to be modeller, wind flow is modelled as being horizontal and therefore the forces cannot do work in the perpendicular direction of gravity, hence the kinetic energy of the wind is not converted into gravitational potential energy. This is physics 101.

At the rotor, wind kinetic energy is converted into mechanical energy while further downstream kinetic energy losses are due to dissipation through turbulence due to the very high Reynolds number of atmospheric flow where inertial forces dominate over viscous forces driving a turbulent cascade down to small scales where it is eventually dissipated as heat.

Or on another tack , And you have only one unverified data point on earth age from long extrapolattion which makes massive assumptions about starting point and constant process with nothing else influencing.. So you quote a precisuons as though it were accuracy. It’s a single data point, time will tell whether other predictions disagree.

The graveyard of YOUR kind of certainty is well populated , even in radio dating.
You- and they - clearly don’t and didn’t understand metrology.
I don’t know how old the earth is, and neither do you. certainly not to the accuracy you claim.

Alas some of us have to use advance Math for prediction but we also have to know the limitations.
i spent a career finding limitations In models. So on this I know better than you.

I can’t be bothered arguing with someone who doesn’t understand basics.

You simply don’t get it; your argument is based on personal incredulity nothing else.
Since you claim to be scientist, I would have expected some sort of scientific response on why decay constants should have varied in the past as explained in this post.

Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..

.. and you might well have access to that luxury .. but intellectual honesty in scientific research, demands confrontation of objective truths. (Where what I mean by 'objective truths' there, are the results from the last best tested theories). Crises happen when objective truths confront...

www.christianforums.com

The sad thing about some posters here , is they are clearly competent researchers in their day jobs. But they check it in at the door on forums like this, to post their beliefs instead. Like the one who liked your post wrote total nonsense about the state of knowledge on life development.

I cant be bothered.

the world is far too intrersting to waste time discussing with those who prefer to post their “ enlightened” beliefs instead of scientific argument. Although in your case I think complication is a problem for you.

For someone who concludes a post by stating it is a waste of time of posting then why make this post in the first case?
This latest response of yours encapsulates your behaviour, when all else fails resort to making insults.
It is a very poor substitute for scientific knowledge which is demonstrably absent in your case.

 

[sjastro]

That's an interesting idea. Can you show how any phenomenon of evolution is prohibited by mechanics or thermodynamics?


Right. So let's see your argument, here.

Edit, regarding your windmill comment; there is evidence that massive wind farms say 10 km wide can indeed increase local warming. Not remotely like the effects of fossil fuels, but not negligible. So you have that right. No magic energy; thermodynamics always wins.

What the evidence shows which was completely ignored by the resident genius is at night local warming at and near the surface occurs.

​

During the day the opposite occurs to due thermal updraft caused by warming of the surface which destabilizes conditions and results in cooling.

​

 

[The Barbarian]

Edit

What the evidence shows...

Thanks for your post. Do you have a link to the article? That clears up the issue of climate and wind farms. I'm still waiting for someone to show me something in mechanics or thermodynamics that rules out any process required for evolution.

 

[sjastro]

Edit

Thanks for your post. Do you have a link to the article? That clears up the issue of climate and wind farms.

I couldn't find the relevant article for the images but this (lengthy) paper does provide an explanation.

Abstract​

Wind turbines generate wakes, which can potentially influence the local microclimate near the ground. To verify and quantify such effects, the Vertical Enhanced Mixing (VERTEX) field campaign was conducted in late summer 2016 to measure near-surface turbulent fluxes, wind speed, temperature, and moisture under and outside of the wake of an operational wind turbine in Lewes, Delaware. We found that, in the presence of turbine wakes from a single wind turbine, friction velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, and wind speed were reduced near the ground under the wake, while turbulent heat flux was not significantly affected by the wake. The observed near-ground temperature changes were <0.4°C in magnitude. Near-ground temperature changes due to the wake correlated well with the temperature lapse rate between hub height and the ground, with warming observed during stable and neutral conditions and cooling during unstable conditions. Of the two properties that define a wake (i.e., wind speed deficit and turbulence), the wind speed deficit dominates the surface response, while the wake turbulence remains aloft and hardly ever reaches the ground. We propose that the mechanism that drives changes in near-ground temperature in the presence of turbine wakes is the vertical convergence of turbulent heat flux below hub height. Above hub height, turbulence and turbulent heat flux are enhanced; near the ground, turbulence is reduced and turbulent heat flux is unchanged. These conditions cause an increase (during stable/neutral stability) or decrease (during unstable stability) in heat flux convergence, ultimately resulting in warming or cooling near the ground, respectively.

​

© 2021 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).
Corresponding author: Cristina L. Archer, carcher@udel.edu

​

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/149/3/MWR-D-20-0186.1.xml?

I'm still waiting for someone to show me something in mechanics or thermodynamics that rules out any process required for evolution.

Good luck!